Philadelphia’s Teacher Hiring andSchool Assignment Practices

Comparisons with Other Districts

By Elizabeth Useem and Elizabeth Farley

April 2004

Research Br ief

A report from Learning from Philadelphia’s School Reform

Recent History of Philadelphia School Reform

On December 21, 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took control ofthe Philadelphia public schools, declaring the school system academicallyand financially distressed. At that time, the School District of Philadelphiabecame the largest school district in the country ever put under direct statecontrol. The state initially proposed placing the Philadelphia school districtunder the private management of Edison Schools, Inc. As a result of com-munity pressure, this management model gave way to a "diverse provider"model, in which a set of low-performing schools is operated by multiple for-profits, nonprofits, university partners, and a new district office for restruc-tured schools. Adding to the complexity, a CEO, known for centralizingauthority, was placed in charge of the Philadelphia school system, includingits subset of privately managed schools.

The resulting school reform effort clearly is high stakes locally. It also isbeing watched closely nationally as an indication of what may happen toother distressed school districts across the United States. With the enact-ment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, states have the man-date to assume control of failing districts when less drastic interventions fallshort of bringing about improvement. Philadelphia is an important test caseas educators and policymakers debate the efficacy of various private andpublic management remedies for urban public school failure.

Learning From Philadelphia's School Reform

Research for Action is leading Learning From Philadelphia's School Reform,a comprehensive, four-year study of Philadelphia's complex and radicalschool reform effort. RFA researchers are working with colleagues fromthe University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers University, Swarthmore College,and the Consortium on Chicago School Research to examine the impact ofstate takeover, the efficacy of a diverse provider model, the success of dis-trict-level leadership in managing a complex set of reform models, the influ-ence of community groups on district policy and school improvement, andthe key factors influencing student outcomes under various school condi-tions and school management models.

Learning from Philadelphia's School Reform includes a multi-faceted,vigorous public awareness component that engages leaders and citizensin the process of educational change and informs and guides the nationaldebate on school reform. The project disseminates information broadlythrough public speaking, reports, bulletins, and articles featuring clear,timely, and credible analysis of the real impact of school improvementefforts.

We wish to acknowledge the generous support of the following projectfunders: the William Penn Foundation, The Carnegie Corporation, The PewCharitable Trusts, and the Philadelphia Education Fund.

About the Authors

Dr. Elizabeth Useem is a Senior ResearchConsultant to Research for Action and one ofthe Research Directors of the Learning fromPhiladelphia’s School Reform project. She servedas Director of Research and Evaluation at thePhiladelphia Education Fund from 1993-2004where she conducted research on teacher qualityissues. Prior to that, she was Director of TeacherEducation at Bryn Mawr College and HaverfordCollege.

Elizabeth Farley is a doctoral student in theEducational Policy program at the GraduateSchool of Education at the University ofPennsylvania. Before coming to Penn, sheworked as a Research Assistant on studies ofat-risk students at the Center for the SocialOrganization of Schools at Johns HopkinsUniversity.

Credits

Editorial: CommunicationWWoorrkkss, L.L.C. Graphics: David Kidd

Bound copies of this report may be obtained for$2.00 shipping and handling ($5.00 shipping & handling on orders of 5 or more) by contacting:

Research for Action3701 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104Tel.: (215) 823-2500, ext. 508Fax: (215) 823-2510E-mail: info@researchforaction.orgWeb: www.researchforaction.org

Reports, articles, fact sheets and other publicationsare available for free on the RFA Web site.

Copyright © 2004 Research for Action

1

Philadelphia's Teacher Hiring andSchool Assignment Practices

Comparisons with Other Districts

By Elizabeth Useem and Elizabeth Farley

Introduction

The Philadelphia public school system, along withother U.S. school districts, is under intense pressure tohire qualified teachers expeditiously and to insure thatstaff in the neediest schools are as qualified as staff atother schools within the district. In the researchreported here, we compare Philadelphia’s currentteacher hiring and school placement policies withthose of other large, urban districts across the countryand other districts in the Philadelphia region.

We undertook this study to inform the currentdebate about possible changes in the way Philadelphiahires and places teachers in schools. We have foundthat many of Philadelphia’s practices diverge fromthose of other systems, which leaves the city poorlypositioned to take advantage of the region’s sizeableoversupply of newly-certified teachers. These prac-tices—including restrictions on school-based hiringand teachers’ automatic voluntary transfer rights—stem from provisions or interpretations of the system’scollective bargaining agreement with the city’s teach-ers. This contract is being renegotiated in 2004.

While Philadelphia faces some unique obstacles tohiring and placing teachers, it is similar to other urbandistricts in its lack of success at distributing qualifiedteachers equally across all schools. As is the case inmost other districts, Philadelphia has focused onimproving recruitment and retention across the systembut not yet implemented a comprehensive package ofincentives to attract and retain teachers in its lowest-performing, high-poverty schools. We note how somedistricts have made progress in that area in this paper.

Efforts to recruit strong teachers for all schools arenow fueled by the mandate of the federal 2001 NoChild Left Behind legislation requiring that all chil-dren have a highly qualified teacher and the compan-ion requirements that both schools and districts beheld accountable for raising student achievementamong all groups of students. Emerging reforms in

human resource policies and practices are also aresponse to harshly critical reports across the countrydocumenting bureaucratic bungling, over-centralizedemployment processing, and inflexible provisions ofcollective bargaining agreements. Management theo-ries stressing the importance of careful selection ofwork teams, and new research linking school-basedhiring with teacher retention and a sense of collegial -ity among teachers, provide support for the view thatschools and teacher candidates should scrutinize oneanother before making a match. This is particularlyimportant because school features that increase trustwithin schools, such as staff stability and strong pro-fessional communities, have been linked to gains instudent learning.1

In response to these pressures and evidence, manybig-city school systems nationwide are modernizing,expediting, and decentralizing the ways in whichteachers are recruited, hired, and placed in schools, aswell as offering a range of new incentives to attractand retain teachers. Districts are rapidly adopting newemployment processing technologies, notably automat-ed applicant-tracking systems, online applications, andInternet job postings to help accomplish this goal.2

Philadelphia, too, is adopting technologies that speedand rationalize the hiring process.

Background: Philadelphia Hiring and Placement Practices

Like other urban districts, Philadelphia has beenaggressively revamping its human resource efforts.The district has undertaken an impressive range ofrecruitment efforts and incentives, developed anattractive and informative Web site with an onlineapplication, put new supports for novice teachers intoplace, and succeeded in getting most retiring teachersto give early notification of their retirement.3 Itsvacancy rate in September 2003 was half of what it

2

was in September 2002, and retention of new teachersduring the 2003-04 school year has increased significantly.4

Philadelphia’s teacher quality initiatives, however,remain hobbled by provisions in the teachers’ collectivebargaining agreement that result in an unusually cen-tralized system of assigning teachers to schools and inthe practice of filling vacancies with teachers transfer-ring from other schools and positions before hiring newteachers. This practice slows down the hiring timelinesfor new recruits. Hundreds of new teachers (more than1200 were hired for 2003-04) find themselves selectingschools that they know little about from a limited listof vacancies during late July and August, and eveninto the start of the school year. They typically arriveat the schoolhouse door to be greeted by administra-tors and colleagues whom they have never met before(and who have never met them).5 Similarly, mostschools have little choice over the assignment of veter-an teachers to their buildings; these teachers have theautomatic right to fill a vacancy (in an area for whichthey are qualified), based on seniority.

As it is now, only 44 of Philadelphia’s 264 schoolsuse what is called “site-selection” of teachers, whichgives school personnel committees the right to inter-view and select teachers for their building from a pre-qualified pool of eligible candidates (which can includetransferring teachers along with new recruits). Thecurrent teachers’ collective bargaining agreement stip-ulates that two-thirds of a school’s faculty must votefor such status by December 31st of each year. If aschool’s Building Committee (school union committee)votes not to hold a vote, no vote is even taken. Theselimitations have kept site selection from being adoptedmore widely. The rules apply to schools managed bothby the district and by outside partner organizations.

Schools that have not voted for site-selection mustwait until voluntary and involuntary teacher trans-fers have been processed (usually around the end ofJuly) before new teachers are assigned to fill remain-ing vacancies in their schools. Because of the delayscaused by these policies and other factors such asbudget uncertainties, many teachers are “pre-hired” to the district in the spring and early summer but arenot hired to a specific school until much later in thesummer, a practice labeled by Education Week as an“inferior deal” that causes many of the most qualifiedteachers to seek jobs elsewhere.6

Civic leaders and community activists argue, andour evidence shows, that these practices have the eff -ect of broadening inequities in teacher qualificationsamong Philadelphia schools.7 School district research -ers have documented how seniority-based transferpolicies support the migration of veteran teachers from

less-advantaged schools to buildings with higher testscores and fewer low-income students.8 During thesummer, when new teachers choose schools fromamong available vacancies, teachers who rank higheron the state-mandated eligibility list choose a schoolbefore those ranked lower. These first teachers gener-ally avoid selecting high-poverty, low-performingschools, and the vacancies in the most distressedschools are usually the last ones to be filled.9

Philadelphia’s policies with regard to site selectionand automatic voluntary transfer rights based on sen-iority are being looked at carefully in 2004 as the dis-trict takes up these issues in collective bargainingnegotiations with the teachers’ union, the PhiladelphiaFederation of Teachers (PFT). (The current contractexpires in August 2004.) The School Reform Com -mission (SRC) and the Vallas administration have signaled their interest in altering hiring, school place-ment, and transfer policies and cite their own studyshowing principals’ support for site selection. Contractnegotiations also present an opportunity to addressthe need for strong incentives to promote the equitabledistribution of highly qualified teachers.

It is possible, however, that the status of site selec-tion and seniority transfer rights will be addressedoutside of collective bargaining. Philadelphia’s schoolsystem was taken over by the Commonwealth of Penn -sylvania in December 2001 after it was designated a“distressed” district by the state. The provisions of theDistressed School Districts Act passed at that timestipulate that the five-member School Reform Commis -sion that replaced the Board of Education has thepower to act unilaterally on matters of teacher assign-ment and distribution. As an April 2004 brief by theEducation Law Center in Philadelphia put it, “TheSuperintendent and the SRC are not required by lawto negotiate about these issues. If they decide to nego-tiate about these issues, this would merely be a strategic decision.”10

Research Approach

Our research into how Philadelphia’s teacher hiringand school assignment practices compared to those ofother school districts had two parts. First, we looked atteacher hiring and school assignment processes in 13large urban districts, including five of the seven dis-tricts larger than Philadelphia.11 During February andMarch 2004, we examined collective bargaining agree-ments, looked at recruitment information on districtWeb sites, and read relevant reports or news articlesabout the districts. We also conducted telephone inter-views with officials in human resources departments,

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

3

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

leaders in local education partner groups, and teach-ers’ union officials. In all, we interviewed 30 inform-ants in other large urban districts.12

Second, we examined staffing practices in a sam-pling of New Jersey and Pennsylvania school districtsin the Philadelphia region—systems that draw fromthe same labor market for teachers as Philadelphia.We chose nine relatively large districts near the citythat represented a range of demographic characteris-tics. We conducted personal interviews with theirdirectors of human resources (director of recruitmentin one district) between February and March 2004.13

How Teachers Get Hired and Placed inOther Urban Districts

Urban school districts across the country vary inwhether they have an overall teacher shortage.Philadelphia’s declining enrollment and location in astate with a substantial oversupply of newly-mintedelementary teachers means that the city has less diffi-culty filling vacancies at the elementary level than districts located in growing areas, such as cities in the South and Southwest.14 But Philadelphia sharescertain key problems with nearly all other districts:

� A shortage of teachers in certain fields, notably special education, Spanish language, secondary sciences and mathematics, and bilingual education,

� Delayed hiring of new teachers well into the sum-mer due to a) budget uncertainties; b) late notifica-tion of retirement and resignations; and c) last-minute initiatives of central offices, such as recon-stituting or consolidating schools or reducing classsize,

� Difficulty attracting and retaining qualified teach-ers in high-poverty, high-minority schools.

Nearly all of the districts we studied have mountedambitious recruitment efforts for both certified teach-ers and alternate-route program participants (e.g.,Teach for America members and participants in localversions of that initiative). All are integrating newtechnologies to make hiring more efficient and user-friendly, both for candidates and for schools, and allare figuring out ways to get their teachers to complywith the new requirements set out in No Child LeftBehind.

Hiring and school placement of new teachersIn other urban districts, the hiring process goes some-thing like this: Candidates view employment opportu-nities and recruitment processes on an attractivelydesigned Web site. Jobs are usually posted on the Web

site by both school and subject area. Candidates sendtheir applications online to the human resources (HR)or personnel office and generally go through some sortof pre-hiring review at HR, a process that may or maynot require an initial interview with HR staff. All butone of the other cities we looked at (Atlanta) acceptonline applications, and most also allow mail-in applications.

In three districts we studied—Chicago, New YorkCity (some schools), and Cincinnati—candidates canalso apply directly to schools, although at some pointtheir credentials must be approved by HR. As a resultof the state legislature’s passage of a broad educationreform act for Chicago in 1988, Chicago led the wayamong cities with a history of strong teachers’ organi-zations in radically decentralizing through site-basedhiring.15

Two districts—Houston and Washington, DC—havegone “paperless,” with candidates uploading theirapplications into the district’s electronic database,which can then be perused by HR staff and principals.Seven districts overall have started using automatedtracking systems of applications and resumes. Paper -work has been further reduced by several districts bynot requiring an official review of a candidate’s creden-tials until a hiring offer has been made by a school.

The urban districts vary as to whether candidatesapply to the district as a whole or just for a specificposition at an individual school. Two systems do “opencontracts” or “pre-hiring,” whereby new recruits gethired to the system and then go to schools for place-ment interviews. In all others, a prospective teacherdoes not have a job until he or she is chosen by aschool. Philadelphia, by contrast, hires new recruits tothe district—not to a school—and does not conductplacement interviews.

In the urban districts we studied, the actual hiringprocess is almost always based at the school buildinglevel. No vote for site selection at the school level isrequired. Once HR receives applications, it sendsschool principals the applications of candidates whoare suited for the vacancies listed by their schools.This is done electronically in many systems. Principals,often assisted by school teams, review the applicationsand call promising candidates in for an interview.Pitts burgh, the only other large urban district inPennsylvania, has adopted this process. The only sys-tem we studied that required a vote at the school levelto institute site-based selection was New York City.

New candidates (and often transferring teachers)are interviewed by a school team in 8 of the 13 urbandistricts we studied. These teams typically includeteachers (who constituted a majority on the team inNew York City site selection schools) and administra-

4

tors, but sometimes include parents and/or communitymembers. In five of the districts, either the principal ora team interviews candidates; in some cases, themethod varies by the type of position that is vacant.

Only one district, New York City, has a hiringprocess similar to that of Philadelphia and, even there,significant differences exist. The six new RegionalOperations Centers in New York City handle hiringand school placement of new teachers. But schools canvote annually on whether to be a School-Based Optionschool. Thus far, 38 percent of the city’s schools havevoted to become School-Based Option schools (a 55 per-cent vote in favor is required), even though the currentteachers’ union contract called for all schools to havebecome so by June 2003. The city’s teachers’ union, theUnited Federation of Teachers (UFT), had backed site-based hiring in past negotiations, the opposite positionof that taken by the teachers’ union in Philadelphia.The UFT became interested in site-based hiring someyears ago as a result of its work with partner nonprofitgroups in the opening of new small high schools.16

Among urban districts, hiring fairs are also a com-mon venue for principals to market their schools anddo some on-the-spot interviews. Frequently, promisingcandidates then follow up with a school interview.Baltimore has a two-day event for recruitment. Pro -spec tive teachers come for a fair on day 1 and somechoose to accept a job on the spot by a school after aninterview at the fair. On day 2, candidates who want tolook more carefully can visit schools and have inter-views. This works well for out-of-town recruits.

After a principal and/or school team decides on afinalist(s), principals check written references andsometimes check references by telephone. Racial balance must be taken into consideration in staffingdecisions in several of the districts studied. Schooladministrators in Chicago, New York City, Cleveland,and Los Angeles are under court order to racially bal-ance school faculties. All but Los Angeles have had difficulty complying with these orders. Other districtstake such balance into account in an informal way,often along with other factors such as gender andexperience. Prin cipals in Los Angeles must also look atnew or transferring teachers’ salaries since there areregulated salary allotments and ranges by school.

In all of these districts, school-based hiring is some-times cast aside in favor of hiring directly by the HRoffice. When “crunch time” comes (i.e., a school still hasvacancies as the school year starts) HR will step inand fill the position. This may happen during theschool year as well. In addition, HR often does the hiring in critical shortage areas, especially special education. Recruiters sign up such candidates quicklyand then assign them to a school.

In reviewing the ways in which urban districts goabout hiring and placing teachers, it becomes clearthat Philadelphia’s practices stand out as unusuallycentralized and bureaucratic.

Transfer rights of veteran teachersThe successful recruitment and retention of teachersdepends on the way that districts handle the transferof veteran teachers, as well as on the way that newteachers are recruited and placed. One important issue is timing—districts included in this study dif-fered in whether or not the hiring of new candidatestakes place after the transfer process is completed forveteran teachers. A 2003 report by the New TeacherProject highlighted the fact that the longer districtstake to hire, the more likely they are to lose strongcandidates and to start the school year under morechaotic conditions.17 We found that where transfersoccur before new hiring, districts are attempting toexpedite the transfer process so that new teachers canbe hired before July.18 Philadelphia has tried to moveup the processing of transfers to earlier dates, but itsefforts to do so have been stymied in part by extensivemovement of veteran teachers caused by special initia-tives (e.g., creating new cadres of teacher-leader posi-tions or transferring large numbers of former teachersfrom non-teaching positions back into schools to teach)in the late spring or early summer.

Another important issue is whether or not transfer-ring teachers must interview and be accepted at thereceiving schools. Teachers’ absolute right to transferamong schools varies significantly by district. Increas -ingly, districts are decentralizing staffing decisionsabout veteran teachers as well as new teachers. This isvery different from the situation in Philadelphia,where voluntary transfers can move to another schoolwithout the receiving school having any choice in thematter.

Voluntary transfers

� Washington, DC, and the majority of New York Cityschools (62 percent) have rules similar to Philadel -phia’s: Voluntary transfers have the right to fillvacancies ahead of newly-hired teachers and do nothave to interview at, or be chosen by, the schools towhich they are transferring. Washington, however, isnow encouraging principals to interview transfers.

� Five districts allow teachers to transfer and fillvacancies first but they must interview at theschool and be chosen by that school. Charlotte-Meck lenberg, for example, processes these transfersin March prior to the April fair for new teacher can-didates so that new teacher hiring can proceedexpeditiously.

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

5

� In six districts and in 38 percent of New York Cityschools, transferring teachers interview at schoolsat the same time as new candidates and have nopriority in hiring. That is, schools can select a newteacher instead of the transferring teacher.

� In another variation on controlling the process ofvoluntary transfers, New York City and Los Angelesplace a cap on the percentage of teachers who canvoluntarily transfer out of a school in a single year(5 percent in NYC and 10 percent in Los Angeles).

Involuntary transfers The context surroundinginvoluntary transfers often affects the policy governingsuch movement of teachers. Forced transfers can becaused by many different factors: school closures;school reconstitutions; position eliminations at a schooldue to budget cuts; low enrollment or a change in cur-ricular requirements; and, on occasion, the unsatisfac-tory performance of the teacher. For this reason, rulesabout involuntary transfers are complex. Overall, how-ever, the rights of these teachers (often referred to as“excessed” or “surplussed”) to another job in the sys-tem are usually much stronger than those granted tovoluntarily transferring teachers, and they tend to fol-low seniority rules. There are certain conditions inmany districts where teachers’ rights are especiallystrong. We found the following patterns:� In four of the districts, involuntary transfers have

automatic transfer rights by seniority and are notrequired to interview at the receiving school, aprocess similar to that in Philadelphia.

� In seven districts, these teachers must interviewand be accepted by a school but in the end will beplaced in a job somewhere in the system by the HRoffice. This system was adopted citywide in 2003 inPittsburgh. Other districts in this category includeAtlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and NewYork City.

� In Washington, DC, practices depend on the type offorced transfer. In some instances, principals havethe right to turn down involuntarily transferringteachers whom they do not want. Under other con-ditions, they are required to take teachers assignedto them.

� All teachers hired after 1995 in one district,Houston, are on “term contracts” that do not givethem rights to a job if their position is eliminated.

Again, Philadelphia’s practices with regard to therights of involuntarily transferring teachers give receiv-ing schools little control over who joins their staff.

Incentives to attract and retain teachers in thehardest-to-staff schoolsDistricts’ current teacher recruitment efforts areaimed primarily at increasing the size of the recruit-ment pool, not at distributing certified teachers moreequitably among schools. Most districts have alternate-route programs (such as Teach for America) or alterna-tive certification programs for new recruits to the profession that place novices into vacant positions inhigh-poverty, high-minority schools characterized byhigh teacher turnover. Many urban districts, includingPhiladelphia, rely on offering a modest annual bonus($2,000) and on directing people in alternate-certifica-tion programs to the neediest schools.

We found that the strength of districts’ efforts tohire certified teachers into distressed schools varied.

� Three of the districts studied, Charlotte-Meck -lenberg, New York City, and Baltimore, have a trackrecord of comprehensive efforts to hire and retaincertified teachers in the hardest-to-staff schools.They have combined a number of incentives toattract qualified teachers to these schools. But NewYork City’s signature program was partially dis-mantled in 2003-04 by a new administration, andbudget cuts are threatening the future of theBaltimore initiative.19

Charlotte-Mecklenberg has the most comprehensivepackage of incentives of all the districts. These areaimed at staffing its 52 EquityPlus II Schools.20 Theincentives include smaller class sizes, bonuses forteachers ($2,500 for those with master’s degrees;$1,500 for others enrolled in a graduate program),additional materials and supplies for the classroom,and reimbursement for tuition costs incurred in get-ting a master’s degree. Local colleges and universi-ties offer courses in off-campus cohort groups forteachers in these schools. Qualified new applicantsand select retirees may be directed to these targetedschools first. This effort is carefully monitored by thedistrict and by a civic group, and early indicationsare that it is successful. According to a district offi-cial interviewed for this study, the coverage of costsfor the master’s degree is the most popular of theincentives. A sizeable number of teachers in theseschools are scheduled to get their master’s degree in2004.21

New York City has also had success with theExtended Time School (ETS), a subset of the 26 low-est-performing elementary and middle schools within the Chancellor’s District—a district establishedin 1996 for especially distressed schools—and 15others outside that district. Excellent principals,

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

6

earning $10,000 bonuses, were placed in theseschools, and teachers were paid 15 percent morebecause they worked an additional 40 minutes aschool day, either teaching students or engaged inprofessional development. Working with the union,uncertified staff and existing staff who wanted totransfer left the building and were placed in otherschools. Vacancies were filled using New York’s ver-sion of site selection of teachers, a process thatenables hiring teams (with teachers forming themajority) to select staff who would be committed toteaching a common core curriculum, working longerhours, and participating in professional develop-ment, and who expressed a sincere interest in work-ing in low-performing schools. Other incentivesincluded smaller classes with additional materialsand supplies. The initiative has led to higher stu-dent achievement in the ETS schools.22

New York City has a new initiative, NY UrbanTeachers, a recruitment program designed by thenonprofit New Teacher Project, which attracts certi-fied teachers in critical shortage subjects frominside and outside the district to teach in high-needschools in the Bronx and central Brooklyn. Teachersin this program (500 in 2003-04 and 500 projectedfor 2004-05) are hired and placed in schools effi-ciently and quickly and, if adding a certification in ashortage area, are reimbursed for their tuitionexpenses.23

Baltimore city schools have replicated the New YorkCity Chancellor’s District model, creating a CEODistrict of 10 low-performing elementary and mid-dle schools in 2001-02. Four of the ten schools havebeen removed from the state’s reconstitution-eligi-ble list because of improvements in student testscores. The program’s future is uncertain because ofthe severity of the district’s current budget cuts.Baltimore also has several alternate-route teachercertification programs with generous tuition reim-bursement incentives that direct candidates to high-need schools and subject areas.

It is important to note that the Hamilton County,Tennessee public schools, in partnership with theChattanooga Public Education Foundation, initiateda similar initiative to attract and retain high-qualityteachers and administrators in nine elementaryschools (Benwood Schools) in 2003. Incentivesinclude the assignment of effective principals to theschools (six out of the nine principals were replaced),salary bonuses for 26 high-performing teachers, thevoluntary and involuntary transfer of 100 teachersout of the schools, improvements in teacher training,and funding of specialized master’s degrees for

selected teachers. The program is partially fundedby a $5 million grant from the Benwood Foundationto the Public Education Foundation. The emphasison attracting and retaining highly-qualified teachersalong with other program enhancements in the areaof literacy has already produced student test scoregains. This program is receiving national atten-tion.24

� Three districts have some combination of incentivesfor teachers located in hard-to-staff schools thatusually involve salary bonuses and tuition support,but the package of enticements is not as compre-hensive as that found in Charlotte-Mecklenberg,New York City, or Baltimore. Austin attracts teach-ers to its low-performing “focus schools” with a com-bination of a hiring bonus, a stipend, and an “early-bird” bonus.

� Seven of the 13 districts we studied had no incen-tives but “were looking at it.”

How Other Districts in the PhiladelphiaRegion Hire and Place New Teachers

Philadelphia’s hiring practices were placed further into context by comparing them with those of nearby districts. We interviewed the directors of humanresources or personnel recruitment in five suburbanPennsylvania school districts and four New Jersey systems from January through March 2004 to learnabout their teacher hiring practices. The nine districts,all of which had collective bargaining contracts with ateachers’ union, had staffs ranging in size from 121 to1548 (Camden) with an average of about 700 teachers.Their student demographics ranged widely from pre-dominantly minority and low-income to largely white,upper-middle-class communities.

Some differences exist in the hiring contexts of thetwo states. Pennsylvania has 93 colleges and universi-ties with approved teacher education programs, a phenomenon that helps explain the state’s substantialoversupply of newly-certified teachers, particularly inelementary education. Although New Jersey has anoversupply of elementary-certified applicants as well,the state has only a third as many higher educationinstitutions with approved teacher education programsas Pennsylvania, and is also a “net exporter” of stu-dents for higher education—New Jersey high schoolgraduates tend to leave the state to pursue highereducation. Human resource directors in New Jerseydescribed more aggressive out-of-state recruitmentefforts than was the case with their counterpartsacross the Delaware River. Another state difference

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

7

that emerged in the interviews is that New Jerseyeducators take seriously the rule that a teacher mustgive 60 days’ notice before leaving one public schooldistrict in the state to work for another. Enforcementof similar rules in Pennsylvania is lax.

Key findings from these suburban interviewsinclude:

Site-based hiring All nine districts have site-based hiring where school personnel play a critical rolein interviewing and selecting staff. Principals are mostheavily involved, but teachers (and parents and/or stu-dents in two districts) also participate in teacher selec-tion for positions in seven of the nine districts. Theextent of teacher participation sometimes varies by thetype of position. Positions are usually posted with spe-cific information about school location, grade, and sub-ject area, and at least one interview is conducted atthe school site.

Teacher transfer rights In only one of the ninedistricts do veteran teachers have an automatic rightto voluntarily transfer to another school in the districtto fill a vacant position for which they are qualified. Inthe other eight districts, teachers have the right toapply for a specific vacancy, usually in early spring,and are granted a “courtesy interview,” but principalsand school teams are not required to hire them. Many,however, succeed in getting the transfer. This processdoes not appear to slow down the overall hiring time-line for new teachers. The one district that does grantautomatic transfer rights has to delay hiring of newteachers until August of each year in order to accom-modate the transfers, a process that is described as a“nightmare” by the HR director.

The candidate pool For the most part, these districts in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania rely onan internal labor pool to fill elementary-level positionsand some secondary positions. This candidate pool iscomposed mostly of long-term substitute teachers,some per-diem substitutes, and student teachers. Long-term substitutes are certified and their credentials (inmost districts) are carefully scrutinized at the timethey are hired as a sub. The oversupply of elementary-certified teachers in the region makes it possible forthese districts to rely almost exclusively on their inter-nal candidates to fill positions at the school level. Cam -den, a district that hires around 250 new teachers ayear, is the only one of the nine districts where thereare significant numbers of external new hires eachyear.

Only one of the districts gives strong preference tohiring qualified graduates from its own high school orresidents from its community. But five of the nine dis-tricts give “courtesy” first-round interviews to their

residents or graduates, a policy that gives the localapplicants a significant advantage in districts thatreceive thousands of applications each year.

Use of hiring Web sites When suburbanPennsylvania districts seek candidates for harder-to-fill positions (typically special education, Spanish lan-guage, some secondary sciences, secondary mathemat-ics, ESOL/Bilingual, etc.), they usually search theresumes posted on PA-REAP, an electronic job-postingsystem. Most of these districts discourage (or refuse toaccept) paper applications, preferring instead that can-didates simply mail in a letter expressing their inter-est in a position with the district and simultaneouslymake their resume available through PA-REAP.

A similar electronic job-posting system exists inNew Jersey (NJ Hire) but is not relied on nearly to theextent that PA-REAP is among Pennsylvania districts.Two of the New Jersey systems use it, but not exten-sively. One district accepts only mailed applications.

Scrutiny of credentials In non-shortage subjectareas, districts typically interview 3-5 candidates foreach position (one interviewed 5-8 candidates). Thenumber of interviews per candidate varies from 1 to 5per district; that is, some districts call finalists backfor several interviews, although this varies by subjectarea. Districts vary in the degree to which they reviewcredentials but all use telephone references in additionto written references and examination of transcripts.Several of the HR directors talked about the impor-tance of teachers’ content knowledge. In most cases,they are already familiar with a candidate’s teachingability because of his or her previous work as a substi-tute or student teacher in the system.

Salary credit for experience These suburbansystems have differing policies on giving newly-hiredteachers salary credit for years of teaching experiencethey might have had in another district as a certifiedteacher. Two of the districts give no salary credit forthose years while three districts give full credit for allsuch years. Two others allow full salary credit for up tofive or seven years, respectively.

This study of the policies of a sample of districtssurrounding Philadelphia shows that the city mustcompete for teachers against districts whose prospec-tive teachers can examine a possible school assignmentcarefully prior to accepting a position. If applicants areoffered a position, it is because administrators (andoften fellow teachers) at the receiving school wantthem on their staff. School administrators also havemuch more discretion than those in Philadelphia overwhich teachers are allowed to voluntarily transfer intotheir buildings.

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

8

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

Endnotes

1 Bryk A. S. & Schneider, B.S. 2002. Trust in Schools: A CoreResource for Improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation;Johnson, S.M. & S.E. Birkeland, “Pursuing a ‘Sense of Success’:New Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions,” AmericanEducational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617; Levin, J. & Quinn,Meredith. 2003. Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-QualityTeachers Out of Urban Classrooms. New York: New TeacherProject. http://www.newteacherproject.org; Neild, R. C., Useem, E.L., Travers, E.M. & Lesnick, J. 2003. Once and For All: Placing aHighly Qualified Teacher in Every Philadelphia Classroom. 2003.Philadelphia: Research for Action.http://www.researchforaction.org

2Keller, B., “ ‘Hiring Headway’ in Quality Counts 2003: If I Can’tLearn from You … Ensuring a Highly Qualified Teacher in EveryClassroom,” Education Week, January 12, 2003, pp. 43-44; Forinformation on improvements in the effectiveness of HumanResources offices in the Houston Independent School District andSan Diego City Schools, see Campbell, C., DeArmond, M. &Schwumwinger, A. 2004. From Bystander to Ally: Transformingthe District Human Resources Department. Seattle: University ofWashington, Center for Reinventing Public Education.http://www.crpe.org.

3 Neild et al., op. cit.

4 Information about new district recruitment initiatives are fromHanna, Tomas, University Partners Meeting, March 18, 2004.

5 Murphy, P.J. & DeArmond, M. M. 2003. From the Headlines tothe Frontlines: The Teacher Shortage and Its Implications forRecruitment Policy. Seattle: University of Washington, Center forReinventing Public Education, http://www.crpe.org; Neild et al.,op. cit.

6 Keller, B. op cit., p. 43.

7 See Complaint to the Office for Civil Rights Concerning TeacherDistribution in the Philadelphia School District, Education LawCenter, Philadelphia, March 2004. www.elc-pa.org.

As of this writing, a coalition of organizations headed by thePhiladelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, the PhiladelphiaStudent Union, and participating organizations in the EducationFirst Compact of the Philadelphia Education Fund are pressingthe district for changes in staffing policies so that students in theneediest schools have access to qualified teachers. See also, Neildet al., op. cit.

8 Chester, M.D., Offenberg, R.M. & Xu, M.D., “Urban TeacherTransfer: A Three-year Cohort Study of the School District ofPhiladelphia Faculty,” Philadelphia, PA: Office of Accountabilityand Assessment, School District of Philadelphia, 2002. Paper pre-

Conclusion

As we have seen, Philadelphia is clearly not in tunewith what Education Week calls “a national trend…tomake crucial hiring information readily available toprincipals and to shift most of the responsibility forhiring from central office to the schools.”25 Indeed,Philadelphia’s highly centralized teacher selectionpractices, stemming largely from provisions in its col-lective bargaining agreement with teachers, stand insharp contrast to this trend.

All districts we studied for this report have someform of school-based teacher selection processes in -creasingly facilitated by electronic applicant-trackingsystems. Philadelphia’s current teachers’ union con-tract, however, not only retains a process that limitschoice by schools over the hiring of novice teachers, butalso gives schools little choice over accepting staff whocome to the school as voluntary or involuntary trans-fers. Again, these ironclad seniority transfer rights areincreasingly at odds with those of other urban districtsand, in the case of voluntary transfers, have long beenstrikingly different from those of surrounding subur-ban districts.

The 44 schools in Philadelphia that have voted forsite selection utilize school personnel committees thatplay an important role in making the final selectiondecision. This team-based approach, used by the major-ity of the urban districts we studied, helps build thecollegial relations so necessary for raising student

achievement. Although some districts leave the deci-sion entirely in the hands of principals, we think thehard work of long-term school improvement is boostedwhen teachers share in major decisions that affectinstruction, including the hiring of like-minded colleagues.

When it comes to the difficult issue of staffing themost distressed schools with experienced and certifiedteachers, we are mindful that site selection and alter-ation of seniority rules that would expedite hiring donot by themselves solve that problem. These policychanges are important and necessary steps in reform-ing school staffing, but, to be successful, they must besupplemented by a package of meaningful incentivessuch as reduced class size, the presence of effectiveschool leadership, and a collegial, professional commu-nity of teachers. Few systems have followed the lead ofCharlotte-Mecklenberg, New York City, Baltimore, andHamilton County, Tennessee, in developing a set ofcompelling enticements to attract and retain qualifiedteachers in hard-to-staff schools.

Philadelphia has made substantial progress in itsteacher recruitment and retention efforts. Theseefforts, however, may have only a limited impactunless hiring and school placement decisions are expe-dited and decentralized. The mandate for equitablestaffing initiatives that is implicit in the No Child LeftBehind legislation places pressure on Philadelphia andsimilar districts to take the kinds of aggressive stepsthat have been pioneered in other districts.

9

sented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Seattle.

9 The eligibility list itself, imposed years ago by the state to pre-vent corruption in hiring in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, hasbecome effectively obsolete since stringent standards for teachercertification in Pennsylvania now exist for all teachers.

10 See Education Law Center, 2004, “State Laws Related toEquitable Distribution of Teachers.” Philadelphia. www.elc-pa.org

11 Philadelphia is the nation’s eighth largest district. Larger dis-tricts in this study included New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago,Miami-Dade County, and Houston, all districts that have evengreater challenges in staffing their schools. U.S. Department ofEducation, National Center for Education Statistics. 2003.Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary andSecondary School Districts in the United States: 2001-02. NCES2003-353, Jennifer Sable and Beth Aronstamm Young.Washington, DC: 2003.

We also studied Pittsburgh, the only other large city district inPennsylvania. Several other districts included in our review—Atlanta, Baltimore, Washington, DC, and Cleveland—were chosenbecause of their demographic similarities to Philadelphia, i.e.,their student populations are predominantly low-income andAfrican American. We looked at Charlotte-Mecklenberg Countybecause we had read reports of its initiatives to address the prob-lem of teacher qualifications in hard-to-staff schools, and weselected Cincinnati because of its demographic similarity and itshistory of innovative collective bargaining agreements. Austinwas included because of its reputation as an improving urban district.

We did not make an effort to seek out districts that had imple-mented site selection (e.g. Seattle) or that had made significantinroads in seniority-based transfer practices. With the exceptionof Chicago and Charlotte-Mecklenberg, we had little prior knowl-edge of the practices of the districts we selected before we beganour work. We did expect to find significant differences in senioritytransfer rules in cities in the South compared to those outside ofthe South but were surprised to find few major differences inthese policies.

12 We interviewed 4 Directors of Human Resources or Office ofPersonnel; 1 Associate Director of Human Resources; 3 Directorsof Recruitment; 2 Assistant Directors of Recruitment/SchoolAssignment; 6 district Recruiters; 6 school district partner groupsinvolved in education reform; 5 union officials; 1 news reporter; 1 principal known to be a leader in the district; and 1 districtadministrator in a special sub-district for low-performing schools.

13 Suburban districts in Pennsylvania included Upper Darby,William Penn, Lower Merion, Pennsbury, and Bensalem. In NewJersey, we looked at Camden, Cherry Hill, Haddon Heights, andPennsauken. These were chosen because they represented a rangeof community types and because they had sufficient numbers ofschools that internal teacher transfers among them might be anissue. The interviews with two of the New Jersey districts wereconducted over the telephone. All other interviews were conductedin person.

14 Education Policy and Leadership Center. 2003. Head of theClass: A Quality Teacher in Every Pennsylvania Classroom.Harrisburg: Education Policy and Leadership Center.http://www.eplc.org.

15 Bryk and Schneider, op. cit., argue that “under [mandatedschool] decentralization, principals for the first time were author-ized to choose their own faculty, and these choices were not con-strained by seniority considerations. In some ways, this was oneof the most significant provisions in the entire law.” (p. 186).

16 According to the official of the United Federation of Teacherswhom we interviewed for this study, school district negotiatorswant school-based hiring across the district, with principalschoosing teachers, while the union is advocating for a district-wide site-based option that allows hiring teams with teachermajorities to make the decision as is currently the case in theSchool-Based Option schools.

17 Levin, J. & Quinn, M., op. cit.

18 The New Teacher Project, based in New York City, is workingwith several urban districts to rationalize and expedite hiring.

19 The Chancellor’s District has been disbanded as an administra-tive unit by the current administration. There are still 40 formerChancellor’s District schools with the extra time and incentivesdispersed around the system. The high schools in the initiative nolonger have the smaller classes, and the literacy curricula havebeen changed to conform to new citywide guidelines. The UnitedFederation of Teachers will be monitoring student outcomes fromthe 2003-04 school year to see how student achievement has faredunder these new arrangements.

20 According to an MDRC report for the Council of Great CitySchools, Charlotte-Mecklenberg County has “the most highlyevolved system for targeting and providing assistance to needyschools, including more qualified teachers.” (p. 71) See Snipes, J.,Doolittle, F., Herlihy, C. 2002. Foundations for Success: CaseStudies of How Urban School Systems Improve StudentAchievement. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.

21 See Charlotte-Mecklenberg Schools. 2004. Equity StatusReport. http://cms.k12.nc.us

22 Koppich, J.E., “Using Well-qualified Teachers Well,” AmericanEducator,Winter 2002.

23 According to a program manager for NY Urban Teachers,teachers who live elsewhere in the country who know they wantto come to New York City are attracted by the early placementfeature of this program. Some of these recruits are natives of NewYork, including some retirees from other systems.

24 See http://pefchattanooga.org; “Benwood Schools Post StrongAcademic Gains,” Chattanooga Times Free Press. Friday, February6, 2004; “A Move to Invest in More Effective Teaching,” TheWashington Post, February 10, 2004.

25 Keller, B., op. cit., p. 43.

P h i l a d e l p h i a ' s T e a c h e r H i r i n g a n d S c h o o l A s s i g n m e n t P r a c t i c e s

Research for Action (RFA) is a Philadelphia-based, non-profit organization engaged in education research and evaluation. Founded in 1992, RFA works with public school districts,educational institutions, and community organizations to improve the educational opportunities for those traditionally disadvantaged by race/ethnicity, class, gender, language/cultural difference, and ability/disability.

Research for Action3701 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104Tel: (215) 823-2500, ext. 508Fax: (215) 823-2510E-mail: info@researchforaction.orgWeb: www.researchforaction.org