I respect tenure as a valuable tool to protect teachers.

Howeer, as it currently plays out in school districts across the country, teacher tenure often creates a "last hired, first fired" policy when budgets are tightened.

How can we address this connundrum?  Newer teachers are finding themselves starting over every year or two as they are laid off before making tenure.  This impacts their salary, benefits and (naturally) ability to get tenure.  And I'm sure it's an important contributing factor to the teacher retention problem.

If last hired first fired was the only problem with tenure it would be an important issue.  However, that is not the only problem with tenure.  Tenure was a great thing years ago when it was needed.  Now it only manages to keep teachers teaching that in many cases should not.  I just got through watching "Waiting for Superman" and it showed how tenure casues so many problems in the system as it exists now.  In New York the new head of the Dept. of Education tried to do away with tenure by asking teachers to vote to either keep their tenure and only make a certain amount of money or do away with tenure and be able to make double that amount on actual merit.  The union denied its members a vote on this issue.  It all comes down to the adults being more interested in their interests than in the children they are supposed to care for.  I am tired of hearing teachers talk about how much they care and how much they do when they don't have the balls to do away with tenure that hurts those very children they supposedly care for so much.  If we continue to make this about the teachers we are lost and more sadly so are all our children.  I know it's hard to be a teacher, I know they give up a lot of things for the kids they teach (at least the good ones do).  I know they spend their own money on things for the classroom and they shouldn't have to do that.  And if we did away with the teachers who shouldn't be teaching by, yes, doing away with tenure then the good teachers left wouldn't have to use their own money for things.  We have to get rid of the bad teachers.  And I know it's hard for someone to name someone they work with as a BAD anything.  But it has to be done to save our children.   New York State spends $100 million to keep bad teachers in what is referred to as the Rubber Room when they are found to be a bad teacher or worse a teacher accused of abuse of a child.  These teachers sit in this room some for years receiving benefits and their pay while they are charged with these abuses.  That is what the Union does to protect these people.  Reform, reform, reform tenure. 

 And yet, without teacher tenure, I have *no* *doubt* that the de facto policy in many districts (including my own, where town government officials have expressed this sentiment, though not in so many words) would become "oldest fired first" becuase teachers with more longevity earn hiher salaries.
Tax payers want to save money.  They will happily court agesim if it saves them a few dollars on their property tax bill.  For that reason alone, tenure remains relevant.

People holler for new, "fresh" teachers in the classrooms, except they will not allow us to walk in the door.  Too much lay-offs for new teachers causing us to start over each year.

 Exactly, Mcone.

My question is: how do we thread this needle?

How can we avoid both LHFF, which discriminates against new teachers, and ageism (and still manage to keep local property taxes at a level that people will accept)?

Unfortunately, I am currently seeing first hired, first fired.  We lost 25% of our staff last year, and it became evident what the real issue was.  Due to "low enrollment", our school was fored to RIB teachers, and it was no coincidence that the teachers who were let go first were the ones who had been there the longest.  Teachers with Phds, teachers who were "tenured", and those who had been there the longest; ie: teachers who cost the most amount of money.  Districts are treating education like a business, and cost-effective measures are being made completely unfairly.

As a parent I think it's ridiculous that there is even tenure anymore. Who are we protecting these teachers from? Why do they deserve a job for life just because they put in the time. Let me explain what happen it my child's school. The PE teacher got bumped out of his position because another teacher had tenure over him. So guess where they moved the PE teacher? They moved him to teaching math instead of hiring a new math teacher. So now someone who is not qualified to teach math is teaching math. Please explain to me how this is good let alone benefiting the children?  Here is another example: Another one of teachers at my child's school has had MANY complaints from the parents about their teaching. The parents of the children that had had that teacher were warning incoming parents for that grade level to request not to have that specific teacher. Since the teacher had tenure and couldn't be fired they just moved the teacher to another grade level. These situations do not benefit the children in any way. Again, we are protecting the teachers NOT the children. Don't you think we should be protecting the children and NOT the teachers?

It's sad that so many of the lies about tenure and last in first out are found here. Perhaps most absurd is that tenure means lifetime employment. I mean really now, how hard is it to learn the truth? Tenure means that you are no longer probationary and are covered by due process rules concerning firing and other job actions. There is not and has never been lifetime employment in teaching as a part of any contract. The significance of last in first out fares a bit better here, but a key element that is missing is that LIFO is what happens when your school district can't afford the staff they have due to external budget causes and results, as has been described by others, in layoffs. This is entirely the fault of the boards of ed and municipal leadership who can't get it together to get their budgets done in time to let non tenured teachers now if their positions will be funded the following year. Inept school districts often loose their best new teachers to districts that have their act together since a good teacher will go to a place that is well run. When it comes to Waiting for Super FRAUD, that would have been an honest title for a movie that was barely more than a sales pitch and totally misrepresented the education landscape. It's ironic that the LEMON DANCE is real, but being done by imcompetant yet highly paid Broad superintendants as the go from city to city leaving destruction in their wake.