Defend veteran teachers against shortsighted policies

As I step into my classroom each morning, I am reminded of the years of dedication and experience that have shaped me into the educator I am today. Teaching is not a profession one masters overnight; it takes years of trial and error, professional development, and real-world experience to truly understand how to reach every student. However, House Study Bill 217 threatens to dismantle that foundation by stripping away local control over workforce reductions and prioritizing short-term cost savings over long-term educational quality.

The Legislature’s latest proposal may appear reasonable at first glance — requiring schools to use practitioner performance as the sole or primary factor in reduction-in-force decisions, while prohibiting seniority or tenure from being a determining factor. However, in practice, this bill creates an avenue for districts to push out their most experienced and highly paid educators, despite the invaluable expertise they bring to the classroom.

Think back to your favorite teacher — the one who made learning come alive, who knew how to connect with students, and who helped you believe in yourself. That teacher likely had years of experience perfecting their craft. Effective teaching is not just about knowing the curriculum; it is about managing a classroom, addressing diverse learning needs, and mentoring students through their struggles.

One of the fundamental flaws in this legislation is its potential to punish teachers who take on the most challenging students. More experienced educators are often assigned students with significant behavioral or academic struggles because they have the skills to handle those complexities. However, performance reviews based on student outcomes may not reflect the immense progress these teachers make, especially when their students start the year far behind grade level. If test scores or other student performance data are used to determine layoffs, we risk losing teachers simply because they are doing the hardest, most important work.

In many industries, workforce reductions follow a "last in, first out" principle, recognizing that experience is a key asset. In education, seniority protections have historically ensured stability in schools, safeguarded institutional knowledge, and prevented districts from making purely financial decisions at the expense of student learning. By eliminating these protections, House Study Bill 217 paves the way for districts to remove veteran educators in favor of lower-paid, less experienced teachers.

Beyond the impact on individual teachers, this bill threatens the collaborative structure of our schools. Veteran teachers mentor newer educators, guide curriculum development, and provide leadership in times of change. If schools systematically phase out their most experienced teachers, they also lose the mentorship that help newer teachers succeed.

This bill undercuts local decision-making, diminishes the value of experience, and ultimately harms students who need strong educators most. Rather than dismantling essential protections for experienced teachers, Iowa lawmakers should focus on fully funding public schools and so every child has access to high-quality education.

The future of our schools depends on us standing up for our teachers. We must speak out against House Study Bill 21 and advocate for policies that support our education system. We cannot afford to lose the dedicated educators who have spent years honing their ability to change lives.

Molly Buck is a veteran teacher of 30 years and a former member of the Iowa House of Representatives. She lives in Ankeny.