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.
Comments