LAO: A Review of the Teacher Layoff Process in California

8/2/2019 LAO: A Review of the Teacher Layoff Process in California

1/28

A Ree te TeacerLa Prcess Calra

M A C T A y l o r l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T M A r C h 2 2 , 2 0 1 2


2/28

A n L A O R e p O R t

2 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov


3/28

ExECuTivE SummARyReductions to school districts budgets over the past ve years have resulted in a sharp decline in

the teacher workorce, with the number o ull-time teachers decreasing by 32,000 since 2007-08. One

way school districts have reduced their workorce is by laying o sta. Tis has led to an increased

ocus on how the teacher layo process works. Tis report gives an overview o the existing layo

process, evaluates how well the process is working, and makes recommendations or improving its

eectiveness. For our analysis, we distributed a survey to all public school districts in the state asking

them about their implementation o the teacher layo process, used inormation provided by two state

agenciesthe Caliornia Department o Education (CDE) and the Oce o Administrative Hearings

(OAH), and included inormation rom the Caliornia eachers Association (CA).

Districts Are Issuing More Layo Notices Tan Necessary. One o the most signicant problems

with the existing layo process is the notication time line. Te state-imposed layo time line is

disconnected rom both the state budget cycle and the availability o critical local inormation. Because

o this misalignment, the number o teachers that are initially noticed typically ar exceeds the numbero teachers that are actually laid o or the ollowing school year. Moreover, the August option or

laying o additional sta ollowing the start o the states scal year is oen not helpul. Tough this

contingency option is designed to help districts balance their budgets in the summer i the nal state

budget diers signicantly rom the May Revision, it ocially has been activated only a ew times.

Recommend Aligning Layo ime Line With State Budget Process. We recommend changing

the time line to later in the yearto June 1 or initial layo notices and to August 1 or nal

notices. Tis would better align the layo deadlines with the state budget processresulting in

ewer notications unnecessarily issued by school districts because they would have better scal

inormation on which to base their layo determinations. Fewer initial notications, in turn,

would reduce the time and cost invested in conducting the layo process, result in ewer teachers

unnecessarily concerned about losing their job, and minimize the loss o morale in the school

communities aected by layo notices. We also recommend the Legislature replace the existing

August layo option with a rolling emergency layo window. Te window would require a district to

notiy teachers and complete due process activities within 45 days o a major state budget action.

Hearing and Appeals Process Adds Some Value, but Is Costly. Another signicant problem

with the teacher layo process is unnecessary costs incurred by school districts because o

ineciencies in the hearing and appeals process. Te current hearing and appeals process helps

ensure districts implement the states layo process correctly, with OAH assisting districts in

correcting mistakes. However, teachers automatic right to a hearing adds signicant costs withoutadding substantial value. Te hearings are primarily used to check actual mistakes, which could be

achieved between the district, the bargaining unit, and OAH without conducting ormal hearings.

Our survey indicates that districts on average spend roughly $700 per-noticed teacher, with the

largest costs relating to district personnel and legal activities. With the costs estimates derived rom

our survey, we estimate that districts spent about $14 million statewide on layo-related costs in

2010-11.


www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 3


4/28

Recommend Streamlining Hearing and Appeals Process. We recommend eliminating

teachers right to a hearing and replacing the hearings with a streamlined alternate process that

ensures: (1) all relevant inormation is presented to OAH or review and (2) both district and

union personnel have an adequate opportunity to review, comment upon, and dispute each

others inormation. Eliminating hearings would increase the eciency o the layo process whilemaintaining the oversight needed to ensure teachers are laid o correctly according to state law.

State Values Seniority in Layo Process. A more challenging area or the state to address is the

selection criteria used to determine which teachers will be laid o. Current law requires that districts

lay o teachers in inverse seniority order but it provides some exceptions or deviating rom seniority

to protect specialized teachers or to achieve equal protection o the laws. Using seniority on a statewide

basis or laying o sta has some benets. On one hand, it is an objective, standard approach that is

transparent and easy to implement. On the other hand, basing employment decisions on the number

o years served instead o teachers perormance can lead to lower quality o the overall teacher

workorce. Caliornia also is dierent than many other statesthe majority do not prescribe seniority-

based layos but rather allow school districts themselves to decide how to lay o their sta.

Recommend Exploring Alternatives to Seniority. Given the limitations o using seniority as

the primary actor in layo determinations, we recommend exploring statewide alternatives that

could provide districts with the discretion to do what is in the best interest o their students. Ideally

districts would use multiple actors in making layo determinationsactors that result in the least

harm to students, the overall teaching workorce, and the school community. Some alternative

actors districts could consider are student perormance, teacher quality, and contributions to school

community. Many o these actors could be considered at both the local and state level, but some

(such as contributions to school community) might be impractical data collections or the state

to pursue. Nonetheless, the state could play a key role in helping districts develop reliable teacherquality inormation. Specically, it could encourage the CDE to collect and disseminate district best

practices on evaluating teacher perormance.

Recommend Careully Reassessing State Involvement and Expanding Locally Negotiated

Options. As evident rom the above description, state law regarding teacher layos is very

prescriptivenotably more prescriptive than layo policies in many other states. Moving orward,

the state aces dicult trade-os in deciding how involved to remain in local personnel matters.

On the one hand, i the state retains its highly involved role, it can help assure that districts do not

make layo decisions that are arbitrary, biased against individual teachers, or based upon political

or personal motivations. On the other hand, the states existing involvement might be deterring

districts rom taking the time and eort to establish their own layo procedures that are better

aligned with local needs. Moreover, the state recently has become less prescriptive in a number o

areas in the state budget, including education. We recommend the Legislature careully reassess

the need or and benets o its current prescriptive role in local personnel matters. One option or

providing greater local control would be to allow districts and local bargaining units to negotiate

more aspects o the teacher layo process.




5/28

inTRoduCTionin the all o 2011 to all public school districts in the

state asking them about their implementation o

the teacher layo process. Te survey asks a range

o questions regarding the time line districts useto meet state notication deadlines, the selection

criteria districts use to lay o teachers, and the

costs o undergoing the process. Out o about 950

districts statewide, 230 completed a response. We

received responses rom eight o the states ten

largest school districts. In total, the districts that

responded to our survey represent 44 percent o

the states average daily attendance (ADA). Tough

representing a large portion o total ADA, our

survey sample is slightly more representative o

large urban districts. Te survey questions and

results are contained in the appendix at the end o

this report.

Over the past several years, school districts in

Caliornia have experienced ongoing cuts to their

operational budgets and made dicult associated

decisionsincluding reducing their teacherworkorce. One o the primary ways districts are

able to reduce their workorce is by laying o

sta. Under current law, the state sets orth many

aspects o the layo process, including establishing

time lines and procedures or notiying teachers

o layos as well as speciying how teachers may

appeal layo decisions. In this report, we provide

background inormation on the size o Caliornias

teacher workorce, give an overview o the existing

teacher layo process, assess how well the process

is working, and make recommendations or

improving its eectiveness and lowering its costs.

For this report, we use inormation provided by

CDE, OAH, and CA. We also distributed a survey

RECEnT TREndS

Statewide School Funding Reduced 8PercentOver Past Five Years. Programmatic per-pupil

unding is lower today than ve years ago. In

2011-12, per-pupil unding is $7,5808 percent

lower than the 2007-08 level o $8,235. Tis

reduction in school district programmatic

support would have been deeper had it not been

or a substantial amount o one-time ederal aid.

Between early 2009 and the end o 2010, Caliornia

received a total o $7.3 billion in special one-time

ederal aid ($6.1 billion rom the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act and $1.2 billion

rom the Federal Education Jobs Act) that could be

spent over the 2008-09 through 2011-12 period. In

addition to this ederal aid, the state took several

actions to mitigate programmatic reductions,

including deerring certain payments and swapping

certain und sources. Although these ederal andstate actions allowed school districts to save many

teacher jobs, they were not sucient to orestall

teacher layos entirely.

eacher Workorce Also Reduced Signicantly

Over Past Few Years. In response to these unding

reductions, many districts have reduced stang

levels (the largest operational expense in their

budgets). As shown in Figure 1 (see next page), the

size o the states teacher workorce has decreased

by about 32,000 teachers (11 percent) since 2007-08.

While the teacher workorce has been shrinking,

the statewide student population has been generally

steady. Te net eect o these two trends has been

an increase in the number o students per teacher

climbing rom 19.4 in 2007-08 to 20.5 in 2010-11.




6/28

Some Regions Experiencing Deeper eacher

Workorce Reductions. Tough the statewide

teacher workorce has been reduced by 11 percent,

various regions throughout the state have been

experiencing deeper reductionsprimarily because

they are undergoing signicant declines in student

enrollment in addition to budget reductions.

Te vast majority o districts are reducing their

teacher workorce, with 342 districts reducing

their workorce by more than 10 percent since

2007-08. As shown in Figure 2, districts in Los

Angeles County and Solano County, or example,

have reduced their teacher workorce by a weighted

average o 15 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

(Only 2 countiesSan Francisco and Monohave

increased their teacher workorce over this period.)Districts Have Reduced eacher Workorce in

Several Ways. Districts have a ew ways they can

reduce their teacher workorce. In any given year,

districts can rely on retirements and attrition, with

some teachers voluntarily exiting the workorce

and districts choosing not to backll the associated

positions. Districts also

can be proactive in oering

early-retirement incentives.

Providing these incentives

has been a common practice

among districts in the past ewyears (with incentives oered

by roughly 30 percent o

districts). Te early-retirement

option allows districts to

reduce the number o more

senior, more expensive sta

to save more entry-level jobs.

In addition, districts can

reduce their workorce by

laying o staa practice

that has become more

common given recent budget

reductions. From 2009-10 to

2010-11, the size o the teacher workorce declined

by 7.7 percent. Tough precise estimates are not

available, retirements and layos likely accounted

or roughly the same number o job losses, with

attrition accounting or a relatively small number

o losses.Number o Layos Is Unknown. Te CDE

does not collect data on the number o teachers

laid o each year. Te OAH collects data on the

number o districts conducting the layo process

each year. Inormation provided by OAH shows

many districts are undertaking the layo process

roughly one-third o districts issued layo notices

in 2010-11 and about 500 districts conducted

layos in each o the previous two years. Te bulk

o districts responding to our survey reported

undergoing the layo process two or three times in

the past our years. Data collected by CA indicate

that more than 20,000 initial layo notices were

issued statewide in 2010-11 or the 2011-12 school

year, but no agency knows how many teachers

statewide ultimately were laid o and not rehired.

Teacher Workforce Is Shrinking

Full-Time Equivalent Teachers

Figure 1

250,000

260,000

270,000

280,000

290,000

300,000

310,000

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11




7/28

Alameda Stanislaus

SanJoaquin

Calaveras

Amador

Sacramento

Solano

Marin

San Francisco

San Mateo

Santa Cruz

SantaClara

DelNorte

Siskiyou Modoc

Trinity

ShastaLassen

Humboldt

TehamaPlumas

MendocinoGlenn

ButteSierra

Nevada

YubaColusaLake Placer

Sutter

YoloSonoma

Napa

El Dorado

Alpine

Tuolumne

Mariposa

Merced Madera

FresnoSanBenito

Monterey

Kings

Tulare

Inyo

San LuisObispo Kern

Santa Barbara

VenturaLos Angeles

San Bernardino

Orange Riverside

San Diego Imperial

ContraCosta

Mono

Changes in Teacher Workforce Vary Across State

Figure 2

Percent ChangeFrom 2006-07 Through 2010-11

Flat or Growing

Declining Less Than 10 Percent

Declining 10 Percent to 20 Percent

Declining More Than 20 Percent




8/28

ovERviEw o TEAChER LAyo PRoCESS

state-required curriculum modication,

though teacher layos rarely are initiated

or this reason.

State Law Also Prescribes Various Other

Aspects o Layo Process. Current law establishes

the criteria districts are to use in determining

which teachers to lay o. It also sets the t ime line

in which districts are to make initial and nal

layo decisions. Additionally, state law sets orth

an administrative oversight process whereby OAH

is to ensure districts are adhering to state layo

policies. Lastly, i circumstances improve or

school districtseither they receive additional,unexpected revenues or experience higher-than-

projected student enrollmentand they plan to

add ull-time equivalent sta as a result, then they

are required to rehire teachers in seniority order

rom a list o laid o employees. Probationary

teachers (rst- and second-year teachers who

have not yet received permanent status) stay

on the rehire list or 24 months. Permanent

teachers remain on the list or 39 months. Te

layo process or teachers is dierent than layo

procedures or other public education employees

as well as state-employed civil servants, as

discussed in the nearby box.

Four Concerns With Existing Process. In

reviewing the existing layo process, we have our

areas o concern relating to: (1) the time line or

layo notications, (2) the hearing and appeals

process, (3) the selection criteria or making layos,

and (4) the extent o the states involvement. Teremainder o this report is dedicated to examining

each o these issues in turn. We begin with the

area or which we believe changes in state law

could make the most immediate, signicant

improvement.

Layo Process Largely Dictated by State Law.

Districts have two options or structuring their

teacher layo process. Te vast majority o districts

use the state layo process established in 1976. A

ew districts (6 percent) locally negotiate with their

employee bargaining unit certain layo processes

per the Education Employment Relations Act

(EERA) o 1975. Specically EERA allows districts

to negotiate layo procedures or: (1) probationary

teachers or any reason and (2) both probationary

and permanent sta i the district lacks the unds

to support the positions.

State Law Species Under What ConditionsDistricts Can Lay O eachers. Current law

allows districts to lay o teachers in a ew specied

situations.

Districts can lay o teachers i their

student enrollment is declining. Layos

resulting rom declining enrollment are

allowed either when a districts student

count is below the previous two years or

when an interdistrict student transer

agreement is terminated.

State law also allows districts to lay o

teachers i they can show that they need

to reduce a particular kind o service.

Reductions in particular kinds o services

(such as eliminating art programs or

closing an elementary school) are almost

always connected with budget reductions.

Districts have some discretion in deter-

mining which service(s) or program(s)

should be reduced or eliminated in order

to balance their budget.

In addition to these reasons, state law

allows districts to lay o teachers due to a




9/28

TimE LinE oR LAyo noTiiCATionSrom the previous scal year. Tis accelerated

45-day processoen called the August layo

windowmust be complete by August 15. Te

August layo window requires the same basicnotication and hearing activities as the regular

process but on an expedited time line.

dstrcts Scatl oert

Layo Deadlines Precede Key Budget

Deadlines. School districts rely on inormation

provided throughout the state budget cycle to

build their local budgets or the ollowing school

year. wo key steps in the state budget cycle that

inuence districts decisions are the Governors

January budget and May Revision (see Figure 3,

next page). Districts typically use the initial

unding estimates in the Governors January budget

Cpar Teacer La Prcess wt Prcess use r Classe Sta a Cl Serats

Similarities. Some similarities exists in the procedures used to lay o teachers and those used

or classied sta (noncerticated public education employees) and state-employed civil servants

(state employees). For all three groups, the criteria used to determine who is to be laid o is the

same: inverse seniority. Additionally, the state requires the employers o all three groups to provide

substantial advance notice to employeesclassied sta must be noticed 45 days and civil servants

must be noticed 120 days prior to the eective layo date.

Dierences. While there are some similarities, teachers have additional protections that are not

provided to other public employee groups. Tough all must receive advance notice, classied sta

and state employees can be laid o at any time throughout the year whereas school districts typically

only can lay o teachers during the March-through-May period. Te hearing and appeals process

also varies or the three employee groups, with teachers receiving the greatest protections. Classied

sta do not have the right to appeal layo determinations (unless pursuing a ormal grievance),

and no state agency is required to oversee the school districts process in laying o classied sta.By comparison, state employees, similar to teachers, can challenge their seniority determinations

through an appeal, but state employees are not granted a hearing automatically. Te Department o

Personnel Administrationthe state agency that oversees civil servant layo processesinvestigates

each appeal and determines whether it warrants a hearing. (Some state agencies have alternate layo

procedures that may provide dierent due process rights or state employees, though this depends on

whether they have negotiated these alternate procedures in their collective bargaining agreements.)

Crret La

Establishes Early ime Line or Notiying

eachers. School districts are required to

determine the number o layos needed or a given

school year and initially notiy teachers who are

to be laid o by the proceeding March 15. Tey

also must conrm teachers receive the notice and

are inormed o their right to request a hearing.

wo months later, by May 15, school districts are

required to make ocial layo decisions. In special

circumstances, districts have one urther avenue

to lay o additional sta. Assuming a nal state

budget is passed around the beginning o the states

scal year (July 1), districts are able to initiate an

accelerated layo process i their revenue limit

allocations do not increase by at least 2 percent




10/28

Layoff and Budget Time Lines Are Misaligned

Figure 3

January

OctoberNovemberDecember

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

Develop Seniority List

Determine if Layoffs Are Needed

Make Initial Layoff Decisions

Hold Due Process Hearings

Make Final Layoff Decisions

Rehire Teachers

First Day of School

March 15th

Initial Notification

May 15th

Final Notification

August 15th

Contingency Window

January 10th

Governors Budget

Mid MayGovernors May Revision

July 1st

Start of Fiscal Year

PriorSchoolYear

School YearLayoffs AreOperative

School District Layoff Activities State Layoff Time Line State Budget Process




11/28

proposal to determine whether their existing

program can be maintained moving orward. I

state unding projections are such that districts

believe they cannot sustain their current program

into the ollowing school year, then they can

initiate the teacher layo process. School districtsmust make their nal layo decisions about the

same time as the May Revisionprior to the

enactment o the state budget. Given the January

budget proposal,May Revision, and nal budget

package can and oen do dramatically dier,

districts ace a signicant level o uncertainty in

making stang decisions or the coming scal year.

Overall, the state layo deadlines orce districts

to make layo determinations too early without

accurate scal inormation. Additionally, critical

local inormation, such as the number o teachers

that will leave the district or retire, is typically not

available by the time school districts are required to

make layo decisions.

o Protect Against Budget Uncertainties,

Districts Routinely Plan or More Layos Tan

Necessary. Primarily because o the uncertainty

resulting rom the misalignment between the state

budget cycle, the state-imposed layo deadlines,and the timing o critical local inormation,

districts issue signicantly more layo notices than

necessary. As shown in Figure 4 (see next page),

the number o teachers that are initially noticed ar

exceeds the number o teachers that are actually

laid o or the ollowing school year. Out o every

ten teachers that are pink slipped, roughly hal

are given nal layo notices and only two or

three are not rehired prior to the beginning o the

school year. Many districts either rescind almost

allnotices beore the nal notication deadline or

rehire almost all sta aer they receive nal state

budget inormation in the early summer months.

While planning or more layos than necessary is a

problem or school districtsparticularly because

it results in higher costs or each additional teacher

noticed and morale problems or many teachers

unnecessarily told they will lose their jobdistricts

are essentially orced to overnotiy so they can be

assured o being able to balance their budget in the

ollowing scal year.

Contingency Layo Window Is NotParticularly Helpul. In the past our years, the

August layo window has been available only once

(2009-10). Tough revenue limit allocations or

school districts have not increased by more than

2 percent since 2008-09, state budgets enacted

close to or aer August prevented the window

rom opening in 2008-09 and 2010-11, and the

state prohibited the layo window rom being

used in 2011-12. Tough this contingency option

is designed to help districts balance their budgets

in the summer i the nal state budget diers

signicantly rom the May Revision, it ocially has

been operative only a ew times and has not been

used widely.

Rece Al La Te Les

wt State Bet Prcess

Move Layo Deadlines Later in the Year. We

believe the state-imposed layo time line shouldbe better linked with the availability o critical

state and local scal inormation. Specically, we

recommend changing the time lines later in the

yearto June 1 or initial layo notices and to

August 1 or nal notices. Allowing districts to

wait until a couple weeks aer the May Revision to

issue initial layo notications would signicantly

improve the quality o the scal inormation upon

which districts base their decisions and decrease

the number o notications issued. Tis is because

the May Revision oers much better inormation

than the Governors January plan given it is based

upon updated state revenue estimates. Fewer initial

notications, in turn, would reduce the time and

cost invested in conducting the layo process, result

in ewer teachers unnecessarily concerned about




12/28

losing their job, and minimize the loss o morale in

the school communities aected by layo notices.

Balancing Needs o Districts and eachers.

Considerable trade-os exist in setting new layo

deadlines. Establishing later deadlines means

school districts have better scal inormationon which to make their layo determinations,

whereas setting earlier deadlines gives those

teachers ultimately laid o more time to seek

other employment opportunities. We believe a

June 1 deadline or initial notication is reasonable

because it attempts to balance these competing

prioritiesallowing districts to have relatively

solid scal inormation prior to making initial

layo decisions, minimizing the overall number

o teachers aected, and notiying laid o teachers

beore the end o the school year (in most districts)

so they can have the summer months to seek

alternate employment.

Provide Rolling Emergency Layo Window.

We recommend the Legislature replace the existing

August layo window with a rolling emergency

layo window. Unlike the current contingency

option, we recommend establishing a last-resort

window that districts can use at any point in the

school year i the state makes signicant budget

changes. Te window would require a district tonotiy teachers and complete due process activities

within 45 days aer a major state budget action.

Te 45-day emergency layo window only would

become available to districts i the state made

signicant budget reductions rom the May

Revision level. For example, we suggest allowing

districts to use this window i the state makes

reductions o 5 percent or more rom the May

Revision level.

New Rolling Emergency Window Also

Balances Needs o Districts and eachers. Te

state also aces important trade-os when deciding

whether to provide districts the ability to reduce

sta midyear. On the one hand, allowing districts

to reduce their sta throughout the school year

Districts Issue Significantly More Layoff Notices Than Necessary

Figure 4

Note: Illustration based upon our survey data from 2008-09 through 2011-12. Survey data somewhat overrepresentative of districts that recentlyconducted layoff process.

Teacher Workforce

Pink SlippedInitially Noticed Finally Noticed Laid Off

Rehired

Rescinded

About 10 Percent




13/28

could cause disruptions in the classroom or

students and increase the diculty laid o teachers

have nding employment or the rest o the school

year. On the other hand, i districts are aced

with signicant budget uncertainty, as they are

in the 2012-13 budget cycle with potential triggerreductions, an emergency layo window would

allow them to reduce their stang level i needed

to ensure they remain solvent throughout the rest

o the scal year. An emergency layo window also

would help districts reduce initial overnotication

and layos by providing a subsequent opportunity

or adjusting their stang levels. Moreover, ew

other employee groups have similar types o

protections rom midyear layosincluding otheremployee groups that also are entrusted with

providing continuity in services.

hEARing And APPEALS PRoCESSCrret La

Noticed eachers Have Right to a Hearing.

Noticed probationary and permanent teachers havethe right to a due process hearing i contesting

a school districts initial layo notice. Both the

school district and teacher (or the local bargaining

unit i it is legally representing that teacher) may

present relevant inormation that supports each

o their respective cases. Relevant inormation

includes testimony or documentation that supports

or disputes each teachers start date, credential

status, and any other inormation related to the

criteria the district used to issue the preliminarylayo notice. Te hearings are conducted by

OAHs Administrative Law Judges (ALJ)whose

role we discuss in the ollowing section. Te

hearings typically are held rom April to early

May and typically last rom one to two days. Te

district is required to provide substitute teachers

or all teachers that attend a hearing. While most

districts hearings last one or two days, hearings or

larger districts with hundreds or even thousands o

noticed teachers can take several weeks to conduct.

ALJ Oversees How Districts Implement

State Layo Policies. Te OAH is a quasi-judicial

agency that hears administrative disputes or state

and local government agencies in Caliornia. In

education, OAH is involved in addressing disputes

relating to special education, teacher layos, and

teacher dismissals (as one participant o a three-

member panel). Its current role in the teacher layo

process is to review school districts implementation

o state layo policyensuring policy is adequately

applied and both school districts and teachers have

an opportunity to present relevant inormation

as well as review and dispute the other partys

inormation. School districts are required to

submit all applicable inormation (seniority list,

governing board-approved resolutions on services

that will be reduced, and tie-breaking and skipping

criteria) to the ALJ and set up a hearing date with a

preliminary estimate o the number o teachers thatwill be present at the hearing. Te ALJ conducts the

hearing and has until May 7 to provide its advisory

recommendation to the school districts governing

board regarding which teachers can be laid o

legally. Te governing board can then accept or

reject the ALJs recommendation, with the board

required to implement nal layos by May 15.

Prcess As Se vale bt is Cstl

ALJ Provides Administrative Support and

Oversight o District Actions. In implementing

the states layo process, districts sometimes

make mistakes. For example, districts can make

mistakes identiying employee start dates,

documenting teacher credentials or specializations,

or interpreting state-allowable selection criteria.




14/28

While certain mistakes, such as incorrect

employee start dates and credential status, are

administrative and easily corrected, more serious

mistakes tend to occur when districts try to

interpret state law regarding allowable selection

criteria. Districts that are implementing thisprocess or the rst time tend to make more

mistakes. In these cases, ALJ oversight tends to be

more valuable in helping ensure that all teachers

are laid o correctly. For those districts that have

conducted this process or a number o years,

such that they are highly experienced in building

and maintaining their seniority list as well as

their layo criteria, the administrative oversight

process takes considerably less time but still

might be helping to ensure that state layo law is

implemented appropriately.

ALJ and School Districts end to Agree on

Layo Determinations. While districts do make

some mistakes, the vast majority o them report

that the ALJs layo recommendations are rarely

or never dierent rom their own initial layo

determinations. Furthermore, districts oen meet

with their local bargaining unit prior to or during

the hearings to discuss relevant inormation andresolve mistakes, though this is highly dependent

on the relationship between the districts and

the local bargaining units. Te vast majority o

districts (95 percent) report resolving most o

their mistakes prior to the hearings. In the cases

wherein the majority o mistakes are worked out

between the district and bargaining unit, the ALJs

oversight through the ormal hearing does not add

much value. For these districts, the hearings are an

unnecessary investment o time and resources.

Administrative Process Is Costly. State law

requires that school districts pay or the costs

associated with laying o sta. Districts incur a

variety o costs, including (1) notication mailings;

(2) legal and AJL costs; (3) district personnel

costs, such as time spent by human resources

directors, support sta, and other administrators

in preparing and implementing layo activities;

and (4) substitute costs to replace teachers that

participate in hearings or other layo activities (see

Figure 5). Our survey indicates that districts on

average spend roughly $700 per-noticed teacher,with the largest costs relating to district personnel

and legal activities. In the layo process held

in 2010-11 or reductions in the 2011-12 school

year, 370 districts issued over 20,000 initial layo

notices. With the costs estimates derived rom

our survey, we estimate that districts spent about

$14 million statewide on layo-related costs.

Rece Streal

Astrate Prcess

Eliminate eachers Right to a Hearing.

Te hearing aspect o the process does not add

substantial value especially because mistakes on

the seniority list could be resolved between all

parties prior to the hearings. Conducting ormal

hearings to check actual mistakeswhat happens

in the majority o casesis unnecessary and

costly. We recommend the state eliminate teachers

right to a hearing but retain the ALJs oversight inthe process. Tough we recommend eliminating

Figure 5

Layoff Process Has High

Personnel and Legal Costsa

Mailings

Legal Costs

District Personnel

Substitute Teacher Costs

5%

$0.7

34%

$4.8

15%

$2.1

46%

$6.5

a Reflects estimates based on our survey of districtsper-noticed-teacher costs in the 2010-11 layoff process.

(Dollars in Millions)




15/28

ormal hearings, we recommend the state establish

a streamlined alternate process that ensures: (1) all

relevant inormation is presented to the ALJ or

review and (2) both parties have an adequate

opportunity to review, comment upon, and dispute

each others inormation.Would Lower Costs Especially or Larger

Districts, Increase Efciencies Overall. While

some o the costs associated with the layo process

are unavoidable (such as district personnel costs

associated with developing the seniority list),

conducting hearings adds unnecessary costs and

consumes considerable sta time (both or district

and union personnel). Eliminating hearings

would increase the eciency o the layo process

while maintaining the oversight needed to ensure

teachers are laid o correctly according to state

law. For larger districts, whose hearings can lastor weeks, the potential time and cost savings o

eliminating hearings are substantial. For medium

and smaller districts, that typically conduct

hearings lasting one or two days, associated time

and cost savings would be less but still reect some

scal relie.

SELECTion CRiTERiACrret La

Inverse-Seniority Order Is Required, Results

in a Last-Hired, First-Fired Policy. State law

requires that districts lay o teachers in inverse

seniority order. Tat is, the last teachers hired in

the districtthose having the least seniorityare

rst to be laid o. Te state also species that no

junior employee can be retained i a more senior

employee is certicated or competent to teach in

that position. For example, a district may decide

to eliminate its physical education program but

all teachers working within that program might

not be laid o. I one o those teachers is more

senior and credentialed to teach in any other

subject, or example math, he or she can replace

a junior employee whose math position was not

being considered or elimination. Tis practice is

commonly known as bumping, whereby moresenior employees bump junior employees down the

seniority list because the senior teacher is able to

teach a junior teachers course.

Districts Currently Have Some Discretion to

Deviate From Seniority Order. Tough the state

requires inverse-seniority order as the primary

criteria or laying o sta, it allows districts to

deviate rom seniority or three specied reasons.

I two or more employees started with the

district on the exact same date, the district

has the right to develop standard criteria

solely based on the districts and students

needs.

I the district demonstrates a need orspecialized services that require a specic

course o study, special training or

experience (such as special education or

speech pathologists), it may develop a system

that gives higher priorities to teachers with

these credentials or types o experience.

Te state also allows deviating rom seniority

or maintaining or achieving compliance

with constitutional requirements related toequal protection o the laws.

Breaking ies Amongst Employees With

the Same Start Date. Virtually all districts must

break ties amongst employeesespecially because

districts oen must ocus on groups o employees

that started around the same time. Some districts




16/28

use random number assignment to decide which

employees with the exact same start date will be

laid o. Te majority o districts, however, use

more rened criteria. As shown by the dark bars in

Figure 6, our survey indicates districts commonly

break ties by retaining teachers who have multiplecredentials and/or a language specialization.

Skipping Specialized Junior Employees. Te

majority o districts in our survey also report

developing criteria to skip junior teachers with

specialized credentials or experience. State law

allows school districts to retain certain junior

employees i the district can prove certain types o

trained and experienced teachers meet a specic

need within the district. Te most common types o

teachers protected under this skipping criteria are

special education teachers and language specialists

(see the light bars in Figure 6). Whereas almost all

survey respondents develop tie-breaking criteria

(94 percent), about two-thirds o survey respondents

deviated rom seniority to skip junior employees.

Using Equal Protection Clause. Chapter 498,

Statutes o 1983 (SB 813, Hart), amended the

original 1976 teacher layo statute to allow

districts to deviate rom seniority-based layos

or purposes o maintaining and achieving

compliance with constitutional requirementsrelated to equal protection o the laws. When

this clause was added, the provision was intended

primarily to ensure that the teaching orce reects

the multicultural makeup o the state. Since

Proposition 209 (approved by voters in 1996)

constitutionally banned discrimination against or

preerential treatment o any individual or group

on the basis o race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national

origin in public employmentincluding public

education employmenta district no longer can

skip certain teachers during the layo process in an

eort to maintain cultural diversity.

More Recent Interpretation o Equal

Protection Clause. Districts recently have begun

to use the equal protection provision to skip

Equal protection of the laws

Math or science specialization/credential/certification

Specialized training/experience in high-need program

Special education credential/certification

Language specialization/credential/certification

Multiple credentials

Criteria School Districts Use When Breaking Ties and Skipping Junior Teachers

Tie-Breaking

Skipping

10% 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent of Respondents

Figure 6




17/28

certain teachers employed at certain schools

serving disadvantaged students. In some instances,

seniority-based layos result in some schools

laying o a signicant proportion o their teachers.

Some public advocates have raised concern that

such high proportions o layos in these schools,coupled with other educational disadvantages,

cause major disruption or students and the quality

and continuity o their education program

threatening students equal protection o the laws.

Few Applications o Clause to Date. O the

districts we surveyed, very ew report exploring

their discretion to deviate rom seniority or the

purpose o equal protection o the laws. Only

ve districts reported having used this discretion

in developing criteria to break ties amongst

employees with the same start date. Another our

reported developing skipping criteria or this

purpose. For layos operative in the 2012-13, one

district to date has ventured in this direction. San

Francisco Unied School District (SFUSD) recently

conducted their rst round o layo determinations

and used the equal protection clause to protect

junior teachers in 14 schools they classiy as

having high-need students with low academicperormance. (Te ALJ will review whether SFUSD

adequately implemented state layo law in the

coming weeks.)

State vales Sert La Prcess

Some Benets to Using Seniority to Determine

Layos . . . Using seniority on a statewide basis or

laying o sta has some benets. Seniority is an

objective, standard approach that is transparent

and easy to implement. All parties involved clearly

know what inormation is used to make layo

determinations. Disagreements can be based only

on actual errorsor example, a district and

employee disputing the day the employee ocially

started paid service with the school district.

Seniority also can serve as a rough proxy or

teacher quality, with rst- and second-year teachers

less eective, on average, than more experienced

teachers.

. . . But Seniority Has Signicant Drawbacks.

Using seniority, however, has a number o

signicant drawbacks. Basing employmentdecisions on the number o years served instead

o employees productivity and perormance

can lead to lower quality o the overall teacher

workorce. State law allows school districts to

adopt layo practices that are in the best interest

o students only when breaking start-date ties

amongst employees. In all other cases, state law

values the protection o teachers who have served

the district or many years and ignores how well

teachers have served. While it is generally true

that newer teachers are less eective than more

experienced teachers, not all new teachers are the

least eective. In act, the ew academic studies

done on comparing layos based on perormance

rather than on seniority show little overlap exists

between the teachers who would be laid o under

strict perormance criteria versus seniority criteria.

Te current seniority-based layo policy also

causes disruption in schools. As we previouslymentioned, senior employees are able to bump

junior employees at dierent school sites and

in dierent positions. Because o this, position

eliminations in one school usually aect a number

o school communities and can disrupt sta teams

throughout the district.

Caliornia State Law Is More Prescriptive

Tan Many Other States. Whereas 33 states allow

their local education agencies (LEAs) to develop

their own layo criteria, Caliorniaalong with

13 other statesprescribe seniority as the primary

criteria districts must use to lay o personnel.

In contrast, three states (Arizona, Colorado,

and Oklahoma) require their LEAs to include

teacher perormance as a actor in making layo

determinations.




18/28

Rece Eplr Alterates t

Sert-Base La Crtera

Explore Alternatives. Given the limitations

o using seniority as the primary actor in layo

determinations, we recommend the state explore

alternatives that could provide districts with the

discretion to do what is in the best interest o their

students. Ideally, districts would use multiple

actors in making layo determinationsactors

that result in the least harm to students, the overall

teaching workorce, and the school community.

Some alternative actors districts could consider

are: student perormance, teacher quality,

classroom management, teacher attendance and

truancy, leadership roles, contributions to schoolcommunity, and degrees and specializations.

Consideration o such actors would help school

districts retain their highest quality teachers.

Virtually All o Tese Alternatives Currently

Are Impractical. Many o these actors could be

considered at both the local and state level, but

their statewide application currently is impractical.

Tis is because districts have varying capacities to

maintain inormation on many o these actors,

with teacher evaluation and data collection

practices varying throughout the state. Whereas

some districts have robust data and evaluation

systems that could enable them to use perormance

evaluations objectively and airly in making

important personnel decisions, many districts do

not have such well-developed systems. Moreover,

the state only collects inormation on a ew o

these actors and some data collections (such as

contributions to school community) ultimately

might be impractical or the state to pursue.Student perormance data, on the other hand,

already are collected at the state level and teacher

quality data could be pursued with statewide

benets beyond providing inormation to improve

the teacher layo process (such as better investment

o the states proessional development unds and

evaluation o teacher preparation programs).

Finding Better Statewide Indicators or

eacher Quality as an Alternative to Seniority.

I the state could more condently rely on teacher

quality inormation rom districts, it might be able

to move in the direction o an improved statewide

teacher layo process using teacher quality as the

primary criteria or layo determinations. Te state

could play a key role in helping districts develop

reliable teacher quality inormation. Specically, it

could encourage CDE to collect and disseminate

district best practices on evaluating teacher

perormance. Sharing best practices inormationrom districts that have pioneered work in this

area likely would have long-term benets or many

school districts that currently do not have the

capacity to evaluate their teachers robustly.

STATE invoLvEmEnT in LoCAL LAyo dECiSionSCrret La

State Assertive in eacher Layo Policy

and Other Local Personnel Matters. Given that

very ew districts have negotiated layo terms in

their teachers contracts, the state layo process

has become the de facto policy or the majority

o school districts. As described in the overview

section, the state prescribes the conditions

under which districts can lay o sta, when

they must notice sta, the criteria they must usein determining who to lay o, and lastly how

they must rehire teachers i their nancial or

enrollment circumstances improve. Te states

role in layo policy is not an exception. Te state

also asserts a relatively strong role in other local

personnel matters, including teacher assignments,




19/28

compensation, and credentialing. In layo

policy, Caliornia is somewhat more prescriptive

than other states, with the majority o states

allowing districts more latitude in making layo

determinations.

State Law Contains Both State and LocalProtections or eachers. While the state plays an

assertive role in establishing a uniorm statewide

layo policy, it also provides protection o teachers

rights at the local level. Te EERA established

teacher layo policy as a mandatory negotiable

topic under certain circumstances. Tat is, a school

district and local bargaining unit must engage in

good-aith negotiations and mutually agree on

procedures and criteria beore a district can initiate

a locally designed layo process. School districts

and teacher unions largely have deerred to the

state layo process, which provides signicant

protections or teachers, but state law is designed

to protect teachers whether the state process or a

locally developed process is used.

dfclt Trae-os dec State Rle

State Involvement Helps Provide Uniorm

System. Determining personnel policies at the statelevel can ensure that all school districts adhere

to a uniorm set o rules. Currently, the states

layo policy can help ensure that districts do not

make layo decisions that are arbitrary. State law

also requires school districts to use only objective

criteria when breaking ties, skipping, and bumping

teachers.

State Control Might Be Unnecessarily

Restrictive. By having a one-size-ts-all layo

policy, the state, however, could be unnecessarily

restraining districts rom craing better practices

suited or their particular teacher and student

populations. Given that EERA provides protection

o teachers rights regarding layos through the

collective bargaining process, the states policy may

be unnecessarily restrictive. Consequently, it could

be preventing more requent and thoughtul negoti-

ations on this topic at the local level. Moreover, it is

not clear that a state-imposed process is necessary

to prevent undesired local district behavior. Some

o the states primary goals in the layo process

are to prevent teachers rom being unnecessarilylaid o, provide teachers with early inormation,

and protect students rom midyear disruptions.

Tese state values appear closely aligned with

district goals in building their education program.

Currently, districts have strong incentives not

to take disruptive midyear actions that would

negatively impact their studentsincluding laying

o teachers and shufing students to dierent

classes while the school year is in progress.

Rece Eplr oter opts

Careully Assess rade-Os Between State

Involvement and Local Flexibility in Personnel

Matters. Te state aces dicult trade-os in

deciding how involved it should remain in local

personnel matters. I the state retains its current

prescriptive role, it can help ensure that districts do

not make layo decisions that are arbitrary, biased

against individual teachers, or based upon politicalor personal motivations. On the other hand, the

state recently has moved in the opposite direction

in a number o areas, including education. In

February 2009, the state removed many require-

ments associated with education categorical

programs. Further moving in this direction, the

Governor this year has proposed undamentally

restructuring how the state unds schools and

providing districts signicantly more exibility

and local discretion in structuring their education

programs. Te state also recently has shied certain

state responsibilities to counties and cities in a

number o other areas o the state budget, including

criminal justice, mental health and substance abuse

programs, oster care, and child welare services.

Along with these undamental changes to the




20/28

services the state provides and the requirements

it chooses to impose on local governments, we

recommend the Legislature careully reassess the

need or and benets o its current prescriptive role

in school district personnel matters.

Consider Expanding Locally NegotiatedOptions.In addition, we recommend the state

consider expanding locally negotiated options

under EERA to allow school districts and local

bargaining units to negotiate the entire layo

process or any certicated sta under any appli-

cable circumstance. Because EERA is somewhat

restrictive in allowing districts and unions to

negotiate the layo process in only limited circum-

stances, districts and unions currently might

be deterred rom taking the time and eort to

establish their own layo procedures. Tat is, under

current law, i districts did collectively bargain

layo procedures in the ew allowable areas, theylikely would be required to implement one set o

layo procedures in those areas and the state set

o layo procedures in all other cases. Negotiating

such a biurcated process is unnecessarily compli-

cated. Districts and unions could avoid this compli-

cation i allowed to negotiate the layo process or

all applicable situations.

SummARyFigure 7 summarizes our major ndings and

recommendations.

Recommendations Could Provide Immediate

Benets . . . Tough initial notices already have

been sent to teachers who might be laid o or the

coming school year, some o our recommendations

could improve the process almost immediately.

Tough the March 15 date has passed, the

Legislature could consider moving the nalnotication date rom May 15 to our recommended

date o August 1. Tis would give districts the

benet o having inormation on the nal state

budget package prior to nalizing their layo

decisions. Moreover, i the Legislature adopted

our recommendation to replace the August layo

window with a rolling emergency window, school

districts might nd that they could lay o ewer

teachers nowknowing that a post-election

window subsequently could be available.

. . . And Lasting Benets. Tough some o

our recommendations could provide immediate

benets, our package o recommendations is

designed to improve the layo process on a lasting

basis. As many districts continue to experience

declining enrollment, some districts continue to

ace scal diculties, and the economy continues

to experience booms and busts, teacher layos

will remain a common issue o concern in thecoming years. By changing notication deadlines,

streamlining the administrative oversight process,

and exploring alternatives to seniority-based

layos, we believe the state would improve the

existing layo system signicantly. Furthermore,

we think the overall education system could benet

moving orward rom a reassessment o the states

role in local personnel matters, with the state

dedicating its eorts to those limited areas in which

school districts lack suciently strong incentives to

uphold statewide public values.




21/28

Figure 7

Summary of LAO Findings and Recommendations

Layoff Provision Current Law Finding Recommendation

Time Line or Layo

Notications

Requires initial layo

notications to be distributed

by March 15 and layos to beimplemented by May 15.

Districts signicantly over notiy.

Contingency layo window

in August is not particularlyhelpul.

Authorize June 1 as deadline or

initial notications and August 1

or nal layos.

Provide a rolling, 45-day

emergency layo window.

Hearing and AppealsProcess

Requires administrativeoversight o districts

implementation o state layopolicy and provides teachers the

right to a hearing.

Teachers receive moreprotections than other public

employee groups.

Administrative process or lay-ing o teachers adds some

value but is costly.

Replace teachers right to auto-matic hearing with a streamlined

alternate process that ensures:(1) all relevant inormation is

presented to the Oce o

Administrative Hearings orreview and (2) both district and

bargaining unit have opportunityto review inormation.

Selection Criteria Requires inverse-seniority order,

resulting in a last-hired,rst-red policy.

Allows districts some discretion

to deviate rom seniority order.

The selection criteria specied

in Caliornia state law is moreprescriptive than many otherstates.

State values seniority more

than alternative criteria in layoprocess.

Explore alternatives to

seniority-based layos.

Encourage CaliorniaDepartment o Education to

collect and disseminate district

best practices on evaluatingteacher perormance.

State Involvement Leads to state involvement

in virtually all districts layopractices.

Contains both state and local

protections or teachers.

State involvement might be

ensuring air and uniormsystem, but it also might be

unnecessarily restrictive.

Assess trade-os between state

involvement and local fexibilityin personnel matters.

Consider expanding locally

negotiated options.




22/28




23/28

APPEndix

1. From the list below, please select each o the years in which your district undertook a Reduction in

Force (RIF) teacher layo process. (For example, checking the 2008-09 box indicates your district

undertook a layo process in 2007-08 in preparation or the 2008-09 school year.)

Response

Percent of Respondents

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Districtsthatundertooktheteacherlayoffprocess

47% 64% 53% 35%

Reasons Districts Needed to Lay Off TeachersPercent of

Respondents

Reductioninaparticularkindofservice 63%

Decliningenrollment 48

Decliningenrollmentspecicallyduetotheterminationofaninterdistricttransferagreement

3

Modicationtostate-requiredcurriculum 1

2. I your district undertook a RIF process in any o the past our years, select the primary reason(s)

your district needed to lay o teachers. Please select all that apply.

Decision Most Common Time in the School YearPercent of

Respondents

Developedsenioritylist September-Decemberofprior

(planning)schoolyear44%

Firstdeterminedthatlayoffswereneeded Januaryofpriorschoolyear 49

Determinedparticularservicestoreduce Januaryofpriorschoolyear 40

Determinedskippingandtie-breakingcriteria Februaryofpriorschoolyear 39

Finalizedhowmanylayoffnoticestoissue Februaryofpriorschoolyear 50Heldadministrationlawjudge(ALJ)hearings Aprilofpriorschoolyear 47

MadenalschoolboarddecisionsbasedonALJrecommendations

Mayofpriorschoolyear 46

Laidoffteachers Mayofpriorschoolyear 46

Beganrehiring July-Augustbeforeaffectedschoolyear

(inwhichlayoffsareeffective)48

Completedrehiring July-Augustbeforeaffectedschoolyear(inwhichlayoffsareeffective)

50

3. I your district undertook a RIF process in any o the past our years, please select the month(s) in

which your district typically made each o the ollowing RIF decisions.


AppenDIX


24/28

CriteriaPercent of

Respondents

Hasaspecialeducationcredentialand/orcertication. 51%Hasalanguagespecialization-credentialand/orcertication(forexample,BCLAD). 35

None,mydistrictdoesnotdeviatefromseniorityorder. 27

Hasmultiplecredentials. 26

Hasspecializedtrainingand/orexperienceinhigh-needprogram(forexample,AP,AVID

program,GATEcertication).25

Hasamath/sciencesspecialization-credentialand/orcertication. 24

Needstoberetainedtoensureequalprotection(forexample,thejunioremployeeteachesina

severelyunderperformingand/orhigh-povertyschool).

2

BCLAD=Bilingual,Crosscultural,Language,andAcademicDevelopment;AP=AdvancedPlacement;AVID=AdvancementViaIndividualDetermination;andGATE=GiftedandTalentedEducation.

4. I your district has deviated rom implementing layos in order o seniority, please select all o the

criteria your district typically has used to skip any junior employees. Te junior employee:

CriteriaPercent of

Respondents

Hasmultiplecredentials. 77%

Hasalanguagespecialization-credentialand/orcertication(forexample,BCLAD). 69

Hasaspecialeducationcredentialand/orcertication. 49

Hasspecializedtrainingand/orexperienceinhigh-needprogram(forexample,AP,AVIDprogram,GATEcertication).

36

Hasamath/sciencesspecialization-credentialand/orcertication. 31

None,mydistrictdidnotnotifytwoormoreemployeesthatbeganpaidserviceonthesamedate. 6

Needstoberetainedtoensureequalprotection(forexample,thejunioremployeeteachesinaseverelyunderperformingand/orhigh-povertyschool).

3

BCLAD=Bilingual,Crosscultural,Language,andAcademicDevelopment;AP=AdvancedPlacement;AVID=AdvancementViaIndividualDetermination;andGATE=GiftedandTalentedEducation.

5. I two or more employees began paid service on the same date, please select all o the criteria your

district has typically used to break service-time ties. One employee:

Response Days

Averagenumberofdays 1.4

Averagenumberofdaysfornineverylargedistricts

8.6

Range 0-45

6. How many days did your administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing(s) last? Please include the totalnumber o days or the most recent RIF process.


AppenDIX


25/28

ResponsePercent ofTeachers

Averagepercentageofteachersthatattendedand/ortestiedatALJhearing

37%

Averageweightedbynumberofinitiallynoticedteachers 32

ALJ=administrativelawjudge.

7. Approximately what percentage o initially noticed teachers attended and/or testied at your ALJ

hearing(s)? Please include the percentage or the most recent RIF process.

ResponsePercent of

Cases

AveragepercentageofcasesresolvedpriortoALJhearings 41%

Averageweightedbynumberofinitiallynoticedteachers 25

ALJ=administrativelawjudge.

8. Approximately what percentage o cases (notications) were resolved prior to your ALJ hearing(s)?

Please include the percentage or the most recent RIF process.

ResponsePercent of

Respondents

Clericalerrorsonthesenioritylistareresolvedpriortothehearings. 95%

Clericalerrorsonthesenioritylistareresolvedduringthehearings. 5

Mydistricthasdevelopeditssenioritylistoverthepastseveralyears. 96

Mydistrictjustdevelopeditssenioritylistthisyear. 4

Mydistrictslocalbargainingunittypicallyminimizesthenumberofcasescontestedand/orteacherstestifyingduringthehearings.

58

Mydistrictslocalbargainingunittypicallycontestsmostnoticationsand/orrequestsmost

notiedteacherstoattend/testifyduringthehearings.

42

9. For each o the ollowing pairs o statements, please select the one that best reects the situation

within your district even i neither is exactly right.


AppenDIX


26/28

ResponsePercent of

Respondents

Never 65%

Rarely 28

Sometimes 6

Always 1

10. Based on your districts experience with teacher layos over the past our years, how oen are the

ALJs recommendations dierent rom your districts initial layo determinations?

ResponsePercent of

Respondents

Never 90%

Rarely 8

Sometimes 1

Often 1

11. Based on your districts experience with teacher layos over the past our years, how oen does

your governing board reject the ALJs recommendations?

Year

Percent of AllTeachers Initially

Noticed

Percent of InitiallyNoticed Teachers

Laid OffPercent of Laid OffTeachers Rehired

2008-09 11% 47% 43%

2009-10 9 47 66

2010-11 11 49 53

2011-12 4 60 96

Overfouryears9 49 57

12. For each o the years listed below, please estimate the number o ull-time equivalent teachers

involved in each stage o your districts RIF process.


AppenDIX


27/28

Cost

Per-Noticed-Teacher Cost

(In Dollars)

Estimateofdistrictpersonnelcosts(includingcostsassociatedwithtimespentbyhuman

resourcesdirectors,supportstaff,andotheradministratorsinpreparingandimplementing

theRIFprocess)

$324

Estimateoflegalfees/costs 244

Estimateofsubstituteteachercosts(toreplaceteachersthatparticipateinhearingsorotherRIFactivities)

104

Estimateofcostsassociatedwithnoticationmailings(includingpreparationformailing) 34

Total $706

RIF=ReductioninForce.

13. Please provide ballpark estimates o the costs associated with the ollowing activities or your most

recent RIF process.


AppenDIX


28/28

LAo PblcatsT pt wa ppad b Jm etada ad wd b Jf Ku. T lat Aat ofc (lAo) a

pata fc tat pd ca ad pc fmat ad adc t t latu.

T qut pubcat ca (916) 445-4656. T pt ad t, a w a a -ma ubcpt c,

a aaab t lAo wbt at www.a.ca.. T lAo catd at 925 l stt, sut 1000,

sacamt, CA 95814.


Documents

LAO: A Review of the Teacher Layoff Process in California