When the supporters of SB5 talk about the teaching provisions, they use an ugly, divisive argument. The argument is mean to pit teacher against teacher, young vs old, like this example from "Better Ohio"
Or this from an extreme right wing blogger
It's an ugly argument, full of falsehoods on a number of levels, for a number of reasons. They not too subtly imply that because of seniority, young teacher get laid off - and that it's these young teachers that are "the best".
This should offend any veteran educator, in no other profession is experience denigrated or misrepresented in this manner.
The very best teachers in Ohio have some of the deepest and longest experience. Consider Ohio's teachers of the year
Tim Dove, 2011 Ohio Teacher of the Year - 29 years experience
Natalie Wester, 2010 Ohio Teacher of the Year - 7 years experience
Jennifer Walker, 2009 Ohio Teacher of the Year - over 14 years experience
Deborah Wickerham, 2008 Ohio Teacher of the Year - over 33 years experience
George Edge, 2007 Ohio Teacher of the Year - over 28 years experience
Eric Combs, 2006 Ohio Teacher of the Year - over 20 years experience
Deepa Ganschinietz, 2005 Ohio Teacher of the Year - over 20 years experience
Kathy Rank, 2004 Ohio Teacher of the Year - over 20 years experience
Doreen Uhas-Sauer, 2003 Ohio Teacher of the Year - over 35 years experience
The argument is particularly ugly because no one wants to argue that there are some fine young teachers, but all the evidence in the world indicates that if SB5 passes it is young teachers, not more experienced teachers, who would suffer to the greatest extent.
First, teaching is an incredibly hard, complex job, requiring lots of skill, practice and experience. This is one of the primary reasons why it is estimated that almost a third of America’s teachers leave the field sometime during their first three years of teaching, and almost half leave after five years (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). If we were to rely predominantly on young teachers our schools would experience significant shortages and very distruptive turnover.
Moreover, study after study shows that teachers become more skilled with experience (see Rice, 2003; Murnane, 1975; Murnane & Phillips, 1981; Ferguson, 1991; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998; Grissmer, Flanagan, Kawata, & Williamson, 2000; Rivers & Sanders, 2002; Rowan et al., 2002; Wayne & Youngs, 2003; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2004; Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, & Rivkin, 2005; Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2006; Gordon, Kane, & Staiger, 2006; Harris & Sass, 2007; Aos, Miller, & Pennucci, 2007; Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006, 2007a).
If teachers are to be evlauated, paid, hired and fired based on their performance, it is unlikely that most new, inexperienced teachers are going to benefit from this rubric when compared to their more experienced colleagues. Indeed, in the absence of preferential treatment or compensation level based decisions that seniority protects against, younger teachers should expect to be let go more often, not less. See their pay grow slower and not faster
How many people would want to enter such a profession?
To be explicit. If SB5 were to become law, young teachers entering the classroom would be harmed significantly by it.
Supporters of SB5 are not interested in rewarding the best teacher, or any teachers. If they were they would have included money in the bill, or the budget, to provide that reward. Instead they made unprecedented cuts to public education.