Layoffs: Illinois
Retaining Effective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Illinois's policies
Factors to Consider: Illinois requires that teacher effectiveness—measured by a
performance evaluation—be the top criterion for districts in
determining which teachers are laid off during reductions in force.
Each
teacher is categorized in one of four groups according to their
evaluation ratings. Grouping 1 includes probationary teachers who have
not received performance evaluation ratings; Grouping 2 includes
teachers who have received needs improvement or unsatisfactory on
either of their previous two ratings; Grouping 3 consists of teachers
who have received satisfactory or proficient on both of their
previous two ratings; Grouping 4 consists of teachers who have received
two excellent ratings in either of the last two or three ratings, so long
as the third rating was satisfactory or proficient.
The policy states: "Among teachers qualified to hold a position,
teachers must be dismissed in the order of their Groupings, with
teachers in Grouping 1 dismissed first and teachers in Grouping 4
dismissed last." If teachers in Groupings 2, 3 or 4 have the same
performance rating, the teacher with the least seniority is dismissed
first, unless an alternative method is established by the district.
However,
this policy applies only to school districts with fewer than 500,000
inhabitants. For Chicago, the district with more than 500,000
inhabitants, the state's code requires that teachers' qualifications,
certifications, experience, performance ratings or evaluations, and any
other factors relating to an employee's job performance, be taken into
account in determining who is laid off during reductions in force.
Recommendations for Illinois
Consider whether groupings sufficiently prioritize teacher effectiveness.
Illinois
has developed sound policy for incorporating teacher effectiveness into
reduction-in-force decisions. To achieve its overall goals in
districts with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, the state may want to
consider further dividing Grouping 2. Laying off teachers with a single
needs-improvement rating before teachers with more seniority, but
perhaps with multiple unsatisfactory ratings, may run counter to the
state's intentions.
State response to our analysis
Illinois recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
Updated: March 2021
-
Illinois
Select another topic
Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Requirements
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Requirements
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Teacher Diversity
Hiring
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Early Childhood Preparation
Retaining Effective Teachers
How we graded
9E: Layoffs
Performance
The total goal score is earned based on the following:
- Full credit: The state will earn full credit if teacher performance is the top criterion in reduction-in-force decisions.
- Three-quarters credit: The state will earn three-quarters of a point if performance is a required—but not the most influential—criterion in reduction-in-force decisions.
- One-half credit: The state will earn one-half of a point if retention policies based solely on tenure or seniority are explicitly not allowed, but performance is not an explicitly required factor in reduction-in-force decisions.
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it explicitly allows performance as a factor in reduction-in-force decisions, but that performance is not necessarily tied to student growth.
Research rationale
"Last In, First Out (LIFO)" policies put adult interests before student needs, yet most districts across the country still use these policies in the event of teacher layoffs. While most states leave these decisions to district discretion, other 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.[1]
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.
[1] See National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Teacher layoffs: Rethinking 'last-hired, first-fired' policies. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Layoffs_Rethinking_Last-Hired_First-Fired_Policies_NCTQ_Report; The New Teacher Project. (2011). The case against quality-blind teacher layoffs. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_Case_Against_Quality_Blind_Layoffs_Feb2011F.pdf?files/TNTP_Case_Against_Quality_Blind_Layoffs_Feb2011F.pdf; Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). Teacher layoffs: An empirical illustration of seniority versus measures of effectiveness. Education, 6(3), 439-454. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001421-teacher-layoffs.pdf; Goldhaber, D., & Theobald, R. (2010). Assessing the determinants and implications of teacher layoffs (Working Paper 55). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001496-Assessing-Teacher-Layoffs.pdf; Sepe, C., & Roza, M. (2010). The disproportionate impact of seniority-based layoffs on poor, minority students. Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://crpe.org/publications/disproportionate-impact-seniority-based-layoffs-poor-minority-students