Reductions in Force: Illinois
Exiting Ineffective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Illinois's policies
In Illinois, teacher performance—measured by a
performance evaluation— is considered as 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 that 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 classroom performance.
Illinois
has developed sound policy for incorporating classroom performance 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.
-
Illinois
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
LIFO policies put adult interests before student needs.
Across the country, most districts utilize "last in, first out" policies in the event of teacher layoffs. Most states leave these decisions to district discretion; some 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.
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.
Reductions in Force: Supporting Research
See National Council on Teacher Quality, "Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking 'Last-Hired, First-Fired' Policies", 2010; The New Teacher Project, "The Case Against Quality-Blind Teacher Layoffs" (2011); D. Boyd, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff, "Teacher Layoffs: An Empirical Illustration of Seniority v. Measures of Effectiveness", Calder Institute, July 2010, Brief 12; D. Goldhaber and R. Theobald, "Assessing the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs." Calder Institute, Working Paper 55, December 2010; C. Sepe and M. Roza, "The Disproportionate Impact of Seniority-Based Layoffs on Poor, Minority Students." Center on Reinventing Public Education, May 2010.