Reductions in Force: Washington
Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Washington's policies
Washington requires that evaluation results are one of multiple factors to be used in determining which teachers are laid off during a reduction in force. Districts can decide which factors are used and how they are used, with the stipulation that evaluation results are one of the factors.
Recommendations for Washington
Require that districts consider classroom performance as a factor in determining which teachers are laid off during reductions in force.
Washington can still leave districts flexibility in determining the factors used to guide layoffs, while making sure that teacher performance is weighted more heavily than seniority.
State response to our analysis
Washington had no comment on this goal.
-
Washington
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
LIFO policies put
adult interests before student needs.
Across the country, most districts utilize "last in, first
out" policies in the event of teacher layoffs.
Most states leave these decisions to district discretion; some states require layoffs to be based on
seniority. Such policies fail to give
due weight to a teacher's classroom performance and risk sacrificing effective
teachers while maintaining low performers.
Policies that prioritize seniority in layoff decisions can
also cause significant upheaval in schools and school districts. As teachers
who are newer to the classroom traditionally draw lower salaries, a
seniority-based layoff policy is likely to require that districts lay off a
larger number of probationary teachers rather than a smaller group of
ineffective teachers to achieve the same budget reduction.
States can leave districts flexibility in determining layoff
policies, but they should do so while also ensuring that classroom performance
is considered. Further, if performance is prioritized, states need not prohibit
the use of seniority as an additional criterion in determining who is laid
off.
Reductions in Force: Supporting Research
See National Council on Teacher Quality, "Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking 'Last-Hired, First-Fired' Policies", 2010; The New
Teacher Project, "The Case Against Quality-Blind Teacher Layoffs" (2011); D. Boyd, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff, "Teacher Layoffs: An Empirical Illustration of Seniority v. Measures of Effectiveness", Calder Institute, July 2010, Brief 12; D. Goldhaber and R. Theobald, "Assessing the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs." Calder Institute, Working Paper 55, December 2010; C. Sepe and M. Roza, "The Disproportionate Impact of Seniority-Based Layoffs on Poor, Minority Students." Center on Reinventing Public Education, May 2010.