Everyone knows that the most suc cessful schools, no matter how differ ent their neighborhoods or student bodies, are united by a few essential features: a strong principal who sets high expectations and maximizes school resources; an involved parent group — and passionate teachers dedicated to helping students.
That is why I am increasingly concerned about the very real possibility of teacher layoffs — and particularly the thought of having to do them on the basis of “last in, first out.”
State law mandates that systemwide layoffs must occur in order of reverse seniority — the most recently hired teachers are the first to go, no matter how good they are at their jobs.
As the mayor said in his State of the City speech this week, this is fundamentally unfair. The determining factor shouldn’t be whether a teacher has been in the system for two years or 22 years; it should be his or her effectiveness.
This is in no way a criticism of the work of those who’ve devoted their lives to educating our children — indeed, I’ve been amazed at the dedication I’ve seen in the dozens of schools across the five boroughs that I’ve been privileged to visit over the last two months.
On the contrary, it is about honoring our teachers as professionals and making personnel decisions on the basis of merit.
But, setting that aside for a moment, let’s examine the likely impact on our students if we are forced to do layoffs based on “last in, first out.”
Researchers at Stanford, the University of Virginia and the University of Albany recently completed a study showing that if New York City has to lay off teachers based on seniority, we’ll not only lose more teachers (because new teachers earn lower salaries than senior teachers) but also a more highly rated group of teachers than if we do it on the basis of merit.
On top of that, some of our poorest and most disadvantaged communities would be hardest hit. For example, the South Bronx could lose more than 20 percent of its teachers because its high turnover rate leaves it with more new teachers than other areas.
These are enthusiastic new teachers working with some of our most challenged students, bringing passion to our classrooms. Losing them would devastate those schools.
Critics will say that we don’t yet have a comprehensive teacher-evaluation system on which to make merit-based decisions and that, until we do, seniority should rule. In fact, we’re working with the state and the teachers union to develop such a comprehensive system.
But the idea that there is no better way than “last in, first out” to make personnel decisions is bogus.
For instance, if we must do layoffs, we plainly should start with those in the Absent Teacher Reserve pool — a group of more than 1,200 teachers who lack permanent teaching positions yet still draw full salary and benefits indefinitely, at a cost of more than $100 million a year. What possible justification is there for letting go a teacher who’s teaching every day instead of one who is at best doing some substitute-teacher work?
Then there are the 1,300 teachers who received a rating of “unsatisfactory” on their annual review last year. If we must do layoffs, shouldn’t those performing at an unsatisfactory level be next in line behind those without permanent teaching positions?
Not all decisions will be that clear-cut from the outside. But that’s no reason to hide behind a formula that’s clearly unfair and wrong. Just as superintendents and principals are able to make decisions about which teachers are best to hire, they can make informed decisions about which teachers they are comfortable parting with if the budget requires it.
No one wants layoffs in our schools. But if we’re left with no other option, our overriding priority must be to ensure we retain the very best teachers for our students.
We have to mean it when we say children come first — and that means doing away with “last in, first out.”
Cathleen P. Black is New York City’s schools chancellor.