Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2011 House Bill 4627: Ban laying off more effective but less senior teachers first (“LIFO”)

Public Act 102 of 2011

  1. Introduced by Rep. Margaret O'Brien (R) on May 10, 2011, to require public schools to make teacher layoff decisions on the basis of whether a teacher is more or less “effective,” and prohibit using seniority as the primary or determining factor (“last in first out,” or LIFO). Also, to allow principals to refuse to accept an "ineffective" teacher assigned to the school, placing the employee on unpaid leave. Evidence of increased student achievement would be the "majority" of the effectiveness judgment. If a current union contract prohibits these criteria, they would only go into effect after it has expired. See also House Bill 4625.
    • Referred to the House Education Committee on May 10, 2011.
      • Reported in the House on May 19, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on June 8, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details, but does not change its substance. This version was defeated in favor of another substitute with more changes. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on June 8, 2011.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Margaret O'Brien (R) on June 8, 2011, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 8, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Shanelle Jackson (D) on June 8, 2011, to clarify that the bill applies to layoff-related decisions, not general staffing ones. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 8, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Roy Schmidt (D) on June 8, 2011, to exempt from the proposed policy teachers who are rated either "effective" or "highly effective." In other words, a school could still lay-off a "highly effective" teacher with less seniority ahead of an "effective" one who has more years on the payroll. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 8, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Kate Segal (D) on June 8, 2011, eliminate the tie-bar of the bill to House Bill 4628, which prohibits this bill from becoming law unless that one does also. HB 4628 would prohibit teacher unions from bargaining over staffing decisions, including assignments, promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs, methods for assessing “effectiveness,” discipline and merit pay systems. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 8, 2011.
  2. Passed 68 to 39 in the House on June 9, 2011, to require public schools to make teacher layoff decisions on the basis of whether a teacher is more or less “effective,” and prohibit using seniority as the primary or determining factor (“last in first out,” or LIFO). Also, to allow principals to refuse to accept an "ineffective" teacher assigned to the school, placing the employee on unpaid leave. The bill would establish an "effectiveness" evaluation system in which an empirical "student growth" standard would count for 50 percent of the rating. If a current union contract prohibits these criteria, they would only go into effect after it has expired.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on June 14, 2011.
    • Referred to the Senate Education Committee on June 14, 2011.
      • Reported in the Senate on June 28, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
        • Amendment offered by Sen. Phil Pavlov (R) on June 30, 2011, to require a proposed gubernatorial review of recommendations made by a proposed state "governor's council on educator effectiveness" to include examining recommendations for how local school districts perform teacher effectiveness ratings. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 30, 2011.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on June 30, 2011, to adopt a version that strips out a House-passed provision allowing principals to refuse to accept an "ineffective" teacher assigned to the school, placing the employee on unpaid leave. Also, among other changes, one establishing a detailed and complex "effectivness" rating system in which a "student acheivement" standard would only gradually be phased-in, and count for 50 percent of the rating, vs. being the "predominant" criteria in the House version. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 30, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Green (R) on June 30, 2011, to impose additional procedural steps before a tenured teacher can be rated as "ineffective" (which under House Bill 4625, if done twice would remove the person's tenure privilege). The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 30, 2011.
  4. Passed 20 to 17 in the Senate on June 30, 2011, to prohibit public schools from using seniority as the primary or determining factor when making layoff or recall decisions (“last in first out,” or LIFO), and prohibit giving preference to a teacher rated "ineffective" over ones rated "minimally effective" or above, according to a detailed and complex rating system. Unlike the House version, principals could not refuse to accept an "ineffective" teacher assigned to the school.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the House on June 30, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Lisa Brown (D) on June 30, 2011, to eliminate the tie-bar of the bill to House Bill 4628, which prohibits this bill from becoming law unless that one does also. HB 4628 would the teachers union from bargaining over staffing decisions, including assignments, promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs, methods for assessing “effectiveness,” discipline and merit pay systems, meaning it could not place obstacles in the way of a school district instituting these measures. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 30, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David E. Rutledge (D) on June 30, 2011, to require public school officials to “take all steps necessary to ensure that pupils who are members of historically underserved groups, such as African-American, Hispanic, Native American, or low-income pupils, are not assigned disproportionately to ineffective teachers”. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 30, 2011.
  6. Passed 64 to 44 in the House on June 30, 2011, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill, which among other things, stripped out a provision allowing a principal to refuse to accept an assigned "ineffective" teacher, and which potentially waters-down the extent to which effectiveness ratings are based on "student acheivement".
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on July 19, 2011.

Comments

Re: 2011 House Bill 4627 (Ban laying off more effective but less senior teachers first (“LIFO”) )  by TaterSalad on November 30, 2011 

Another ban that is now being considered:


 


Coming down the pike:


 


This future legislation by the Democrats will be introduced soon and needs to be exposed to the citizens of Michigan:


 



State Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, is planning to introduce a constitutional amendment banning for-profit schools in Michigan.


Details of the proposal aren’t yet known, but Warren issued a media advisory today indicating she plans to make the announcement during a news conference at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday in Rooms 402 and 403 of the Michigan State Capitol Building in Lansing.


“In October, Republicans pushed legislation that would remove Michigan’s cap on charter schools, essentially opening the doors to for-profit schools and increased privatization of teachers and school workers,” the advisory states. “This constitutional amendment aims to protect our children’s education from being compromised at the expense of corporate profits”…




Re: 2011 House Bill 4627 (Ban laying off more effective but less senior teachers first (“LIFO”) )  by yoop2u on May 18, 2011 

Bad teachers are not protected by good teachers.  Bad teachers are protected by bad administrators who recommend them for tenure or give them good evaluations in the first place.  Administrators in many schools need to grow a spine and fire the bad teachers in their first few years of working - who cares if that bad teacher is "cousin Tom's step-son" who once taught your kid how to play catch.  Who cares if that "bad teacher" is a pretty good coach.  Stop giving them good evaluations and protecting their job!  Tenure is not the problem because a bad teacher can be fired for ANY reason in their first 5 years.  A really good teacher does not suddenly become a bad teacher just because they have earned tenure - they were that way from the very beginning.



Re: 2011 House Bill 4627 (Ban laying off more effective but less senior teachers first (“LIFO”) )  by changeagent on May 12, 2011 

[quote user="lilstoetz"] would work if teachers were able to select their raw materials, business-style. [/quote]


Seems like the wrong analogy to me.  Students are more analogous to customers than raw materials.  Businesses don't choose their customers.  Some of them are wonderful to work with and easy to please, while others are a pain in the ass but are still customers.  Successful businesses manage to satisfy the majority of their customers.  Certainly the type of students a teacher has to deal with comes into consideration but just because the teacher has some difficult students it should not be an excuse for poor performance. 


Let's face it, there are many good teachers out there and there are certainly some bad ones.  I have children in the public school system and I have seen both.  It still baffles me why any good teachers would want to protect the bad teachers but it happens all the time.  We need to hold teachers accountable for their performance and get rid of poor performers.



View More pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.