by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

The idea is deceptively simple.  Place the best teachers possible into every classroom.  Recently we have spent a great deal of time discussing that objective.  An evaluation system that identifies and removes weak teachers while also strengthening good ones has been proposed. There has been a lengthy discussion of what hiring practices ensure securing the best potential talents in the field. But there is one educational policy that continually works to thwart the goal of improving the teaching pool.  The villain of this piece is the practice known as “last hired, first fired”.  Under this set of guidelines when reductions in staffing are necessary due to either budget restraints or lower enrollment the decision is based exclusively on seniority.  This procedure that rewards longevity over talent, checklists over effectiveness, and status quo over student needs must disappear.  While a few school systems have put plans into place that remove this policy (Last Teacher In, First Out? City Has Another Idea) its demise must be universal.  In both design and implementation the practice fails to ensure that the top teachers will be in the classroom.

The Wrong Solution for the Wrong Problem

Making a strong argument against the policy with analogies is simple.  Which is better, the journeyman thirty-seven year old second baseman or the twenty-two year old power hitter with unlimited potential?  How about the undistinguished veteran lawyer or the recent cum laude Harvard Law School grad?  To give any more examples would be easy but extraneous.  What is almost as disturbing as the policy itself is that while the negatives of “last hired, first fired” are so obvious, they have been insufficient to bring about change in most cases.

Mandated staff reductions are painful and complicated decisions.  Since teaching positions cannot be realistically broken into fractional parts, such cutbacks usually impact one or two departments in a disproportionate manner.  Cutting a full position from a single department can profoundly affect the class sizes and effectiveness of that subject area.   It is not surprising that many will view these difficult decisions as unfair and unpopular.  Consequently, there is an unsettling sense that one of the strongest arguments for last hired/first fired is that it makes the decision of who stays and who goes easier.  Just consult the seniority chart, go over to the pertinent column, down to the required row and bingo—the decision is made.  Retaining a policy to ease school leaders of tough choices is not only impossible to support it is demeaning to professionals placed in such positions.  The easy path in education is almost never the best one for students. 

Some supporters of the concept will argue that it is necessary because many principals cannot be trusted to make good decisions in staffing.  The plan is designed to protect teachers from being removed as a result of random “retaliation” or inappropriate “favoritism”.  Teacher unions often use this rationale when arguing in favor of this policy and others that “protect” teachers from similar injustices.  Such reasoning is disturbing, misguided and counterproductive.  If potential unprofessional behavior on the part of a school principal is a viable rationale for keeping this policy, then a much larger problem needs to be addressed.  If true (and I would agree that it may well exist in some situations), then a thorough investigation of the selection and evaluation process of school leaders is necessary.  A principal who makes personnel decisions based on such inappropriate criteria is potentially a far greater source of educational failure than any ill-advised formula for reducing teachers.  Justifying one flawed policy to counteract a defective situation is clearly not the best approach to improving education.

Better Arguments

There are, however, more sophisticated reasons to argue against the practice.  Creating the best possible staff is more complicated than simply getting only talented teachers.  Like any team, a teaching staff requires both talent and chemistry.  When I was assembling my math department I looked at a number of variables.  The goal was always finding a blend of stability with an infusion of fresh ideas, reasonable gender and ethnic balance, a plethora of educational viewpoints, and the ability and willingness to work well with others.  Each year as vacancies would occur; I would study the departmental strengths and weaknesses and then in my hiring plan look to find the individuals whom would best fill those particular needs.  All strict, inflexible guidelines such as “first fired” defeat any such narrative and should not continue.

Extinction by Improvement

The impact of “Last hired, first fired” can be mitigated without being legislatively removed.  It will wane if three critical components of education are significantly upgraded.  Schools must be lead by principals who are true personnel managers.  When tough staffing issues arise, they need to be capable of making the right choices for the overall system.  A staff that understands that this level of competency is the backbone of all employee decisions will be supportive and eventually flourish.  Strong, coherent hiring practices will populate schools with the individuals with the highest potential for success.  An efficient and effective evaluation system will quickly identify and remove weak teachers while improving the performance of its best prospects.   In a building where every teacher is of the highest quality, the impact of staff reductions will be significantly reduced. While there is no easy way to avoid the disruption and loss of such actions, the nightmare scenario of losing a talented young teacher for a far less talented but more senior will diminish.