States Lay Off 58,000 Teachers In September Despite $26 Billion Aid Package

State and local governments laid off nearly 58,000 teachers and other education workers in September, the government announced on Friday. The layoffs happened even though some have said the $26 billion bill passed by Congress in August was nothing but a sop for teacher unions.

Progressive economists said Friday that the layoffs would have been much worse without the aid, $10 billion of which was expressly allotted to prevent teacher layoffs.

"Back in the spring when they made their budgets, states assumed they were getting the aid in a lot of instances," said Ed Muir, a researcher with the American Federation of Teachers. "If you unpack the state budgets, more than half of that money was already assumed layered into state budgets. So that money saves jobs but you don't see it."

"States were already expecting that money," said Nick Johnson, an analyist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Had they not expected it or had they expected it and not gotten it, the cuts undoubtedly would have been much deeper."

Some school districts faced less of a fiscal crunch than others, and some school districts hesitated to spend the money to rehire laid off teachers, as the New York Times reported.

"What the payroll numbers show is unambiguous: teachers were cut. A lot of them," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the progressive Economic Policy Institute. "States should have gotten more fiscal relief to keep this from happening. The job loss was 58,000 jobs in state and local education in September. These are teachers and other education workers who would have been expected to come back after the summer -- or start new jobs -- with the new school year."

Comments

[zapyourappetite]

08:56 PM on 10/13/2010

True with much of the government funding - entities accept the money and then do what they want anyway, holding onto the cash. We are all on our own.

[mlaiuppa]

01:01 AM on 10/13/2010

Our district is keeping some teachers on temporary contracts for 3 or more years. They're not hiring them because keeping them temporary is cheaper.

Some temporaries did not come back this year.

Technically they're not fired because they were never on contract. So they are part of the statistics for fired teachers.

A LOT more teachers were lost than the statistics will show.

We have 12 schools without librarians, even though each school only gets half a librarian. That means 6 librarians would be needed to cover those schools. We lost one temp and I went back into the classroom rather than be split between two schools.

They can't hire anyone. There's a hiring freeze. And frankly no one wants a temporary contracts or the furlough days or the low pay.

Shortage of math and science teachers? But you want to cut pay, pensions and benefits?

Good luck with that.

You get what you pay for.

The lack of respect doesn't help recruit teachers either.

[frankblank]

11:13 PM on 10/11/2010

This is but another entry in the endless list of American hypocrisies about education. We simply do not believe in it. Easy quick proof - for decades the functional illiteracy rate in the "greatest country in the world" has been between 40 and 45%. What we do believe in is guns and money. Easy quick proofs: the political effectiveness of the NRA; and the newly conceived right, invented by political hacks on the supreme court, of corporations to donate huge sums of money for political purposes without revealing who they are. And how do they qualify for this right? They don't. They just got it, courtesy of the teabag court. And their right to anonymity was affirmed by the republickers in congress.

That's what we believe in.

[mlaiuppa]

01:02 AM on 10/13/2010

Here's your easiest proof:

Sarah Palin.

[logic-a-go-go]

08:08 PM on 10/11/2010

Lawmakers across the country have been gutting education for 15 years, because no one wants to pay taxes. Never mind the public good.

[mlaiuppa]

01:03 AM on 10/13/2010

15?

They've been doing it in California since Reagan was Governor.

We went from being #1 to #47 in education.

We might make #50 this year.

And the Republicans still scream cut the fat from the education budget.

[Howard Scott Pearlman]

12:35 PM on 10/11/2010

Help Karl Rove Save America's Billionaires and Millionaires !

Help The Republican Party Save Those Poor Billionaires

Yes, Billionaires are Suffering Today -

Their poor kids can't afford that 5th Lambergini,

They can't buy their eleventh Vacation Home,

Or that 40th $10,000 suit

and the 30th $50,000 gown is now much too expensive.

Please Help a starving Billionaire Today by voting Republican

Remember Caviar ain't cheap.

* * Please send this message all over the internet !

Howard Scott Pearlman

[Rileyman]

09:43 AM on 10/11/2010

Bombs can easily replace teachers...Lay off more teachers, build and drop more bombs..That will teach everyone a lesson...

[MauricioC]

09:23 AM on 10/11/2010

We can give tax cuts to billionaires, pay for 2 unnecessary wars, but we can't come up with the cash to pay 58,000 teachers? They don't make that much.

Priorities. In my humble opinion,We as a nation don't have any. We will invest in more bombs, tax cuts for the super rich, and build more prisons instead of investing in education. These kids are supposed to be our future. If we don't educate them, how are they going to lead this country in the future?

[AZreb]

08:40 AM on 10/11/2010

Cutting food stamps for needy families, many with children, didn't seem to work too well if the plan was to save teachers' jobs. Now we have more hungry children and thousands of unemployed teachers - another plan gone wrong.

[Johnny in Queens]

01:06 AM on 10/11/2010

Why do US taxpayers have to pay to educate illegal immigrants? Shouldn't a child have to be in this country legally if US taxpayers are going to fund their education? I know the US Supreme Court ruled years ago that schools have to educate illegal immigrants but I've never understood why that is the case.

[swift goat pet for truth]

02:14 AM on 10/11/2010

Why?
For one thing, that is what civilized people do.

For another, it is consistent with the idea of investment.
Pay a little now, get a lot back later.

[SlurmsMcKenzie]

07:53 AM on 10/11/2010

i'll tell you why,. Wfen my I*rish abcestors got splinters at public schools here in America a hundred some odd years ago, there were fine upright Americans moaning about lazy immagrants wasting public funds.We are supposed to be about the poor and oppressed. For me, bottom line, you get your kid in that chair, s/he stays, I may be idealistic, but more comes from the chairs in our schools then from church pews.

[wyldthings]

12:45 AM on 10/11/2010

My question is what happened to the other 16 million!

[TheKurgan]

10:12 PM on 10/10/2010

This proves the lies embodied in "Waiting for Superman." Teachers are not the problem. It's always been a profession with Grade A requirements and Grade F pay. Grade A expectations and Grade F respect. Teachers have none of the power and all of the responsibility while uncaring parents get upset that the school has snow days, superintendents make so much money it's sickening, and principals cave in and kowtow to parents about "perfect little Susie who would NEVER do that."

[Kevin1667]

05:23 PM on 10/10/2010

Why not throw another $26 Billion out the window?

[logic-a-go-go]

08:10 PM on 10/11/2010

Sure...why not? We did it in Iraq. We're doing it in Afghanistan.

[easternore]

04:23 PM on 10/10/2010

instead of bottom up layoffs how about top down i live in a rural area the schools have 800 kids for this the superintendant was paid 120000 per year a smaller school less than 100 students pays 20% to thier superintendant lots of money goes to those who dont teach

[Venicelady]

05:19 PM on 10/10/2010

That's right- how many Chiefs do we need exactly to run a school district, anyhow?

[logic-a-go-go]

08:12 PM on 10/11/2010

Apparently, less than we "need" on Wall Street where they make millions. Which is more important???

[MoreFreedom]

03:54 PM on 10/10/2010

That school districts could fire so many teachers due to budget cuts, seems to indicate that they've too many teachers to begin with. But why can't they fire them when they have tenure and why do they have tenure in the first place?

[Skepticat]

07:04 PM on 10/10/2010

Budget cuts have very little to do with need but everything to do with 30 years of politicians bribing voters with tax cuts while pretending there is no consequence. The consequences are bridges that collapse, unfilled potholes, longer lines at the DMV, longer response times for emergency services, undermaintained school buildings and cuts to budgets as things are under-maintained or understaffed. Eventually something's got to give as happened to California due to 3 decades of proposition 13..
As to tenure - the idea was that decent teachers could be protected from people wanting to fire anybody experienced that cost more money so alleged quality could be maintained. There is nothing in any collective agreement that prevents administrators from getting rid of bad teachers - BUT - they have to follow due process and provide documentation rather than fire somebody just because a wingnut thinks a book should be burned or teacher fired for referring to it.

[frankblank]

11:23 PM on 10/11/2010

You missed a history lesson. They have tenure to keep them from being fired by people who think - and demand that others think - that the world is 5000 years old. That tenure may be abused, my good ticklebrain, simply makes it like anything else: a cops badge, a priests robes, a congressman's oath.

[guveqzero]

03:13 PM on 10/10/2010

When Mexico like violence strikes Washington DC, it will be too late to prevent disaster. Time is running out for real solutions to fix our economic engine. It's started to rust.