On the opinion page of the Washington Post today, Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, argues against the mass teacher layoffs expected this year.
Such layoffs are terrible for teachers, for communities and, most
important, for students. For the families directly affected, layoffs
mean not only lost wages but often lost homes and postponed dreams.
Because unemployed teachers have to cut back on spending, local
businesses and overall economic activity suffer. And the costs of
decreased learning time and support for students will be felt not just
in the next year or two but will reduce our productivity for decades to
come.
[...]
Furthermore, by preventing layoffs, we would save on unemployment
insurance payments, food stamps and COBRA subsidies for health
insurance, and we would maintain tax revenue. Accounting for these
savings, the actual cost of the program is likely to be 20 to 40
percent below the sticker price -- perhaps even lower when one
considers the spillover effects of maintaining employment. And the
country will recoup much of the cost in coming years, as a
better-educated workforce leads to higher tax revenue and less reliance
on the social safety net.
Romer's reasoning is certainly sound, but that doesn't mean reason will win out. By most accounts, the layoffs are inevitable.
Two weeks ago, I posted about a proposal from Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress, who argues that the way to go is buyouts--not layoffs.
This takes a little explaining. The coming teacher firings are doubly
disastrous because labor contracts and state laws require that most
layoffs be done on the basis of seniority -- that is, newer teachers
get the ax first. The trouble with this "last-in, first-out" rule is
that layoffs are made with no concern for whether the teachers in
question are any good. Yet in many big districts, huge efforts have
been made in recent years to hire talented young teachers via programs
such as Teach for America and the New Teacher Project to work with the
nation's neediest children. With one awful stroke, these layoffs could
eviscerate years of such recruiting, giving poor kids the shaft once
again.
Read the rest of Miller's idea in his Washington Post op-ed.
Recent Comments