Let me be clear: I am not in any danger of being laid off. Our school and our system are, however, both decreasing the number of teachers we will have next year, and I will be affected - we are told that our classes can go to 33, which when we teach 6 periods means a ridiculous load of 198 students.
Thus when I read an op ed by the Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers that argues the economic case for the federal government providing the funds to prevent the massive layoffs, notices of which have already begun, I pay attention. And when I read that
Additional federal aid targeted at preventing these layoffs can play a critical role in combating the crisis. Such aid would be very cost-effective. There are no hiring or setup costs.
I not only pay attention, I want to be sure that others are also aware of what I am reading.
Thus, to begin with, I urge you to read How to prevent huge teacher layoffs, an op ed in today's Washington Post by Christine Romer, chair of the CEA.
I will, below the fold, explore the piece.
Romer argues that ARRA, the recovery act, provided funding that preserved up to 400,000 education jobs. She reminds us that state and local governments are stressed and unable to provide the resources to preserve what some have argued may be up to 300,000 teaching jobs. I want to remind people that most states and all local governments are prohibited from running deficits on general fund budgets. I live in Virginia, a state that has a rainy day fund which can be used to offset temporary shortfalls in revenue and still be considered to be in balance, but we are very much the exception. Despite that, our Republican governor and legislature are unwilling to totally drain that fund for the purposes of education. And across the country, some are willing to use the financial crisis as an occasion for further privatization of public education.
The CEA estimates that as many as 1 of every 15 teachers may be receiving pink slips. That process is already underway: many states require such notices to be given during the month of May, about to conclude. Schools such as ours are completing scheduling for next year, and have to take into account what our staffing levels will be, which is how I know how large our classes will become.
The impact of such layoffs will further hurt state and local governments, and in many cases devastate local businesses. Romer writes
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.
That productivity will be further impacted by the lower levels of effective learning.
Yet if the Federal government were to step in, the upfront cost would be partially offset, as Romer points out:
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.
I have written about this twice previously this week, urging support for Wednesday's National Call-in Day. Unfortunately, Sen. Harkin pulled his proposal in the Senate for $23 billion to prevent layoffs because he did not see sufficient support for the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. Rep. David Obey is, as far as I know, moving forward with his proposal in the House. Assuming he is successful, it might still be possible to change sufficient votes in the Senate to keep the provision.
The Department of Education and Secretary Duncan have been strongly advocating for this funding. Duncan knows that a district that could lose more than 20% of its teachers cannot hope to maintain educational quality. The impact of such cuts would be felt for several years, even if the cutbacks on staffing were only for one school year.
This nation faces many demands for its resources. I can think of few things more shortsighted than ignoring the long-term consequences of starving our schools. We have recognized the importance of education for ALL at least since the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, which is when the Federal Government finally recognized that it needed to ensure some minimal level of financial support to schools in poorer communities if we were going to break the cycle of poverty in inner cities and some rural communities.
Romer writes
With teacher layoffs imminent, the time to act is now, before schools send out more layoff notices and make their staffing decisions for the fall.
It is already very late in the staffing cycle. One wishes such action had occurred several months ago.
She also acknowledges the need to address the profligacy of past spending which has created our huge deficits even before the current economic crises of the past almost 3 years. She then reminds us that
it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to deal with that issue by failing to allot essential spending on teachers at a time when the unemployment rate is still near 10 percent.
Please note - it is not that I think teachers deserve special consideration. Rather, it is that I think our students deserve reasonable consideration, and that to allow the devastation of our teaching corps would be harmful to the immediate needs of many communities and the long-term health of our nation. Further, the impact of the cuts is going to be felt unequally, with an impact of exacerbating the inequality that already exists in our society. it will be felt most heavily in communities that already suffer by comparison economically.
I know many here have already taken action. On Wednesday night I happened to encounter a number of House members and staffers that I know, some of whom read my diaries, and I was told how many calls had been received on behalf of providing the funding in question. There are people on the Hill who understand the importance. It may still be possible to avoid the catastrophe that is beginning to occur as school systems tightening their belts begin to lose significant numbers of teachers.
My job is safe. This is not for me. I will survive even if my classes go to 38 each (the maximum number of desks I can fit in my room).
This is for more students - I cannot be as effective with 38 as I can with 30. I cannot give as much guidance on writing with over 200 students (I teach 6 classes) as I could with, say, 160.
This is also for all those who want to help young people, who will be discouraged from entering teaching, or who having taught but been laid off are unwilling to take the risk of future layoffs.
This is for those communities that will be further devastated by the loss of good, middle class jobs and the spending those jobs provide to the community.
This is for all of us - for our future, for the hopes of our young people, for a sense of responsibility for our fellow Americans.
Peace.