Politicians, especially Democratic politicians, have perennially talked about the “crisis” in education–the need to hire scads of new teachers (especially recently as baby boomers retire). Somehow the crisis has never materialized. I suspect, it never existed in the first place–there are always plenty of young people who want to be teachers–and the Democrats are taking talking points from their pals in the teachers unions, who are seeking to aggrandize their own importance (and lock in stricter work rules and higher salaries).
Today, however, the New York Times finds that given the recession–which has evaporated a great many other work opportunities–and the budgetary need to lay off lots of teachers, there’s a glut of applicants for new teaching jobs. This creates a real, but much more subtle, crisis: how do we decide which teachers stay and which go. The unions want to do this by seniority–which would be entirely fair if schools were steel mills. But they’re not. A great many excellent younger teachers are going to be lopped off in the process…and a great many young people, of higher quality than the usual potential teacher pool, are never going to get the chance to try. This speaks to an absolute need, right now, to abolish union work rules–especially seniority. Indeed, given the incredible financial strictures down the road, including health and pension liabilities, it speaks to an absolute need to rethink the relationship between government and teachers unions. If there ever was a need for teacher tenure, it no longer exists…in fact, the system should reversed: it should work like that other, far more effective, form of public service–the military, in which you continually have to prove your capability in order to be promoted or retained. I’m in favor of higher salaries for teachers, and generous benefits as well, but only for those who prove their abilities, and continually have to reprove them, the way most professionals–including, yes, journalists–have to do.