Follow NWPE on:
Subscribe to RSS Feed:
| LIFO in Today’s Education Climate |
| posted by: Cindy Omlin | May 12, 2011, 04:02 PM |
|
With another school year winding down, we are again hearing stories about young, often first- or second-year teachers and their being laid off due to budget cuts. The fact that states across the country are facing historic budget shortfalls shouldn't be news to anyone. Clearly this sobering reality will have an impact on education budgets, but what if the union-backed policy of "last in, first out" punishes good teachers and impacts parents seeking a quality teacher for their child? Sadly, LIFO has become just that: forcing new teachers out without any regard to their performance. PBS recently highlighted the LIFO policy at an average American school in Connecticut. One principal shared a story of a new and successful teacher who joined his staff last summer. "In the first round of testing, she had the highest number of increases in the school," he highlighted. Sadly under the LIFO policy, this highly effective teacher will be laid off and there is nothing he can do about it. Does it seem fair to the teacher or the students that perhaps the best teacher in the building will be let go to close the budget gap? "It is an embarrassment to all we do in education," said high school Principal Steve Perry of the LIFO policy. "I want the best staff available to me, regardless of how long they have been teaching." According the Michelle Rhee-led education advocacy group, StudentsFirst, seniority based lay-offs are hurting our children tremendously. According to their research, when firing teachers based on seniority we end up firing some of the best teachers in a district, as evident by the teacher in Connecticut and the thousands like her across the country. Further, because junior teachers are paid the least, the district is forced to let more teachers go to fill the budget deficit. Sadly the highest-need schools are often the most affected by this policy. Teachers in low-performing schools are often new, leaving these schools virtually empty at the end of the year, unfairly impacting some of the most high-need students in under-served communities every year. While education advocates, reformers, and legislators are working to change the policy, we often hear of union push-back in districts across the country. A union leader from that same district in Connecticut as the PBS broadcast advocated for experience above all other quantifiers. "Experience has to count for something," she argued, "If you were going to have an operation I'm sure you would want the doctor with the most experience." So what do teachers think about this policy? According to AAE members, LIFO is obsolete and harms teachers and students alike. 70% of AAE membership survey respondents disagreed with the policy. Clearly teachers across America are seeing the negative effect of this policy every year. So if not for experience–which teachers need to go? Experts advocate for lay-offs based partly on performance. But how do you do we accomplish this when evaluations are often the most hotly contested aspect of education policy today? It seems that until we get a fair, comprehensive, and accurate gage of where teachers stand, changing the policy will be a tough sell. The good news is states like New Jersey are paving the way for the elimination of LIFO and growth-model evaluations. Hopefully it will only be a matter of time before we find policies that work for both students and teachers. What do you think about the LIFO policy and seniority-based lay-offs? Comment below. Originially posted by Alix at AAE.
email to friend
Print
comment
Permalink
Comments (0)
 You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
