As budgets continue to tighten in school districts across the U.S and in Texas, local boards and district leaders will have to make difficult choices. Today, budgets are so stretched that teacher layoffs are on the table in many districts.
Most U.S. districts base layoff decisions primarily—or even solely—on teacher seniority. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 75 of the 100 largest school districts across all 50 states use seniority as the primary factor for layoff decisions. The notion of “last in, first out”—the last teacher hired is the first laid off—is standard practice and easy to explain.
The National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) 
set out to demonstrate alternative policies on teacher layoffs in their July 2010 brief, “Teacher Layoffs: An Empirical Illustration of Seniority vs. Measures of Effectiveness.” The brief identifies several reasons why seniority-only layoff policies are ineffective.
CALDER used experience and effectiveness data from the 2008–09 school year from 4th- and 5th-grade math and English-language arts teachers in New York City Public Schools to demonstrate the differences between seniority-based and effectiveness-based layoff policies.
The aim of teacher layoffs is to reduce spending by a specific dollar amount or a specific percentage. When layoff policies are based on seniority and compensation systems are based on experience, a district needs to let more novice teachers go to hit the budget reduction target.
Using the New York City School data, CALDER found that under a seniority-only policy, 7 percent of 4th- and 5th-grade teachers would have to be laid off to reduce the budget by 5 percent. When teacher effectiveness data was used instead, 25 percent fewer teachers would be laid off.
The use of seniority in layoff decisions also increases the size of other classes. If more teachers are laid off, the teachers that remain will be required to teach larger classes.
The CALDER report says that seniority-based policies also leave a less effective workforce in place because layoffs may remove a highly effective teacher and at the same time leave an ineffective teacher in the classroom.
While the CALDER brief clearly illustrates the faults in seniority-based layoff policies, it cautions against using any single factor to determine who to lay off when the budget is cut. Instead the brief suggests using multiple factors for lay-off decisions that include a measure of teacher effectiveness more robust than a single test score plus principal assessment.
In Texas, layoffs are based on a priority list of criteria applied sequentially (Policy DFF). Certification is the first criterion. Teachers who do not hold the appropriate certification or are not highly qualified for the current or projected assignment can be layed off first.
Next, performance comes before seniority. Texas districts can lay teachers off in a reduction-in-force for poor performance as reflected in appraisal records and other written evaluative information. Third in line is seniority, which is measured by an employee’s length of service in the district. Finally, districts consider professional background and work experience. This policy places Texas school districts in a stronger position than school systems in other states where “last hired, first fired” layoff policies are the norm.
As more districts struggle with constrained budgets and face the possibility of teacher layoffs, the number of teachers affected and the effect on student achievement are minimized by thoughtful and flexible layoff policies.
—“Teacher Layoffs: An Empirical Illustration of Seniority vs. Measures of Effectiveness,” by Daniel J. Boyd, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James H. Wyckoff, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, July 12, 2010.
—“Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking “Last-Hired, First-Fired” Policies,” National Council on Teacher Quality, February 2010.
—“Seniority-based Lay-offs Will Exacerbate Job Loss in Public Education,” by Marguerite Roza, Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington Bothell, February 2009.
