| 翻訳と辞書 |
| LIFO (education) ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
LIFO (education)
''Last in First Out'' (LIFO) is a policy often used by school districts and other employers to prioritize layoffs by seniority. Under LIFO layoff rules, junior teachers and other employees lose their jobs before senior ones. Laying off junior employees first is not exclusive to the education sector, but is perhaps most controversial there. LIFO's proponents claim that it protects teachers with tenure and gives them job stability, and that it is an easily administered way of accomplishing layoffs following a budget cut. LIFO's critics respond that it is bad for students since it does not ensure that the best teachers remain regardless of how long they have been teaching.
LIFO and tenure were originally intended to provide college professors with academic freedom and ensure that they could research topics of their own choosing. In the K-12 sector, tenure was introduced to lower high teacher turnover rates. In 1932, over 20% of teachers were dismissed due to personal disagreements and difference of opinion.〔Butsch, R. (1937). Tenure of teachers. Teacher Personnel, 7(3), 292-295.〕 By 2010, LIFO was criticized on grounds that "seniority based layoffs result in promising, inexperienced teachers losing their positions, while their less effective, but more senior, peers continue to teach."〔Boyd, D. J., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. H. (2010). Teacher layoffs: An empirical illustration of seniority vs. measures of effectiveness. brief 12.National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/864940729?accountid=8285〕 As of early 2014, 2 states provided that seniority could not be considered when deciding which teachers to layoff, 18 states and the District of Columbia left the layoff criteria to school district discretion, 20 states provided that seniority could be considered among other factors, and 10 states provided that seniority was the sole factor, or one that had to be considered.
== Effects of seniority-prioritized layoffs ==
LIFO has a more severe impact in poor or high minority schools, since those schools tend to have newer and less experienced teachers. In schools where 34% or less of the students receive Free and Reduced meals, more than 82% of teachers have 4 or more years of experience. However, in schools where more than 75% of the student body receives Free and Reduced meals, only 77% of the teachers have more than 4 years of experience.〔U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, "Public School Teacher, BIE School Teacher, and Private School Teacher Data Files," 2007-2008〕 Moreover, in California, it was seen that in schools in the lowest quartile of minority students, only 8 of every 100 teachers had two or less years of teaching whereas in schools with the highest quartile of minority students, 13 of every 100 teachers had two or less years of teaching, meaning that under LIFO-based layoffs, schools with larger minority populations would lose 60% more teachers.〔Sepe, Cristina, and Marguerite Roza. The Disproportionate Impact of Seniority Based Layoffs on Poor, Minority Students. Rep. Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, 2010〕 Finally, teachers in high need areas, such as secondary math and special education, are often less experienced due to the difficulty of recruiting these positions, and districts who adhere strictly to seniority based systems for layoffs face the added burden of recruiting teachers in these areas.〔Goldhaber, Dan and Theobold, Roddy (2010). "Assessing the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs." Center for Education Data & Research, University of Washington-Bothell.〕 In Los Angeles, it was noted that of the hundreds of promising new teachers cut in from the district in 2010 due to LIFO, 190 were in the top fifth overall of teachers in raising math and reading scores.〔Felch, Jason; Song, Jason; and Smith, Doug (2010). "When layoffs come to L.A. schools, performance doesn't count." Los Angeles Times, December 2010.〕
Research indicates that the effectiveness of teachers does not change after the first few years in the classroom.〔Eric Hanushek and Steven G. Rivkin, "The Distribution of Teacher Quality and Implications for Policy." Annual Review of Economics 4 (2012): 7.1-7.27.〕 As a result, the implications of using LIFO rules for layoffs instead of basing layoffs on classroom effectiveness appear huge.〔Goldhaber, Dan and Theobold, Roddy (2010). "Assessing the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs." Center for Education Data & Research, University of Washington-Bothell; Steven Glazerman, Susanna Loeb, Dan Goldhaber, Douglas Staiger, Stephen Raudenbush, and Grover Whitehurst, ''Evaluating Teachers: The Important Role of Value-Added'' (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2010); Donald Boyd, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff, "Teacher Layoffs: An Empirical Illustration of Seniority versus Measures of Effectiveness." ''Education Finance and Policy'' 6, no. 3 (Summer 2011): 439-454.〕 With LIFO, more teachers must be dismissed to meet budgetary targets than with effectiveness-based layoffs because the youngest teachers are the least paid, but the teachers dismissed under the LIFO policy are only slightly below average in effectiveness. An effectiveness-based policy on the other hand leads to dramatic improvements in average teacher quality, and these improvements have lasting effects on students throughout their lives.〔Eric Hanushek, "Valuing teachers: How much is a good teacher worth?" ''Education Next'' 11, no. 3 (Summer 2011); Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff, "The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood," WP17699 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2011).〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「LIFO (education)」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|