Stemming from all the recent hoopla in Columbus and Madison, I wanted to know a little more about the actual language of these seniority-based, collectively-bargained contracts seemingly worth all this uproar. For instance, if two teachers have the exact same seniority but the school can only keep one, how do these ?last-hired, first-fired? policies determine who stays and who goes? So I did some digging.
What I found came as no surprise: complete lunacy. If such a conundrum were to occur in Hartford, Connecticut, do you know which teacher would be fired? No, not the one with inferior reviews by students, peers, or supervisors ? that would be too arbitrary. The actual language is much more technical:
In case of a tie, seniority shall be determined by the last four digits of the teacher's social security number. The higher number shall have more seniority.
Seriously, the last four digits of one's S-S-N? What's up with that?
I found the same thing to be the case in my old hometown of Ann Arbor, Michigan. But in Ann Arbor, whichever teacher's last four digit number is lower garners more seniority in a tie. Yes, you heard me right; this nonsense is actually written into teacher contracts across the nation. For all intents and purposes, they might as well make the tiebreaker a best-of-five game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. But sadly, even that ridiculous proposal would give teachers more control over their futures than under the antiquated seniority-based systems currently in place.
Come across something that leaves you thinking, ?what's up with that'? Chris wants to know about it! Email ([email protected]) or tweet (@chris_irvine) him about it and you might find it featured on an upcoming segment of Chris Irvine's What's Up With That?