User:Stc311/Sandbox

=LIFO (education)=

Definition
The Last in First Out (LIFO) is a policy that says that the last hired is the first fired. In regards to the New York City public schools the Last in First Out policy suggests that during budget cuts the newly hired teachers would be let go first instead of the longer term teachers just for the fact that they don't have seniority. The Last in First Out policy is used in many sectors such as business, medical, retail, education and etc. This policy is seen as an effective and fair way to lay people off. By using this policy employers hope to avoid confrontation and encounters with ex-employees.

Purpose
The Last in First out policy is suppose to be a clean and efficient way of laying off teachers in the evident budget cuts are required. Instead of randomly laying off teachers, the education sector uses the Last in First Out policy to avoid any problems with teachers taking it personal. This was a system that the state used as their permanent method of deciding who should go. The Last in First Out policy was put in place to protect tenure teachers and provide them with benefits such as not being laid off when budget cuts came about. The state figured that the teachers who had been there longer could bring more to the table than newly hired teachers. The Last in First Out policy was seen as more of a free pass for the more "experienced" teachers. With this policy the state wanted to ensure that the schoolkids got the best education and in order to receive that they needed to keep the best teachers around. To them the best teachers suited for the job were the ones who were teaching the longest.

Background
The Last in First Out policy reflects the idea of tenure. The purpose of having tenure is so that you can have the right not to be terminated from your position without just cause. Tenure has been commonly used as a form of job security for college professors. Having tenure originally meant that the professors had academic freedom. Tenure allowed employees or professors to have special benefits like being able to do their own thing without having to worry about any kind of interference from anyone. Professors received tenure by establishing themselves by performing exceptional research, teaching and administrative services. With the Last in First Out policy displaying the tenure policy it incorporated the idea of giving tenured public school teachers benefits as well. When the Last in First Out policy was brought into the New York City school system as a method to lay-off teachers when budget cuts arise. The policy protects the job of the more experienced public school teachers. The government believed that if they had to get rid of teachers due to budget cuts, they would rather keep teachers that been there longer and get rid of the new teachers. This policy in the eyes of the government would be the best way to efficiently keep the best teachers around. The Last in First Out policy has been the rule that New York has followed for several years now. Even though the education system has used this system for so long, we now see the government being urged to change this tenure rule. Many people are questioning whether or not keeping tenure teachers around is in the best interest of students.

Controversy
Anti-LIFO Argument

There has been many debates about the Last in First Out policy. People argue that this policy doesn't effectively keep the best teachers around. People who are oppose this policy suggest that the policy be merit-based rather than the way it is now, seniority-based. With the seniority based policy people are afraid that the quality of education will be negatively impacted. Currently Mayor Bloomberg and former City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, who is also the chairman of Education Reform Now are advocating for the policy to be based on keeping teachers who produce the better results and have the biggest positive impact on schoolkids. In a New York Post article it stated that the 74% of New York voters who were oppose to the Last in First Out Policy believed that this policy would hurt schoolkids by forcing good, young teachers out of our public schools in favor of less-effective, longer-term teachers. This shows that the majority of citizens do not think that this policy is beneficial for students. The well-being of the schoolkids was a great concern to New York voters and that's why they are urging for a reform to this policy.With the majority of the New York City voters giving the Last in First Our policy a failing grade our mayor, Michael Bloomberg, suggests that we should install a policy that is merit-based, not seniority-based. Seniority-based just means that just because you were teaching longer you get to keep your job and those under you would be let go. Basing your decision to lay off based on seniority doesn't benefit the children but only the more "seasoned" teachers. Bloomberg states that making making the policy merit-based would be "a landmark proposal that puts the needs of our children first." Making seniority the determining factor does not ensure that the students will get a good education, it only ensures that the longer-term teachers would have a job even after budget cuts. The seniority based policy seemed only out for the best interest of teachers; not so much the students. Paul Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey about how New Yorkers felt about the Last in First Out policy. He said that the voters "clear understand the difference a good, effective teacher makes in the public-school classroom for schoolkids." He claimed that having this understanding was the reason why the majority of the New York voters pushed for a change in the Last in First Out policy. Newhouse then began to say that from the information he gathered from the New York voters, he found out that the voters did not care about how long or how short the person taught, as long as they were effective and produce good results for the kids they were fine with that. To them the switch to a merit-based policy was imperative because this change would benefit the schoolkids. In the Newhouse's survey he asked: "which do you believe would be better for the state's public-school students? To leave the last-in first out rule the way it is, or to change it to the merit based system? Eight hundred New Yorkers responded to the survey and for this question 74% of respondents said merit-based system would be better and 23% said to keep it as it is. This also showed that the majority of New Yorkers understood what would be best for our schoolkids. The respondents were also asked how they would feel about representatives in the next election who favored the Last in First Out policy; 58% said that they would not vote for that representative and 23% said that they would for vote for that representative. Michelle Rhee who is a former Chancellor of Washington, D.C. public schools has also spoke about the Last in First Out policy. Also being the CEO of StudentsFirst.org, which advocates teacher evaluations and eliminating tenure, she states that with this policy we push ourselves further away from competing with other developed countries in regards to the skills and knowledge our students have. She says that with this policy we will lose a great deal of our great teachers and this will hinder us from "regaining our global standing." She claims that with this seniority-based policy we will end up laying off our most "highly effective educators." Rhee also states that with this policy the schools with the highest need will suffer the most. The high-need schools usually have the most new teachers because they need the most help and during lay-offs all the new teachers will have to go, putting a strain on the school, the students and the neighborhood. Rhee suggests that we need to get rid of this out dated policy and implement something that works.