The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure

7/27/2019 The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure

1/16

E S S A Y

ADVANCING LIBERTY

WITH RESPONSIBILITY

BY PROMOTING

MARKET SOLUTIONS

FOR MISSOURI

PUBLIC POLICY

AUGUST 2013

The Power to LeadANALYSIS OF SUPERINTENDENT SURVEY

RESPONSES REGARDING TEACHER TENURE

By James V. Shuls and Kacie Barnes

INTRODUCTION

O all the decisions an employermust make, none may be asimportant as stang. Tis doesnot just include who they hire,but also who they re. An eectiveleader should be able to identiythose who are not perorming atan acceptable level, work with thatindividual to help them improve,and terminate him or her when

necessary. But what i state law doesnot provide such fexibility? Whati the employer is required to givethe employee 90 working days toimprove beore nally being able todismiss the employee and replacehim or her with a higher-qualityemployee? Tat type o regulationdoes not seem optimal or a businesssuccess, but it is exactly the position

in which Missouri school leaders

nd themselves. In many instances

these restrictions limit the powerprincipals and superintendents havto eectively lead their schools.

Missouri statutes are prescriptiveabout how school leaders musthandle teacher contracts anddismissals, and the debatesurrounding these state mandatescan become very heated. On oneside, opponents o teacher tenure

say it is nearly impossible to remoa tenured teacher based on his orher perormance in the classroomo the contrary, supporters oteacher tenure suggest that it is eato remove tenured teachers; it justhas to be accomplished according the guidelines in the state statutesTey suggest these guidelines areneeded because they limit potenti


2/16

ESSAY I SHOW-ME INSTITUTE

2

abuses o power rom principals,superintendents, or school boardmembers who seek to capriciously targetteachers or dismissal. We suspected

that the reality is actually somewherein the middle, between impossible andsimply a matter o ollowing the rules.o explore this urther, we contacted thegroup o individuals we thought shouldknow the most about this topic: publicschool superintendents.

Tis essay presents the results o oursuperintendent survey on teachertenure. Beore we display the survey

results, we explain why this issue isimportant because teacher tenure hasimplications or teacher quality. Ater abrie examination o the teacher qualityliterature, we describe the regulationscurrently in Missouri statutes. Teseregulations detail the steps a schoolleader must take to remove a low-perorming teacher. Next, we presentthe data collected rom a survey o 192

Missouri public school superintendents.As we suspected, the data make itevident that our initial hypothesis istrue, removing a tenured teacher maynot be a Herculean task, but it is alsonot a walk in the park. We concludethat current policies do hamstring theability o principals and superintendentsto lead their schools. From thisperspective, we oer some policyrecommendations that will improve

school leaders ability to manage theirteacher workorce.

TEACHER QUALITY

MATTERS

As President Barack Obama said ina town hall meeting right here in

Missouri, the single most importantactor in the classroom is the qualityo the person standing at the ront othe classroom.1 On this matter, the

president is absolutely correct. Heexpanded on this point in his 2012State o the Union address: Weknow a good teacher can increase thelietime income o a classroom by over$250,000. A great teacher can oer anescape rom poverty to the child whodreams beyond his circumstance.2 Tepresident was citing one o the mostimportant and impressive studies oteacher eectiveness, in which researche

were able to link tax records to studentachievement o more than 2.5 millionchildren.3 Te authors ound signicanrelationships between a teachers abilityto improve student achievement andhis or her students outcomes laterin lie. Students with highly eectiveteachers were more likely to attendcollege, attend higher-ranked colleges,earn higher salaries, live in higher

[socioeconomic status] neighborhoods,and save or retirement.4

Te researchers the president citedare not the only ones to note theimportance o eective instruction.

A growing body o evidencedemonstrates that teachers can havean incredible impact on students.5Stanord economist Eric Hanushekhas documented that the dierence

between a good teacher and a badteacher is as much as a years worth olearning.6 I the average teacher teachstudents a years worth o inormationbased on Hanusheks analysis, a goodteacher can teach a year and a hal

worth, while a bad teacher impartsonly hal o a year worth o learning.7

We conclude that

current policies

do hamstring

the ability of

principals and

superintendents

to lead theirschools.


3/16

August 2013

Stanford

economist Eric

Hanushek has

documented that

the difference

between a good

teacher and a

bad teacher is as

much as a years

worth of learning.

As a result, a student in a low-perorming teachers classroom willlearn a ull year less worth o materialthan his or her counterparts in a high-

perorming teachers classroom. I astudent happens to be so unortunateas to have a low-perorming teachertwo years in a row, he or she would bean entire grade level behind his or heraverage classmate.

Because we know teachers can have atremendous impact on student learning,it makes sense that policymakers andschool leaders would seek ways to

improve teacher quality. Tere are anumber o ways to improve the qualityo the average teacher. One potentialmethod is to evaluate teachers andremove the lowest-perorming ones. Bysimply removing the worst teachers,the average quality increases. In act,Hanushek suggests that replacing thebottom 5 percent o teachers with ateacher o just average quality could

improve our educational system tothe level o the highest-perormingcountries in the world.8

wo major obstacles make this typeo policy or improving teacherquality dicult. First, administratorstraditionally have not done a good jobo evaluating teacher perormance. Ina notable education study called TeWidget Eect, the authors ound that

principals give good ratings to almostall o their teachers.9 When districtsused a binary scale o satisactory andunsatisactory, 99 percent o teacherswere given a satisactory rating. Indistricts that used a more nuancedscale, 94 percent received one o thetop two rankings, while less than

1 percent o teachers were markedunsatisactory.10

Evaluations o teacher perormance arebeginning to change through political

pressure. Tis has led many states orschool districts to begin using studentachievement data in teacher evaluations.Tis makes sense; as Gary Ritter andJames Shuls wrote, I student learningis the undamental goal o educators,then any evaluation or rating o teachersshould be based, in large part, on studentlearning.11 Tough it is not clear exactlyhow much o a teachers evaluation

should be based on student achievement,it is clear that we must do a better job oidentiying high-perorming and low-perorming teachers.

Te second major obstacle to removingineective teachers is tenure law.Tough it is certainly possible toremove an ineective teacher based onhis or her perormance in the classroom,these laws make it cumbersome.

MISSOURI TEACHER

TENURE REGULATIONS

Like all other employees, air dismissallaws protect Missouri teachers. Inaddition to the normal laws that protectall workers rom discrimination and thelike, there are specic state laws thatprovide teachers even more protection.

Tese regulations mandate a process toremove a teacher rom the classroombased on his or her perormance. Telaws are especially dicult to navigateor tenured teachers, but are also quiterestrictive or terminating probationaryteachers within their contract period.


4/16


4

If a student

happens to be

so unfortunate

as to have a

low-performing

teacher two years

in a row, he or

she would be

an entire grade

level behind his

or her average

classmate.

Probationary eachers

In Missouri, new teachers probationary teachers sign a one-yearcontract that is renewed annually. I

the teacher is not re-hired or the nextschool year, it is called a non-renewalo the contract. Upon receiving his orher th consecutive contract rom asingle school district, the contract thenbecomes permanent, or tenured. Statestatute says these permanent contractsshall be known as an indenitecontract and shall continue in eect oran indenite period12

Te current statutes require Missourischool districts to give a probationaryteacher a written notice and 90 daysto improve beore they can re thatteacher while they are under contract.13Tis system makes it dicult toremove an ineective probationaryteacher within a single year.14 Tismay not be a tremendous problem,because districts may not even consider

removing a teacher or ineectiveness inthe middle o a school year. Tey maysimply wish to not retain that teacheror the ollowing year, which is a airlyeasy process. Te district must simplynotiy the teacher by April 15 that theywill not be oered a contract or theollowing year.

One problem with this situation isthat districts must notiy teachers wellbeore the end o the school year. Tis,o course, does not help administratorswho identiy a teacher as ineectiveat some point ater April 15. Weunderstand there are many methodsadministrators could use to evaluatethe perormance o new teachers.Nevertheless, the April 15 deadline

means the district has to commit to thprobationary teacher beore his/her rsyear is completed and beore they knowhow well the students in the teachers

class perorm on the state tests.15

enured eachers

Once a teacher becomes tenured, it isnot only dicult to remove him or he

within a year, but also rom one year tthe next. Tis, o course, is because hisor her contract is not an annual contralike a probationary teacher; it is apermanent contract. I a school distric

wishes to remove a tenured teacher,under the current statutes, they can doso on the grounds o incompetency,ineciency, or insubordination inthe line o duty.16 In such a case, thesuperintendent must supply the teache

with a written notice o areas in whichthe teacher must improve. Ater theteacher has been given a notice toimprove, he or she is given at least 30days to ameliorate deciencies.17

I the teacher does not improve withinthe 30 days, the superintendent mustthen provide a written statement o thcharges, indicating the grounds allegeto exist or termination.18 Tis noticeo ormal charges must be sent to theteacher via certied mail with personaldelivery. At this point, the teacher canbe removed rom active duty with pay.

Along with the charges, the districtmust oer the teacher an opportunityto have a hearing in ront o the schooboard. Te hearing must take placebetween 20 and 30 days ater thecharges are brought against the teacher

Hearings or the termination o a teacherare public and both the teacher and the


5/16

August 2013

school district can provide witnesses tosupport their cases.19 Te teacher also isallowed to have counsel represent himor her, a service that the teachers union

typically oers. Te school district mustmake a record o the proceedings andprovide them to the teacher within 10days. Upon the conclusion o the hearing,the majority o the school board must voteto terminate the contract or the teacherwill be reinstated. Te ormal decision othe board must be urnished to the teacherin writing within seven days o receivingthe written transcript o the hearing.

Assuming each step in the process takesthe minimum time the law requires, atenured teacher could be ocially redrom his or her job in just more than50 days. In reality, the process maytake much more time. I at any pointschool ocials do not comply with thelaw, they are back at square one, andthe teacher is back in the classroom.Likewise, i a teacher temporarily

improves during the evaluation phase,administrators will have to go throughthe entire process again i the teachersperormance level drops.

A teachers rights do not end once theboard has voted to terminate the contract.I the teacher wants to appeal the ruling,the teacher can bring a grievance beorethe circuit court o the county in whichthe school district is located.20 I the court

sides with the teacher, he or she must bereinstated with back pay or the periodin which the board terminated him orher. Te fow chart shows the process thatmust be ollowed or a tenured teacherin Missouri to be removed rom his orher post based on perormance in theclassroom (seeFigure 1).

FIGURE 1

Steps Necessary To Remove A

Tenured Teacher In Missouri


6/16


6

When districts

used a binary

scale of

satisfactory and

unsatisfactory,

99 percent

of teachers

were given a

satisfactory rating.

HISTORY OF

TEACHER TENURE

Te history o K-12 teacher tenure datesback to the late 1800s. At the turn o

the century, teachers across the countrystruggled withpoor working conditions.Tey grappled with low wages, typicallyless than $50 a month, and large classsizes - oten more than 60 students to aroom.21 eachers, like employees o otherelds, were subject to losing their jobsbased on race, creed, gender, avoritism,and political aliation. In 1885, theNational Education Association (NEA)

issued a report calling or political actionto protect teachers rom these arbitraryand discriminatory dismissal practices.In 1886, Massachusetts became the rststate to pass a pre-college tenure law,allowing districts to enter into contractslonger than one year.22

More than 20 years later, in 1909,New Jersey enacted the rst U.S. K-12comprehensive tenure law. 23 Supporters

o the New Jersey tenure law arguedthat awarding tenure would attract morequalied teachers, increase operationaleciency in school districts, maketeaching more attractive by increasingpolitical and economic security, andeliminate political avoritism in hiringand dismissal practices.

Many states and districts ollowed NewJerseys lead. By 1950, 21 states hadadopted a orm o statewide tenure,and 20 states contained districtswith tenure components in teachercontracts.24 Troughout the nexttwo decades, tenure became rmlyestablished in school districts, with atotal o 37 states and the District oColumbia enorcing tenure laws, plus

13 states oering continuing or long-term contracts.25 Te majority o statesgrant teachers tenure ater their thirdconsecutive year o service in a school.

While tenure isnow a widespreadpractice, the actual denition o tenurevaries. It generally is understood as asystem in which teachers who havecompleted a probationary period canonly be red through a lengthy processdetermined by the state tenure law andlocal collective bargaining contract.27Te Education Commission o the Statdenes it this way: eacher tenure

is, thereore, not a job guarantee butrather a job security device protectingagainst termination o employment incases where there are not grounds ortermination or where the teacher has noair opportunity to present a deense.28

In Missouri, state statutes reer totenured teachers aspermanent teachersoa teacher with an indenite contract.

Beyond K-12, tenure is also common

in university proessor contracts. Buttenure in U.S. higher education, whilesimilar in denition, came about ora very dierent purpose. In the latenineteenth century, university acultybegan to seek tenure as a means to allowree speech in the classroom and toprevent administration rom establishinresolutions that would prevent proessorom expressing unsettling ideas or

unpopular opinions.29

eacher tenure in higher education notonly had a dierent genesis, but theprocess or granting tenure is also muchdierent than it is in K-12 education. InMissouri and many other states, K-12teachers simply earn tenure ater retainintheir job or a certain number o years.


7/16

August 2013

State statute says

these permanent

contracts shall

be known as

an indenite

contract and shall

continue in effect

for an indenite

period

In higher education, tenure is grantedbased on merit, which oten includesteaching perormance, contribution to thecommunity or university, and scholarly

publications. In act, many collegeproessors are denied tenure. At PennState and other research universities, thetenure acceptance rate is just above 50percent.30 Moreover, not all proessors areon tenure tracks. Indeed, the NationalSurvey o Postsecondary Faculty indicatesthat nationally, just 55 percent o college

proessors are tenured.31

SURVEY OF MISSOURISUPERINTENDENTS

eachers are clearly protected instate statute. Tis, however, is nota problem i the laws protect goodteachers and do not hamper eorts toremove low-perorming ones. o assessthe impact o current tenure laws,we sent electronic surveys regardingteacher tenure via email to 522 public

school superintendents. We received

a total o 192 completed surveys,or an overall response rate o 36.6percent.32 As with any survey, we mustbe concerned with possible selection

eects. Tat is, the superintendentswho chose to participate in our surveymay be markedly dierent rom thosewho did not choose to participate.Because our email indicated thesurvey was about teacher tenure, thosewho chose to participate might havestronger eelings on the topic thansuperintendents who chose not toparticipate. We cannot estimate theunobservable reasons superintendents

chose to participate, but we canexamine the observable characteristicso the school districts.

In terms o observable characteristics,the districts o superintendents whochose to participate in the surveyare very similar to those o non-participants (seeable 1). Using datarom the Missouri Department o

Elementary and Secondary Education

TABLE 1

Demographic Information Of Districts With

Participating And Non-Participating Superintendents

District Characteristic Participating Non-Participating

Full-Time Equivalent Teachers 128 122

Students Per Classroom Teacher 15.3 15.3

Full-Time Equivalent Administrators 8.4 8.4

Avg. Regular Term Teacher Salary $37,781 $37,632

Avg. Years of Teacher Experience 12.3 12.4

Percent of Teachers with Masters Degree 48.3% 47.3%

Average Enrollment 1,636 1,661


8/16


8

(DESE), we compared the two groupso districts on seven measures. Inall seven areas, the two groups werevery similar. We conducted t-tests

to see i any o the dierences weresignicant and did not nd any.Tus, on observable characteristics,the superintendents in our surveyrepresent districts that are very similarto the districts o non-participatingsuperintendents.

Difculty o removinga tenured teacher

As we have noted, much has beenmade about the diiculty o removinga tenured teacher. he most ardentsupporter o tenure will suggest thatit is not diicult to remove a tenuredteacher, while the most passionateopponent o tenure might say itis impossible. We wanted to get athird perspective on the topic, romsuperintendents (seeFigure 2). In our

survey we asked, How diicult is itto remove a low-perorming, tenureteacher based on their perormance?

We provided our possible responses

Not at all diicult, Not verydiicult, Somewhat diicult,and Very diicult. Just 4 percento superintendents indicated thatremoving a tenured teacher or hisor her perormance in the classroom

was not at all diicult. wenty-three percent o superintendentsindicated that it is very diicultand 23 percent indicated it is notvery diicult to remove a tenured

teacher. he most requent responsewas that removing a tenured teacheris somewhat diicult; hal o allrespondents chose this response.hese igures are very similar orsuperintendents who are new totheir position and those who havebeen serving in that capacity ormany years.

Once a teacher

becomes

tenured, it is not

only difcult

to remove him

or her within a

year, but also

from one year to

the next.

FIGURE 2

Superintendent Survey:

How Difcult Is It To Remove A Low-Performing,

Tenured Teacher Based On His Or Her Performance?

Not at all difcult

Not very difcult

Somewhat difcult

Very difcult


9/16

August 2013

According to the superintendentsresponses, removing a tenured teacheris not impossible, but it certainly isnot easy. o better understand which

requirements or restrictions providethe greatest barrier to removing ateacher, we asked, What are thebiggest obstacles to removing atenured teacher? We did not wantto limit responses to only the ewcategories that we might construct,so we posed this question as anopen response. Upon analyzing theresponses, we ound they t within vecategories (seeFigure 3). Sixty-eight

percent o superintendents reportedthat time is the biggest obstacle toremoving a teacher, ollowed closelyby paperwork (64 percent). It makessense that these two would be reported

at similar levels because they arehighly correlated. Administrators arerequired to meticulously documentthe perormance o tenured teachers

who they wish to remove. Conductingobservations and completing thepaperwork can take a signicantamount o time.

In addition to taking an inordinateamount o time to complete thenecessary documentation, removinga tenured teacher takes politicalcapital. Tis includes navigating theprocess with the teachers union, but

can be much more than that. As onerespondent noted, navigating thecommunity politics can be the mostdaunting aspect o removing a tenuredteacher. It is important to rememberthat principals and superintendents

Upon the

conclusion of

the [teacher

termination]

hearing, the

majority of the

school board must

vote to terminate

the contract or

the teacher will be

FIGURE 3


What Are The Biggest Obstacles

To Removing A Tenured Teacher?

Paperwork Time Money PoliticalCapital

Other

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Percentageo

fRespondents


10/16


10

If at any point

school ofcialsdo not comply

with the law,

they are back

at square one,

and the teacher

is back in the

classroom.

answer to elected boards. I they re ateacher, they run the risk o upsettingschool board members or others inthe community who may run or the

board. Tis could put their jobs injeopardy. Tus, administrators mustassess the impact removing a tenuredteacher will have on their utureemployment or even the climate o theschool building. Moreover, the burdeno proo is on the administrator. Tatis, they must be able to demonstratethat the teacher is not perorming upto par. In the absence o value-addedstudent achievement, this oten limits

the evidence to subjective teacherperormance reviews, which requiremuch documentation on the part othe administration. All o these areimportant considerations.

Te cost o removinga tenured teacher

Removing a tenured teacher can alsobe very costly, especially when schooldistricts must retain a lawyer. In a2005 newspaper report, Scott Reederdocumented the tremendous cost oring a tenured teacher in Illinois.33His investigation discovered that whenschool districts hired outside lawyers,they spent more than $219,000on average. In New York City, itreportedly costs a school district$250,000 to re a tenured teacher.34

According to the people we talked to,the cost o ring a tenured teacher isless in Missouri, but can still be quitesubstantial. Roger Kurtz, executivedirector o the Missouri Association oSchool Administrators, says the costreally depends on the specics o thecase.35 I a principal has done a good

job o documenting all the acts o thcase or i the teacher does not appeal,the cost is much lower.

Even in the best-case scenario,

terminating a tenured teacher can stibe expensive. om Mickes, whose rMickes Goldman Ooole representsmore than 300 school districts inthe state, estimates that a hearingbeore the school board will cost aschool district between $10,000 and$15,000 in lawyer ees.36 I the caseis taken to the circuit court, schooldistricts can expect to pay another

$5,000 to $7,000. I the teacher seekan appeal, it could cost the schooldistrict another $15,000. When weasked Glenn Coltharp, vice presideno academic aairs at CrowderCollege and a ormer public schoolsuperintendent, how oten a lawyer

was involved in the terminationprocess, he said he could not thinko a time a lawyer was not retained.

Tat means at the very least, a schoodistrict can expect to pay $10,000 toremove a low-perorming teacher.

Mickes says that it is possible to remova low-perorming teacher. In act, hisrm has helped many school districtsremove low-perorming teachers. Inhis mind, the problem is ineectualleadership. Tat is, low-perormingteachers remain in the classroom

not because o the law, but becauseadministrators have not taken the stepnecessary to remove them. Coltharpagrees with this sentiment. He statedthat it is certainly easier to removea non-tenured teacher because youcan simply not renew their contract;tenured teachers, on the other hand,


11/16

August 2013

1

take a much more concerted eort.Administrators have to make sure theydocument the process thoroughly byidentiying the problem areas and

collecting relevant data.More than one-th o superintendentscited money as a considerableobstacle to removing a tenuredteacher. In a subsequent question,we asked approximately how muchit costs to remove a tenured teacher.Respondents noted these costscould be almost nothing in caseswhere the documentation has been

careully collected and the case isopen-and-shut. In more drawn-outcases, where the teacher appeals,the cost can be considerably higher.Some superintendents reported thecost could be as much as $100,000.Although, many indicated they wereunsure o the exact cost because theydid not have rst-hand experience.

We should note that some

superintendents were unsure i theyshould include the principals timein the cost estimates. On one hand,the time involved or a principal issubstantial and requires them to taketime away rom other tasks. Onesuperintendent commented, []hereare many, many hours involved inthe process. Other superintendents,however, noted that this is part o the

principals job. hey are expected toevaluate teachers, provide detailedreviews, and remove ineective ones.hereore, including their time in anestimate o the costs involved maybe inappropriate.

Te number o terminatedtenured teachers

We asked the superintendents to tellus how many tenured teachers they

had removed or perormance inthe past year. Most superintendents,75 percent, had not removeda single tenured teacher. Treesuperintendents indicated they hadremoved ve tenured teachers.37 Inall, it was reported that 80 tenuredteachers had been removed last year.Tere were a total o 24,076 ull-timeequivalent teachers in the districts

represented by the participatingsuperintendents. Tat meansapproximately 3/10ths o 1 percent oteachers were removed.38

Although the number o tenuredteachers terminated is small, thesenumbers do not tell the entire story.Eective administrators do not allowlow-perorming teachers to actuallyreach the point o tenure. As one

superintendent stated, We dont letpoor teachers get to ve years. Wedo not have exact estimates on thenumber o teachers who might gettheir contract non-renewed in the rstve years or who quit prematurelybecause they are ineective. Countingnon-renewed teachers in ourestimates would certainly increase thepercentage o teachers removed or

ineectiveness. Regardless, there areundoubtedly some ineective teachersreaching the point o tenure.

Just as the termination gures do notcapture the number o ineective teacherswho are weeded out beore receivingtenure, they also do not ully account orthe number o teachers who are removed

Most

superintendents,

75 percent, had

not removed a

single tenured

teacher.


12/16


12

or their perormance. As we have noted,the termination process can be long anddrawn out. Tis can be taxing, not justor administrators but also or the teacher.

Tus, many principals simply counsellow-perorming teachers into leaving.Several superintendents reerred to thisas being coached out. According to thesuperintendent responses, it seems moreteachers leave on their own accord priorto being terminated. One superintendentstated, In my 38 years in administration,Id say that the majority o tenured teachersacing termination proceedings choose toresign. Tis was a sentiment that other

superintendents repeated; to be exact, 23commented that tenured teachers typicallyresign rather than ace termination. Hereare some o their comments:

Our efort did not actually resultin termination, they seldom do. Teteachers have always chose [sic] toresign rst. Te result is the same.

Many o our tenured teachers will

resign beore we remove them romthe classroom. In other words wecoach them out o the classroom.

We counsel our poor teachers toresign rather than go through atermination process.

but they usually resign or retirebeore you actually terminate them.I have had 5 resign or retire in the

last 5 years because they knew whatwas coming ater rank conversationswith them.

eachers have a signicant incentive toresign prior to being terminated. Eveni they are able to improve or somehowavoid the termination, there is a stigmathat comes rom this process. Tis

stigma may create an unsatisactoryworking environment or the teacher.Additionally, applications or teachingpositions usually ask i the applicant has

ever been terminated or had a contractnot renewed. I a teacher does not resignand ends up being terminated, thissignicantly harms his or her potential outure employment. I the teacher resignhowever, he or she will not have this labeTis may be part o the conversation thasuperintendents have during the coachiout period, although none mentioned i

in their comments.

Support or tenure reormamong superintendents

Our nal survey question asked whethesuperintendents would be supportiveo eorts to reorm teacher tenure(seeFigure 4). Only 8 percent o thesuperintendents in our survey indicatedthey absolutely would not supportteacher tenure reorm while nearly 60percent indicated they may supporttenure reorm depending on the specio the reorm. A total o 32 percentindicated they would support tenurereorm, either privately or publicly.

wo recurring themes appeared amongthe comments on this question. Whilemany indicated that teacher tenure lawsare restrictive, some indicated that thelaws are not the greatest cause o all

the problems. Many superintendentsrecognized that it is possible to removea low-perorming teacher or to counselthem out o the classroom. Tey notethat it is the principals job to identiylow-perorming teachers, to help themimprove, and to ultimately removethem i they ail to do so. In other

words, i a low-perorming teacher

In our survey

we asked, Howdifcult is it to

remove a low-

performing,

tenured teacher

based on their

performance?


13/16

August 2013

1

remains in the classroom, it is the resulto eckless leadership, not an overlyburdensome tenure law. However, not allsuperintendents agreed to this sentiment.

A ew noted that teacher tenure providesprotection or incompetent teachersto the detriment o children. Onesuperintendent went as ar as saying,eacher tenure is the greatest restraint tostudent perormance!

Te other recurring theme among thecomments to this question was on thetopic o job protection. Even amongthose who said they would support tenure

reorm, many stated that teachers needsome job protection. Tey pointed outthat district schools are much dierent

than the private marketplace becausedistrict schools are democraticallycontrolled. Tis means elected schoolboards are in control. Most o us have

heard stories about individuals runningor school board to simply get a teacherred. One superintendent noted thatteachers need protection rom these typeso board members who have axes togrind. Certainly, board politics can be atricky game.

Superintendents oered severalsuggestions or how teachers might begiven some job protection while also

making it easier to remove low-perormingteachers. An ot-cited recommendationwas to oer veteran teachers multi-year Nearly 63 percent

of superintendents

reported that

time is the

biggest obstacle

to removing a

teacher, followed

closely by

paperwork (59

percent).

FIGURE 4


Would You Personally Support Reforming Tenure Laws

To Make It Easier To Remove Low-Performing Teachers

From The Classroom?

No,absolutely

not

Maybe,depending

on thespecics

Yes, but notpublicly

Yes, I wouldpubliclysupport

reformingteachertenure

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%Perce

ntageofRespondents


14/16


14

contracts. Tis would provide someprotection rom being targeted oran o year. Ultimately, it seems mostsuperintendents would be supportive

o a system that provides protection orhigh-perorming teachers while making itmuch easier to remove ineective teachers.

CONCLUSION

Responses to our survey indicatethere is much room or teacher tenurereorm in Missouri. Seventy-threepercent o superintendents in oursurvey stated that it is somewhat or

very dicult to remove a tenuredteacher. Tey note that the processo removing a teacher based onhis or her perormance in theclassroom takes much eort andcould cost a signicant amount omoney. For these reasons, amongothers, approximately 92 percento the superintendents stated theywould be supportive o some type

o tenure reorm. While somesuperintendents are concerned aboutproviding adequate job protectionsor good teachers, superintendentsoverwhelmingly believe it shouldbe easier to remove low-perormingteachers. Te question then is,what type o reorm would putsuperintendents in the best position toeectively lead their schools?

Recent legislative eorts to reorm teachertenure have been coupled with mandatedteacher evaluations. wo separate pieceso legislation were voted down in theMissouri House o Representatives in2013, with neither piece o legislationreceiving much support amongsuperintendents. One line o argument

against these bills was that o local controRepresentatives rom both the MissouriState eachers Association39 and theMissouri Retired eachers Association40

made this case. Te argument o localcontrol was eective, but we must notmake the mistake o thinking that thestatus quo is pro-local control. Te act othe matter is that our current tenure lawsplace many restrictions on local schoolleaders. Tus, doing nothing to changethe current laws does not promote healthlocally controlled schools.

Rather than dictate contract terms rom

the statehouse, it may be wise to givelocal school leaders more authority todetermine their teacher stang policies.Tis would allow superintendents, inconjunction with their principals, teacherand school boards, to develop policiesthat t the unique needs o their schooldistrict. Some schools may wish to issuemulti-year contracts. Others may decide tbase retention on teacher evaluations. Ti

alone may not x the problem o ecklessleadership that some o the superintendenalluded to in our survey results, but it ishard to imagine that giving school leadersgreater autonomy would diminish theircompetency. It seems more likely thatallowing school leaders to develop theirown policies may inspire them becausethey will nally have the true power to lea

James V. Shuls, PhD, is the educationpolicy analyst and Kacie Barnes is aormer policy researcher at the Show-MeInstitute, which promotes market solutioor Missouri public policy.

If [administrators

or principals] rea teacher, they

run the risk of

upsetting school

board members

or others in the

community who

may run for theboard.


15/16

August 2013

1

NOTES1 Obama, Barack. (2009). The presidents

remarks at a town hall meeting in Arnold, Mo.

The White House Ofce o the Press Secretary.

View online here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the-press-ofce/remarks-president-arnold-missouri-town-hall.

2 Obama, Barack. (2012). President Obamas

State o the Union Address. New York Times.

View transcript online here: http://www.

nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/

state-o-the-union-2012-video-transcript.html.

3 Chetty, Raj., John N. Friedman, and Jonah E.

Rocko. (2011). The long-term impacts o teachers:

Teacher value-added and student outcomes in

adulthood. National Bureau o Economic Research

Working Paper, No. 17699. Cambridge, Mass.:

National Bureau o Economic Research.

4 Ibid. p. 2.

5 Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa Barrow, and William

Sanders. (2007), Teachers and Student

Achievement in the Chicago Public High

Schools, Journal o Labor Economics, 25

(2007), 95-135. Goldhaber, Dan, and Michael

Hansen. (2010) Is it just a bad class?

Assessing the stability o measured teacher

perormance. Seattle, Wash., Center on

Reinventing Public Education.

6 Hanushek, Eric A., and Steven G. Rivkin.

(2006). Teacher quality. Handbook o the

Economics o Education 2, 1051-1078.

7The impact o teachers on a students lietime

earnings can be large. For instance, a one

standard deviation in high school perormance

can lead to an increase o $110,000 to $230,000

in lietime earnings or the student. For more

on the impact o teachers see: Hanushek, Eric.

(2011). Valuing Teachers: How much is a good

teacher worth? Education Next, 11(3), 41-45.

8 Hanushek, Eric. (2010). The economic value

o higher teacher quality. National Bureau

o Economic Research Working Paper, No.

16606. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau o

Economic Research.

9The widget eect: http://widgeteect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEect.pd.

10 It seems unlikely that less than 1 percent

o workers in any feld are doing an

unsatisactory job.

11 Ritter, Gary and James V. Shuls. (2012). I a

tree alls in a orest, but no one hears Phi

Delta Kappan, 94(3), 34-38.

12 See Missouri Revised Statute 168.106.

13 See Missouri Statute 168.221 and 168.126.

14The 90 days needed or remediation only

applies when seeking to remove a teacher

due to inefciency, incompetency, and

insubordination. There is a dierent process

or all other statutory oenses.

15 Oten, school districts do not receive the

results rom the states standardized tests until

the beginning o the ollowing school year.

16 See Missouri Statute 168.116.

17The 30 days needed or remediation only

applies when seeking to remove a teacher

due to inefciency, incompetency, and

insubordination. There is a dierent process

or all other statutory oenses.




21 Holcomb, Sabrina. (2006). Answering the

call: The history o the National Education

Association. NEA Today. View online here:

http://www.nea.org/home/12172.htm#.

22Teacher tenure history, ound here:

certifcationmap.com/teacher-tenure-debate/.

23 Kersten, Thomas A. Teacher Tenure: Illinois

School Board Presidents Perspectives and

Suggestions or Improvement. Department o

Educational Administration and Foundations.

College o Education, Illinois State University.Winter 2006.

24 Marshall, Patricia L., Debra V. Baucom, and

Allison L. Webb. Do You Have Tenure, and Do

You Really Want It? The Clearing House, Vol.

71, No. 5 (May - Jun., 1998), pp. 302-304.

25 Ibid.

26 Christi, Kathy, and Jennier Dounay Zinth.

(2011). Teacher tenure or continuing contract

laws. Education Commission o the States.

View online here: http://www.ecs.org/

clearinghouse/94/93/9493.pd.

27 Defnitions o tenure ound here: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/

issues/2010/02/pd/teacher_tenure.pd.

28 Christi, Kathy, and Jennier Dounay Zinth. (2011).

29 Loope, David R. Academic Tenure: Its

Origins, Administration, and Importance.

South Carolina Commission on Higher

Education, Columbia, S.C. May 1995.

30 Dooris, Michael J., and Marianne Guidos.

Tenure Achievement Rates at Research

Universities. Presentation at the Annual Forum

o the Association or Institutional Research.

Chicago, Illinois. May 2006. View online here:

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/planning_

research/reports/AIR_Tenure_Flow_Paper_06.pd

31 National Survey o Postsecondary Faculty

(2004). View online here: http://nces.ed.gov/da

32 In all, 192 superintendents participated in t

survey. However, the number o respondent

varies or each question. Here are the numbe

o respondents to each question: Difculty 1

Obstacles 177, Cost 123, Number terminated

181, support or reorm 169.

33 Legal ees cost more than $219,000 on

average in a fve-year period. Read more

online here: http://thehiddencostsotenure.

com/stories/?prcss=display&id=295712.

34 See NBC News article online here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25430476/#.UR1eJKXqnAQ.

35 Personal correspondence, Feb. 15, 2013.

36 Personal correspondence, Feb. 15, 2013.

37 One superintendent indicated he included

teachers who resigned as a result o being

targeted or dismissal.

38 Prior to our joining the Show-Me Institute,

researchers sent requests under the Missouri

Sunshine Law to school districts regarding

teacher dismissals. They asked each district to

report the number o teachers that had been

asked to leave, terminated, or fred over the 1year period o 2000-01 to 2010-11. We received

data rom 122 school districts. In this time spa

only 29 o the school districts or which we

have data reported removing a single teacher

Fity-our teachers had been terminated and

457 had their contracts not renewed. Thus, 46

teachers were removed or not renewed each

year. That is 0.4 teachers per school district. In

2011, these 122 districts had a total o 19,470

ull-time equivalent teachers. Assuming they

had a constant number o ull-time employee

over the span o years we are examining, the

districts removed or did not renew contracts

0.2 percent o teachers annually. This fgure is

very close to the fgures reported in our surve39 Blank, Chris. (2013). Missouri House rejec

education legislation. The Associated Press

View online here: http://www.sgate.com/

news/education/article/Missouri-House-rejec

education-legislation-4425784.php.

40 Kreider, Jim. (2013). Education bill harms

Nixa schools. Springfeld News-Leader. View

online here: http://www.news-leader.com/

article/20130320/OPINIONS02/303200043/jim

kreider-Reorm-bill-harms-Nixa-schools.


16/16

4512 West Pine Blvd. I Saint Louis, MO 63108 I 314-454-0647 I www.showmeinstitute.org

View State Government Spending:

showmeliving.org

Read Our Blog:

showmedaily.org

Find Us on Facebook:

facebook.com/showmeinstitute

Use Our Interactive Database:

showmeideas.org

Follow Us on Twitter

twitter.com/showme

The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure

Documents

Transcript of The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure