Another subject removed from the realm of bargaining by the 2011 reforms was the issue of teacher placement. Specifically, schools and unions could not bargain over “[a]ny decision made by the public-school employer regarding teacher placement, or the impact of that decision on an individual employee or the bargaining unit.”[36] By restricting negotiations over placement, these reforms prevented unions from negotiating contract terms that would limit a school district’s discretion to assign teachers where they are most needed.
In our review, 5% of contracts still included prohibited language about teacher placement. Another 9% contained terms that were questionably related to the subject or could be interpreted as limiting the district’s discretion. About 86% were compliant with the law by either not discussing the prohibited subject, carving out Teacher Tenure Act employees or expressly acknowledging that placement was to be left to the district’s discretion. Overall, 29% of contracts either automatically revived the old placement rules or could be easily adapted to do so.
Following the repeal of teacher placement as a prohibited subject, it is likely that unions will try and negotiate terms that will once again require districts to make all placement decisions based on seniority. Generally speaking, this means that teachers with more years on the job will have first choice in placements, while younger teachers will get shuffled around. As a result, school officials will have a more difficult time ensuring that each classroom features a motivated, adequately trained and highly effective teacher. These terms would undermine schools’ ability to make key decisions about how to most effectively use a teacher’s skill set and are likely to result in worse student performance.