A California judge’s ruling last week could be a first step toward giving public school administrators more flexibility in how they manage teaching staff, which could end up helping students by keeping the best teachers in the classroom.

At issue is the common union rule requiring any staff reductions be based on seniority. The “last-in, first-out” rule mandated in most teacher contracts ties the hands of school administrators in a senseless way that can also be harmful to children.

In the California case, the plaintiffs were nine public school students who claimed the last-hired, first-fired seniority system resulted in poor teachers being retained and often transferred to inner-city schools where poor children already face many challenges in getting a good education.

Judge Rolf Treu of Los Angeles agreed with their claims and issued a scathing ruling, blasting the state law that gives school teachers tenure, essentially lifetime jobs, after only 18 months in the classroom. In his ruling, he wrote “the evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”

Part of the evidence he found compelling, even shocking, is that under the current system it can take as long as 10 years and $450,000 in legal costs to get rid of a poor teacher.

As a result, school administrators, despite knowing they have ineffective teachers on the payroll, just accept them and often transfer them to schools where parents apparently are less likely to object or raise a fuss.

The New York Times, certainly no foe of organized labor, published an editorial supporting the judge’s ruling, and criticizing both tenure that is granted too quickly and automatically — before a teacher can prove competence in the classroom. The Times also took issue with laws that make it “virtually impossible to fire even the worst of them (teachers).”

Teachers’ unions and their supporters immediately blasted the judge’s ruling, describing it as an attempt to destroy unions and disrespect teachers. But the judge’s ruling is neither. It is simply a criticism of the current system — and argues for a longer and more substantive period of teacher evaluation before tenure is granted, say three or five years. It also suggests ending the last-hired, first-fired policy of teacher layoffs and instead using some criteria based on teacher competence.

Imagine a small-business owner, a store manager or the coach of a professional sports team operating on the same “last hired, first fired” principle. It would make no sense to force the business owner, manager or coach to disregard the relative talents of his or her employees when considering who will be let go when layoffs are necessary.

School administrators know who the better teachers in their schools are; so do students and parents. It’s also clear to most people who the least effective teachers are, yet union rules require that young, recently hired teachers are let go before anyone with more years in the classroom, regardless of talent or effectiveness, is laid off.

As the Times notes, the judge’s ruling is being examined in other states and “opens a new chapter in the equal education struggle.” The judge found the old tenure rules unconstitutional, tying his ruling to the Brown v Board of Education decision over separate schools for black and white children.

The judge’s ruling should be a wake-up call to teachers unions to reform tenure policies, to build in a longer period of evaluation before tenure is granted and to make it easier to get rid of poor teachers. Nobody is suggesting teachers should be fired for no cause or because of a personality conflict with administrators. They should be protected from unjust firing. But the last-hired, first-fired policy cannot be defended by anyone interested in maintaining the highest quality teachers in schools.

Again the Times was right to conclude that teacher unions “can either work to change the anachronistic policies cited by the court or they will have change thrust upon them.”

It’s time to talk about reasonable changes to the tenure system and how teacher layoffs are handled. What it’s not time for is name calling or hysterical claims.