The DC State Board of Education will hear next week from DC teachers as well as a panel of local and national experts as board members examine the effects of high teacher turnover rates on students and seek to identify ways to improve retention in DC’s traditional public schools and charter schools.
The discussion as part of the board’s meeting next Wednesday is a follow-up to a report published Oct. 3 that offers a snapshot of teacher and principal turnover trends in District schools. While principal turnover is comparable to the national average, the data shows that teacher turnover in DC is higher than other districts in the U.S. — with the highest rates occuring in schools that serve a high population of low-income students.
The State Board of Education commissioned the study back in May, enlisting Mary Levy, a local educational researcher and data analyst, to gather statistics from both DC public schools and charter schools.
“The report is intended to establish a foundation for a deeper investigation of the challenge of retaining highly effective teachers,” reads a statement from the board, released with the study. “The report does not provide all the answers, but it helps define the next questions.”
The night of the report’s release, the board held a working session with Levy and the public to assess the findings.
The study finds that teachers in DC over the past three years have left individual public schools at an average rate of 25 percent annually — well in excess of the national average of 16 percent. The overall average for 16 of the country’s large urban districts was 19 percent, according to one analysis. Other studies found that Milwaukee saw 17 percent of its teachers depart annually and that Chicago and New York each had a 20 percent departure rate.
In terms of the DC Public Schools system, the report says that teacher turnover rate is highest for schools in wards 5 and 8 (about 30 percent) and lowest in wards 1 and 3 (about 20 percent). Figures are similar for principal turnover, with turnover highest in wards 5, 7 and 8 and lowest in ward 3. The geographic breakdown was not reported for charter schools since they enroll students from throughout the city and often have campuses in multiple wards.
For principal turnover specifically, the rate is 25 percent across both public and charter schools. At the Oct. 3 working session, Levy noted that although the figure may seem high, it is comparable to other schools nationwide. However, she said this should not negate the fact that high principal turnover is linked to lower achievement.
The findings also show that the rates of teacher and principal turnover increase for both DC public and charter schools as the percentage of at-risk students rises. In public schools, the rate of teachers departing is highest at the middle school level (32 percent), with rates closer to 25 percent for elementary and high schools.
That issue of student achievement was a primary impetus for the State Board of Education to commission the study, according to board president and Ward 7 representative Karen Williams. “We understood that the quality and the longevity and the experience of teachers is important in student success, especially in areas where there are a lot of high-risk students,” she said.
In a statement released with Levy’s report, the board recommends further steps to understand and improve the District’s trends, including collecting citywide data on turnover as a regular practice. Members also want to find out what prompted teachers and principals to leave so that officials can look for patterns and correct any deficiencies.
The latter point dominated much of the discussion at the Oct. 3 meeting, with many board members seeking to understand the underlying causes behind the high turnover rates.
“We can’t make changes unless we know why people are leaving. Are they leaving because their husband is in the military and they got reassigned? Are they leaving because they feel overwhelmed in the classroom?” said Williams. “It’s a very complex issue, and it’s not one-size-fits-all. We have to get the facts, find out why they’re leaving, and then try to implement ways to retain them.”
A WAMU report published the same day as the study’s release notes that the District’s attrition rates remain high despite teacher salaries in the city that are among the highest in the nation.
Levy suggested that the only way to truly assess and understand the reasons teachers leave would be individual and confidential interviews with each one. Exit interviews, the closest thing that currently exists, are not confidential, and therefore teachers are unlikely to express themselves openly, she said.
There is also no comprehensive study that examines the effects of teacher turnover on students’ success in the District — another point that board members hope to examine in the future.
The two student representatives on the board weighed in on that subject at the Oct. 3 working session.
Marjoury Alicea, a senior at Capital City Public Charter School, suggested that teacher turnover — particularly when it occurs mid-year — creates undue stress for students as they have to adjust to new teaching styles.
“When we get a lot of teacher turnovers, a lot of the students kind of lose their trust in teachers,” said Tatiana Robinson, a senior at Ballou High School.
Next week’s State Board of Education meeting will take place on Oct. 24 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. The board plans to honor Joyanna Smith, formerly the District’s ombudsman for public education, and Theodore C. Hinton Jr., a 50-year employee of the DC Public Schools. Hinton served as a math and science teacher, an administrator and most recently as dean of culture at Ward 4’s Powell Bilingual Elementary School.
I believe there are 5 major reasons that teachers are leaving in large percentages. During the 2016-2017 school year there were 5 major changes that caused stress and anxiety for principals and teachers and thus students:
1. LEAP caused major problems as the WTU and the District never determined if teachers were required to meet in the morning during the day for 45 minutes in “collaborative teams” or not. The Union stated teachers did not have to give up planning periods to meet collaboratively and the District said teams must meet three times a week for 45 minutes with teachers. This put huge stress between building principals and teachers. This was caused by poor district administration as the Central Office was to negotiate this but instead they ignored the issue and decided to for principals to deal with the division. Clearly, principals were placed in a no win situation.
2. 2016-2017 was the first year where students evaluated teachers! The evaluations counted 10% of the teacher’s IMPACT. Teachers were angry and scared and principals again were in a no win situation due to another CO forced decision.
3. The IMPACT model for teacher evaluation was completely changed this year. It moved from the TLF to the EP. This was another huge stressor caused by the Central Office level again pitting teachers and principals against each other. Don’t forget that teachers can be fired if they do not receive at least a 2.5 on their IMPACTS.
4. This was the first year that IVA was counted and growth did not count on teacher evaluations. A teachers PARCC scores were counted against them and principals were forced to accept “Chancellor Goals” that if not met could mean that the principal’s one year at will contract could lead to non-reappointment! Again a huge stress on teachers as well as principals.
5. The sub pool in DCPS was virtually non-existent. 20 teachers left mid year and more that one school in the district due to stressors such as this. When subs can not be found teachers are forced to take on more students at the elementary level and at the secondary level teachers are “asked” to sub classes on their planning periods. AGAIN due to central office incompetency, principals and teacher are at odds and kids are stressed. Whose job is it to see that there is an adequate sub pool for our cities students? Surely not the principals and teachers.
With all MAJOR changes above in one year no wonder 22 principals resigned and 25% of the teaching force.