Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority

I'll like to thank OmqitzLiz for this debate. Good luck!

I negate.

Con's resolution: Teachers should be laid off because of seniority.

Clarification: Teacher are not laid off SOLELY on seniority. Teachers are laid off based on the number of years he or she worked at the same district.

Con:
1) New teachers have little to no experience in teaching by themselves. Teaching a subject takes years of experience. A teacher must learn and adapt to different styles of learning, a new teacher cannot do this off the bat during the first day. Hiring many new teachers who experiment with abnormal teaching styles will detriment the school's placement in the state. This has happened at my school last year (some retired, so the school hired new teachers) and our API score dropped by 61 points...860 to 799.
Due to the recession, many retirees are returning to the workforce. This has happened in the nurse sector, an influx of retired and experienced nurses are returning to their jobs causing employers to hire veterans over freshly graduated students.

2) Seniority rewards teachers for his or her commitment to the school system of years. Why dismiss a loyal employee?

Pro:
1) Your music teacher was probably laid off because there wasn't a satisfactory enrollment demand.

Can't wait for Round 2!

but new teachers need experience to teach like any other teacher out there. Students should choose because its there education.

Umm...awkward

So this was my R2 arguments if I did not have so many projects to finish:
1) Teachers have alternatives in teaching in other institutions such as test prep schools.
2) "Students should choose because its there education." Students should choose what there are no choices?

In either cases my opponent failed to address my contentions and rebuttal. Silence is consent, hence my opponent agrees with me. Thank you and vote Con.