[Mpls] Minneapolis teacher seniority

[Steve Brandt]

Some days ago, Dan McGuire commented upon an article of mine thusly:  " Later in the article Brandt says, 'The use of seniority to determine layoffs is mandated by state law. Its defenders say it's a fair system in the absence of another means of determining who stays and who gets cut.'  I'm not sure which state law Steve is referencing or why state law is being referenced."  He makes the further point that reverse order of seniority for layoffs is a requirement of the district contract.

Here's the relevant portion of the Teacher Tenure Act, M.S. 122A.41:    Subd. 14.  Services terminated by discontinuance or lack of pupils; preference given.  (a) A teacher whose services are terminated on account of discontinuance of position or lack of pupils must receive first consideration for other positions in the district for which that teacher is qualified.  In the event it becomes necessary to discontinue one or more positions, in 
 making such discontinuance, teachers must be discontinued in any department in the inverse order in which they were employed. 

The Minneapolis contract relies on seniority for many situations involving the excessing of staff from buildings and transfer among buildings.  But it appears to be silent on order of layoffs, given the primacy of state law, and the procedure for recall from layoffs specifically references the state law, to wit: "Teachers who have been discharged because of lack of pupils and discontinuance of position and who retain rights to be recalled according to the Teacher Tenure Act MS §122A.41 shall receive first consideration for other positions in the District for which they are qualified."

Steve Brandt
Star Tribune
Who would be laid off in reverse order of seniority