THE teacher seniority and retention bill now before the California State Senate, SB 95, has little to do with teacher seniority and retention and much more to do with money.

This bill, the supporters of which tout as a way to end the alleged death-grip that incompetent senior teachers have on cushy teaching jobs at the expense of talented new teachers, is actually a cleverly disguised means for school boards to cut costs while appearing to put students' needs first.

Put aside for a moment the fact that SB 955 mandates that "performance evaluations" be a major factor in teacher retention, while leaving out that there are no safeguards that said evaluations will be objective, comprehensive, or fair. And put aside that the bill does not even mention the nonteaching staff that go into making a successful school. Put aside also that the bill turns teacher retention into a political football. As if kids need more politics in their schooling.

Instead, look at one thing the bill neglects to mention: teacher salaries. Now, the bill, as amended on April 13, does mention the word "pay" several times, as well as "compensation" and "salary," and so on, but never in conjunction with teacher performance. And here is the tool with which this bill's cloak of misdirection can be ripped away.

SB 955's supporters say they want to ensure that skilled new teachers are not automatically let go before teachers who may be less skilled but have more seniority. In

short, they want talented, effective, and dedicated teachers - they just don't want to pay for them.

The bottom line is that new teachers - skilled or not - cost far less than experienced teachers - skilled or not. New teachers are also far less likely to make waves, far less likely to stand up for students and their families, and far less likely to point out waste and mismanagement. New teachers are not only good for the bottom line, they also cause a lot less trouble for school boards, which, as we know, are not always models of efficiency, quality or even sanity.

If the supporters of SB 955 were serious about acquiring and retaining the "best and brightest," they would pay those teachers deemed to be superior top dollar for their work. After all, don't kids deserve the best, and don't the best deserve to be fairly compensated?

Why not divide the pay scale statewide into, say, 10 different levels? Teachers who were deemed (by this as-yet nonexistent method of evaluation) to be 9s and 10s get the top money and job security and the responsibility to be teacher leaders; 1s and 2s get the low money and the obligation to improve or get out.