e3 alliance food for thought presentation #3 may 19, 2010 dr. ed fuller, phd education consultant 1
TRANSCRIPT
E3 Alliance Food for Thought Presentation #3
May 19, 2010
Dr. Ed Fuller, PhDEducation Consultant
1
--Higher rates of teacher turnover are associated with poorer student outcomes (Fuller, Young, Baker, 2007a,b; Fields, & Jablonski, 2007)
--Schools with high levels of principal retention tend to have higher levels of teacher retention (Fuller, Young, Baker, 2007a,b)
-- In high-turnover schools, students may be more likely to have inexperienced teachers who we know are less effective on average (Rockoff, 2004; Rivkin et al., 2005; Kane et al., 2006)
2
-- “High turnover creates instability in schools, making it more difficult to have coherent instruction. This instability may be particularly problematic in schools trying to implement reforms, as new teachers coming in each year are likely to repeat mistakes, rather than improve upon reform implementation.” (Boyd, 2009)
-- “High turnover can be costly in that time and effort is needed to continuously recruit teachers.” (Boyd, 2009)
3
Individual educator data (teachers, principals, asst principals, other school professionals) as collected through PEIMS
Turnover was calculated at the full-time equivalent (FTE) level, not the person level
Student mobility was obtained through AEIS reports on the TEA website
This study included only schools with teachers in the 2005-06 through 2009-10 school years and that had a regular accountability rating in the 2005-06 through 2008-09 school years.
4
5
6
Grouping % of Students
Bilingua
lAfr
Amer MinorityEco Dis
Lowest % 11.2 11.6 9.8 9.9
Quartile 2 15.1 16.2 15.8 16.1
Quartile 3 20.8 20.3 19.6 19.6
Highest % 25.2 22.6 25.9 26.1
7
8
Grouping % of Students
Bilingua
lAfr
AmerMinorit
yEco Dis
Lowest % 10.7 10.6 9.6 9.9
Quartile 2 13.1 12.7 13.5 13.1
Quartile 3 14.7 18.4 15.2 16.3
Highest % 23.8 19.6 21.7 24.6
9
10
Grouping % of Students
Afr Amer Minority Eco Dis
Lowest % 15.3 11.9 14.8
Quartile 2 14.0 15.1 14.3
Quartile 3 18.8 19.5 19.0
Highest % 23.8 26.0 25.0
11
12
Performance Level Elem MS HS
Lowest Performing 24.0 22.4 24.9
Lower Performing 20.3 17.3 22.7
Average Performing 17.8 13.9 17.2
Higher Performing 15.4 14.4 15.1
Highest Performing 10.5 10.2 11.5
13
14
Grouping % of Students
Bilingua
lAfr
AmerMinorit
yEco Dis
Lowest % 15.7 16.9 16.0 15.8Quartile 2 17.2 17.3 16.7 16.9Quartile 3 19.9 19.5 19.2 19.4Highest % 24.4 22.4 24.6 24.8
15
Grouping % of Students
Bilingual Afr Amer Minority Eco Dis
Lowest % 44.6% 48.0% 46.7% 46.6%
Quartile 2 49.5% 49.7% 48.5% 48.8%
Quartile 3 52.7% 52.8% 51.4% 51.6%
Highest % 61.4% 56.9% 61.2% 61.2%
16
Grouping % of Students
Bilingua
lAfr
Amer MinorityEco Dis
Lowest % 19.1 20.5 18.5 19.7
Quartile 2 21.4 21.5 22.7 20.5
Quartile 3 23.0 23.1 21.0 22.8
Highest % 25.4 23.6 25.5 27.0
17
Grouping % of Students
Bilingual Afr Amer Minority Eco Dis
Lowest % 51.7% 49.7% 49.9% 51.1%
Quartile 2 56.2% 55.1% 60.3% 53.4%
Quartile 3 56.3% 57.9% 52.9% 58.5%
Highest % 61.6% 60.8% 61.8% 63.0%
18
Grouping % of Students
Afr Amer Minority Eco Dis
Lowest % 18.4 15.6 17.6
Quartile 2 16.8 18.0 16.9
Quartile 3 20.5 20.5 19.6
Highest % 22.1 24.0 24.3
19
Grouping % of Students
Afr Amer Minority Eco Dis
Lowest % 45.6% 42.6% 43.5%
Quartile 2 44.5% 46.4% 44.7%
Quartile 3 50.8% 52.5% 51.0%
Highest % 54.9% 57.6% 57.9%
20
Performance Level Elem MS HS
Lowest Performing 61.4% 58.3% 57.7%
Lower Performing 52.0% 60.5% 54.7%Average
Performing 50.3% 62.5% 48.0%Higher Performing 48.9% 53.6% 48.9%
Highest Performing 45.0% 51.5% 41.8%
21
Student Mobility Rate Elem MS HS
Lowest % 44.3% 48.8% 42.5%
Quartile 2 46.1% 57.5% 46.0%
Quartile 3 55.6% 58.1% 53.0%
Highest % 60.5% 61.6% 56.1%
22
Student Mobility
School Level
Rate EL MS* HS*Lowest % 51.0% 86.4% 68.8%Quartile 2 37.7% 75.0% 84.6%Quartile 3 34.4% 63.6% 38.5%Highest % 30.2% 76.2% 46.2%
* 1 or fewer for MS and HS, zero for elem school
23
# Principal School Level
Transitions EL MS HS
0 16.9 20.3 18.6
1 19.2 22.0 18.1
2 22.6 25.3 21.3
3+ 28.0 25.4 22.2
24
Student Mobility Rate
Elem MS HS
Lowest % 6.6% 9.1% 5.2%
Quartile 2 6.1% 9.1% 7.0%
Quartile 3 11.1% 9.8% 9.7%
Highest % 11.9% 14.2% 12.2%
25
Student Mobility Rate
Elem MS HS
Lowest % 56.7% 58.2% 58.9%
Quartile 2 62.1% 61.3% 63.0%
Quartile 3 60.7% 73.4% 67.7%
Highest % 66.4% 78.7% 66.8%
“Ms. W is my math teacher, she teaches Algebra--the best teacher. She is the only teacher that taught me the entire school year. Since freshmen year I’ve never had a math teacher stay and teach me the whole year.”
26
“I’m pretty sure we had three different principals. And it’s changed a lot, but for the better because now we have Dr. X. He cares a lot more about student voices and student perspective and stuff, when all our other principals--I never saw them step out on the carpet.”
27
Why are we surprised at achievement gaps when we systematically deny students in certain schools the well-qualified, stable educators that they deserve?
Students most in need of sustained, caring relationships with well-qualified educators are the least likely to be in schools with stable adult populations.
28
Students most in need of sustained, caring relationships with adults are the least likely to be in schools with stable adult populations.
Schools with greater student mobility have greater teacher, principal, assistant principal, and school professional staff turnover.
Student mobility and educator turnover are associated with student achievement, with greater mobility and turnover rates negatively associated with student achievement.
29
The failure of school districts to address the distribution of well-qualified educators and the high turnover rate of educators has led directly to the proliferation of charter schools serving the needs of poor students who are striving to achieve at the highest levels possible.
30
Greater pay for educators serving in schools with greater student mobility (the money exists, but is hidden)
Measure and improve working conditions for teachers and principals
Improve and refine HR strategies to place experienced and effective educators in schools most in need of high-quality staff
31
