By Elizabeth Ling, DFER New York State Director
Poll Shows Public Support for Ending NY State LIFO Policy
No one wants the big teacher layoffs that most analysts say are inevitable under our current state budget crisis. But many of us are very concerned that if such layoffs are necessary, the state’s “last in, first out” rule will mean that many of our best teachers will be forced out regardless of their qualifications and effectiveness. This could be particularly devastating for schools in high-poverty neighborhoods, where teachers tend to have fewer years of experience
A new poll shows that a majority of New Yorkers disapprove of the state’s “last in, first out” (LIFO) law that forces schools to fire the most recently hired teachers during a budget crisis, regardless of teacher quality
74% of voters believe that changing the LIFO to a merit-based system would be better for the state’s public school students.
More than 60% of New York voters disapprove of this practice, a pattern that holds across both gender and party lines.
Now, as you may know, New York State law requires that when teachers are laid off, the layoffs must occur in order of reverse seniority, with the most recently hired teachers being the first to be laid off. First of all, do you approve or disapprove of this practice?
● More than 80% of New Yorkers believe the determining factor for whether a teacher should be laid off is the teacher’s effectiveness.
● When asked what the single most important factor is to ensure children have a good education, more than 3 times as many said “hiring and keeping good teachers” (64%) than “keeping class size low” (19%).
● 96% of New York voters believe New York’s kids deserve the best teachers, whether they are long-term veterans or rookies.
● Most (69% of total respondents, including 67% of Democrats) believe that, if Gov. Cuomo wants to take on the special interests and deliver on his promise to reform state government, he’ll work to change the LIFO law.
● 72% of New York voters believe teachers’ unions are more interested in protecting wages and benefits for teachers than they are in improving education for students.
————————————————-
LIFO Causes Rift Within Teachers Union
Just because the union is adamantly opposed to ending LIFO, don’t assume that their members agree. In fact, a growing number of teachers, like voters, want to end the state’s LIFO law.
In a recent meeting with United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew, a new teacher’s group called “Educators for Excellence” was vocal in their opposition to UFT’s LIFO position. As one teacher said, “I’ve felt some frustration with my union.”
Last year, The New Teacher Project surveyed 9,000 teachers in 2 large urban schools districts and found that 3 out 4 teachers think something other than seniority should be considered in teacher layoff decisions. Even a majority of those teachers with 30 or more years of experience supported changing LIFO. More here.
Look for a new paper this week from Educators for Excellence on the LIFO issues.
UFT President Michael Mulgrew Speaks to Teacher Unhappy with Union’s LIFO Stance
————————————————–
Research Shows Using Evaluation Rather Than Seniority Would Improve Student Achievement
A just-released study found that “36 percent of the teachers who received layoff notices in the study sample actually performed at or above the average for all teachers.”
According to the report:
Author Dan Goldhaber “created his own alternative “value-added” layoff model that compares the performance of elementary-school teachers based on how their students fared on the state’s standardized math and reading exams, which could apply to New York and other cities.”
“Our simulations suggest it would significantly improve student performance over the use of a seniority-driven system,” Goldhaber said. ” ‘Last in, first out’ is an anachronism.”
Read more here.
————————————————————————————-
Assemblyman Jonathan Bing: LIFO Hurts Both South Bronx and East Side
At least one New York State legislator is in touch with New York voters on this issue.
In an op-ed New York Assembly Member Jonathan Bing makes some of the strongest arguments we have heard against LIFO.
Below are a few key excerpts.
“[A] junior teacher who excels at her craft can also be fired before more senior teachers who are in the Absent Teacher Reserve, a pool of more than 1,000 teachers without permanent jobs. State law dictates that the city spend $110 million a year to indefinitely pay the salaries of these ATR pool teachers who aren’t teaching — money that could otherwise be used to fund afterschool programs or school libraries.”
and
“LIFO institutionalizes a bias against neighborhoods with chronic teacher shortages — because that is where recently hired teachers are most likely to be employed.”
The op-ed can be read in its entirety here.
These communities fall within two categories: low-income, underserved neighborhoods in which the student-achievement gap is at its greatest, and rapidly growing neighborhoods in which an increase of families with children demand the hiring of more teachers.
Under LIFO, schools in both kinds of neighborhoods stand to lose a highly disproportionate amount of teachers. Under LIFO, District 7 in the South Bronx could lose nearly a third of its teachers as other districts in the city lose only 5 percent…Manhattan’s East Side (which I represent) has seen much population growth over the last few years Under the current system, District 2 could lose up to 20 percent of its teachers — nearly four times as many as some other parts of the city
Last year Bing sponsored a bill that, had it passed in the legislature, would have based teacher layoffs on merit in addition to seniority.