The primary point in this discussion is this simple fact:
When a teacher needs to be let go for whatever reason its LIFO regardless of performance.
This is wrong. Every profession from teacher to CEO has poor performers. The crux of the lawsuit is that by protecting based on seniority, including the poor performers, you “damage” the kids. And not only do you impact one set of kids or one class, you expose decades of kids to the poor performers.
Is it unconstitutional? I have no idea. We do seem to subscribe to the concept of disparate impact in employment law, or at least our government does. This seems similar.
Some quick thoughts on some of the ancillary issues raised in this thread:
Are there “drama” Moms who try to usurp teachers? You betcha. The same type of person exists in the boardroom, the factory and every other type of workplace.
If it’s true that poor performing schools usually have the newer teachers that’s a clear example of the union ignoring the best interests of the kids. The “good” teachers should be assigned to the schools that need them the most.
Teachers don’t need job protection more so than any other profession. People who say things like “teachers will get fired just because…” have never worked in Management in the private sector. Sure it’d be nice to just be able to fire whoever you like, but reality is a complete 360. You have to get through HR and then the outside attorneys. Even layoffs these days are scrutinized for “disparate impact”, i.e. if you’re laying off 100 people and 75 are over 40 years old or female etc. you’re going to be told to go back to the drawing board.
