Congress is considering $23 billion in new legislation designed to avert massive teacher layoffs around the country. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, in a letter to Congressional leaders wrote, "We are gravely concerned that ongoing state and local budget challenges are threatening hundreds of thousands of teacher jobs for the upcoming school year." The problem is that most of the districts have already made their cuts and the departing teachers have already made other plans.

I have always said that the worst job in the world is being a principal when school budgets are being cut. It is hard enough to lead a school and raise student achievement, but in difficult economic times like these, it can become overwhelming. Even though school staff and resources are reduced, the expectations for improving student achievement continue to go up—more with less.

The Staffing Dilemma

Staffing a large high school can be a daunting task. For us, the process started in January and carried on through the first or second week in October. Staffing takes months of staff time meeting, collaborating, setting priorities, and making plans, all of which usually have to be redone several times because of changing district formulas and funding streams. In bad budget times like these, the changes can come almost weekly.

In April, principals had to hand deliver “termination of employment” letters to teacher who may not be rehired because of budget shortfalls. Even though those individuals were almost always rehired, handing them the letter was painful to me and frightening to them. I must admit that, once I handed a teacher one of those letters, our relationship was never quite the same.

Sleepless Nights

I dreaded the beginning of each school year. Don’t get me wrong. I looked forward to the excitement of starting all over again, but I dreaded the possibility of losing more staff.

Our district staffed on enrollment projections released in March of the previous school year. On the fifth day of the new school year, schools submitted enrollment figures and, as a result, either lost or gained staff. This often would result in teachers moving between schools after the third or fourth week of school. Moving around teachers in the beginning of a school year creates chaos in the schools. The entire master schedule has to be redone. Teaching assignments are changed. Worst of all, weeks of valuable instructional time are lost while students get used to new teachers.

This practice was begun in the 1960s and continues to this day. This is a classic example of what I call an ABC practice—Administration By Convenience.

For schools with low student mobility rates, those projections were almost always correct. However, our school had a very high 30% mobility rate.

In most high schools, incoming students include the new ninth grade class and a few upperclassmen, who move or transfer. So, about 25% to 30% of the students in a typical high school are new to the school each year. In our school, 48% of the students were new each year, and we had a 15% to 17% turnover in students over the summer months. In other words, we had no idea how many students would show up nor did we know who the new students were. We didn’t know what grade they were in. We didn’t know if they needed a reading course or special education services. If more students than expected enrolled, we added teachers. If fewer students enrolled, we cut teaching positions.

I dreaded the thought of telling a teacher, who we just recruited, that she didn’t have a job. I also believed that it was unethical to hire someone when there was a 50/50 chance that they would have a job. So, like many of my colleagues in high-poverty, high-mobility schools, where staffing was like rolling the dice, I held back positions, meaning that I didn’t fill all the allotted positions. Holding back positions meant that we were sometimes hiring teachers in September. You don’t have to be an expert to understand that, in September, you are typically hiring those who others did or would not hire. This is no way to build capacity or improve your teaching staff.

This kind of district policy puts principals between a proverbial rock and a hard place. It is unethical to hire someone, and ask them to relocate to take a position that may not exist. On the other hand, it is irresponsible to knowingly wait to hire teachers in September and put your school at the end of the hiring line. So, you are either unethical or irresponsible. In this scenario, no one wins.

The Bottom Line

These types of staffing practices exacerbate the impact of budget cuts on schools with high numbers of under-resourced students. The schools in more affluent areas usually have more stable or even growing student populations, while schools in older, diverse, or high-poverty areas have a more transient population. Again, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

How can we say that we are serious about improving student achievement when we insist on holding on to antiquated district practices that were developed in an age in which schools sorted students for success?