District Trendline, previously known as Teacher Trendline, provides actionable research to improve district personnel policies that will strengthen the teacher workforce. Want evidence-based guidance on policies and practices that will enhance your ability to recruit, develop, and retain great teachers delivered right to your inbox each month? Subscribe here.
The first Trendline of 2016 takes a fresh look at
our most popular topic from 2015: layoffs.
In order to balance budgets in difficult economic times,
districts may execute a reduction in force, more commonly referred to as
layoffs. Generally, collective bargaining agreements contain specific details
about this process, including: by what criteria the order of teacher layoffs is
determined and whether and for how long teachers retain the right to be rehired
by the district if positions again become available.
State policy is often a determining factor for
districts when it comes to layoff criteria. Only 19 states leave layoff
criteria up to districts’ discretion, while others require districts to
consider specific criteria such as performance (19 states) or seniority (10
states).
Tenure
Teaching experience continues to be a driving force in
layoffs for many districts. Forty-four percent of districts in the database (54
districts) use tenure status as a starting point for layoff decisions,
requiring that non-tenured teachers be laid off before tenured teachers. While
the majority of these districts (46) use seniority as the primary criterion to
determine which non-tenured teachers get laid off, eight districts use other
factors. In accordance with Ohio state law, four of these districts (Cincinnati,
Cleveland,
Columbusand Dayton)
lay off non-tenured teachers based on performance; Bismarck(ND) also has this requirement.
Over the past year, we’ve seen an increase in districts in
the database that do not require non-tenured teachers to be laid off before
tenured teachers. Forty-eight percent of districts in the database either do
not require non-tenured teachers to be laid off first (49 districts) or do not
have tenure (10 districts), up from 40 percent of districts in 2015.
Of the ten districts where there is no tenure, nine are in
Florida, a state that has essentially eliminated tenure. The tenth district
that does not have tenure is Aspire Public
Schools, a charter management organization. Four of the Florida
districts (Duval County,
Brevard County,
Lee County
and Polk County)
continue to include clauses in their contracts that require teachers who are on
annual contracts (all those hired after July 1, 2011) to be laid off before teachers
who hold professional or continuing contracts.
In place of a specified policy, Birmingham leaves the decision of how layoffs are
conducted up to the Board of Education. Should layoffs be necessary, the Board
will announce the criteria on which layoffs are based, which can include a
variety of objective criteria such as seniority, performance and certification.
Performance and
Seniority
In addition to tenure status, the decision of whom to layoff
is generally decided either by performance or seniority. Across the database,
54 districts use performance as the primary criterion for determining the order
of layoffs, up from 47 districts just last year. This is primarily driven by state requirements. The
vast majority (89%) of the 54 districts that use performance as the primary
criterion are located in one of the 19 states that require districts to consider performance
in determining layoffs. Aspire Public
Schools[1],Mesa(AZ), District of
Columbia[2],West Ada,Jackson(MS),and Wake County(NC) all use performance in
determining layoff order even though they are located in states that do not
require it.
Seniority is the second most common criterion used to determine layoffs, with 46 districts using seniority as the primary criterion for reductions in force. Many of these districts operate under what is called a “last in, first out” policy, where seniority is the sole criterion. In all of these districts, non-tenured teachers are laid off before tenured teachers and, if needed, tenured teachers are laid off in order of seniority. The majority of these districts are in states that either require seniority to be considered or leave layoff criteria decisions to district discretion.
Eleven districts use multiple criteria that include performance
and seniority to determine layoffs, while two districts—those categorized as
“Unspecified” in the graph above—leave layoff criteria up to either the school
board (Birmingham) or the
superintendent (Charleston County,
SC).
A few districts have distinct layoff policies. In Wichita
and Manchester(NH), all teachers on either a Plan of
Assistance or Performance Improvement Plan are laid off first with the rest of
the layoffs determined by seniority. Clark County requires any teachers suspended for
more than five days within the last two years to be laid off first, followed by
any teachers with an unsatisfactory evaluation. Bismarck uses performance as the primary criterion for non-tenured
teachers, but uses seniority if tenured teachers are affected by layoffs.
Recall rights
When teachers are laid off due to a reduction in force
across a district, the contract or school board policy often requires that the
district recall those teachers back to work once retirements and resignations
have been taken into account and budgets are balanced.
The majority of districts in the database (91 districts)
give laid-off teachers some form of recall rights. Of these districts, 54 of
them recall teachers in the inverse order in which they were laid off. In 17
districts, only tenured teachers have such rights. In 19 districts, laid-off
teachers receive a preference when new hiring begins, but are not guaranteed a
new position.
There are six districts which explicitly make recall rights
contingent upon teachers’ evaluation ratings. In Denver,
Detroit
and Columbus, laid-off teachers are
given preference in rehiring based on their evaluation rating. In Caddo Parish,
Fairfax County
(VA) and Norfolk,
teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluation ratings have no recall rights
while all other teachers are recalled in inverse order of the layoffs. Also of
note, Miami Dade
gives recall rights to teachers in reverse order of layoffs with the exception
of first year teachers who do not have recall rights.
Not included in the graph above is Green Dot Public
Schools, a charter management organization. Green Dot does place teachers on a rehire list after layoffs, but
the method by which teachers get rehired is unclear.
Generally, districts specify how long teachers retain recall
rights after a layoff has occurred; 84 of the 91 districts that provide recall
rights specify how long these rights last. The most common length of time
teachers retain recall rights is two years, but it ranges from six months in Atlanta and Granite(UT) to indefinitely in Jefferson County
(KY), St. Louis,
Toledo,
Pittsburgh,
Nashville
and Shelby.
There are a handful of districts that differentiate recall
rights based on a teacher’s status. In Elgin,
teachers with effective evaluation ratings retain recall rights for one year
while teachers who have received a rating of Needs Improvement in the last two
years only retain recall rights for six months. In Dayton, tenured teachers retain recall rights indefinitely while
non-tenured teachers only retain recall rights for three years. In four
California districts (Fresno,
Long Beach,
Oakland
and Sacramento),
tenured teachers retain recall rights for 3.25 years while non-tenured teachers
retain these rights for two years.
Last year, we predicted that more districts would
begin to use performance measures throughout the layoff process. This month’s
Trendline bears out that prediction: fewer districts in the database are
requiring non-tenured teachers to be laid off first and more districts are
using performance in their layoff decisions.
[1] Aspire is a charter management organization, not a
traditional school district.
[2] Although it is not a traditional state, the District
of Columbia does have state-level policy that governs all school districts
within the District of Columbia. The policies of this body are separate from
the policies of the District of Columbia Public Schools.
