To the editor:

I have read with great interest a number of the letters from South Whidbey School District patrons concerning the school district budget and its impact on staffing.

As a retired teacher, I too am concerned about the way staff retention is accomplished through seniority. The problem is that seniority is the only equitable method currently in existence for deciding reduction in force. All of the other single methods have problems that surmount those presented by seniority.

However, there are several other ways that retention decisions can be accomplished. Student choice is one way. Another is to base retention on test scores. Another is to base such decisions on administrative evaluation and/or parent preference. Peer review is another possible option. And last but not least, RIF can be accomplished by program cuts.

Each of these methods has a certain appeal.

Student choice would theoretically provide students with their favorite teachers. But then one has to ask, will all or most students agree on which teachers to retain? And even if they did, will those necessarily be the most qualified and best at delivering sound learning opportunities? Parent preference retains many of the same pitfalls as student preference.

Test results hold another possible alternative way to retain teachers. This method assumes that all students start at the same place in terms of their backgrounds and personal characteristics. It also assumes that the tests are so comprehensive and so well constructed that the results would provide the maximum proof of teacher effectiveness. One has also to ask if the tests actually test student learning, or simply retention of enough stuff for the period of the test?

Administrative evaluation and peer review both present their own problems. Assuming the administrators have the time and ability to fairly assess each teacher’s effectiveness, how do the administrators fairly evaluate competence in a field in which the administrator is unfamiliar? And as for peer review, time presents a problem as well. When are the individual’s peers going to have the time to evaluate each other’s competence and still work with students in their own classes and adequately prepare for those classes?

And finally, program cuts may be the most difficult of all. Which programs should be cut or severely reduced in size? Should it be math or music, history or writing, computer science or physical education? A good case can be made for retention of most programs.

It seems to me that until we develop a reasonable, rational and fair method for evaluating teacher competence, we’re left with seniority as the major, but not the only, basis for deciding which teachers will be retained. Unless, of course, we’re willing to spend the resources — money and time — to develop a system that considers the best parts of all of the above alternatives, including continuous teacher training and comprehensive community planning on a scale that I have seldom seen.

George H. Westergaard

Clinton