Per this discussion of the comparability loophole and “forced assignment” : There are many ways a district could comply with a legitimate comparability rule that don’t involve transferring veteran teachers to high-poverty schools. Instead of hiring teachers who make more, they could hire more teachers and reduce class size, which makes particular sense given that the benefits of class size reduction are mostly limited to at-risk students. Presumably veteran teachers at wealthier schools could handle more students on the other end–if not, why are they being paid more money? Or, the district could pay teachers in high-poverty schools a bonus. Or it could stop tying pay to seniority. Or it could increase spending on non-salary items in schools that serve the most poor children.
All of that said, there could be instances when districts have to rearrange the distribution of teachers. Let’s be perfectly clear: forced assignment of teachers to schools where they’d rather not teach is nobody’s idea of a best-case scenario. But let’s also be clear about this: if a district maintains a policy whereby veteran teachers have first preference of school assignment, and the result is that rookie teachers can only find jobs in high-poverty schools, that’s forced assignment too. And it’s forced assignment that has the worst possible impact on the most vulnerable children.
The best solution is to identify the schools where nobody wants to teach and replace them with better schools. Unfortunately, the same interest groups that are fighting to keep the comparability loophole open are also fighting to prevent exactly this kind of reform.