An excellent "Teacher of the Year" finds herself out of a job just months after receiving the honor -- the victim of a layoff based solely on seniority. In another district, a highly respected teacher with more experience in a subject area gets bumped out of a position in favor of a more tenured instructor.
Those unfortunate cases are real examples from Minnesota schools. Under current state law, seniority is the lone deciding factor in laying off teachers.
And although there were good reasons for the law decades ago -- including discrimination based on race and gender -- rigid tenure laws that place seniority above performance in evaluating teachers are no longer in the best interest of school children.
That's why an important legislative proposal that would modify Minnesota's "last in, first out" teacher tenure law merits bipartisan support.
A bill introduced by Rep. Branden Petersen, R-Andover, would remove the state seniority-only provision and replace it with a system based on licensure and teacher performance along with seniority. The new law would give school districts much-needed flexibility in trying to assemble and retain the most effective teaching staffs.
Last year, the respected National Council on Teacher Quality gave Minnesota an "F" for its ineffectiveness in dismissing poor-performing teachers, in part because of the seniority-only law. And the state lost out on the first round of federal Race to the Top funds because of its failure to address ineffective teaching, among other factors.
Certainly experience matters in teaching. And negotiated contracts that base teacher pay on time served while also providing for performance-based incentives should be protected from the whims of legislators.
But Petersen's constructive education reform proposal is limited to the role tenure plays in layoffs. The proposal would not eliminate seniority, but it recognizes that number of years served is not a complete measure of competence, motivation and proven success reaching kids.