Why LIFO Exists

By Michael Diedrich, Policy Associate, February 3, 2012 at 2:00 pm

The following quotation comes from G.K. Chesterton, and (believe it or not) is immediately relevant to the debate around seniority-based teacher policies:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

There's a lot of passion around Last In, First Out (LIFO) policies that retain teachers based on seniority rather than other measures. Many self-described education reformers want to do away with them, and they'll be one of the big targets during Minnesota's next legislative session. If we are to avoid the Fallacy of Chesterton's Fence, we must consider why LIFO exists in the first place.

Linking teacher retention to seniority reflects the industrial economy of the time the policy began. Seniority was a commonly accepted proxy for quality in many lines of work. More importantly, having such a clear-cut proxy for quality meant increasing the fairness of the system.

According to Brown University's Annenberg Institute [PDF], “Seniority rules were established during a time when teachers could be fired for almost any reason (like getting pregnant) or for no reason whatsoever (like getting on the wrong side of their principal).” In other words, the original intention of LIFO was to increase the fairness of the system.

While linking teacher retention to test scores might seem just as fair as LIFO, it's actually more susceptible to manipulation. An abusive principal could reassign teachers to difficult classes, grades, or groups of students to set the teacher up for failure.

LIFO began as a good thing. We must make sure that, if it's replaced, whatever comes next retains those good protections.

Posted in Education | Related Topics: Teachers  Teacher Assessment