Improving teacher quality in los angeles' turn around schools by UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs

Improving Teacher Quality in Los Angeles’ Turn-Around Schools: Teacher Hiring at the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools

Quyen Dinh  Annie Kuo  Cara Priestley  Karissa Yee Applied Policy Project UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Department of Public Policy May 2011

Acknowledgements This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Public Policy degree from the Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California, Los Angeles. This report was prepared at the direction of the Department and of Mark KlegerHeine, of The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, as the policy client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UCLA Department of Public Policy, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client. This report was partially funded through the generous support of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Social Justice Initiative, as well as the Ralph & Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. Special thanks to UCLA Professor of Public Policy, Mark Kleiman, who guided this research, as well as Professor Meredith Phillips, Professor Sarah Reber, and Public Policy Librarian Kris Kasianovitz. We are also thankful to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Deputy Mayor of Education Joan Sullivan, Partnership CEO Marshall Tuck, Partnership COO Mark Kleger-Heine, and Partnership Human Resources Director Phyllis Bradford for initiating this project.

Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................iv Introduction..........................................................................................................1 THE CLIENT..........................................................................................................1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT................................................................................2 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................2 PROJECT SCOPE..................................................................................................2 Routine Hiring in LAUSD: Prior to the “New Normal”.............................4 THE PROCESS.....................................................................................................4 THE PARTNERSHIP’S FIRST HIRING YEAR.........................................................5 Current Realities: The “New Normal”.......................................................6 INTERNAL CANDIDATES.....................................................................................6 HIRING PROCESS IN THE “NEW NORMAL”.......................................................7 THE PARTNERSHIP’S SUCCESS IN HIRING UNDER THE “NEW NORMAL”.............................................................................................................9 Key Problems Under “New Normal” Hiring Conditions....................... ...11 Problem #1: Partnership principals find it difficult to staff their schools suitably with internal candidates.....................................................................11 Problem #2: Inefficiencies associated with the “new normal” hiring conditions demand significant principal and staff time, lengthening the process and leading to lost opportunities to hire quality candidates...........12 Problem #3: The current process requires employing strategies that are unsustainable because of exclusive knowledge, key relationships, and uncertainty........................................................................................................15 Recommendations...................................................................................17 Recommendation #1: Centralize key hiring functions (vacancy notification, screening, and recruitment) at the Partnership.............................................17 Recommendation #2: Share knowledge and facilitate consistent communication with key stakeholders including Partnership staff, principals, and LAUSD......................................................................................23 Recommendation #3: Advocate to LAUSD for further hiring flexibility information sharing..........................................................................................25 Implementation Considerations...............................................................27 Conclusion.............................................................................................29 Appendices.............................................................................................31 APPENDIX A: Bibliography................................................................................32 APPENDIX B: The Importance of Teacher Quality...........................................37 APPENDIX C: Methodology...............................................................................39 APPENDIX D: Options Not Fully Considered....................................................41 APPENDIX E: Suggestions for Hiring Tool Kit..................................................42 APPENDIX F: LAUSD Local District Map..........................................................45 APPENDIX G: Assumptions and Calculations Made in Implementation Considerations..................................................................................................46 APPENDIX H: Major Themes from Principal Interviews..................................47 APPENDIX I: Principal Interview Protocol........................................................50 APPENDIX J: Teacher Interview Protocol.........................................................54

iii

Executive Summary The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools (the Partnership) seeks to improve student achievement at 21 high-needs public schools in Los Angeles. It considers hiring quality teachers as the first step to improving instruction. Severe and ongoing cuts to school funding due to California’s budget crisis have created a “new normal” in teacher hiring conditions, in which the majority of teacher vacancies are filled by internal candidates before any external candidates can be considered. Internal candidates are Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) employees who have paid contracts but have no school placements, and external candidates are individuals who are new the District and are not yet on contract. Because these conditions will remain relevant for the foreseeable future, the Partnership will need to adjust to this “new normal” to hire the best possible teachers. In the “new normal”, principals need permission from LAUSD Human Resources officials before they hire external candidates. While LAUSD has strong reasons to secure placement for these internal candidates, this conflicts with principals’ desires to hire the best possible teachers. Additionally, principals hire under the real threat of not finding a suitable candidate before school starts, which could lead them to hire undesirable candidates in order to avoid a vacancy at the start of the year. Principals also feel pressured by the perceived threat of “forced placement” in which the District imposes a candidate on a school without the principal’s consent. This tension drives a process of negotiation between the Partnership and the District to identify hiring flexibilities that will allow the Partnership schools to hire the candidates they want. Our analysis finds that “new normal” hiring conditions present three key problems that prevent principals from hiring quality candidates in an efficient manner: 1) Partnership principals find it difficult to staff their schools suitably with internal candidates due to the low quality of these candidates and their unwillingness to teach in high-needs schools; 2) The “new normal” hiring conditions result in several inefficiencies including the demand for significant principal and staff time, and a lengthy process that leads to lost opportunities to hire quality candidates; and 3) The current process requires employing strategies that are unsustainable because of exclusive knowledge, key relationships, and uncertainty.

The Partnership can improve its hiring process through meeting the following goals: 1) Give principals access to desired candidates as early as possible; 2) Improve the ability of principals to make informed decisions quickly; and 3) Increase the size and quality of the available candidate pool at the time of hiring. To achieve this impact, we recommend that the Partnership consider the following steps: 1) Centralize key hiring functions within the Partnershipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s human resources department, including vacancy notification, screening of candidates eligibility, and recruitment; 2) Build capacity to deliver services through sharing knowledge and facilitating consistent communication with key stakeholders, including Partnership staff, principals, and LAUSD; and 3) Advocate to LAUSD for further hiring flexibility and information sharing. Given that the Partnership is adding a Human Resources Manager and an Operations Associate to its staff, the organization will have expanded capacity to take on the centralized hiring functions included in these recommendations. Additionally, the Partnership should leverage the services of graduate interns to further maximize efficiencies in this process. The matrix on the following page illustrates the link between identified problems and their corresponding recommendations. A more detailed description is discussed in the full report.

Matrix of Problems & Recommendations

Introduction The crisis in our public schools, particularly in Los Angeles, has led Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to declare education as the “civil rights issue of our time.” A disturbing student achievement gap driven by socioeconomic factors, such as race and economic class, has been the subject of school reform efforts for decades.

This report identifies opportunities to im prove teacher hiring within Partnership schools, especially under the current constraints caused by California’s budget crisis.

An increasing amount of research suggests that teachers account for a significant, if not the most significant, portion of student learning attributable to schools.1 (Refer to Appendix B for a discussion about relevant research on teaching quality.) Policymakers and school reformers are beginning to recognize that teaching quality matters when it comes to student performance, and have placed an increased focus on teacher effectiveness as a core strategy to turning around failing schools. However, low-performing urban schools face numerous challenges in hiring and retaining quality teachers. An understanding of the constraints around teacher hiring is crucial to any school reformer seeking to close the achievement gap.

THE CLIENT The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools (the Partnership) is a non-profit organization founded by Mayor Villaraigosa that aims to improve the outcomes of 21 of the lowest-performing schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD, or the District) through fundamental changes in school operations.2 One of the Partnership’s core strategies is strengthening quality instruction. Once hired, teachers acquire strong legal protections that prevent District termination or removal from their schools. Consequently, the organization has primarily focused on filling vacancies with the best candidates possible.

Sanders and Rivers (1996). “Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.” University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center: 3; Ferguson, R.F. (1991, Summer). “Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.” Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2): 465; Jordan, H.R., Mendro, R.L., & Weersinghe, D. (1997). “Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement: A preliminary report on research on teacher effectiveness.” Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute, Indianapolis, IN. Kalamazoo, MI: CREATE, Western Michigan University, cited in Darling-Hammond (2000); Jordan, H.R., Mendro, R.L., & Weersinghe, D. (1997), cited in Darling-Hammond (2000). 2 “About.” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/About. 1

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT This report identifies opportunities to improve teacher hiring within Partnership schools, especially under the current constraints caused by California’s budget crisis. Our project conducts an in-depth analysis of major problems to identify where and how improvements can occur. Our recommendations are designed to increase the capacity of school sites to hire quality teachers while economizing on principal resources.

METHODOLOGY Our analysis draws upon data from 35 in-depth interviews with key informants (including 16 out of the 21 principals at Partnership schools), LAUSD Human Resources data, a review of relevant literature, and a materials review of Partnership documents. We used qualitative analysis software to conduct a themes analysis of interviews. We received LAUSD HR data through a specific data request for non-identifiable personnel data on all LAUSD teachers in the past five years with the following variables: date of hire; current school placement; school placement for the given year; and subject taught. The dataset includes records for approximately 36,000 teachers. (A complete description of our methodology is included in Appendix C).

PROJECT SCOPE Although the Partnership considers hiring to be key to improving overall teaching quality in its schools, other strategies addressing the existing workforce, broadly characterized as “talent management,” could also be employed to achieve this goal. Some of the components in the talent management framework, including retention, evaluation, and professional development, are being addressed District-wide and may benefit the Partnership in the near future. These strategies are not explored in this report, but are discussed briefly in Appendix D.

Client Profile: Partnership for Los Angeles Schools The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools is a non‐profit organization started by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in 2007. It is a unique collaboration between the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District designed to create a model for school reform district‐wide. One of the largest public school reform projects in the nation, the Partnership operates 21 schools in some of the city’s most impoverished environments. These 21 schools employ 1500 unionized staff including teachers, administrators, and support staff.3 Organizational Background The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools is the largest non‐District school operator in Los Angeles.4 Within LAUSD, the Partnership is a “Network Partner,” an external organization that directly manages the operation of District schools. Under the Network Partner agreement, the Partnership Schools are granted management and budgetary independence in exchange for increased accountability.5 As a Network Partner, the Partnership has direct management authority over all principals, but standard LAUSD collective bargaining agreements apply to all other school site staff. School budgets continue to flow directly from LAUSD, and the organization’s resources are supplemented by grants, private donations and partnerships.6 The organization continues to advocate for charter‐like flexibilities for its schools while reforming the District from within, pushing for items such as greater budgetary autonomy for school sites. The Partnership’s model for reforming the city’s lowest‐performing schools rests on the following strategies: 1) transforming school site leadership and culture; 2) strengthening quality instruction; 3) accelerating opportunities for students; 4) actively engaging families and communities; and 5) optimizing school structures and operations. The Partnership’s home office has 30 staff members committed to meeting school needs and advocating on behalf of school issues. The Operations department is led by the Chief Operating Officer, who currently oversees an HR Director, an Operations Manager (primarily focused on the budget), and a vacant Operations Associate position. As discussed later in this report, the Partnership hopes to fill the vacant Operations Associate position and the newly created position of HR Manager.7 Student Demographics The Partnership serves nearly 20,000 students in South Los Angeles and East Los Angeles. Of these students: • 87% participate in free and reduced lunch programs; • 40% drop out of high school; and • 36% are English Language Learners.8

3 “Partnership

Awarded Over 27 Million in Federal Grants.” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/news/view/2010-08-partnership-awarded-over-27-million-in-federal-grant. 4 Ibid. 5 “iDesign Schools.” Los Angeles Unified School District, accessed March 8, 2011, http://garcia.laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/iDesign_Overview.pdf. 6Interview with Mark Kleger-Heine, The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, October 8, 2010. 7 Interview with Mark Kleger-Heine, The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, October 8, 2010. 8 “About.” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/About.

Routine Hiring in LAUSD: Prior to the “New Normal” THE PROCESS Teacher hiring in LAUSD is complicated by the presence of multiple stakeholders. A simplified version of the routine hiring process, from a principal’s perspective, is outlined below. This description is based on interviews with key stakeholders, including 16 principals, three Partnership staff members, three LAUSD officials, and two non-Partnership school operators. Exhibit 1: Routine LAUSD Hiring Process

Step 1: Vacancies are determined jointly by: 1) projected student enrollment for the next year (estimated in March by LAUSD); 2) voluntary resignations (occurring at any point between late spring and the first day of school); and 3) LAUSD’s budget (determined in June by the state legislature’s allocation to the District).9 Step 2: Candidates for these vacancies are referred to principals from a variety of sources, including candidates who have been recruited through LAUSD and screened for eligibility. These sources include LAUSD-conducted hiring fairs at education schools throughout the nation, online postings on LAUSD’s website, and informal referrals through other principals or teachers. Step 3: Principals interview candidates and select teachers to fill vacancies at their schools. Step 4: Candidates sign formal hiring contracts with LAUSD.

Expert Interview, February 9, 2011.

THE PARTNERSHIP’S FIRST HIRING YEAR

“[That year] we opened up with 100% of school vacancies filled… And the teachers that we hired, they’re [still] here, for the most part. The majority of the teachers that we hired then… they’re probably the teachers that we screened very well, and I’m very pleased. They’re here and they’re strong and they’re the ones bringing results to our school. So we really did a great job with our interview process.”

In the Partnership’s first year of hiring (academic year 2008-2009), the organization hired 109 external candidates.10 When the Partnership was founded, teachers had the right to request transfers to other District schools if they did not want to teach in Partnership schools. This was one factor that led to a higher number of vacancies in 2008-2009 than in subsequent years, when teacher turnover stabilized.11 The Partnership outsourced all hiring functions to an external organization called The New Teacher Project (TNTP). TNTP monitored vacancies, conducted a national search to recruit applicants, screened for evidence of quality and appropriate credentials, referred candidates to school sites for selection, trained principals on hiring best practices, and ensured that hiring contracts for new hires were processed in a timely manner with LAUSD. Principals recall this first year as a successful hiring year because nearly all schools were fully staffed by the first day of school, principals had access to a large pool of high quality candidates, and they were free to hire them without constraints.

—Partnership Principal

2006-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data. 11 Interview with Mark Kleger-Heine, The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, October 8, 2010. 10

Current Realities: The “New Normal” Reduction in Force (RIF): a budget-based teacher layoff. External Candidates: teachers not currently employed by LAUSD. Internal Candidates: teachers on the Displacement and Rehire lists. Rehire/RIF List: a ranked list of LAUSD teachers who have been laid-off for budgetary reasons. Displacement List: a list of teachers who are employed by LAUSD but do not have a current school placement either because their positions have been eliminated due to changes in student enrollment or school structure, or they are teachers returning from leave.

California’s current budget crisis creates challenging hiring conditions that are drastically different from the Partnership’s first year. In California, local school districts are primarily financed by state funding, so the state’s economic health has a direct impact on public schools. The budget crisis has forced LAUSD to cut costs substantially through mass reductions in the teacher workforce (RIF, or teacher lay-offs) and increased class sizes which further eliminate teaching positions. Prior to the budget crisis, LAUSD could not hire fast enough to fill its many vacancies and at times resulted to hiring what one principal described as “the first warm body.” However, the District is now cutting its personnel each year; more than 2,700 school personnel have been laid off over the past two years due to cuts in state education funding.12 These released teachers have priority over external candidates in filling vacancies, and there are fewer vacancies than in previous years. These budget realities impose additional restrictions on hiring, creating “new normal” hiring conditions in which principals must give priority to internal candidates when filling teacher vacancies. The elimination of teaching positions and the large numbers of RIFed teachers drastically reduces the number of vacancies available to external candidates. Some entrepreneurial principals engage in negotiation strategies to win permission from LAUSD to hire strong teacher candidates who are often times not from the internal candidate pool. This section describes: 1) the composition of internal candidates; 2) the Partnership’s hiring process under the “new normal” conditions; and 3) the Partnership’s success under these conditions.

INTERNAL CANDIDATES In contrast to external candidates who are new to the District, internal candidates are LAUSD teachers without school placements. There are two types of internal candidates: those on the displacement list, and those on the rehire list. The displacement list consists of teachers whose positions have been eliminated due to changes in student enrollment or school structure (which typically happens at the end or beginning of the school year), as well as teachers returning from leave. These teachers remain on contract as District employees indefinitely. Because displaced teachers continue to receive payment regardless of working, LAUSD requires “LAUSD Budget Realities.” Los Angeles Unified School District, accessed March 6, 2011, http://budgetrealities.lausd.net/personnel_impacts; “School personnel” are defined as teachers, administrators, and other school support staff.

schools to hire from the displacement list first if a position opens for which a displaced teacher qualifies.13 However, principals perceive these displaced candidates to be of lower quality. Once the displacement list is depleted and teachers are selected to fill vacancies, schools can then hire teachers back from the rehire list. The rehire list consists of teachers who have been laid-off (i.e., RIFed) for budgetary reasons. Teachers are laid-off in reverse-seniority order, so teachers most recently hired are the first to be laid off. RIFed teachers are notified of layoffs in early spring and, unlike displaced teachers, do not remain on the District’s payroll. Principals perceive these rehire candidates to be of higher quality than teachers on the displacement list. When hiring from the rehire list, the District’s contract with the teacher’s union and regulations in the State’s Education Code require schools to hire teachers back in order of seniority.14 This means that the teachers who have taught with LAUSD the longest receive priority in being rehired over less senior teachers. Only after both displacement and rehire lists have been exhausted of teachers with the appropriate state-issued subject-area credentials for a given vacancy can principals hire candidates not on either list (i.e., an external candidate).15 Although two distinct lists exist, principals do not generally know from which list they are receiving candidates.16

HIRING PROCESS IN THE “NEW NORMAL” In this “new normal,” vacancies are typically filled in one of two ways. A principal with a vacancy may either receive a list from LAUSD HR staff with potential candidates to interview, or may simply be told by the District that a teacher on the internal list is being placed at the principal’s school. The latter is referred to as a “forced placement,” where LAUSD HR assigns displaced teachers to a school without principal consent. The District has a strong interest to place displaced teachers—who remain on District payroll whether or not they find a placement. One principal describes the practice as follows, “I know a lot of [non-Partnership] schools that had to pick up people on the displaced list. They were just placed –they would get a phone call that said you’re gonna get this teacher, they start tomorrow.”

Forced Placement: LAUSD places a teacher in a school without principal consent. Negotiation Process: iterative communication between LAUSD and the Partnership for hiring flexibilities.

Recognizing these particular challenges in filling vacancies and the need for greater autonomy built into the Partnership’s school reform model, the Expert Interviews, February 2, 2011, and February 28, 2011. “Release and Subsequent Reassignment of personnel when positions are discontinued because of a reduction-in-force (AR 4320)”. Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Guide. Los Angeles Unified School District: 2, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.teachinla.com/forms/admin_regulations/A17_AR.pdf. 15 Interview with Phyllis Bradford, The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, October 26, 2010. 16 Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011. 13 14

District allows Partnership schools greater flexibility in hiring. For example, Partnership principals do not have to accept a forced placement and have the right to interview candidates before selecting a teacher.17 Although Partnership principals do not have to accept a forced placement, there is no guarantee they will find acceptable internal candidates on the displacement list. In some of cases, principals use the strategy of waiting until: 1) all internal candidates available to the school have been deemed unsuitable by Partnership schools; or 2) enough internal candidates have been placed in other LAUSD schools. Once this happens, the District may allow a principal to hire an external candidate.

“We kept pushing back on the District over the summer, and [Partnership staff was] able to talk directly with the HR folks, and they were able to negotiate some things… They were able to negotiate directly with [LAUSD] HR… So we were able to pick up some really stellar candidates at the end.”

Despite the Partnership’s hiring flexibility, the District’s practices lengthen the hiring process, thereby increasing the risk of opening the school year with vacancies. Interviews with Partnership principals and staff reveal that, because flexibility is granted on a case by case basis, hiring in the “new normal” often requires extensive back-and-forth negotiations with LAUSD to either obtain more internal candidates or hire a preferred external candidate. Consequently, principals and Partnership staff employ negotiation strategies in order to hire the best teachers (or at least prevent the worst teachers from teaching in their schools).18

—Partnership Principal

Within a Partnership school, the aforementioned negotiation process is lengthy and complicated. From the principal’s perspective, the “new normal” hiring process is outlined in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2: The “New Normal” Hiring Process

Notably, the biggest difference under the “new normal” hiring process occurs in the repetition between steps 2 and 3 as described below: Step 2: LAUSD distributes a list of internal candidates from the displacement list to Partnership principals seeking to fill vacancies. LAUSD or the Partnership may also choose to set up interviews with internal candidates on behalf of Partnership schools.

Interview with Mark Kleger-Heine, The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, October 8, 2010. While principals and key-stakeholders provided specific examples of these negotiation strategies, this report does not describe these strategies to comply with the terms of our IRB to protect stakeholders under circumstances of potential impact of harm.

17 18

Step 3: If a principal does not want to select candidates from that pool, he/she must supply a reason of why each candidate on the list is unsuitable. LAUSD then offers another list of internal candidates eligible for hire (going back to Step 2). These two steps may repeat several times until either: 1) internal lists are exhausted as internal candidates move off the list to fill school vacancies, allowing for consideration of external candidates; or 2) an internal candidate is selected. “They were able to bring on teachers we wanted, [and] that was important… That was one of the biggest selling points of the Partnership—that we are able to take a little bit more control and autonomy of our schools and not necessarily have to adhere to all the District policies that are really cumbersome on the campus. So that was a major win that has helped our campus out and made me more appreciative of the work they’ve done.”

THE PARTNERSHIP’S SUCCESS IN HIRING UNDER THE “NEW NORMAL” The Partnership hired 35 new teachers during the 2009-2010 school year, and 37 new teachers during the 2010-2011 school year.19 These numbers would suggest that the Partnership hired fewer teachers during these “new normal” hiring years (2009-2011) than in their first year of operations (2008-2009), when they hired 109 teachers. However, when we analyzed the overall percentage of teachers hired by the Partnership compared to other LAUSD schools, Partnership schools actually comprised a greater percentage of new hires District-wide in those two years than in previous years. The Partnership has hired an average of 16% of all new LAUSD teachers from 2009-2011, compared to only 5% in the 2006-2008 academic years.20 This high percentage of new hires is even more significant considering that Partnership schools only account for 3% of all LAUSD students. According to 12 out of 16 principals interviewed, the Partnership’s primary value in teacher hiring has been supporting negotiations with LAUSD, allowing them to hire preferred candidates (refer to Appendix H for more details about principal perceptions of the Partnership’s role in the hiring process). Principals applaud the Partnership staff’s knowledge of both the political landscape (i.e., circumventing legal constraints and pursuing negotiation strategies), and the timing required to negotiate (i.e., when to wait and when to act). Additionally, they applaud the staff’s relationships with key LAUSD decision makers.

—Partnership Principal “Talking to people in [LAUSD] HR, the highest up people…[Partnership staff is] always trying to push the envelope of District policy… If it weren’t for the Partnership, we wouldn’t have been able to hire our math teacher at the time that we did. —Partnership Principal

One principal who did not take advantage of the Partnership’s help commented, “If I had known that I was able to hire from outside of the lists, I would not have made at least two of the hires that I now regret.” While the principal knew of the Partnership’s negotiation strategies, the principal was unconvinced that LAUSD would ultimately allow hiring flexibility. Additionally, the principal felt that it was safer to hire someone

2006-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data. 20 Ibid. 19

from the displacement list, rather than risk starting the school year with vacant positions if negotiation strategies were unsuccessful.

Key Problems under “New Normal” Hiring Conditions Our analysis reveals three primary problems the Partnership faces under the “new normal” hiring conditions related to a restricted pool of candidates, inefficiencies with the hiring process, and the un-sustainability of the existing process. These three problems are discussed in further detail below.

“We cannot hire these folks, especially if we are looking for immediate [student] gains. The most important asset is our teachers; there’s no way we can make progress with our students if we had those types of teachers.”

Problem #1 Partnership principals find it difficult to staff their schools suitably with internal candidates.

—Partnership Principal “We had to interview these people… Some came in shorts, sandals, they brought smoothies with them— it didn’t seem like they were very serious.” —Partnership Principal “My concern was about getting the right people because we’re in the ‘hood here…so we need people who really want to be here… It’s very hard to staff in this community. Even in the age of folks being RIFed and not having jobs, they’re still saying ‘Oh, [that area?] We don’t want to go there.’”

The proportion of high quality candidates on displaced lists is low. When restricted to the pool of displaced candidates, principals’

prospects of finding the right match for their schools greatly diminish. Principals perceive displacement list candidates of being of low quality21 and characterize displacement list candidates as arriving to interviews unprepared, unmotivated, unorganized, unprofessionally dressed, and unable to answer interview questions satisfactorily.22 Therefore, principals would prefer not to be restricted to displacement list teachers. Furthermore, good teachers are immediately selected from the displacement list, so principals must move rapidly to secure quality candidates. Due to these limitations, principals often feel as though they have to settle for an inferior candidate when selecting from displaced teachers.

Many displaced candidates are unwilling to teach at high-needs schools. Principals confirm that many of the displaced candidates they

contact are unwilling to interview at Partnership schools once they discover its location and student population. Many displaced candidates prefer not to teach in urban environments defined by high poverty and crime rates, such as East and South Los Angeles where almost all Partnership schools are located. This unwillingness to teach at a Partnership school is highly problematic because research on teacher quality indicates that a desire to teach in high-needs areas is a major factor of school fit and is correlated

—Partnership Principal

21 22

Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011; Expert Interview, February 11, 2011. Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011.

with being an effective teacher in an urban school.23 Therefore, persuading an unwilling teacher to work in a Partnership school is unlikely to result in desirable student outcomes.

Problem #2 Inefficiencies associated with the “new normal” hiring conditions demand significant principal and staff time, lengthening the process and leading to lost opportunities to hire quality candidates.

Wasted Time

Results in lengthening the hiring process “[LAUSD HR sends] out the rehire and displaced list [and when we called the displaced teachers,]… their number wasn’t working, they said no, etc, etc… And often times if you wait long enough, you get the bottom of the barrel of the teachers that no one wants. And I’m not going to settle for that, my kids deserve a lot better.’”

The current hiring process is time-intensive and should be more efficient. Despite the low proportion of strong internal candidates, LAUSD requires principals to conduct due diligence to 1) interview all candidates from the displacement list; and 2) provide reasons why each candidate is not a good school match before receiving permission to hire an external candidate of their choice. This due diligence wastes time, especially when principals have an excellent external candidate in mind.

Additionally, LAUSD’s practice of distributing internal candidate lists in sporadic batches throughout the summer (instead of all at once) requires principals to waste time waiting for internal candidates to interview. Principals also report that they must first consider internal candidates from the local districts24 where their schools are located before receiving lists of candidates from other local districts, further delaying the hiring process. Moreover, principals spend significant time contacting people from the lists who have already accepted positions elsewhere or are uninterested in teaching at Partnership schools. Although time spent on teacher hiring is important, due diligence steps and sorting through multiple out-dated lists unnecessarily lengthen the process. This time could instead be spent on improving instruction and student achievement in other, more impactful ways.

—Partnership Principal

Metzger, Scott Alan, Wu, Meng-Jia, “Commercial Teacher Selection Instruments: The Validity of Selecting Teachers through Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values“ Review of Educational Research 78.4 (2008): 921-22, accessed February 23, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308323035. 24 LAUSD is divided into eight regional districts. The Partnership schools reside in Local Districts 5 and 7. A map of the Local Districts can be found in Appendix F. 23

“We were rushing and we wanted to get [teachers], and if we didn’t, they would have been grabbed somewhere else… Everybody was trying to grab the best… they’ll be snatched up and that’s what happens sometimes.”

Lost Opportunities

Results in losing out on high quality candidates

The Partnership fails to capitalize on opportunities to recruit in shortage areas, where there is more flexibility in hiring. With

fewer teachers on the displacement list qualified to teach in shortage subject areas (i.e., math, science, and special education), the list is exhausted earlier than for subjects such as elementary and social science. Analysis of new Partnership school hires (i.e., external candidates) by subject area shows that approximately 74% of the 72 new hires over the past two years have been in traditional shortage areas—secondary math, science, and special education.25 Principals noted that the applicant pool should be expanded in these shortage subject areas where the likelihood of selecting external candidates is greater. However, both the Partnership and LAUSD have decreased their recruitment strategies under “new normal” conditions due to the limited ability to hire external candidates. Although recruiting for all subjects is largely irrelevant due to “new normal” conditions, there are opportunities to increase the external candidate pool in shortage areas.

—Partnership Principal “There’s a period in May where everybody’s looking for a job and it’s really hard… If [candidates] get something else, knowing how the job market is for teachers right now, it’s not unlikely that they are going to take [the other offer].”

Principals delay hiring until later than optimal. The District requires

principals to wait until displacement lists are distributed before initiating the hiring process for the subsequent school year. Because LAUSD must wait for approval of the California budget in order to finalize its own budget and determine the number of necessary layoffs and open vacancies, displacement lists are not circulated until early summer.26 By the time principals are allowed to begin interviewing, quality external candidates have already accepted jobs elsewhere. The New Teacher Project, an organization that helps urban school districts find quality teachers, emphasizes that many urban school districts such as LAUSD are at a substantial disadvantage because the most qualified candidates are hired by May, before many urban districts even start the hiring process.27 Unfortunately, hiring over the summer is the typical LAUSD timeline.28 Even under routine non-RIF conditions, teachers delay providing notification of voluntary turnover (i.e., transfer, retirement, personal leave) until the end of the school year, pushing the process of finding a replacement into the summer. Additionally, summer hiring is also problematic because it creates

—Partnership Principal “[We] typically launch our [hiring process] in December or January at the absolute latest… Launching [your hiring after March means that you have] already missed out on a huge slice of the talent pool.” —Field Expert

2006-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data. 26 Expert Interview, February 9, 2011. 27 “Teacher Hiring, Transfer, & Evaluation in Los Angeles Unified School District: Final Report, last modified September 2009,” The New Teacher Project: 15, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.tntp.org/files/TNTP_LAUSD_Report_Nov09.pdf. 28 Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011; Expert Interview, February 28, 2011; Interview with Phyllis Bradford, The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, October 26, 2010. 25

logistical difficulties: many hiring committee members are on vacation and cannot help make decisions about candidates, non-Partnership principals are unavailable for reference checks, and students are no longer in school to demonstrate lesson plans in front of a live classroom.29

Principals face a trade-off between employing time intensive negotiation strategies and the risk of starting the academic school year not fully staffed. Although willingness to draw out the

“It was one of those things where the Partnership and LAUSD are in a staring contest and LAUSD blinked. But they didn’t blink until the end of August. And again, I didn’t want to take that chance. Had I, there were 2 people I would’ve hired differently than the ones I hired based on that [uncertainty].”

process increases the likelihood that principals will be able to hire more desirable external candidates, there is always a risk that positions will remain vacant at the start of the school year. Principals note that beginning the academic year not fully staffed is among the worst hiring outcomes possible. However, they are generally willing to wait out the negotiation process if they know that eventually the District will grant flexibility to hire a better external teacher. Our analysis of LAUSD Human Resources records illustrate that Partnership hiring occurs later in the year under the “new normal.” As shown in Exhibit 3, a couple of alarming trends are worth noting: 1) The percentage of teachers hired in July decreases considerably under “new normal” conditions. For example, in 2008-2009 when the Partnership was operating under normal hiring conditions, 19% of teachers were hired in July. In 2009-2010 and 2010-2011when severe budget cuts occurred, the percentage decreased to 5% and 6%.

—Partnership Principal “About the worst thing that can happen to you as a school is that you aren’t fully staffed on Day 1. It’s just miserable.”

2) Under “new normal conditions” the percentage of teachers hired after the first day of school is alarmingly high. Under normal hiring conditions in 2008-2009, 14% of hires occurred after the first day of school. This percentage grows drastically in 2009-2010 to 32%, and in 2010-2011 to 62%.

—Partnership Principal

Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011.

Exhibit 3

N=82 (’07-’08); 109 (’08-’09); 35 (’09-’10); 37 (’10-’11); Source: 2007-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data.

Problem #3 The current process requires employing strategies that are unsustainable because of exclusive knowledge, key relationships, and uncertainty. “Working with the District can be really frustrating at times because communication can be a challenge… [Partnership staff] know people in HR higher up, so [they are] able to call them directly, which helped.”

Negotiations rely on exclusive knowledge and relationships that are not broadly shared. Negotiation strategies rely on a concentrated number of key relationships and informal networks within LAUSD and the Partnership. Staff turnover in key positions at both organizations could jeopardize the long-term effectiveness of these strategies. Moreover, expert interviewees warn that not all principals are able to pursue these “back door” negotiation strategies because success relies on wellestablished relationships and knowledge possessed by only the most experienced principals.30

—Partnership Principal

Expert Interview, February 16, 2011.

New principals lack the informal networks required to navigate “new normal” hiring conditions. Experienced principals need less help

“[Partnership staff] know people in HR higher up, so [they are] able to call them directly, which helped. [They] also understand the lay of the land and when [LAUSD staff] are going to open things up or not… [Partnership staff acted as] a reality check, ‘You can’t just hire whomever you want, that’s not how it works.’ So [they] would help me understand what options we had available to us.”

from the Partnership in navigating the current process, often relying on their informal networks with other principals to obtain information and referrals regarding quality internal candidates. However, half of the Partnership principals interviewed had less than one year of administrative experience as a principal in the District. Consequently, these new principals lack the informal networks to navigate the internal lists effectively. However, Partnership principals are not required by the Partnership or LAUSD to attend LAUSD principal meetings, further limiting opportunities to connect with other non-Partnership principals that would aid in building these informal networks.31

Lack of communication strains relationships that are key to the hiring process. While the Partnership’s existing relationships have

already resulted in important flexibilities, several stakeholders noted that a lack of communication has inhibited working relationships with the organization. For example, interviewees reported a high level of teacher dissatisfaction and distrust with the Partnership, which is partially due to a lack of communication with the Partnership about its intentions and responsibilities. This dissatisfaction among teachers affects the Partnership’s ability to attract new teachers and internal candidates to their schools. Interviewees also suggest that the Partnership’s relationship with LAUSD at the local district level is strained due to a lack of regular communication and cooperation with local district staff.32 This prevents LAUSD staff from effectively supporting the needs of school sites.

—Partnership Principal in first year as principal “I’m pretty sure [that a student teacher’s] perspective is driven by their guiding teacher since that’s their main point of contact. And if they are a resident teacher in one of those schools, it depends on how active the staff is and the staff’s perception of the Partnership, rather than their own individual perception.”

The probability of successfully employing negotiation strategies in the long run is highly uncertain. Since hiring flexibility is granted on a case-by-case basis, there is no guarantee that these negotiation strategies will continue for the foreseeable future. As budget conditions worsen and both the RIF and displacement lists grow longer, the District may further limit the Partnership’s hiring flexibility, restricting even more principals’ ability to hire external candidates.

—Field Expert

31 32

Expert Interview, February 28, 2011. Expert Interview, February 28, 2011.

Recommendations How can the Partnership better adapt to hiring conditions in the “new normal?” The problems identified in this report suggest that Partnership principals would benefit greatly from additional support enabling them to secure high quality teachers quickly. As a central organization that provides resources to school sites, the Partnership can assume this role, specifically by facilitating some elements of the hiring process. Studies about human resource management in schools suggest that these activities are best located in the central office to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the teacher hiring process.33 Given the time-sensitive nature of teacher hiring, our recommendations aim to: 1) 2) 3)

Give principals access to desired candidates as early as possible; Improve the ability of principals to make informed decisions quickly; and Increase the size and quality of the available candidate pool at the time of hiring.

Recommendation #1 Centralize key hiring functions (vacancy notification, screening, and recruitment) at the Partnership. Vacancy Notification Goal: Identify vacancies earlier so that Partnership schools are better positioned to secure the best candidates.

“Once we understand whether there are teachers not returning, then we immediately [need to start] being able to bring in candidates.” —Partnership Principal

Encourage early vacancy notification at school sites. The later in

the year that hiring for a position begins, the more difficult it is to find quality candidates. Although the Partnership cannot enforce a specific resignation notification date for teachers, the organization can encourage a culture of openness and expectation for early notification across its schools. To do this, the Partnership should circulate a non-binding form to teachers to proactively gauge voluntary turnover (i.e., transfers, retirement, and personal leave). Once principals have an idea of which positions might be vacant at their schools next year, they can immediately begin to recruit Castetter, William. “Selection,” in The Human Resource Function in Educational Administration Sixth Edition. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall, 1996), 133-38; Acuff, Hall A, “Quality Control in Employee Selection” Personnel Journal 60.7 (1981): 563.

for those positions, initiating their hiring process earlier to be more competitive in securing high quality candidates. An example of an organization that uses this strategy is Green Dot Public Schools, which requires teachers to submit a letter of intent (declaring intent to stay, leave, or transfer) each year by February 14 and make a final decision by April 1.34 “[If] what we got as principals was completed packets with everything checked off... That would be helpful, because then we’re not just going through and screening all those hundreds of resumes, but really looking at some of those that really dedicated some time and effort into applying to our school.”

Screening Goal: Move through internal lists as quickly as possible to either: 1) identify desirable internal candidates or 2) remove them from Partnership consideration, hastening access to external candidates. As discussed in the Key Problems section, the best internal candidates are selected quickly, leaving less desirable candidates left on the list by the time Partnership schools begin hiring. To help principals navigate the internal list quickly, the Partnership should assume the screening functions of collecting information about candidate qualifications, availability, and interest, and providing this information efficiently to principals.

—Partnership Principal

These screening functions can save principal time by allowing them to make quick and informed hiring decisions. Principals will have more time to select among candidates that are more likely to be a match, and will be better positioned to quickly find the best teachers among the many internal candidates on their lists. The information provided through screening will allow Partnership principals to find quality internal candidates more rapidly.35 When there are no suitable internal candidates available for a given position, centralizing the screening function can allow the Partnership to swiftly identify and share reasons for why remaining internal candidates are not a good fit. This speeds up the negotiation process, granting hiring flexibility to Partnership schools sooner. This centralized information should be either offered as a basic information collection and dissemination service to principals, or as a basic screening service for principals who only wish to see names of prevetted candidates. Offering both options would respect school site autonomy while enabling principals to make judgments about candidates more quickly with readily available and relevant information. The following suggestions outline how screening can be implemented. Expert Interview, March 2, 2011. Competition among Partnership principals for the same candidate is not a significant concern because there are few enough vacancies in Partnership schools that the likelihood that principals are competing for the same type (e.g., a Secondary math teacher) of candidates is low.

34 35

Verify qualifications and interest through phone interviews or questionnaires. A pre-screening phone interview or questionnaire

“[Without resume screening], you’re waiting to see if you have the right candidate… To be able to have time to really sit down with your team and go, ‘Okay, this person does this and so we’re going to be asking them this when they come in,’ as opposed to that 35 minutes before they are here. Absolutely, [I would want resumes before candidates come in for interviews]… That would be a time saver and a better use of our time as well. It gives us a better idea of who we’re screening or interviewing.”

conducted by the Partnership would quickly filter out unsuitable candidates from the displacement list with no time or effort required by principals. The majority of principals interviewed indicated they would welcome the Partnership’s help in screening for: 1) whether the candidate is still looking for a job; 2) the candidate’s willingness to work at highneeds schools; and 3) whether the candidate meets basic eligibility criteria (credentials in the appropriate subject/area).36 Since these qualifications do not make judgments regarding school fit and apply to all Partnership schools, the Partnership should conduct this screening centrally.

Collect and rank resumes of internal and external candidates on an ongoing basis. As part of the initial phone interview or

questionnaire, Partnership staff should also collect candidate resumes. These resumes should be ranked according to criteria determined jointly by the Partnership and Partnership principals. When vacancies arise, the Partnership can provide the candidate rankings and copies of resumes to principals through a secure website or a Partnership staff member. This information can help principals prioritize whom to interview. The Partnership can also request to LAUSD that internal candidates who do not provide a resume be taken off their schools’ displacement lists; failure to submit a resume is a strong indicator of a lack of initiative and effort and should be considered as an appropriate justification for why those candidates are not suitable to teach in Partnership schools.

—Partnership Principal

Targeted Recruitment Goal: Strategically increase both the size and quality of the candidate pool (internal and external). This should be expanded during non-RIF hiring years as well.

Target recruitment of external candidates for shortage area vacancies. Given the rare opportunities to hire external candidates under

“Getting a strong pool to start is critical. That’s your number one, everything else is pretty equal. The Partnership could help on the recruiting piece.”

“new normal” hiring conditions, both the District and the Partnership have drastically decreased their teacher recruitment efforts. However, demand for external candidates in specific shortage areas still exists, and vacancies in these shortage areas are likely to have more hiring flexibility. Recent hiring trends illustrated in Exhibit 4 reinforce the fact that most external hiring in the “new normal” has occurred in known shortage areas, such as special education, math, and science.37

—Partnership Principal

Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011. Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011; Expert Interview, February 24, 2011; Expert Interviews, February 8, 2011.

36 37

“[Hold] a job fair so that the principals could be in a central location and [teacher credential] students could come and meet with them in one area… I think that would be a good way to formalize the partnership, especially if there were a session for all of the potential candidates to hear from [Partnership staff] about the hiring process… and what they could expect from the Partnership, and what they could expect at the school level. I think that might help to decrease the anxiety [students] feel about that there’s no hiring at this point.”

Exhibit 4

N=72; Source: 2006-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data.

To fill shortage area positions, the Partnership should conduct an analysis to identify the channels that bring the Partnership’s best teachers formalize recruitment relationships with those sources. One promising channel is UCLA’s Teacher Education Program (TEP). Partnership principals widely agree that TEP is a consistent source of high quality teachers.38 Since this program specifically trains teachers to teach in urban environments, and often place students in Partnership schools to do their student teaching, its graduates are likely to be a good fit for Partnership schools.39 However, no formal pipelines currently exist to connect TEP graduates to Partnership schools.40 TEP staff suggests strengthening relationships between Partnership schools and TEP to establish a more formal recruiting source for Partnership teacher vacancies.

—Field Expert “I’d like some Partnership support [recruiting candidates], as far as giving us a cadre to look at for placement. If anything, limit our choices, but not so severe that I don’t even have a choice. Give me 5 or 6 and go through an interview process to look for best fits.”

Target recruitment of internal candidates for non-shortage area vacancies. Under “new normal” conditions, Partnership principals hire the majority of candidates from an internal pool of existing LAUSD teachers. In the past two years, approximately 57% of all teacher hires at Partnership schools were internal transfers from the displacement or rehire lists.41 Exhibit 5 shows that internal transfer teachers primarily fill Secondary English and Elementary School vacancies at Partnership schools. To increase access to desirable internal candidates in these nonshortage areas, the Partnership should enhance its relationships with

—Partnership Principal

Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011. Expert Interview, February 22, 2011. 40 Expert Interviews, February 22, 2011; Expert Interviews, February 25, 2011. 41 2006-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data. 38 39

relevant District personnel (such as officials from neighboring local districts) and non-Partnership schools. Building these relationships would increase knowledge about the availability and quality of potential transfer candidates through important word-of-mouth referrals, giving the Partnership and its principals the ability to act quickly on internal candidates. Exhibit 542

N=119; Source: 2006-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data.

Develop a teacher referral system. Many Partnership principals

indicated that informal teacher networks are crucial in hiring.43 Principals rely on networks to obtain leads on potential candidates, check teacher references, learn about vacancies quickly, and attract candidates to their schools.44 Because Partnership teachers are more likely to know other likeminded, committed, and high quality teachers, the Partnership should better utilize its existing teacher network as a recruitment source. A simple online referral form with quarterly reminders to teachers about its existence would give the Partnership a valuable source of teacher candidates. The Partnership should consolidate this information into a clearinghouse of available candidates to share with principals when vacancies arise. This centralized database would be especially valuable for new principals that do not have an established informal network.

Secondary school teachers are certified by â&#x20AC;&#x153;subject areasâ&#x20AC;? such as Math and Science, while Elementary school teachers have a general certification enabling them to teach all elementary school subjects. 43 Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011. 44 Ibid. 42

Market the mission, vision, and reputation of the Partnership when recruiting. Organizations like Teach for America and the New York

“Send me quality people. Send me folks who are coming here to make a difference… Someone’s who’s knowledgeable, that has a little bit [of experience] under their belt. [I want someone] who wants to be here, who wants to work with children in the inner city, who’s open to constructive criticism, and who wants to grow and make a lasting influence in children.”

City Fellows have had great success with this approach.45 Field experts explained that, “They sell TFA’s mission during recruitment events, [such as] building momentum on college campuses for people to think about closing the education gap. The focus on recruitment is selling the vision and mission of the organization, not just trying to get people into the program itself.” Partnership principals also stress the importance of hiring teachers that have the right attitude to work with their particular students and the communities in which they reside.46 In order to attract these types of social justice-minded candidates, the Partnership should more actively emphasize its mission of urban school reform in its recruiting literature and convey the intrinsic benefits that teachers receive from working at Partnership schools.47 Several Partnership principals noted that an expectation they held, that joining the Partnership would create new recruitment channels to access high quality candidates, has not yet been met.48 To attract high quality candidates, the Partnership should again follow Teach for America’s lead in establishing itself as the premier organization for education reform in Los Angeles. As an organization that has increased graduation rates, test scores, and parent engagement in its schools, the Partnership should market itself as a successful school reform organization.49 Furthermore, the Partnership’s commitment to school site empowerment and the greater freedom to innovate should be attractive to the type of teacher the Partnership is looking to hire.50

—Partnership Principal “They made it sound like everyone’s going to want to work for Partnership schools, we’re going to do a national outreach and we’re going to get all these amazing candidates, the cream of the crop, and I didn’t really find that to be the case.”

Increase recruitment efforts among existing channels. Exhibit 6

summarizes Partnership schools’ most common recruitment sources as reported by the principals we interviewed. The Partnership should consider expanding recruitment in channels that have not been maximized by principals, such as EdJoin and other online sources (online job boards, free educational blogs, and Craigslist). Online ads have the benefit of reaching a wide audience with minimal investment. Principals report that local universities such as UCLA’s TEP program are a valuable recruitment source, yet they are not currently among the top recruitment sources.

—Partnership Principal

Expert Interview, February 18, 2011. Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011. 47 Expert Interview, February 18, 2011. 48 Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011. 49 About.” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/About. 50 Expert Interview, February 18, 2011. 45 46

Additionally, the Partnership should consider hosting regular hiring fairs. In general, principals see hiring fairs as an efficient way to find candidates.51 Exhibit 6 “If we could fly some of these teacher positions on EdJoin and not just within the District, we might be able to get more people willing to come over this way.” —Partnership Principal

Major theme from interview question: “Where do you get candidates to fill your vacancies?” Source: Principal Interviews, January 26 – February 13, 2011.

Recommendation #2 Share knowledge and facilitate consistent communication with key stakeholders including Partnership staff, principals, and LAUSD.

“[The Partnership] probably has a good idea of how to hire people. Just going through the process for this [principal] position, it was really rigorous… They could probably share some of that information in terms of the processes and tools they’ve used and how we could translate that to hire teachers.”

Goal: Create a sustainable process for hiring quality candidates and encourage relationship building among key stakeholders.

Share knowledge regarding negotiation strategies with principals and staff. The Partnership should train principals, particularly those new to LAUSD, to navigate the negotiation process with regards to displacement lists and external candidate hiring. To ensure that concentrated knowledge of negotiation strategies is not lost if key staff members leave, it is important to involve additional Partnership staff in hiring, document these strategies, and record contact information for important decision makers. Sharing this access and knowledge will ensure

—Partnership Principal 51

Partnership Principal Interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011.

that the Partnership’s negotiation strategies will remain with the organization as institutional knowledge, even as individuals come and go. “There was a panelist that trained us to identify good resumes, how to conduct the interview process, the types of questions, working with rubrics, even how to market your school, so we went through all that training. And I still reference that packet once in awhile to make sure that we’re up to par with our expectations.”

Train principals regarding hiring best practices. The Partnership

should conduct principal training on best practices in teacher hiring, including the use of different hiring tools (refer to Appendix E for research on teacher selection tools). Institutional knowledge on teacher hiring has not been sustained within the organization—the last organized hiring training took place three years ago, and only three of the original principals remain at Partnership schools.52 At a minimum, the Partnership should redistribute the original TNTP training documents to principals new to the Partnership. Although sharing standardized hiring tools may not increase efficiency as much as screening would, it should increase the hiring committee’s probability of accurately assessing teacher quality and fit. As such, the Partnership should develop a toolkit for principals looking for guidance in this area (refer to Appendix E for a description). Currently, most principals review resumes and use standard interview questions and a scoring rubric to select teachers. Principals also prefer to include an assessment of the candidate’s teaching ability in the selection process, such as a sample lesson or a video of the candidate teaching, or a candidate portfolio with a targeted sample of classroom artifacts, if time allows.

—Partnership Principal that received TNTP training “[I’d like to] see the large picture and chisel out some time so that I can be a part of it… So if we can’t meet on a regular basis then I would like to be included on emails that are floating around… I wish I could be a part of their staff meetings… I would love to do that. Suggest that, please.”

Invest in relationship building with key decision makers. In order

to develop trust and reciprocity, the Partnership should conscientiously strengthen relationships with principals, teachers, and the District through special events and standing meetings or other communications (i.e., monthly update meetings or correspondence). Improved relationships with teachers could help the Partnership in recruiting candidates from internal sources. Supporting new principals in building their informal District networks will also improve access to internal teacher candidates and keep principals informed. Additionally, better communications with LAUSD staff may result in more responsive interactions between LAUSD staff, Partnership staff and principals. Collectively, these recommendations will result in a more sustainable hiring process.

—LAUSD Staff

Expert Interview, February 14, 2011.

Recommendation #3 Advocate to LAUSD for further hiring flexibility and information sharing. Goal: Increase the degrees of freedom principals have to make quick and informed decisions, while providing them with the information necessary to do so. “[I’d like help] getting those lists to us in a more timely manner and not limiting us to one [Local] District, but Districtwide, so that we get the best possible candidates throughout LAUSD.”

Advocate for incremental changes, where LAUSD has authority to grant it, for expanded hiring flexibility. As a Network Partner

organization operating District schools, the Partnership has already established certain autonomies from standard District procedures. The Partnership should continue to advocate for small changes in its Memorandum of Understanding and in District operating procedures for Network Partners where LAUSD is not restricted by its collective bargaining agreement with the teacher’s union and/or the State Education Code. These allowances would not affect the District’s general hiring process but would make great strides to increase the sustainability of Partnership’s negotiation strategies, reduce principal time wasted, and capitalize on Partnership opportunities to select desirable internal candidates or hire high quality external candidates.

—Partnership Principal “The main thing is eliminating forced placements … A lot of states are trying to move in that direction. It’s the only way to implement… mutual consent… Here’s an opportunity to look at the effectiveness of workforce as a whole… for the good of the institution.”

1) Send internal candidate lists from local districts closest in proximity and demographics to Partnership schools (76% of all transfers come from Local Districts five through eight)53 as opposed to restricting lists initially only to the local district in which each school is located; 2) Send principals a complete list of internal candidates for consideration instead of sending names in small batches; 3) Allow principals to go directly to the RIF candidate list and skip the displacement list;

—Field Expert

4) Agree on due diligence steps that meet LAUSD’s requirements for moving off internal lists and explaining why internal candidates were deemed unsuitable; 5) Advocate to allow early hiring at Partnership schools when internal lists are short. Currently, Partnership schools are required to wait until the launch of the formal hiring process in late spring, regardless of whether a desirable external candidate can be identified earlier in the process due to a short internal list for a particular subject; and

2006-2011 Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records from LAUSD, received March 2011. Unpublished raw data.

6) Advocate for greater flexibility for small schools to hire teachers without required multiple-subject credentials, thereby increasing the pool of qualified candidates from which to fill positions. Two principals at Roosevelt High School54 mentioned that small schools often need to hire one teacher to teach multiple subjects (i.e., both Algebra and Biology), but there are limited candidates with multiple subject credentials available to them on internal lists or in external pools.

“What I need is flexibility… because I have more chemistry sections than one chemistry teacher is allowed. So I need a teacher who can teach both chemistry and physics. But they might not have both credentials, [so I could use help] getting the waivers… just kind of streamlining that process.”

Advocate for a website to collect and share information about both internal and external teachers. LAUSD’s online application

currently collects key information about applicants that would be useful for screening: type of credential, years of teaching experience, teaching history, undergraduate institution, GPA, and resume.55 These data are particularly important because research on teacher quality indicates that these variables are moderately correlated with teacher quality.56 While LAUSD HR staff collect and utilize these data to hire external candidates, this wealth of information is not shared with the Partnership or at the school site level. These existing resources could be easily shared with principals to better inform candidate screening and selection and allow schools to do so in a more efficient manner.

—Partnership Principal

The Partnership should advocate that LAUSD share this information on both new and displaced teachers through a secure website to exploit economies of scale. Displaced teachers seldom provide resumes on their own initiative.57 This slows the process because resumes contain information that facilitates faster and more efficient hiring decisions. Furthermore, LAUSD does not currently require displaced teachers to send resumes or other information before or after interviews, nor do they facilitate provision of information. A website would give principals access to this information and limit redundancies among LAUSD, the Partnership and principals, allowing displaced teachers to upload resumes once and principals to download resumes instantly. “Roosevelt High Schools as Small Schools,” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 8, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/Our_schools/Roosevelt_High_School#why%20small%20schools. The “small schools” are in reference to Roosevelt High School’s new school structure. Classes at Roosevelt High School are divided among 7 “small schools,” each with their own theme, ranging from the School of Media and Communications to the School of Science, Technology, Science and Math. Prior to entering the 9th grade, students select their top 3 preferences. 55 “Certified Application.” Los Angeles Unified School District’s Teacher Recruitment Center, accessed March 8, 2011, https://www.weteachla.com/ats/app_login?COMPANY_ID=00001364. 56 “Evaluating Progress and Equitable Distribution of Effective Educators,” California Department of Education, July 2007: 14 – 18, accessed January 10, 2011, http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/documents/toolkit.doc. 57 Partnership principal interviews. January 26-February 16, 2011; Expert Interview February 4, 2011; Principals report that while recent graduates often have resumes readily available, more established teachers do not have resumes at all and are not incentivized to draft one given that it is not an LAUSD requirement. 54

Implementation Considerations The recommendations presented in this report are in line with the Partnership’s objectives, and suggest that the Partnership add to its existing teacher hiring initiatives by centralizing several hiring functions and engaging in some advocacy activities. The Partnership is currently adding two staff positions related to teacher hiring. The first position is a Human Resources Manager who will dedicate 75% of his/her time to hiring. The second position is an Operations Associate who will dedicate 20% of his/her time to teacher hiring.58 Although the Partnership has identified the broad goals for both positions and the percentage of time each position will dedicate to hiring, the organization is soliciting suggestions about how these new positions should be utilized specifically. We believe this expanded capacity should be used to implement tasks related to screening and recruiting, while advocacy and negotiation remain within the purview of the existing HR Director. Assigning centralized hiring functions to lower-salaried employees allows the executive management team (CEO, COO, and HR Director) to focus its attention on executing long-term advocacy strategies that rely on its well-established relationships with key players in LAUSD. Additionally, as a cost-saving strategy, we suggest hiring graduate student interns from local Education programs (or students from other professional programs interested in working in Education) to supplement the work of full-time staff. Graduate student interns should assume responsibility for the most basic of screening tasks including scanning resumes and calling candidates, using obvious filters and clear criteria developed by the HR Manager, such as “multiple grammatical errors in resumes” and “indicates an aversion to working in Partnership neighborhoods.” Because these tasks would be outlined in detail and require only a basic understanding of requirements to teach in Partnership Schools, graduate students would be able to acquire the necessary skills through a training session. We believe graduate students would be attracted to these positions because they offer both valuable insight into working in urban schools and networking opportunities. Green Dot Public Schools is an example of an organization that successfully uses temporary staff for centralized screening of teacher candidates.59 Principals who are fully informed about the process should feel comfortable with the screening process. Notwithstanding, skeptical principals can still choose to interview

58 Interview 59

with Mark Kleger-Heine, The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, February 14, 2011. Expert Interview, March 2, 2011.

all available candidates and use the screening information as another data point only. The table below delineates the proposed screening and recruiting tasks and the corresponding time allocation for these two new positions, as well as graduate interns. Time estimates required to fulfill these tasks were derived from interviews with staff at similar organizations, including MLA Partner Schools and Green Dot Public Schools, and assume a 2,000 hour work year (refer to Appendix G for a detailed calculation of time estimates). These organizations also report that screening is the most time intensive during the months of March through July. Note that these similar organizations have a much larger central staff to support fewer students and schools when compared with the Partnership. For example, MLA employs one person to support two high schools, and Green Dot employs a team of four personnel (Vice President, Director, part-time Recruiter, and Coordinator) to support 17 schools.60 Exhibit 7: Implementation Considerations

Staff & Responsibilities

Time Estimate Screening

• Human Resources Manager o Develop and manage the screening process o Coordinate with school sites and LAUSD staff o Conduct some screening

•

Human Resources Manager o 20% of time to developing and managing system (300 hours/yr) o 12% of time to implementation (180 hours/yr)

• Operations Associate o Screen resumes o Conduct phone interviews o Collect information o Coordinate with school sites

•

Operations Associate o 68% of time to conduct screening (135 hours/yr)

• Graduate Interns o Screen resumes o Conduct phone interviews o Collect information

•

Graduate Interns o Majority of time to screening (585 hours/yr)

Recruitment

• Human Resources Manager o Conduct recruitment (attend hiring fairs, formalize recruitment sources, etc.)

•

Human Resources Manager o Remaining 68% of time (1,020 hours/yr)

• Operations Associate o Post job descriptions

•

Operations Associate o Remaining 33% of time (65 hours/yr)

Expert Interviews March 2, 2011 and February 4, 2011.

Conclusion “They’ve definitely allowed us to make decisions that were in the best interest of children, and they’ve done a lot.” —Partnership Principal

The Partnership is committed to ensuring that all children have a quality teacher, regardless of that child’s ethnic background or socioeconomic status. Each teacher vacancy in a Partnership school presents an opportunity to hire a high quality teacher, building towards the Partnership’s overall goal of increasing student achievement and turning around underperforming schools. The Partnership’s efforts in teacher hiring have resulted in progress, which principals appreciate. Most notably, since the Partnership’s involvement in teacher hiring, forced placements of undesirable teachers have been prevented in most cases. However, areas for improvement remain, particularly given the hiring constraints imposed by the “new normal” conditions. In order to account for these conditions, build on successes, and ensure long-term sustainability, we recommend that the Partnership centralize key hiring functions such as screening and recruitment, build upon its capacity to deliver these services, and advocate for incremental changes from LAUSD. The Partnership’s two staff additions, in conjunction with graduate student interns, should provide the resource bandwidth to accomplish these goals. With this focused approach, we expect Partnership principals to benefit from more time spent selecting among only quality candidates, enabling the hiring of higher quality teachers. This will ultimately benefit the 20,000 students the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools serves. Exhibit 8 describes our “Theory of Change” which summarizes our analysis of problems, strategies, and desirable outcomes to improve teacher hiring within Partnership schools.

Exhibit 8: Partnership for Los Angeles Schools Teacher Hiring Theory of Change

Appendices A. Bibliography B. The Importance of Teacher Quality C. Methodology D. Options Not Fully Explored E. Suggestions for Hiring Tool Kit F. LAUSD Local District Map G. Assumptions & Calculations Made in Implementation Considerations H. Major Themes from Principal Interviews I.

Principal Interview Protocol

J. Teacher Interview Protocol

APPENDIX A: Bibliography INTERVIEWS 1 Partnership for Los Angeles Schools Staff 1)

Phyllis Bradford, Director of Human Resources

Stephen Cockrell, Former Operations Associate

Mark Kleger-Heine, Chief Operating Officer

Partnership for Los Angeles Schools Principals (16 of 21) 1)

Sherri Williams, 99th Elementary School

Luz Cotto, Carver Middle School

Desiree Manuel, CRES18 Elementary School

Tanya Stokes-Mack, Figueroa Elementary School

Sonia Miller, Gompers Middle School

Alvaretta Baxter, Griffith Joyner Elementary School

Christina Rico, Hollenbeck Middle School

Paul Hernandez, Markham Middle School

Marilyn Gavin and Christopher Ortiz, Mendez High School

10) Charlene Green, Ritter Elementary School 11) Sofia Freire, Roosevelt High School 12) Bruce Bivins, Roosevelt High School 13) Maura Crossin, Roosevelt High School 14) Ben Gertner, Roosevelt High School 15) Cynthia Gonzalez, Roosevelt High School 16) Al Lewis, Roosevelt High School 17) Randy Romero, Roosevelt High School 18) Silvia Tovar, Roosevelt High School 19) Richard Chavez, Santee Ed Complex 20) Leo Gonzalez, Stevenson Middle School 21) Frank Sandoval, Sunrise Elementary School

Interview dates are not attributed to names in order to protect the confidentiality of our key informants, in compliance with the terms of our IRB. 1

Partnership for Los Angeles Schools Hiring Committee Member (1) Confidential LAUSD Senior Staff (7) Confidential Field Experts 1)

City University of New York – Michelle Fine, Professor

Green Dot Public Schools – Cristina De Jesus, Chief Academic Officer

MLA Partner Schools – Daniel Chang, Chief Operating Officer

National Council on Teacher Quality – Emily Cohen, District Policy Director

Teach For America-Los Angeles – Lida Jennings, Managing Director of Strategy, Talent, and Team Operations

Teach For America – Tracy St. Dic, Outreach Director

The New Teacher Project – Monica Vasquez, Partner

UCLA Center X – Karen Hunter Quartz, Director of Research

UCLA Teacher Education Program – Annamarie Francois, Interim Director

10) UCLA Teacher Education Program – Carrie Usui, Director, UCLA National Boards for Professional Teaching Standards Project 11) UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs – Meredith Phillips, Associate Professor

LITERATURE Acuff, Hall A, “Quality Control in Employee Selection,” Personnel Journal 60.7 (1981): 563565. Castetter, William. “Chapter 4: Selection,” in The Human Resource Function in Educational Administration, 6th Ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall, 1996): 131-171. Darling-Hammond, L, “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement,” Education Policy Analysis Archives 8.1 (2000):1-44, accessed January 10, 2011, http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515. DeArmond, Michael, Bethany Gross, and Dan Goldhaber, “Is It Better to Be Good or Lucky? Decentralized Teacher Selection in 10 Elementary Schools.” Educational Administration Quarterly 46.3 (2010): 322-362, accessed January 22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10365824. Haberman, Martin, “The Dimensions of Excellence in Programs Preparing Teachers for Urban Poverty Schools.” Peabody Journal of Education 70.2 (1995):24-43, accessed 33

January 10, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/openurl?volume=70&date=1995&spage=24&issn=0161956X &issue=2&. Ferguson, R.F. “Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 28.2 (1991) : 465-498, accessed January 10, 2011, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hjl28&div=24&g_sent=1&col lection=journals. Hanushek, E.A., “Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation using micro data.” The American Economic Review 61.2 (1971): 280-288, accessed January 10, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/journals/00028282.html. Harris, Douglas, et al. “Mix and Match: What Principals Really Look For When Hiring Teachers.” Education Finance and Policy 5.2 (2010): 228-244, accessed January 22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2010.5.2.5205. Kane, Thomas, Jonah Rockoff, , and Douglas O. Staiger, “What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City.” Economics of Education Review 27.6 (2008): 615, accessed January 10, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005. Little, Olivia, Laura Goe and Courtney Bell. "A Practical Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness." National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, accessed January 28, 2011, http://www.tqsource.org/publications/practicalGuide.pdf. Lutz, Frank W., and Jerry B. Hutton. “Alternative teacher certification: Its policy implications for classroom and personnel practice.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11.3 (1989): 237-254, accessed January 28, 2011, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163619. Mertz, Norma T, "Teacher Selection and School Leader Effects." Journal of School Leadership 20.2 (2010): 184-207, accessed January 10, 2011, http://www.rowmaneducation.com/Journals/IJER/Index.shtml. Metzger, Scott Alan, and Meng-Jia Wu, “Commercial Teacher Selection Instruments: The Validity of Selecting Teachers through Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values.” Review of Educational Research 78.4 (2008): 921-940, accessed February 23, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308323035. Milanowski, Anthony Thomas, et. al. “Recruiting New Teachers to Urban Districts: What Incentives Will Work?” International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 4.8 (2009): 1-13. Accessed Jan 10, 2011. http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/132.

“Release and Subsequent Reassignment of personnel when positions are discontinued because of a reduction-in-force (AR 4320)”. Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Guide. Los Angeles Unified School District: 1-2, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.teachinla.com/forms/admin_regulations/A17_AR.pdf. Sanders, William L and June C. Rivers, “Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement.” University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center (1996). Accessed January 10,2011, http://www.mccsc.edu/~curriculum/cumulative%20and%20residual%20effects%20 of%20teachers.pdf Stoddart, T., “An alternate route to teacher certification: Preliminary findings from the Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program.” Peabody Journal of Education 67.3 (1992): 84-122, accessed January 10, 2011, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a916575893~frm=ti tlelink Strauss, R. P. and E.A. Sawyer, “Some New Evidence on Teacher and Student Competencies.” Economics of Education Review 5.1 (1986):41-48, accessed January 10, 2011, doi:10.1016/0272-7757(86)90161-5. “Teacher Hiring, Transfer, & Evaluation in Los Angeles Unified School District: Final Report,” last modified September 2009. The New Teacher Project: 1-61, accessed March 6, 2011 from http://www.tntp.org/files/TNTP_LAUSD_Report_Nov09.pdf. Rodda Cary, “Searching for success in teacher recruitment.” Thrust for Educational Leadership 29.3 (2000): 8-12, accessed January 28, 2011, MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost. Rockoff, Joan E and Brian Jacob, “Can you Recognize an Effective Teacher When You Recruit One?” National Bureau of Economic Research accessed January 11, 2011, http://www.nber.org/papers/w14485 "Education researchers study ways to measure teacher effectiveness." UCLA Today. (2010), accessed March 13, 2011 from http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/educationresearchers-study-ways-168465.aspx. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DOCUMENTS “Certified Application.” Los Angeles Unified School District Teacher Recruitment Center and Recruitment Center, accessed March 8, 2011, https://www.weteachla.com/ats/app_login?COMPANY_ID=00001364.

“iDesign Schools.” Los Angeles Unified School District, accessed March 8, 2011, http://garcia.laschoolboard.org/sites/default/files/iDesign_Overview.pdf. “LAUSD Budget Realities.” Los Angeles Unified School District, accessed March 6, 2011, http://budgetrealities.lausd.net/personnel_impacts. “Local Districts with Index.” Los Angeles Unified School District, accessed March 8, 2011, http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/LAUSDNET/ABOUT_US/M APS/2009-10%20LOCAL%20DISTRICTS%20ALL%20(8-5X11).PDF. Los Angeles Unified School District (2011). Los Angeles Unified School District Human Resources Records. Unpublished raw data. PARTNERSHIP FOR LOS ANGELES SCHOOLS DOCUMENTS “About.” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/About. “Board Budget Presentation: approve revised 2010-11 Partnership budget” The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, 2010, accessed March 7, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/system/storage/3/f7/d/321/board_budget_presentat ion_090910_-_final.pdf. “Partnership Awarded Over 27 Million in Federal Grants.” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 6, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/news/view/201008-partnership-awarded-over-27-million-in-federal-grant. “Roosevelt High Schools as Small Schools,” Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, accessed March 8, 2011, http://www.partnershipla.org/Our_schools/Roosevelt_High_School#why%20small%2 0schools.

APPENDIX B: The Importance of Teacher Quality IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER QUALITY An increasing amount of research suggests that teachers account for a significant, if not the most significant, portion of the student learning attributable to schools. Studies have found that teacher effects are strong determinants of differences in student achievement,2 and students with several very effective teachers in a row have significantly higher gains than those with several ineffective teachers in a row.3 Teaching quality matters when it comes to student achievement, and schools committed to improving student achievement levels must invest in improving teacher quality. PREDICTING EFFECTIVE TEACHERS While there is a definite and observable difference between effective teachers and noneffective teachers, some researchers have found what many principals are likely to agree with: actual classroom performance is a better predictor than qualifications such as certification.4 In hiring, the challenge is using information that can be gathered in the hiring process to predict actual teaching ability. Although the evidence on how well easily observable traits of teacher qualifications (such as intelligence, subject matter knowledge, years of teaching experience, and certification status) can predict student achievement is mixed, emerging trends suggest that specific traits are correlated with student learning. For example, studies tend to show that coursework in specific subject matter pedagogy is correlated with student learning.5 Recent studies have found that scores in state licensing exams and other measures of teacher preparation is strongly correlated with student learning.6 Furthermore, these characteristics can help predict other important factors to consider when hiring teachers. An individual’s path to teaching is associated with how long they choose to stay in teaching.7 This has ramifications for retention, which is significant because teaching tenure is granted almost universally. Sanders and Rivers (1996). “Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.” University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center: 3; Ferguson, R.F. (1991, Summer). “Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.” Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2): 465; Jordan, H.R., Mendro, R.L., & Weersinghe, D. (1997). “Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement: A preliminary report on research on teacher effectiveness.” Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute, Indianapolis, IN. Kalamazoo, MI: CREATE, Western Michigan University, cited in Darling-Hammond (2000). 3 Jordan, H.R., Mendro, R.L., & Weersinghe, D. (1997), cited in Darling-Hammond (2000). 4 Kane, Thomas, Rockoff, Jonah, and Staiger, Douglas O. (2008). “What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City.” Economics of Education Review. 27(6): 615. 5 Perkes, V.A. (1967-1968). “Junior high school science teacher preparation, teaching behavior, and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,” 6(4): 122. 6 Ferguson, Ron. (1991); Strauss, R. P. and Sawyer, E.A. (1986). “Some New Evidence on Teacher and Student Competencies.” Economics of Education Review, 5(1):41-42; Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement.”. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). 7 Darling-Hammond, L. (2000); Lutz, Frank W., and Jerry B. Hutton (1989):238. “Alternative teacher certification: Its policy implications for classroom and personnel practice.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3): 237; Stoddart, T. (1992). “An alternate route to teacher certification: Preliminary findings from the Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program.” Peabody Journal of Education. 67(3). 2

Finally, many urban principals believe that school fit is especially important for their populations. If this is the case, principals can also look at a candidate’s teacher preparation program and how well the candidate’s program prepares its students to teach in urban schools. For example, Martin Haberman identifies specific qualities he believes matter in pre-service programs for urban schools.8

Haberman, Martin (1995). “The Dimensions of Excellence in Programs Preparing Teachers for Urban Poverty Schools.” Peabody Journal of Education.70(2):24. 8

APPENDIX C: Methodology I. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1) Identify Teacher Characteristics - Which characteristics of new hires related to teacher quality can the Partnership screen for in the hiring process? 2) Identify Teacher Selection Tools – Which tools can the Partnership use to identify and select teachers with desirable characteristics? What tools are the Partnership currently utilizing? 3) Identify Decision-making Levers – What are the degrees of freedom/constraints within the existing process? What areas can be improved? What can we learn about the hiring processes of other schools with similar demographics/constraints as Partnership schools and how can those models be applied? II. DATA COLLECTION METHODS & ANALYSIS Key Informant Interviews Data Collection: 1) Field Experts – Using semi-structured questions, we conducted 30-60 minute interviews with 11 practitioners and academic experts. 2) LAUSD Staff – Using semi-structured questions, we conducted hour-long interviews with seven senior LAUSD staff involved in the District’s hiring process. 3) Principal Interviews – Using semi-structured questions and a verbally administered close-ended questionnaire, we conducted hour-long interviews with 16 of the 21 Partnership principals. The Principal Interview Protocol is included in Appendix H. 4) Hiring Committee Interview – Using semi-structured questions, we interviewed one hiring committee member for one hour. The Hiring Committee Protocol is included in Appendix I. Analysis: We conducted a theme analysis around constraints in the hiring process, recommendations for the Partnership, and feasibility of those recommendations. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and imported into nVivo qualitative analysis software from QSR International to facilitate theme identification. Interviews were also used to corroborate context and background. Interview data from organizations similar to the Partnership, specifically MLA Partnership Schools and Green Dot Schools, were used to estimate hours needed to screen and recruit. Quantitative Data Data Collection: We submitted a data request to the LAUSD Committee on External Research Review and worked with Partnership staff to retrieve the data from LAUSD’s Human Resources and Evaluation & Research departments. The de-identified data we 39

received includes information on all teachers hired by the District in the past five years and general personnel data on all District teachers for the past four years. Analysis: We conducted a descriptive analysis of these personnel records. Raw data were classified and tabulated using Microsoft Excel and STATA to find differences in hiring across years. When comparing data from only Partnership schools, academic years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 represent years that schools were part of the Partnership. In academic years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, the same schools were used as points of comparison, but they were not operating as Partnership Schools at the time. Literature Review We searched for academic literature on teacher characteristics, hiring tools, and Human Resources management practices. Based on relevant literature, we conducted a theme analysis to identify recommended teacher hiring tools, best practices, and challenges in teacher hiring. Materials Review We collected and reviewed Partnership organizational documents to identify past hiring practices and changes in budget, strategies, and personnel. III. LIMITATIONS •

External validity – This study is specific to the Partnership, so its general application is limited. The findings in this report would be most relevant to other organizations operating as “network partners,”9 and specifically, network partners that operate schools in deciles 1-3 of a California urban public school district.

•

Interview bias – Bias may have been introduced into interviews for two reasons: 1) principals were aware of the subject of our research and 2) principals may not have been as forthcoming with the research team because the project was sponsored by the Partnership, which has authority over principals.

•

Assumptions – We had limited access to background documents and personnel records, and our clarification questions regarding the data were not always met with direct answers. In some cases, we had to move forward with our best assumptions of the data we did have. Furthermore, conflicting information from interviews required us to make a judgment on which data most accurately described reality.

A Network Partner is organization that operates schools within a special district in LAUSD. It differs from a charter school because Network Partners hire UTLA teachers and are under the same restriction in hiring as LAUSD. 9

APPENDIX D: Options Not Fully Considered Hiring quality teachers is the first step to ensuring quality instruction. However, there are other important strategies that address the improvement of instructional quality, broadly characterized as “talent management” of the existing teacher workforce. Some of the components in the talent management framework are being addressed District-wide and may benefit the Partnership in the near future. LAUSD is currently implementing a threeyear strategic plan to create a new structure for supporting and developing effective educators, based on recommendations of its Teacher Effectiveness Task Force convened in Summer 2010.10 Given the many constraints associated with hiring in the “new normal” conditions, the Partnership could also consider targeting its resources toward professional development for existing teachers as an approach to improve teacher quality and retain talent. The following are suggestions related to professional development and teacher retention. •

Develop a formal induction process. A thoughtful induction process for teachers new to the Partnership is important to build the Partnership’s brand and set expectations about what it means to teach in Partnership schools. A new teacher orientation could highlight the unique opportunities that Partnership teachers have, the expectations the schools and organization have of its employees including school and organizational culture, and strategies for working with the types of students that the Partnership serves.

•

Continue spending in professional development. The Partnership currently offers support and professional development to teachers via UCLA Center X teacher coaching and a summer institute training program, among others. The Partnership’s 2010-11 budget indicates that approximately $400,000 is spent on professional development.11 The Partnership could continue to spend in this area to improve the effectiveness of its existing teachers, especially if schools have limited power to select teachers, and even less ability to remove underperforming teachers.

•

Increase retention of quality teachers and ensure satisfaction of the workforce. Once a school hires and trains a high-quality teacher, the objective then becomes retaining that employee. Each teacher that does not leave a Partnership school is one that does not need to be replaced, so gains from high retention are reflected in lower recruiting, screening, and professional development costs. The Partnership could explore strategies to reduce voluntary teacher turnover to ensure that resources spent on improving teacher quality will benefit Partnership students. The education researchers and teachers we interviewed suggest that the Partnership could focus energy on ensuring that teachers feel supported and valued, have time to reflect and collaborate with peers, and are given autonomy to be creative and practice their craft.12

LAUSD. “LAUSD Supporting All Employees.” Accessed on March 2, 2011 at http://etf.lausd.net/. The Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, “Board Budget Presentation: approve revised 2010-11 Partnership budget,” 2010. 12 Expert Interview, February 22, 2011. 10 11

APPENDIX E: Suggestions for Hiring Tool Kit TOOL KIT COMPONENTS The Partnership could consider developing a hiring tool kit and training principals on the following tools. These tools were selected with two criteria in mind:1) principals interviewed indicate that they are willing to implement these tools as part of their hiring process; and 2) research indicates that these tools provide valid information about a teacher’s quality (discussed in the following two sections of this appendix). Thirteen principals expressed opinions on these tools (three of the principals were not able to complete this portion of the interview due to time limitations.) •

Standardized interview protocol and rubric. All principals agreed that this would be a good idea. The Partnership could re-distribute TNTP’s materials on developing interview protocols and rubrics. Researchers also suggest that principals incorporate questions that may indicate teacher quality, such as the applicants' content knowledge, cognitive ability, and competence in subject matter teaching. 13

•

Videos of applicant teaching to supplement the interview process. Nine of 13 principals agreed that they would review videos of applicants teaching if these videos were made available to them. Of the principals who did not like videos, a primary concern was that this video would not truly reflect the applicant’s teaching ability. The Partnership may want to consider hosting events where they can video tape an applicant teaching a sample lesson and distribute this information to principals through a secure website.

•

Requiring candidates to teach a sample lesson. All principals agreed that viewing sample lessons is helpful to assess teaching ability, classroom management, and ability to relate to Partnership students. The Partnership could re-distribute TNTP’s rubric on how to assess these demonstration lessons.

•

Requiring candidates to provide a portfolio. Twelve of 13 principals agreed that this would be a helpful resource. The Partnership could collect this information centrally as part of its screening function and develop a rubric to help principals assess artifacts that are included in portfolios, including sample lesson plans, and student work. However, principals warn that only teachers who recently graduated from teaching programs typically have portfolios ready for review.

•

Support and guidance with resume collection and review. Twelve of 13 principals agreed that being able to review resumes from all applicants was important. All principals interviewed also report that they use resumes to gain valuable information about an applicant. Therefore, the Partnership could re-distribute TNTP’s materials on how to assess resumes to further support principals.

Mertz, Norma T.. "Teacher Selection and School Leader Effects." Journal of School Leadership 20.2 (2010): 184-207. Education Full Text. Web. 21 Dec. 2010. 13

RESEARCH ON TEACHER SELECTION TOOLS Various researchers have identified a host of teacher evaluation tools that are correlated with teacher effectiveness, and that may also be used in the hiring process to help give principals information about a teacher’s quality. Researchers found that teachers who score high on the rubric of these tools also tend to be higher quality teachers. For example, in a research study conducted by UCLA IMPACT: Urban Teacher Residency Program at Center X in UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies (GSE&IS), researchers find the following sources have been correlated with teacher quality: •

Surveys;

•

Logs;

•

Observations;

•

The Instructional Quality Assessment together with classroom artifacts (including homework, exercises, quizzes, exams and samples of student work);

•

The Performance Assessment for California Teachers; and

•

Value-added analysis of CST scores.14

Additionally, a study by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality also list similar tools as the UCLA IMPACT teach, with the addition of: •

Teacher self-reports;

•

Portfolios; and

•

Student ratings.15

Although the Partnership may not have the resources to purchase commercially developed interview protocols, in the future the Partnership may want to consider the use of surveys including the Haberman Star Teacher Evaluation Pre Screener, and the Teacher Perceive Interview. Researchers have indicated that both tests show a modest relationship between scores on these interviews and teacher quality indicators.16,17 Additionally, Green Dot Schools have integrated the Haberman test as a requirement for all teacher applicants for the past two years, and find that there is a positive correlation between teachers who score high on this test and teachers who are of high quality.18 The Haberman Star test was also referenced in the above studies as being used broadly by school districts, including in Los Angeles. In interviews, LAUSD officials told us that the District transitioned away from the

UCLA Today. "Education researchers study ways to measure teacher effectiveness." 2010. Accessed online at: http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/education-researchers-study-ways-168465.aspx. 15 Little, Olivia; Goe, Laura; Bell, Courtney. "A Practical Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness" National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Accessed online at: http://www.tqsource.org/publications/practicalGuide.pdf. 16 Metzger, Scott Alan, Wu, Meng-Jia (Dec. 2008). “Commercial Teacher Selection Instruments: The Validity of Selecting Teachers through Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values “ Review of Educational Research; v78 n4 p921-940. 17 Rockoff, Joan E, Jacob, Brian (Dec. 2008). “Can you Recognize an Effective Teacher When You Recruit One?” National Bureau of Economic Research; 0pp. 18 Expert interview, March 2, 2011. 14

Haberman test to the Gallup public opinion survey.19 Officials mentioned that the survey was helpful to rank candidates in order of priority based on their interview scores, and the District employed these surveys when they were receiving thousands of applications each year. However, the District stopped the use of these surveys under current RIF conditions. RESEARCH ON RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES The following discussion outlines best practices and key findings in recruitment that may apply to urban schools similar to those of the Partnership, particularly during normal (nonRIF) hiring conditions. Note that these strategies have not been linked directly to teacher effectiveness.

19 20

•

Best practices in recruitment strategies include, among others, (i) formalizing partnerships with local schools of education; (ii) offering hiring bonuses to attract teachers in shortage areas (i.e.; math, science); (iii) recruiting out-of-state candidates to supplement the local talent pool; and (iv) targeting multicultural professional conferences and universities (i.e.; historically Black colleges) to enhance recruitment efforts for specific demographics.20

•

A school’s relative place in the school district labor market is a substantial factor in teacher recruitment. Consequently, principals in less attractive schools (i.e., high needs environments or poor communities) need to take a more active approach to recruitment than principals in relatively more attractive schools.21

•

Policy changes in teacher reciprocity would enhance recruitment efforts. For example, reduce barriers for out of state teachers to become fully credentialed in the state of California.22

•

Principals use a mix-and-match approach to recruiting teachers. Principals seek to create an organizational mix, recruiting teachers that differ from their existing teachers with respect to race, gender, experience, and skills. Additionally, principals create an organizational match, recruiting teachers with similar work habits as existing teachers.23

Expert interview, February 9, 2011. Rodda Cary (2000). “Searching for success in teacher recruitment.” Thrust for Educational Leadership, Vol.29 (3): 8-12.

DeArmond, Michael; Gross, Bethany; Goldhaber, Dan (2010). “Is It Better to Be Good or Lucky? Decentralized Teacher Selection in 10 Elementary Schools” Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol.46 (3): 322-362. 22 Rodda Cary (2000). “Searching for success in teacher recruitment.” Thrust for Educational Leadership, Vol.29 (3): 8-12. 23 Harris, Douglas; Rutledge, Stacey; Ingle, William; Thompson, Cynthia (2010). “Mix and Match: What Principals Really Look For When Hiring Teachers.” Education Finance and Policy: 228-244. 21

APPENDIX F: LAUSD Local District Map24

LAUSD. “All Local Districts.” Accessed online at http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/LAUSDNET/ABOUT_US/MAPS/200910%20LOCAL%20DISTRICTS%20ALL%20(8-5X11).PDF on February 22, 2011. 24

APPENDIX G: Assumptions & Calculations Made in Implementation Considerations 1) Total Tim e Spent on Project Staff & Time Allotted to Project Human Resources Manager: 75% Operations Associate: 10%

Total Hours 0.75*2,000 full-time hours in one year = 1,500 total hours 0.10*2,000 full-time hours in one year = 200 total hours

2) Number of Applicants that the Partnership Can Expect to Screen Applicants Internal Applicants: • 70% of all Displacement list teachers (currently 1,200) • 50% of all RIF list teachers (currently 300) External Applicants Total Estimated Applicants Total Estim ated Applicants (rounding up)

Total Hours 420 150 300 870 900

3) Total Tim e Required to Screen = # of Applicants * 1 hour per applicant = 900 total screening hours 4) Time Estim ate to Fulfill Screening and Recruitment Responsibilities Screening Develop & M anage Screening System • 20% of HR Manager Time (0.20*1,500 hours) Implement Screening System • HR Director – conduct 20% of total screening (0.2*900 hours) • Operations Associate – conduct 15% of total screening (0.15*900 hours) • Graduate Interns – conduct remaining 65% of screening (0.65*900 hours)

Total Hours

Recruitm ent Implement Targeted Recruiting • 68% of HR Manager Time (0.61*1,500 hours) • 33% of Operations Associate Time (0.325*200 hours)

Total Hours

300 total hours to develop and manage system 180 135 + 585 900 hours total to implement screening

1020 + 65 1,085 hours total to implement recruiting

APPENDIX H: Major Themes from Principal Interviews Our theme analysis of principal interviews revealed several trends in how principals perceive the hiring process, the Partnership’s current role in supporting school site hiring, and recommendations on where the Partnership could further support school sites. These tables may help the Partnership better understand the perspectives of principals. SCHOOL SITE HIRING PROCESS Perception of Good Hiring Outcomes

Perception of Bad Hiring Outcomes

Fit - Skills, Culture, School Needs

No Autonomy/Forced Placements

Collaborative process

Restriction of Pool

Retention

Not Fully Staffed

100% Hired by School Year

Mutual Consent

Accurate Assessment

Autonomy

Processed by LAUSD Easily

Major theme from interview question: Could you describe a good hiring year? Could you describe a bad hiring year? Source: Principal Interviews, January 26 – February 13, 2011.

Major theme from interview question: What do you look for in a quality candidate? Source: Principal Interviews, January 26 – February 13, 2011.

ROLE OF THE PARTNERSHIP

Major theme from interview question: How has the Partnership been involved in your hiring process? Source: Principal Interviews, January 26 – February 13, 2011.

Major theme from interview question: How has the Partnership lived up to your expectations? Source: Principal Interviews, January 26 – February 13, 2011.

Recommendations to the Partnership

Types of Direct Support Requested

Direct Support

Recruitment

Advocacy

Screening

Regulation

Understand LAUSD

Marketing Small school job descriptions Hiring Committee Member Share Information

1 1

Major theme from interview question: What role do you think the Partnership should prioritize to best support hiring in your school? Source: Principal Interviews, January 26 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 13, 2011.

APPENDIX I: Principal Interview Protocol I. Introduction: Purpose & Confidentiality Thank you for time. The purpose of our project is to determine how the Partnership can better support your needs in the teacher hiring process. As a principal, your experiences and thoughts on teacher hiring are very important to us. In order to protect your privacy, all of your comments will remain confidential. Comments will be reported in aggregate form only, such that there will be no way for the Partnership to trace comments back to a particular individual. To further protect your privacy, notes and interviews will be stored in password-protected documents. We would also like to ask for your permission to record your interview with a digital recorder. However, you may refuse to be recorded. If you do agree to be recorded, you may request that we stop the recording at any time during the interview. You may also review, edit, and erase any part of your recording. The digital recording and its transcription will be kept in a passwordprotected file that will be accessible only to the researchers. Note that the researchers will be responsible for transcription and do not intend to employ a third party transcription service, further preserving privacy. The recording and transcription will be destroyed no later than June 15, 2011. We appreciate your candid comments and encourage you to ask us to pause recording at any time. Do you agree to give consent to be recorded? II. Structure of Interview The interview will include open and close answered questions. The interview will be limited to an hour long. Can I verify that you are available for an hour? 1. 2.

How long have you been the principal/a teacher here? What did you do before becoming the principal/a teacher here?

III. Open-Answered Questions This set of questions will help us to understand what happens and what you look for in the hiring process. 1. Tell me about your hiring from last year? Probes â&#x20AC;˘ How did you know how many teachers you had to hire? â&#x20AC;˘ How do you get names to fill your vacancies? (From whom) â&#x20AC;˘ How do you choose who moves on from the list of applicants to be interviewed?

2. What do you think about when you’re interviewing an applicant? Probes • When you are interviewing someone, is one of your considerations the likelihood of whether they will stay at the school? How do you determine that? 3. Was that a good hiring year? If not, could you describe a good hiring year? 4. Can you describe a bad hiring year? Probes • What do you do when you can’t find a good teacher? • Is a long-term sub preferable to hiring a less desirable teacher? 5. Did we miss anything else about the steps in the hiring process? Now we will transition to questions about the overall challenges you face in hiring, and your thoughts on the Partnership’s involvement in your hiring process. 6. What is the main challenge you have in hiring teachers? In RIF years? In non-RIF years? 7. How was the Partnership involved in the hiring process? Is this different from LAUSD’s involvement? 8. How well has the Partnership lived up to your expectations regarding supporting teacher hiring? 9. What role do you think the Partnership should prioritize to best support hiring in your school? Why? 10. How is LAUSD a barrier or helpful to hiring? 11. Would any of the following techniques be useful for identifying future hires? Why or why not? o Using a standardized interview protocol and rubric o Use videos of applicant teaching rather than interview, in addition to interview, or not use videos at all o Using a survey to screen applicants o Require candidates to teach a sample lesson o Require candidates to provide a portfolio o Require resumes to be included in LAUSD’s application process 12. Drawing from your experience, are there any other systems or practices that would be helpful and relevant to the Partnership schools hiring?

13. We are considering doing a focus group, can you give us some names of teachers/administrators that we can invite? IV. CLOSE-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE 1. During what time period(s) do you get notification for vacancies? You can give a range if you don’t know exactly Who notified you? _____________ 2. When did you start hiring for those vacancies?_________________________ 3. What are the earliest and latest months in which you fill a vacancy?

and

4. Besides your principal time, do you spend any money on hiring? If so, how much? . Where does the money come from? 5. How many new hires did you make in 2010-2011? ____ 2009-2010? ____ 20082009? 6. What subject areas were these new hires? English ( ) Art ( ) History/Social Studies (

)

Math ( Science ( Other (

) ) )

7. How many of these were normal timeline hires vs. emergency hires? 8. How many applicants did you get per position for those hires? 9. Of the teachers hired, how many interviewed with a Hiring Committee? 10. Who in the school typically participates in the interview? Principal Assistant Principal Teacher: a) Department Head; b) Same Grade Level as Vacancy UTLA Representative Parent Students 11. Do you have a standard set of questions during the interviews? Yes – If Yes, Is it possible to get a copy? No 12. Does the team use a rubric to digest information from the interview? Yes – If Yes, Is it possible to get a copy? No

13. Are there any other components of teacher hiring that factor into your decision? Perform tasks, bring materials? 14. Which part of the hiring process would you say is most important in finding a good teacher for your school? Recruiting Screening Scheduling Interviews Interviewing Reference Check Other: 15. Can you estimate how many hours you spend on the following steps per hire (you can gives us a range): Recruiting Screening Scheduling Interviews Interviewing Reference Check Other: 16. Who typically supports you in the following phases of the hiring process? Please state their job title within your school. Recruiting: Screening: Scheduling Interviews: Interviewing: Reference Check: Other:

APPENDIX J: Partnership Teacher Interview Protocol I. Introduction Thank you for volunteering your time to be part of this focus group. Drawing from your experience as hiring committee members, we’d like to focus our discussion today as a brainstorming session. We’ll begin by asking your feedback on some of the tools we’ve found in our research, and whether you think they’d be helpful to you in future hiring. We’d then like to do a general brainstorm on other strategies that you think may be helpful. We’ll conclude with your general thoughts on the value of being part of the hiring committee. II. Feedback on Hiring Strategies 1) Would any of the following techniques be useful for you as a hiring committee member? Why or why not? • • • • •

Using a standardized interview protocol and rubric Use videos of applicant teaching rather than interview, in addition to interview, or not use videos at all Require candidates to teach a sample lesson Require candidates to provide a portfolio Require resumes to be included in LAUSD’s application process

2) What other strategies would you suggest integrating in the future? III. Perception of Hiring Committee 1) How do you benefit from being part of the hiring committee? 2) How does the school benefit from teachers being part of the hiring committee? 3) Do you feel that being part of the hiring committee is worth the time you spend? 4) Are you compensated for your time? IV. Hiring from the Teacher’s Perspective 1) When you are being interview/recruited, what makes a school attractive? 2) Do teachers have any disincentive to inform principals as soon as they know that they are not returning next year? 3) Based from your own experience with being hired, do you think that the Partnership can do anything to improve the process?

V, Perception of Partnership Schools 1) As a teacher working in the Partnership, is it desirable to work at a Partnership schools? Why or why not or why do you not really notice, if thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the case? 2) Do you think that teachers outside of the Partnership are at all incentivized or disincentivized to work in Partnership schools? 3) What would make a school more or less attractive to work at?