Opinion

Justice for teachers and kids

This week, Gov. Cuomo proposed an Executive Budget that takes direct aim at structural problems in the way the state spends its money. He has recommended significant spending cuts to tackle the state’s $10 billion deficit and put New York on more stable long-term financial footing. New York City may lose $600 million or more in state aid for public schools; Mayor Bloomberg has stated that without mandate relief thousands of teachers could be laid off.

The problem for our city’s schools is worse than just potential budget cuts. State law — under a provision commonly known as “Last in, first out” or LIFO — mandates that schoolwide or systemwide teacher layoffs occur solely on the basis of seniority, with no regard for teacher quality. Under this law, the most recently hired teachers are laid off regardless of merit.

Who bears the consequences of this mandate? Our children.

We must end LIFO now, before any layoffs are necessary.

There are two reasons in particular why LIFO is unfair and poor educational and fiscal policy.

First, a teacher’s quality can’t be considered in any way before he or she is fired in a mass layoff. Under LIFO, a highly competent junior teacher who has received stellar performance evaluations must be terminated before a more senior teacher who has been deemed “unsatisfactory” after undergoing a rigorous hearing process.

That same junior teacher who excels at her craft must 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.

Second, LIFO institutionalizes a bias against neighborhoods with chronic teacher shortages — because that is where recently hired teachers are most likely to be employed. 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. This is why a California court recently declared LIFO as it applied to Los Angeles schools to be racially discriminatory and unconstitutional on the ground that it violates each child’s right to equal educational opportunity.

Similarly, School District 2 on Manhattan’s East Side (which I represent) has seen much population growth over the last few years that has led to greater public-school enrollment and the hiring of more teachers. 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.

Our children are the city’s most precious resource. They deserve to be taught in the public schools by the best teachers possible, whether a recent Teach for America graduate or a long-tenured senior instructor. Layoffs should be conducted based on merit and quality, not by putting all our teachers on a list based on seniority and indiscriminately firing every teacher the city has hired in the last three or five years.

Changing this policy won’t be easy, but when it comes to doing best for our kids, it’s worth the fight.

Jonathan Bing, an Assembly Democrat, repre sents the Upper East Side and East Midtown.