Why Keep Me? Can districts, should districts save us all?

I have a question. The district I work for has been losing students, also known as a decrease in enrollment. The number is vague but it looks like at least 10%. I am not worried about where they are going, because they probably moved out of state (like my wife wants to do). My question is this: Why keep teachers for students the district no longer services?


Before I became a teacher I worked in construction, sales, and restaurants. In business profits are controlled by costs and costs usually consist of supplies and labor. A business, if it wants to be successful and profitable, does not purchase supplies or labor it does not need or use. The cost of running a school district is directly, if not mostly related to the cost of labor, also known as teacher salaries. So, my question becomes this: If the district has lost 10% of their students which, via ADA (Average Daily Attendance) supplies the funds for teacher salaries, have we reduced our teaching force in due manner?



For fun, let us just say over the last 5 years we lost 100,000 students. Even if we assume a ratio of 30:1 that would mean about 3,333 teachers are no longer needed. If the teachers are not let go what does the district do with them? If the district holds on to said teachers to provide smaller classroom sizes many would believe that to be a good idea. How small do we go? Can the district afford to do such a magnanimous gesture (to the teachers or the students)? What might get sacrificed to allow this option?



My fellow teachers and I just agreed to a form of a pay cut. The result was that thousands of teachers were not let go. Sounds nice, but if there are not students for them to teach, why keep them? Why keep you? Why keep me?