BUMPING HR: GIVING PRINCIPALS MORE SAY OVER STAFFING

Ω

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has released a policy brief, BUMPING HR: GIVING PRINCIPALS MORE SAY OVER STAFFING that identifies the contractual and institutional obstacles that stand in the way of principals having the authority to determine their staffs. These policies not only prevent schools from acquiring effective teachers; in some cases, they incur avoidable financial costs. Neither is good for students. The factors limiting principals’ autonomy include:

• Centralized hiring. In most districts, the human resources office controls the hiring process, determining whom to recruit and hire and where to place teachers. Principals, at most, are given the opportunity to voice their preferences.

• Inadequate evaluations. Teachers in most districts are not regularly, or sufficiently, evaluated, meaning that evaluations can only play a minor role in personnel decisions, when they should be paramount. It is seniority, not performance, that decides the movement of teachers within the district.

• Contractual obligations. Most teacher contracts stipulate that, if a teacher loses her current assignment—because of a shift in the student population, for example—the district has to find her a new assignment, regardless of whether another school wants to accept the teacher.

Compounding the problem is that most state laws limit the reasons districts can dismiss a teacher, and being without a classroom assignment is not one of them. Districts are left with little choice but to either assign teachers to positions or keep them on the payroll, sometimes for years, even if they aren’t teaching.

In preparing this brief, NCTQ studied district and state regulations found in its TR3 database, which covers 101 large districts nationwide. The brief identifies and analyzes those policies relevant to teacher assignment and transfer, and follows up with a list of recommended policy changes that would ensure principal autonomy in staffing decisions. Those changes, with examples of how they’re currently practiced in some districts, include:

• Right of refusal. A California law gives principals at low-performing schools the right to refuse teachers assigned to their building, thus granting them the authority to seek alternative candidates in trying to build effective staffs.

• No guarantees. School districts should not guarantee a teacher a job for life, seeing as student interests are paramount. Accordingly, excessed teachers—those laid off due to staff downsizing—should be given no more than a year to find a new position, with the district providing support, such as hiring fairs and counseling. If, after a year, a new job is not found, the teacher should be placed on unpaid leave (Colorado’s practice), if not terminated (as is the practice in Chicago and Washington, D.C.).

• Adding teacher performance to the equation. Improving transfer policies goes hand in hand with improving evaluation policies. Washington, D.C., for example, accounts for a school’s needs and a teacher’s performance when making excessing decisions. Instead of the central office, a team of teachers at each school, along with the principal, decides which positions will be cut, based on the following criteria:

- Previous year’s final evaluation (50%)
- Unique skills and qualifications (20%)
- Other contributions to the local education program (20%)
- Length of service (10%)

• No more passing the buck. The Palm Beach County, Florida, district challenges those principals who try to move poor-performing teachers from their schools, a popular strategy known as the “dance of the lemons.” Seniority is used to identify teachers for excessing, but those with “unsatisfactory” evaluations are prohibited from transferring. In addition, if an excessed teacher exhibits performance problems during the first year of a new assignment, she can be returned to the principal who previously rated the teacher as “satisfactory.” Montgomery County, Maryland, takes a similar tack, forcing principals, during district meetings, to select from among excessed teachers and openly discuss with their supervisors which arrangements would ensure that no one school has a disproportionate share of such teachers.