Last-hired, first-fired teachers; the Middle East peace process; the responsibilites of voters

the-sand" attitude that all teachers are equal and that seniority is the only criterion for personnel decisions.

This is not the case in any field. To hold steadfast to this archaic belief does a great disservice to the teaching profession.

Though I believe that the "value-added" system does have a place in teacher evaluations, I agree with The Times' statement that it is neither the sole nor primary methodology.

It is an unfortunate reality that the union's unwillingness to accept that there are variations in teaching ability has probably been the single most effective tool in bringing this issue to the fore. Had it been supportive of developing a fair and valid tool for teacher assessment, one it does not approve of would not now be forced on it.

David Esquith

Northridge

The last-hired, first-fired policy is ridiculous. If you have to cut back on teachers or anyone else, it should be done based on performance and whether their position is needed.

If you are a lousy teacher with 10 years of service, you are still a lousy teacher. I would rather have someone with two years of service who is a great teacher.

Tenure also makes no sense, for the same reason. Why should someone be locked into employment over others who are doing a much better job?

No one ever promised me a job for life. If you can't do a proper job, then you shouldn't be on the payroll. There is no reason the kids or the school district should suffer.

Ron Nelson

Venice

Tenure was not designed to protect incompetent teachers (although it sometimes does). It was designed to protect teachers from the tyranny of the state and its administrators.

Further, the union's wish to maintain the last-hired, first-fired system in the face of education revenue cutbacks is indefensible. Some of those new, young teachers are perhaps more competent than some of their elders.

On the other hand, the power structure's desire to fire older, higher-paid experienced teachers may well be tainted by a desperate desire to save money.

The solution? Do not use absurdly oversimplified quantitative methods to determine a teacher's complex skills. There are many other useful techniques — student evaluations, peer review, parental input. Identify the underperforming teachers and replace them with bright and able teachers regardless of when they were hired.

Marvin Klotz

Venice

Regarding setting aside seniority to accommodate schools with low-income minority students: How about a compromise?

When the school district has designated for layoff a senior teacher in an established school, it should give him or her the option of transferring to one of the low-income minority schools. This could build up these neglected schools with senior teachers.

Some senior teachers might quit, but at least they were given a choice.

For the budget's sake, the school district might prefer to offload the higher-paid senior teachers in favor of keeping low-paid new hires. Is that policy good for the low-income students?

Furthermore, is it fair to dump senior teachers who have earned their seniority doing a trying job without giving them an option to do something good for our poorest areas?

Ralph Kottke

Glendale

The elimination of teacher seniority rules, in the long run, guarantees that the pool of teacher candidates will be small.

Very few people will be willing to invest tens of thousands of dollars and years of their lives in higher education to pursue a career where the employment will be temporary.

Given the opportunity, districts will fire high-cost labor in favor of low-cost replacements.

How, exactly, are districts held accountable for the quality of education the students receive?

Mark Williams

Corona

The ACLU actually did something that was helpful? Surely this is a sign of the end of times.

Stephen Brandt

San Marino

Pushing hard for Mideast peace

Re "U.S. bets big in Mideast talks," News Analysis, Oct. 7

The largess the U.S. bestows on Israel demonstrates the fundamental flaw in this so-called peace process when it induces the powerful to dictate terms that displace international law at the expense of the weak.

You cannot barter away the merits of international law, lest you argue that a victim can be held to the bargain struck with an armed assailant who extracts concessions allowing for escape from prosecution once the law catches up with him.

Good-faith negotiations demand the principle of law, as its foundation, because peace can never come from a place where justice has never prevailed.

Joe Batarse

Azusa