University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The principal's perspective of current tenure practices

(USC Thesis Other)

The principal's perspective of current tenure practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 1

THE PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE OF CURRENT TENURE PRACTICES

by

Joseph D. Hyde

_____________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2015

Copyright 2014 Joseph D. Hyde

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 2

Acknowledgements
The last three years have been an incredible journey of personal and professional
discovery, challenges, and growth. First and foremost, I would like to recognize my beautiful
wife Stephanie for her unconditional love and unwavering support throughout this odyssey. I
would also like to thank my sons, Alex and Nick for their encouragement and understanding.
You boys have served as a great part of my inspiration for completing this process. Finally, I
would like to extend my love and appreciation to my Mom and Ted, for their tremendous
support, love, and perspective. You helped me to recognize the need to find balance in my life.
Much has been said about the power of friendship and the strength of the Trojan
Network. The personal relationships that I have forged with the incredibly talented people in my
cohort have proved invaluable in my growth as an educator. I consider myself so fortunate to
have learned from such a diverse and altruistic group of individuals. Specifically, I would like to
thank my dear friend Matt for his sage guidance, positive attitude, and patience over the past
three years.
Many people can point to a teacher or coach that made a significant impact on their lives.
When I reflect on the tremendous learning, support and guidance that was afforded to me by the
individuals on my Doctoral Dissertation Panel, I am left with overwhelming respect and
admiration. To my Chair, Dr. Pedro Garcia, thank your for your mentorship and compassion. Dr.
Rudy Castruita, your strength as a leader and coach is evident in everything that you do. Thank
you for stepping in and helping me reach the finish line. Finally, I would like to extend my
appreciation to Dr. Eric Vreeman for his encouragement and practical advice.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 3

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my grandparents, John and Dorothy Hyde, both life-long
public educators. Thank you for your love, generosity, and unconditional support. I am forever
in your debt.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 4

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study .................................................................................................. 8
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 9
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 13
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 13
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 14
Primary Research Questions ............................................................................................. 14
Summary of Methodology ................................................................................................ 14
Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 15
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 16
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 16
Definitions of the Terms ................................................................................................... 17
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 18
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 19
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 19
Tenure History: Context of the Research.......................................................................... 20
Evaluation Methods .......................................................................................................... 24
Subjective Evaluations .......................................................................................... 25
Objective Evaluations ........................................................................................... 25
Mixed Evaluations ................................................................................................ 26
Previous Research on Principals ....................................................................................... 27
Principals and Tenure ....................................................................................................... 29
Collective Bargaining and Tenure .................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 32
Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design ............................................................................ 34
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 34
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 35
Research Design................................................................................................................ 35
Process of Constructing the Survey Questions ..................................................... 37
Process of Constructing the Interview Protocol .................................................... 38
Data Needed to Answer the Research Question ................................................... 39
Data to Be Collected Through Surveys .................................................... 39
Data to Be Collected Through Interviews ................................................ 39
Appropriateness of the Research Design .......................................................................... 40
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 41
Identifying Appropriate Respondents ................................................................... 41
Survey Protocols ................................................................................................... 41
Interview Protocols ............................................................................................... 42
Data Processing and Analysis ........................................................................................... 43
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 43
Process of Getting Consent ................................................................................... 43
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 5

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 44
Chapter 4: Results and Findings ................................................................................................... 45
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 45
Research Design................................................................................................................ 45
Demographics ................................................................................................................... 47
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 49
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 51
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 54
Research Question 4 ......................................................................................................... 56
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 59
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations .............................................................................. 61
Interpretation of Research Data ........................................................................................ 61
Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................................... 65
Recommendations for Current Changes in California Tenure Law ................................. 67
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 70
References ..................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A: California Tenure Code ........................................................................................... 80
Appendix B: Survey Questions ..................................................................................................... 82
Appendix C: Interview Questions ................................................................................................. 89
Appendix D: Consent Form for Follow-up Interview .................................................................. 91
Appendix E: Figures ..................................................................................................................... 94
Curriculum Vita ............................................................................................................................ 99

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 6

List of Tables
Table 1 ...........................................................................................................................................47
Table 2 ...........................................................................................................................................49

List of Figures
Figure 1 ..........................................................................................................................................94
Figure 2 ..........................................................................................................................................95
Figure 3 ..........................................................................................................................................96
Figure 4 ..........................................................................................................................................97
Figure 5 ..........................................................................................................................................98

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 7

Abstract
When selecting a new teacher, principals use many different techniques and measures to ensure
that they hire the person best suited for the position. This research explores one factor in the
hiring decision that has not been previously looked at or discussed in the literature, either that
literature which has been completed to determine the most effective factors for predicting future
teacher success or the research that has shown the factors that principals actually use to hire
teachers. In California and eight other states, teachers are automatically granted tenure on the
first day of their third full year teaching, giving principals less than 18 months to determine
whether or not the probationary teacher is a highly effective teacher. In this study, the
researchers surveyed 42 Southern California principals and other persons authorized to hire
teachers and interview a subset of 6 of those surveyed to determine how much of an influence
the current tenure practices in California affect their decisions when interviewing and hiring new
teachers, and whether or not they felt that tenure practice could be improved. Researchers
discovered through both the surveys and interviews that the current tenure practices had a large
impact on hiring decisions. Even in cases when interviewees stated that it was not a large factor,
the interview was dominated with answers in which tenure was a major factor. The interviewees
agreed that if the teacher probationary period was lengthened to five years, then many of the
pressures and issues that tenure brought up in the hiring process would be alleviated.
Researchers concluded that current tenure practices are a major element in the process of hiring
teachers in California and that it actually results in the loss of potentially great and dynamic
teachers because principals were not willing to take the risk on the candidate.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 8

CHAPTER 1: Overview of the Study
Introduction
The importance of giving the youth of this country a high-quality education cannot be
overstated. In the modern economy young graduates must be able to enter the workforce with a
certain level of knowledge and skills so as to be able to advance in their career field (Darling-
Hammond, 1997; Dee, 2003; Murane & Steele, 2007). Moreover, the primary focus of Thomas
Dee’s 2003 NBER Working Paper 9588 (2003) showed that educational achievement and quality
has a significant impact on future engagement in the democratic process. Since these are now
and have been the twin goals of the public education system in the United States, it follows that
the quality of teaching in public schools is very important. In fact Horace Mann (1846/1957)
stated the Free Schools are necessary to diffusing the requisite intelligence required to maintain
the American form of government.
In 2011 it was projected that the United States would employ 3,716,000 full-time
teachers in both public and private schools (National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)
2009). Of these, 3.31 million will be employed in the public school system and the most of the
teachers either have tenure or will be granted tenure. In 2011 300, 140 teachers, just over 8% of
the US public teaching staff, worked in the California public schools (California Department of
Education (CDE), 2011). Nearly all of these teachers will either have tenure (returning
educators) will be eligible receive tenure within five years at the longest. (National Council on
Teacher Quality (NCTQ), 2010)
California policy basically gives a new-hire teacher tenure (permanent status) in 24
months (NCTQ, 2010, slide 13). It is, therefore, important to understand how principals go
about evaluating prospective teachers for their schools, how they evaluate both new-hire and
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 9

tenured faculty, and deal with underperforming tenured faculty. Although much research has
been done detailing various methods that can be used by principals to evaluate teaching
candidates and probationary teachers (Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Goldhaber & Hansen,
2010; Hill, Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012; Winters, 2012; ), what principals can do to improve
teachers (Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Breault, 2007; Danielson, 2011; Darling-
Hammond, 1997; Hightower, Delgado, Lloyd, Wittenstein, Sellers, & Swanson, 2011; Hill,
Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012), or how teachers and students perceive this process (Beteille,
Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012; Cannon, Figlio, & Sass, 2010;
Darling-Hammond, 1997; Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011), very little has been completed
looking at what principals actually use in their initial evaluations (Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, &
Thompson 2010; Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011; Jacobs, 2010; Staigler & Rockoff, 2010).
Further, much of the available literature on underperforming teachers has already shown the
effects of tenure on faculty dismissal (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009; Winters;
2012). This study will add valuable data to the literature of how principals make decisions in
choosing to hire prospective teachers and how they choose to evaluate new-hire and tenured
instructors in the current climate of tenure practices.
Background of the Problem
Since the earliest Western histories people who question the beliefs and traditions of a
society have run afoul of the authority and administrators of those societies. Among the hardest
hit questioners were the scholars and teachers. In 324 B.C.E., in one of the most talked about
events of philosophy, Socrates was found guilty of ‘corrupting the morals of the youth of
Athens’ and sentenced to death. Exactly what was Socrates crime? It was teaching the young
men of Athens to think critically, to questions everything, to be aware -- in short, he was a
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 10

dynamic and popular teacher (high school in modern days) who did not toe the party line (Plato,
1997 version). Throughout history, since then, teachers and scholars have been loved and
admired by students while being distrusted and persecuted by the powers of tradition. In the
Middle Ages, as a defense against the Monarchs and Popes, European scholars started forming
into societies and groups. These groups had their own rules, bylaws, practices, and expectations
and could be considered the seed out of which the university system was grown.
From these foundations of guaranteed protection from the whims of religion and state, the
free and open exchange of ideas, and the search for truth have grown the modern ideas of
academic tenure. Tenure in the United States, at its most basic level is a way to guarantee that
good teachers, instructors, and professors are protected from the vicissitudes of politics, religious
bias, or other outside influence when practicing their craft (Loope, 1995). Tenure insures that
educators cannot be terminated for espousing unpopular, revolutionary, reactionary, or even
inflammatory ideas or for being involved in research of the same nature (e.g. stem-cell, cloning,
and nuclear energy). Tenure basically protects the rights to free speech and free expression of
educators from retaliation or suppression by persons in power. It is important to note that tenure
was not designed to protect ineffective or poor-quality teachers from termination. The dismissal
process written into most tenure law simply creates a fair and rigorous process through which
administrators must tread in order to remove said teachers from the school. In the United States
this process was laid out so as to follow the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the
US Constitution (Fischer, Schimmel, & Stellman, 2003)
Since, in the United States the federal government does not have any real say in how
primary and secondary schools are run, tenure law is a patchwork of rules and expectations based
on the local law and prevailing attitudes of the state in which a teacher lives and works.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 11

Moreover, each school, state, and district requires different criteria to evaluate teachers and make
local tenure decisions at the individual school level (NCTQ, 2010). Since there are many
different ideas about how to effectively evaluate new-hire educators as well as tenured educators,
research tends to be mixed as to the effectiveness of one over the others. Currently, value-added
measures (VAM) are a popular method of evaluation of teacher effectiveness required by 19
states (NCTQ 2010). However, the research on VAM is complex and contradictory (Goldhaber
& Hansen, 2010; Murane & Steele, 2007, Box 1; Winters, 2012).
What is a school principal to do? Their job includes insuring that every child under their
care has access to the best possible education, one that passes on the expected skills and
knowledges, excites the child for future learning, and imbues a sense of the importance of
education to a free society. It is their responsibility to create a workable mix of personalities in
the school environment to most effectively promote the educational goals and expectations of the
district and parents to whom they answer (Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Ingle,
Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011; Jacob, 2010; Staigler & Rockoff, 2010; Youngs, 2007). It has also
been shown that principals have a measurable impact on the quality of teachers in a school
(Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012; Cannon & Figlio,
2011). Plato was the first to imply, in The Republic, that education was the first prerequisite for
creating, maintaining, and ensuring a free society (Plato, 1997). In the United States, along with
teaching the ‘core’ curriculum of Language Arts, Mathematics, and History, it is expected that
schools will teach and model Civics. Tenure Law, as proposed and championed by the NEA
back in the 1930s, was actually a very powerful model of our democratic and social justice
system at work (Fischer, Schimmel, & Stellman, 2003). The laws protect rights of speech and
expression in a profession that could easily be gagged by sectarian, political, and religious biases
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 12

in the administrations who have the power to hire and fire teachers. The laws also created an
accountability system through which a teacher could be terminated if they were not performing
their expected duties to a minimum standard. A teacher could not be fired for unpopular views
or ideas, but could still be fired for being an ineffective teacher. The accountability system was
precise and fair. Unfortunately, tenure has gone from being a protection for strong and effective
teachers - teachers who challenge their students and imbue a lifelong love of learning with a
strong sense of skepticism and critical thinking - to being a shield behind which the powerful
teachers unions protect ineffective and poor teachers as well (Lieberman, 1986; Painter, 2000).
This has led to the current state of affairs in which many governing agencies, school
administrators, and the public would like to do away with tenure completely.
While it is true that tenure law and practices, as currently existing, may not be the most
effective way of insuring that students receive the best education while still protecting the
dynamic and high-performing teachers it is still necessary to carefully protect the integrity and
freedom of education. Meeting these twin goals seems to be the purpose of any reform effort.
However, to effective create a workable reform, one that all reasonable sides of the debate can
accept, requires understanding how the current practices inform administrative decisions relating
to faculty staffing, evaluation, and recruiting. To understand and devise a way in which schools,
districts, governing agencies at the local, state, and federal level, and the public can serve the
students most effectively while still protecting teachers from censorship by partisan forces, it is
necessary to first understand how the teacher hiring decision-makers actually make hiring, firing,
and tenure decisions.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 13

Statement of the Problem
In California, tenure law gives principals and other administrators until the first day of
school of a probationary teacher’s third year to decide whether or not to offer the teacher a
tenured contract (NCTQ, 2010, slide 14). This means that in 2 years, or more accurately 18
months from the first time the teacher steps into the classroom in that school, the principal must
evaluate the teacher’s aptitude and potential. It can take four or five years for a new teacher to
develop into a highly effective and dynamic teacher, the kind of teacher that both administrators
and parents want teaching young people (). Therefore a principal has to determine whether or
not a teacher that seems to have potential will grow into that teacher, without sufficient time to
observe, offer professional development programs, offer advice and critiques, and simply allow
for the abrupt change from guided teaching to having a classroom alone. The principal and other
administrators must also carefully weigh the potential benefit of the new dynamic teacher with
the time it might take to finish training them, the cost of professional development training, and
the difficulty in terminating the teacher once they have received tenure if the teacher ends up not
living up to the potential that was seen by the principal and other administrators.
Purpose of the Study
This is a qualitative study which aims to further the knowledge about how the current
practices in California Tenure Law (short evaluation period and difficult termination conditions
especially) affects the way in which principals and other administrators decide to hire new
probationary teachers and how to evaluate whether or not to offer a specific, potentially dynamic
teacher tenure. Using a targeted sampling of Southern California primary and secondary public
school principals and other relevant administrators, this survey will use both scaled and open-
ended questions, and will give the participant the option to participate in a follow-up interview.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 14

Significance of the Study
Every year in the United States, many teachers, otherwise qualified and even exceptional,
are lost to the teaching profession through attrition, tenure decisions, poor administrative
support, inadequate professional development programs, and other preventable causes (Murane
& Steele, 2007). This hemorrhage of qualified and dynamic instructors costs schools, school
districts, and states money, goal-accomplishment, and it creates stress in students, parents and
administrators, and undermines the primary mission of any school, excellent student education.
There are few studies that look at the actual process by which primary and secondary public
school principals and other relevant administrators make hiring decisions in relation to current
tenure practices. To help obtain excellent teachers it is necessary to understand how the crucial
hiring decision is actually made, hence this research study.

Primary Research Questions
1. What impact would lengthening the teacher probationary period have on improving
teacher quality?
2. Given current tenure practices, what factors do principal use to hire new teachers?
3. How has current California tenure practice influenced relationships in the school setting
between administration and teachers?
4. What are the definable differences in the performance of a teacher prior to, compared to
after achieving tenure?
Summary of Methodology
This study uses a survey and interview qualitative design to address the research
questions. This method was chosen to allow for the complexity of the study inquiry as it collects
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 15

qualitative data through both scaled survey responses and open-ended or interview responses
(Creswell, 2009). The qualitative research data was collect using a 22-item survey distributed to
primary and secondary school principals throughout the southern region of the state via the
regional education email directory. This method should allow for a more random sampling from
both urban and rural districts in Southern California. This survey will include both Likert-like
Scale questions and an open-ended comment question in which respondents are able to elaborate
on previous answers or make suggestions. It will also include the option for the respondent input
their contact information if they wish to participate in a telephone, email, or in-person interview
to further clarify the answers in the survey. All in-depth interview questions will be determined
prior to beginning of the study and finalized prior to the interview portion of the study. These
questions will be primarily driven by the research questions and the responses from the initial
surveys.
Assumptions
This study assumes the following:
1. The overarching objective of site managers and school principals is the further
and improved educational achievement of the students in the school.
2. There is a real and significant impact on teacher hiring from the current tenure
practices of California.
3. Principals take into account current tenure and permanent status practices when
considering a potential new-hire teacher.
4. Principals do not necessarily use best-practices or current research to determine
the eligibility of a potential teacher hire.
5. Principals have final say in the hire and retention of teachers in their school.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 16

6. The selected methodology for this study is well-designed and will
comprehensively address the above research questions.
Limitations
This study includes the following limitations:
1. The validity of the survey data is constrained by the reliability of both the survey
methodology and the follow-up interview design.
2. The cooperation of the principals in both filling out the survey and agreeing to
follow-up interviews.
3. The ability to gain enough survey responses, especially to the open-ended
questions, to create meaningful conclusions and further develop the follow-up
interview questions.
4. The willingness of survey participants to engage in a follow-up interview.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study are as follows:
1. Data collection was restricted to Southern California primary and secondary
public school principals or administration representative in charge of hiring new-
teachers for the school.
2. Interviews were conducted with selected principals with varying amounts of
teacher hiring experience.
3. Follow-up interview questions were formulated using the survey Likert scale
results and the responses to the open-ended questions to gain further insight into
the hiring process used by principals.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 17

Definitions of the Terms
This study will use certain terms in a very specific manner and context. Following is a
list of these terms and the definition of the term within the context of this study.
● Dynamic Teacher: A teacher who, through student evaluations, staff observation and
evaluation, and administration observation and evaluation, is able to not only impart
the required information in an acceptable manner, but also imbue students with
excitement and a desire to search further. Also referred to as a Highly Effective
Teacher.
● Tenure Law: The Administrative Law or Rule laid out by the various State
legislatures governing how an elementary or secondary teacher is awarded tenure
(Fischer, Schimmel, & Stellman, 2003).
● Tenure Practice: The way in which Tenure Law is actually applied in the local school
districts. This is also the gap between the law and the implementation over time.
Tenure practice refers to the way in which tenure is actually used.
● Administration/Administrator: This is the person or persons responsible for the
orderly running of the school environment. Often this includes the Principal, Vice
principal(s), and possibly members of the local School board. This refers to the
person or persons who recommend and make the final decision about whether or not
teachers are granted tenure.
● Teaching Potential: This refers to how likely a particular probationary teacher is to
becoming a true dynamic teacher. This is based on observation, projecting ability
into the future, experience, and the teachability of the teacher.
● Highly Effective Teacher: possesses the ability to motivate and instill the desire for
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 18

lifelong learning and can help all students achieve academically (Haycock and
Huang, 2001; Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009; No Child Left Behind, 2001).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One includes an introduction to the problem,
the statement and history of the problem, relevant definitions, and a statement of the purpose of
this study. Chapter Two reviews the relevant literature on actual methods used by principals
when hiring teacher in public primary and secondary schools as well as relevant literature
regarding best-practices and current theories regarding teacher hiring practices. Chapter Three
outlines the methodology used for surveying and conducting the follow-up interviews with
participating principals. Chapter Four reviews and analyzes the data collected. Chapter Five
concludes this study and contains a discussion of the findings from this study including
conclusions, implications, and strategies for more effective hiring of new teachers to insure a
higher likelihood of adding highly effective and dynamic teachers in the public school system.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 19

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
Introduction
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1961, changed the landscape of public education in the United
States. For the first time, teachers were to be evaluated and all students would be taught by
“highly effective” teachers by 2006 (NCLB, § 2101 - 2441). Although, by 2009 only 98% of
teachers were rated as highly effective (US Department of Education (USDE), 2011), this
requirement brought the discussion of teacher evaluation methods to the fore across the country.
Moreover, since NCLB also required that schools show student improvement (or Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP)) in the Core Curriculum areas of English/Language Arts, Science, and
Mathematics and has chosen the standardized testing method to measure that progress, schools
and education professionals must make certain that the relevant information and skills are being
passed to students through teachers, tutors, appropriate curriculum, and other programs. Title I
and III of NCLB also require that English Language Learners (ELL) be tested in their
proficiency in English annually until they exit the ELL subgroup.
These requirements, especially the requirement of placing only highly effective teachers,
defined as a teacher possesses the ability to motivate and instill the desire for lifelong learning
and can help all students achieve academically (Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009; No Child Left Behind,
2001), in the classroom, place immense pressure on site administrators and other relevant hiring
agents in the individual public schools of the United States to make good decisions in the case of
every potential new-hire teacher. This pressure is further increased due to the other competing
stakeholders in the education process at the local and state level, especially the teacher’s unions,
who have other demands and expectations to add to these important decisions (Koppich, 2005;
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 20

Lindy, 2010; Painter, 2000). Current tenure or permanent status laws and practices make it
extremely difficult to remove a teacher from the classroom short of an extensive recorded and
documented history of malfeasance (Koppich, 2005; Lindy, 2010; Murnane & Steele, 2007).
This does not necessarily include poor evaluations or performance measures (Frey, 2010; Lindy,
2010; Strunk & Grissom, 2010). The conditions under which a teacher with permanent status or
tenure can be removed from the classroom are not only written into state law thereby insuring 50
different sets of guidelines, but also into the collective bargaining contracts, insuring hundreds of
different practical applications depending on the school district and whether or not the state in
question allows collective bargaining (Frey, 2010; Lindy, 2010; Painter, 2000; Strunk &
Grissom, 2010).
Tenure History: Context of the Research
There is evidence of some level of understanding of the unique position teachers of the
young hold in society as far back as Ancient Greece (Plato, 1997). The concept of tenure and
other methods of protecting teachers from these vagaries (tenure being the final result of these
attempts) began developing during the High Middle Ages as scholars banded together and
created societies through which they were protected from the high-handedness of the kings or
religious leaders of the time and the political climate in specific places (Loope, 1995). These
societies protected the men who would now be considered the university professors of the time
all across Europe. Although over time these societies were slowly expanded to include other
professions and academic pursuits, the protections did not protect the teachers of younger
children (as education was not a right or expectation of children outside the aristocracy).
In the United States the tenure movement for K-12 public school teachers began in the
19
th
Century, paralleling the rise of the industrial labor movement (Loope, 1995). At that time
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 21

there were no real protections for teachers against unreasonable firings, including for infractions
such as getting married, wearing one’s hair inappropriately, stating an opinion in class that was
unpopular, and even wearing the wrong clothing. It is helpful to remember that the vast majority
of teachers of that era were young, unmarried women and it was expected that when they got
married that they would give up their profession to take care of their own children. Moreover,
women were second-class citizens in the United States at that time, not yet having won the right
to vote in any state, denied rights to their own property after marriage (coverture laws), and the
right to equal pay for equal work. The movement spring out of a meeting in 1857 of 43
educators in Philadelphia that would come to be the National Teacher’s Association (now known
as the National Education Association or NEA). Even at this meeting, though the vast majority
of public school teachers were women, there were no women in attendance. They met to bring
the state-by-state improvements in teachers’ right to the national level and give US teachers
across the country a single voice. In 1886 Massachusetts became the first state to pass laws
protecting public school teachers to some degree although most scholars agree that New Jersey
was the first state to pass comprehensive tenure laws in 1909 (Carter & Savoca, 1992; Loope,
1995) . By the late 1960s every state in the United States had comprehensive tenure laws in
place to protect K-12 public school teachers. These laws defined how a teacher gained tenure or
permanent status, what constituted reasonable reasons for termination of tenure and employment,
and the specific process required to terminate a tenured teacher. These laws varied by state and
were also subject to interpretation through the various collective bargaining units for each district
in states that allowed collective bargaining. Basically, the various teachers’ unions defined
through contract negotiations what evaluations tools were used, how often evaluations were
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 22

done, and other procedures relevant to complaints against teachers (Lindy, 2010; Painter, 2000;
Strunk & Grissom, 2010).
The rise of the tenure movement through the lens of the industrial labor movement,
however, brought the highly adversarial relationship between industrial and transportation
workers and the respective management teams into the scholastic environment (Moe, 2009;
Strunk & Grissom, 2010). By the late 1960s every state in the US had passed some form of
tenure law, although in some states this was called permanent status. Tenure was and is a
protection for teachers. In the early days of public education in the US, most teachers were
women and they could be fired for getting married, wearing pants, not to mention any ‘radical’
lessons. Tenure granted teachers with a proven track record a permanent contract, thus removing
the political and social pressures to conform to regional beliefs while teaching rather than teacher
critical thinking and objective ideas. Tenure laws created a system of Due Process (originating
in the 14
th
Amendment of the US Constitution) whereby teachers could be removed from the
profession once tenure had been achieved.
Tenure at the university level was then and is still a grueling process whereby a potential
tenure-track professor must prove their academic excellence and original thinking through
publications and research well as teaching excellence (in some universities). This process takes
seven to ten years and is definitely not guaranteed upon initial hiring. Through this crucible, the
university departments are able to hold on to and reward the best professors and brightest,
protecting them from the whims of politics, university administrations, public pressure, etc. The
public K-12 school system, although it adopted the protections of tenure, did not adopt the
rigorous standards by which university tenure is granted. In the public K-12 system, tenure can
be granted in as little as two years and is often automatic unless the site administrator makes a
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 23

specific recommendation for non-renewal prior to a certain date each year (e.g. California
Tenure Law, Appendix; Frey, 2010).
The teacher’s unions, which originally pushed the tenure laws through the state
legislatures, also play a powerful role in how tenure is actually practiced in those states with
collective bargaining practices (Lindy, 2010; Moe, 2009; Strunk & Grissom, 2010). These
bargaining positions come from the place of adversarial action between the administration of a
school district and the bargaining agents of the teachers, thus creating a difficult environment for
creating real and lasting tenure reform (Strunk & Grissom, 2010). The power of and
pervasiveness of tenure in the public K-12 system must be taken into account when we research
any aspect of teacher hiring, evaluation, and dismissal. Union contracts often define exactly
what is required to dismiss a teacher, what is allowable for teacher evaluations, and even how
often and how structured teacher evaluations can be (Frey, 2010; Schimmel, Stellman, &
Fischer, 2011). These requirements are in addition to the ones already laid out in the state law,
and vary from district to district depending on the strength of the local union.
In California, a teacher is eligible for permanent status (not called or considered tenure by
the California teachers’ unions) on the first day of their third year teaching (Frey, 2010; National
Council on Teacher Quality, 2010). Moreover, this status is automatically granted unless the
district or K-12 public school principal formally objects in writing by a certain date prior to this
inclusion date (California Education Code 44929.21 sub. b, para 2 (See Appendix for full text)).
This means that a K-12 public school principal in California must make hiring decisions and
permanent status recommendations without sufficient knowledge of the candidate’s abilities,
with the understanding that if they are wrong about the future effectiveness of the candidate they
are not going to be able to easily remove them from the classroom in favor of a new teacher with
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 24

better qualifications who is also more likely to be more accurately rated as highly effective. As
research indicates that it takes about 10,000 hours of work to become an expert in a field, and
even if it is recognized that teachers are not required to be experts that it still requires around
5000 hours of practice for one to become competent, then it is impossible to expect the principal
to know which teacher will improve and make the grade (Branch, Hanuschek, & Rivkin, 2012).
How, then, do K-12 public school principals make hiring decisions and permanent status
recommendations in California?
Evaluation Methods
In the NCLB Act of 2001, it was written that all teachers in classroom environments
would be rated as highly qualified by 2006, although this was not achieved and in 2009 only
98% of classroom teachers were rated as such. This, however, brought into sharp focus a debate
that had been raging for a few years already: how does one objectively rate the quality of a
teacher in a classroom? Since NCLB introduced high-stakes evaluations to the United States K-
12 public education system, there has been a great deal of research on various research methods
to discover their accuracy in predicting the quality of teachers based on different benchmarks. It
is important to note that the method of and frequency of evaluations is determined by the laws of
the state, the frequency of standardized testing (as determined by NCLB), and the collective
bargaining process in those states and districts with powerful teachers unions (Schimmel,
Stellman, & Fischer, 2011; Strunk & Grissom, 2010).
It is well-recognized that teacher evaluation is important and, in fact, using evaluation
methods to make tenure decisions can have a significant impact on future teacher performance
(Golbhaber & Hansen, 2010). It has been shown that when evaluations become high stakes
(future employment or pay tied to the outcomes), that teachers show a greater willingness to
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 25

cheat or to help students cheat on the standardized tests (Amrein-Beardsley, Berliner, & Rideau,
2010; Jacob, 2005).
Subjective Evaluations. The subjective evaluation is the general heading for evaluations
involving observation and performance assessments based on actual experience. In other words
these are the in-class observational evaluations that principals have been doing with teachers for
ages. The principal or another designated administrator will enter a classroom and observe the
teacher’s classroom skills: student interaction, lesson planning, classroom control, lesson clarity,
pedagogical issues, creativity, etc. These evaluations have many advantages to other evaluation
methods as these tools actually require that a person observe a teacher in the classroom while
they are teaching. However, subjective evaluations are highly interpretive, allowing for
individual bias and mistakes to creep in (Hill, Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012). Research shows,
however, that when professional evaluation tools are used by trained evaluators they do show
highly correlative results with future success and quality of the teachers evaluated. Further
research shows that the evaluators can be professionals brought in to do the teacher evaluations,
employees of the districts, or employees of the specific schools (including the traditional
evaluator, the principal) and the results are the same as long as the vetted evaluation tool is
followed (Danielson, 2011; Kane, Taylor, Tyler, & Wooten, 2011; Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009).
Objective Evaluations. The objective evaluation is the general heading for evaluations
that do not require human interpretative processes. These range from simply using the student
test scores on statewide standardized tests to assess the quality of a teacher’s performance to
using a complex algorithm to include student home life, economic status, previous benchmarks,
and even school history to determine the quality of the teacher. These are generalized under the
heading of Value-Added Models (VAM). There has been a lot of research on VAM, some
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 26

showing evidence of its effectiveness and some showing the ineffectiveness of using VAM for
high stakes evaluations (Guarino, Reckase, & Wooldridge, 2012; Koedel & Betts, 2011; Newton,
Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Thomas, 2010; Rothstein, 2009). Guarino, Reckase, and
Wooldridge indicate that there are simply too many factors involved in making accurate
assessments. In fact, they show that highly effective teachers can be rated poorly based on even
very robust tool, if certain conditions are evident. Rothstein shows that only in situations where
students are truly randomly placed in classrooms, can VAM even potentially be effective, and
that random classroom placement is impossible to expect. Students are placed in specific
classrooms by principals according to need, teacher specialty, and other (possibly subconscious)
reasons. Koedel and Betts recreated Rothstein’s results but went even further to show that if one
were to use multiyear samples from teacher’s classroom to do VAM evaluations, one could get
useful data to help make reasonable decisions about performance. However, since this type of
data is not available for a principal making a decision about tenure for a second year
probationary teacher, this research does not help real principals. Recently Newton et al. (2012)
looked at the major VAM tools used in most real world and concluded that none of the currently
widely used VAM tools are effective in making reasonable predictions about future performance
of students based on current teacher performance evaluations. It has been shown that even the
most highly rated teachers only have a two to three year effect on a student’s performance, if that
long.
Mixed Evaluations. These evaluations techniques involve using a mixture of subjective
and objective evaluation techniques to determine the quality of a teacher’s performance. Using a
combination of formal subjective evaluation tools, including trained evaluators, systematic and
carefully crafted rubrics, and repeated observations coupled with very robust VAM tools which
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 27

factor for student subgroup, home life, economic status, and previous evaluations, Rockoff and
Speroni (2010) concluded that high stakes teacher evaluations can be accurate and predictive into
the future. Hanushek and Rivkin (2010) showed this as well. It is important to note in this that
the caveat on the subjective evaluation portion of these mixed evaluations is very important.
These are subjective evaluations using a well-tested and well-formed evaluation tool, like the one
used in Cincinnati (Goldstein, 2007). Cincinnati was an early district to begin developing
subjective evaluation tools and the results after ten years showed using these carefully crafted
tools (ten years of refining) tenure decision makers could see which teachers were likely to
continue to be highly qualified. Through the use of mixed evaluation methods, both well-crafted
subjective evaluations and well-crafted objective evaluation tools, one can most likely make
logical and rational decisions about offering tenure.
Previous Research on Principals
Oddly, however, given the amount of attention that has been focused on the ideal aspects
of teaching candidates that principals and other relevant site administrators should use to make
informed decisions about the best candidates for a job, little has been studied about how
principals and other relevant site administrators actually make hiring and tenure decisions (Balter
& Duncombe, 2006; Cranston, 2012; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Ingle,
Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011). The small body of research encompassing actual hiring practices
tends to be more suggestive and preliminary, in that these studies tend to involve a small sample
in one area. In one notable outlier, Balter and Duncombe (2006) looked at hiring policies across
New York State using a survey to determine whether the practices were actually related to the
qualifications of the recently hired teachers. They determined that different district types (richer
to poorer, High Needs to Low Needs) had different focuses when looking for new teachers.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 28

They found that Certifications in the proper subject, majoring in the proper subject, the
professional references and recommendations, and subject knowledge during interviews were the
most important elements in hiring decisions, This contrasts heavily with Harris, Rutledge, Ingle,
and Thompson (2010) who found that their interview group generally used a mix and match
process of personal characteristics of the individual candidate and the professional characteristics
of the candidates to make a decision. In fact, only six of the interviewed principals focused
entirely on the professional aspect (Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010). Although
Balter and Duncombe showed an extreme professional focus, they note that a candidate’s
willingness to participate in extracurricular activities was more important than academic criteria
(Balter & Duncombe, 2006). Other research shows that principals and other relevant hiring
agents, when confronted with not having enough empirical information, resort to a ‘similar to
me’ bias (Cranston, 2012) and that person/job fit was regularly taken into account (Ingle,
Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011).
However, teacher quality or teacher effectiveness is a very nebulous and interpretive
concept to principals and other educators (Rockoff, 2004) and measuring it for the purpose of
making tenure decisions can be very complex (Goldhaber & Hansen, 2010; Winters, 2012).
While both of these studies showed that Value-Added Models (VAM) can be used to measure
tenure candidates’ post-tenure effectiveness, they also caution against the use of VAM alone
when changing tenure policy (Winters, 2012). Moreover, tenure is generally automatic, “For
instance, most school districts grant tenure status to teachers as a matter of course after two or
three years on the job (Staiger & Rockoff, 2010, p. 97).” This being the case and the fact that
research has determined that an inordinately small number of teachers are removed from the
classroom after receiving tenure (permanent status) (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling,
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 29

2009), it is extremely important for principals to be able to make good determinations about
teacher effectiveness prior to deciding whether or not to reelect a teacher for the next year,
especially given California law regarding permanent status (California Education Code:
44929.21 (See Appendix for full text)).
Principals and Tenure
Principals are often constrained in how they work with new teachers as they work
through to tenure status. Stunk and Grissom (2010) conclude that in states and districts where
the teachers’ unions are very strong, the collective bargaining agreements often heavily control
how principals can allocate teachers to schools and how and what methods of evaluation can be
used for teacher evaluation. Since the teachers’ unions are grounded in the mentality and history
of the industrial union adversarial labor management relationship (Koppich, 2005; Moe, 2009;
Strunk & Grissom, 2010) it becomes very difficult to alter methodologies based on better
research (Strunk & Grissom, 2010). In 1997 the president of the NEA, the largest teachers’
union in the United States acceded to this point but also stated that this model no longer fits the
best interests of teachers or the realities of professional organizations (Painter, 2000), due to the
loosely-knit nature of local unions, this change in policy and vision cannot be guaranteed to
percolate beyond the national body (Painter, 2000). More recent research indicates that this new
direction has not really taken hold in the larger educational community (Koppich, 2005; Strunk
& Grissom, 2010).
“One might argue that worthy teachers with good records have earned some protection
against the effects of a personal crisis or a rough year in the classroom. Tenure, though, is not
reserved for proven educators. On the contrary, public school teachers are offered lifetime
tenure very early in their careers -- usually after three years -- and the offer seldom has much to
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 30

do with their performance (Winters, 2012, p. 2).” Tenure is an important protection for good
teachers. It protects them from the vicissitudes of the political, religious, or cultural climate of
an area and allows them to teach accurate and rational information without fear of repercussion
from groups that disagree with the lessons. However, many principals feel that tenure and
permanent status laws that do not allow for the reasonable removal of an ineffective or low-
performing teacher after reasonable attempts have been made by the administration to correct the
problem, do not help students (Koppich, 2005; Moe, 2009; Painter, 2000; Strunk & Grissom,
2010). Changes in tenure law and application through a new method of labor/management
interaction is possible (Koppich, 2005) but currently principals must make hiring decisions based
on the reality of their district and state, of which only nine have implemented teacher
performance as an element of tenure qualifications.
As a side to the issue of principals making tenure decisions too quickly and without
enough information it is important to look at how collective bargaining affects the decisions
principals make regarding new hire and probationary teachers in California. The teachers’
unions across the state have some say in how principals do evaluations and this information is
written into the various teacher contracts that define the relationship between teachers and
administrators. As Strunk and Grissom pointed out in 2010 teachers unions come out of the
industrial labor union movement the defines the relationship between management
(administrators in the school model) and staff (specifically teachers in this case as other school
staff is often subject to a different union than the teachers and are therefore subject to different
labor negotiations) as adversarial and assumes that management is out to undermine workplace
safety, pay, and benefits to improve their own bottom line (Moe, 2009). Since the job of the
labor union is to protect their members, not the welfare of the children in the school, there is
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 31

potential for negotiations and contract requirements that do not necessarily serve the best
educational interest of the children of the district (Moe, 2009; Painter, 2000, Strunk & Grissom,
2010). These contract expectations are also involved in the hiring and retaining of new-hire and
probationary teachers, so it is important to see how these affect California principals when
making this crucial decision.
Collective Bargaining and Tenure
As has already been discussed, in states and districts where collective bargaining is used
to create and maintain teacher contracts, the unions have a say in much of the life of the teacher
in the district. If the union is powerful enough, they can codify into contracts the frequency and
duration of teacher evaluations, both for probationary teachers and tenured teachers (Frey, 2010;
Strunk & Grissom, 2010). Although the unions cannot override federal law as it regards to
NCLB and the requirement for all teachers working in front of a classroom to be evaluated as
highly effective, they can write many requirements into the collective bargaining agreements that
hamper the ability of the school to terminate teachers who are not evaluated as highly effective,
as long as those teachers have tenure (Moe, 2009; Strunk & Grissom, 2010). Another area in
which the teachers unions have considerable say while creating teacher contracts, is teacher
placement (Koski & Horng, 2007; Nelson, 2006). Teacher placement is an important element
for districts that are trying to close the ‘quality gap’ among schools in the district. The ‘quality
gap’ is basically the difference in student achievement between schools in a district. It is often
found to be greatest between the schools in the affluent areas of the district when compared to
the schools in the poorest areas of the district. Since high quality teachers help improve the
quality of student achievement in a school, it would be logical for the district to reassign teachers
with the highest evaluations to schools with the lowest achieving students as a way to begin
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 32

overcoming the ‘quality gap’ (Nelson, 2006). However, districts cannot do this as most
collective bargaining agreements allow teachers with the most seniority to choose where they
want to teach, and those teachers usually choose the more affluent schools as these schools tend
to have fewer behavioral issues (Koski & Horng, 2007). This process means that the schools
with the
Conclusion
The quality and effectiveness of teachers are exceptionally important in determining the
future success of students and student achievement under NCLB (e.g. Aaronson, Barrow, &
Sander, 2007; Danielson, 2011; Hightower, Delgado, Lloyd, Wittenstein, Sellers, & Swanson,
December 2011). The complexity of tenure law and tenure granting rules along with the power
of teachers’ unions in collective bargaining (Frey, 2010; Koppich, 2005; Koski & Horng, 2007;
Moe, 2009; Nelson, 2006; Painter, 2000; Strunk & Grissom, 2010) make it imperative that
principals and other relevant teacher hiring administrator in the K-12 public school system in
California make good choices when first hiring teaching candidates. However, little research has
been done on how principals actually do hire and the research that has been done is both small
sample and very preliminary (Balter & Duncombe, 2006; Cranston, 2012; Harris, Rutledge,
Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011). Moreover, the research on hiring
practices is inconsistent, with Balter and Duncombe (2006) showing a propensity for academic
focus, Ingle, Rutledge, and Bishop (2011) showing a bias towards personal beliefs and
background, and Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, and Thompson (2010) showing use of a strong mixture
of the two to make decisions, both hiring and tenure. Given the importance of having highly
effective teachers in the classroom, not just for student achievement but also for compliance with
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 33

federal standards to maintain funding, gaining a better understanding of this decision-making
process is still very valuable.
With the power of the collective bargaining units, the importance of evaluations in these
decisions, and the threat of loss of federal school funding all weighing heavily on California
administrators, there is a great need for researchers to understand how principals actually make
decisions. Without understanding current realities it is impossible to formulate a reasonable
response or change to better help the children of the United States get the education that they
need to truly become citizens of the ,modern world.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 34

CHAPTER 3: Methodology and Research Design
Introduction
There is research that indicates that it can take up to five years for a new-hire teacher to
really show that they are a Highly Effective Teacher as defined by No Child Left Behind
(NCLB). According to Ericsson, Prietula, and Cokely (2007) it takes about 10,000 hours of
practice to become an expert. With teaching that can be cut that in half, as the goal is effective
teaching not the most elite teacher. With 5.000 hours required to become an expert that indicates
that teachers take a little over five years to perfect their craft. However, tenure law in California
(California Code 44929.21; See Appendix) grants permanent status at the beginning of years
three, giving site administrators a bare 18 months to determine whether or not a new hire is going
to make the grade. With current tenure practices, it is extremely rare for a teacher to be fired
once permanent status has been granted. Therefore it is important for site administrators and
principals to be able to make their initial hiring decisions based strong predictive methods for
future teacher excellence.
There has been much research done over the last 12 years regarding what elements of a
potential teacher’s application and resume principals can refer to in making hiring decisions in
accordance with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements (Behrstock & Coggshall, 2009;
Betielle, Kalogrides, and Loeb, 2009; Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009; Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, &
Staiger, 2011). However, little research has been undertaken to explore how principals and other
relevant site administrators actually make these decisions in the teaching environment (Cranston,
2012; Engel, Finch, & Huff, 2012; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Inge, Rutledge,
& Bishop, 2011; Staiger & Rockoff, 2010). How do California principals, specifically, make
hiring decisions in relation to the state tenure laws and current state tenure practices? In
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 35

understanding how decisions are currently made, it will be possible to explore and better create
protocols for principals to use when hiring teachers in the future.
Research Question
RQ 1: What role does the length of probationary period for California K-12 public
school teachers have on an administrator’s decision-making process
regarding awarding tenure?
RQ2: Given current K-12 public school tenure practices, what factors do principal
use to hire new teachers?
RQ3: How has current California tenure practice for K-12 public schools
influenced relationships in the school setting between administration and
teachers?
RQ4: What are the definable differences in the performance of a K-12 public
school teacher prior to compared to after achieving tenure?
Research Design
It was determined that these Research Questions were most amenable to the use of a
mixed methodology research project. This mixed methodology consists of a broadly distributed
online survey that includes questions using a 0 - 10 (with N/A selection) Likert Scale rating
system, questions using a ranking system to determine levels of importance, classification
questions, an open-ended comment section, and an offer to be involved in a further interview
project. This survey will be completed using Survey Monkey or another reputable survey web-
based application and site. The survey will be split up into the classification, Likert, Ranking,
and open-ended sections with the Likert and Ranking sections designed to ask the various
questions in a random order to help improve objectivity from the respondants. Upon completion
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 36

of the Survey (See Appendix B for the Questions) the research team will complete a rough
analysis of the results and refine the initial interview questions as appropriate (See Appendix C
for the Initial Interview Questions). This design allows the researchers to get a significantly
broader sampling of working principals than have been studied in past research through the
online survey system, as completion of the survey will be solicited through the California
Administrators listserv and via direct emails to every principal in the California Public K-12
education system. This includes samplings from urban, rural, affluent, poor, and at-risk schools
and districts. It also includes districts with various types of administration/teacher’s union
interactions (from extremely combative to mostly cooperative). The sample will also potentially
include principals with various levels of experience as administrators and previous experience as
teachers and in other career fields. From the respondents to the survey the researchers will
choose a sample of willing principals to conduct interviews -- in person, by telephone or Skype,
or by email -- to gain a further and deeper understanding of the subject.
The Initial Research Questions (RQ) were drafted and provided to peers and academic
advisors for feedback and refinement. The original study design was comprised of seven far-
reaching questions loosely correlated to the study topic (tenure impact on principal decision
making regarding dynamic teacher retention and re-election). After initial reviews and
conversations these seven questions were refined and condensed into four new research
questions that closely correlated to the study topic. These RQ’s served as the basis for choosing
the mixed qualitative research methodology and both the survey and interview protocols. The
four final RQs were refined again through a Revised Research Question process that involved
using various tools and devices to assist in testing the validity of research questions. Lastly , the
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 37

research questions were put through a Research Design/Validity Matrix. After these steps were
completed the researchers began the construct the survey and the initial interview questions.
Process of Constructing the Survey Questions. The survey protocols, styles, and
question were created and altered based on solicited feedback from peers and instructors as well
as informal conversations with academic peers, teachers, and principals. It was important to
create the questions as unbiased and internally referential as possible so the results obtained from
the survey are able to be accurately analyzed as objective results (fink, 2003). After defining the
goals of the research the researcher created the initial research questions using the goals,
reviewers, and peers as help in refining the RQs. The research team took the questions and
created a series of hypotheses based on the questions. In the case of these four research
Questions, there was no need to create null-hypotheses as each question has testable hypotheses.
These hypotheses were used to write the Survey Questions found in Appendix B as well as the
initial Interview Questions found in Appendix C. The questions were tested by peers and other
academic volunteers to ensure that the questions were valid, asking a single question, well-
formed, and understandable by the intended target demographic (public education K-12
principals and administrators responsible for both hiring teachers and evaluating teachers for
potential tenure/permanent status). The questions were altered and rewritten until the researchers
felt that they were valid. According to Dr. David S. Walonick, in his book Survival Statistics
(2013):
Validity refers to the accuracy or truthfulness of a measurement. Are we
measuring what we think we are? This is a simple concept, but in reality, it is
extremely difficult to determine if a measure is valid. Generally, validity is based
solely on the judgment of the researcher. When an instrument is developed, each
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 38

question is scrutinized and modified until the researcher is satisfied that it is an
accurate measure of the desired construct, and that there is adequate coverage of
each area to be investigated.
After determining that the survey was valid, the researcher will present that proposal to the
University Research and Ethics Board for approval. Upon receiving approval for research the
researcher will create the Survey Monkey questionnaire and send email invitations to all public
school K-12 principals and administrators on the listserv or internal California state email list.
This will give the survey the most access to the intended demographic.
Process of Constructing the Interview Protocol. The interview protocol and initial
questions were also created and altered based on solicited feedback from peers and instructors as
well as informal conversations with academic peers, teachers, and principals. The initial
interview questions were developed in a tiered process: Initially, one question was developed and
shared with for feedback. After this question was refined and clarified, three more questions
were drafted and shared in a similar manner. Finally, 12 total questions were drafted and
submitted for solicited feedback within a collaborative group of academics and peers. Finally it
was determined that the interview would not be formal; consisting of a strict script and order, as
the questions were to be refined again based on the results of the survey. Moreover, it was
determined that different probative questions may be required in different environments and
with interviewees of different experience. However, the interviews will be conducted in a semi-
formal manner to help insure as much objectivity as possible. It is important to note that the
initial interview questions will be further revised and refined upon initial analysis of the survey
responses as these will further inform the expansion and clarifications necessary to accurately
and completely gain the data needed to complete a successful research project.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 39

These revisions, if significant, will be vetted through the researcher’s dissertation panel to
ensure quality data gathering. Also the final scenarios for the interviews will be completed and
vetted after the initial analysis of the Likert survey data to insure that the script is accurate and
relevant to the final question forms. As Merriam indicated in her 2009 publication on
Qualitative Research, interviews are generally conducted when the data cannot be gleaned
through surveys or other data collection methods. Using a survey to glean initial information
allows the research team to focus on deeper and more descriptive areas of study.
Data Needed to Answer the Research Question. The data needed consists of opinions
and thoughts about the current process used by the specific principal when hiring a teacher and
how their decision is affected by the current tenure practices in California. This data will help us
determine more accurately the considerations through which principals in the state of California
go when considering hiring new teachers.
Data to Be Collected Through Surveys. The Likert Scale and Ranking questions will
give concrete data of specific items used by hiring agents and evaluation agents to determine the
quality of potential new-hire teachers and the reasons for or against recommending a teacher for
tenure/permanent status. The survey questions will also help gauge the strength of emotion
involved with the survey demographic when dealing with tenure practices and collective
bargaining agreements/teachers’ unions on the subject of hiring and tenure decisions. These will
help the researcher understand the various elements used to make hiring and tenure decisions in
California and may inform future directions of research, changes, and reforms.
Data to Be Collected Through Interviews. The interview data will come from both
open-ended format interviews with California principals and from the final question of the online
survey of California principals across the state. The survey question will give respondents the
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 40

opportunity to voice their opinions as a final comment and also participate in the interview if
they feel the desire. It is from these respondents that the interviewee pool will be chosen. These
data will be evaluated in conjunction with Likert Scale responses and additional comments from
the survey to ascertain a more accurate picture of how hiring practices for teachers in the State of
California are actually impacted by state tenure laws and current practices. These interviews will
add depth and breadth to the responses from the survey as they give the interested professionals
an opportunity to expand on their ideas and experiences as principals and site administrators.
Appropriateness of the Research Design
To understand how people make decisions and do their jobs, it is necessary to ask them
and surveys with in-depth interviews of a smaller sampling of the respondents are an ideal
method of accomplishing this research. Past research on actual practices used by principals and
other relevant administrators in the hiring of new teachers and the recommendation for
tenure/permanent status of eligible teachers has tended to focus on interviewing a small sampling
of the demographic in one district or closely related districts, case reports using previously or
publicly collected data, or small samplings from a single type of school district (urban, poor,
etc.). Although this research led to some very useful initial data, even the researchers felt, and
indicated in their papers, that more research needed to be done in this area. This study plans to
collect current data from a large sampling of the relevant demographic via an online survey and
then follow up with in-depth interviews of survey respondents who fit specific criteria and are
willing to be interviewed. To gather data from a large sampling, it is necessary to have access to
the sample demographic which can only be done using either mass mailing or some other form
of non-face-to-face contact. Surveys are perfectly suited for this, and the research questions as
well as the initial hypotheses were designed with this reality in mind.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 41

Procedure
Identifying Appropriate Respondents. Using the State of California email listserv, the
researcher will contact all the principals in the state with the opportunity to participate in this
research. From the survey responders, those who show interest in giving an interview will be
chosen for interviewing. These professionals will have at least three years of experience as a
principals and who have also been directly involved with teacher hiring. Several other site
administrators and principals will also be recruited by the researcher to complete the survey and
interview process. As I have not yet completed the survey, I was not able to go through this
process with the pilot study. Instead I asked three colleagues – one elementary school, one
middle school, and one high school/adult education principal – who would represent typical
respondents to the survey and show interest in a further interview and arranged interviews with
them. I chose these colleagues by asking if they did fill out education research surveys or ever
participate in education research interviews.
Survey Protocols. The survey will be entered into Survey Monkey after which an email
will be sent out to all relevant California principals and site administrators requesting that they
complete the survey. The email will explain the nature, intent, and reason for the research
survey. After three weeks a second email will be distributed reminding the relevant
demographic of the survey. After six weeks a second reminder will be sent out. After eight
weeks from the initial email, the survey will be closed and the results will be initially tabulated
for refining the initial interview questions. An email will be sent to the relevant demographic
thanking them for their time and participation. Those survey responders interested in completing
the in-depth interview will be evaluated and those chosen will be contacted for scheduling dates
for the interview.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 42

Interview Protocols. The interviews will be conducted in-person, over the telephone or
Skype, or through email depending on the location and preference of the interviewee. The
interviewee will first be greeted and the overall study will be quickly explained. The consent
form will be given to the interviewee and they will have a chance to go over it with the
interviewer and ask any questions they may have concerning the protocol or purpose of the
research. Once the Consent Form is signed and they are given a copy, the interviewer will, if
approved turn on the recording device and state the interviewer’s name, the time and date of the
interview, and where the interview is being conducted. After this the interviewer will ask the
first ‘icebreaker’ question (see Interview Questions below). Each question will be asked in the
same order with each interviewee to ensure as much objectivity as possible. In the case where
the interview will be conducted using a written format via email the questions will be shown in
the same order that the oral interview questions are asked. The research understands that people
may answer the questions in a different order, but it is also possible that in oral interviews the
respondent will ask to return to a question after further thought, or may skip a question until later
by asking the interviewer to move on and return to the question later.
In the interviews for the pilot study, I arranged to meet the three interviewees at their
offices after regularly scheduled work hours. This gave us enough time to develop in-depth
answers and helped them feel more in control of the process. The three participants were
colleagues and already known to me so to establish rapport, I reintroduced the purpose of the
interview and then asked if they had any questions or concerns before we started the interview.
After satisfying any questions or concerns I turned on the recording device and began the
interview with the icebreaker question I chose to also take handwritten notes, both directly
regarding the participant answers and to help me continue refining the interview questions for
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 43

use in my dissertation study. This allowed me to note where the interviewee might have either
wanted to expand on a topic or actually expanded on a topic where I had not prepared probing
questions. The full interview took approximately 30 minutes in each case, with the interviewee
answering all the questions with thoughtful and reasoned responses.
Data Processing and Analysis
The data will be processed and analyzed by the researcher by checking the completeness
of each survey and discarding incomplete ones. The results will be tabulated and coded for
keying into an online data analysis program.. The interview results will be coded as the
interviews are completed after which they will be sorted for topics, connections, overlap, and
reasonable quotes. This data will be interpreted by the researcher who will decide the relevance
and importance of the comments. Tabulatable data -- suggestions, heretofore unmentioned
hiring or evaluation procedures -- extracted from the interviews will be tabulated and analyzed.
Ethical Considerations
Process of Getting Consent. Consent to use the data from the online surveys will be
discussed in the instructions and information release for the survey. Since the survey is
anonymous, excepting for the information in the event that a respondent is interested in further
interviews, this data will be tabulated using only the Likert Scale and Ranking sections to
produce bulk data tables showing the results of the survey questions. The process of getting
consent from the interviewees will consist of a short form that the principal will sign the
following Consent to Participate in Research form prior to the beginning of the interview (See
Appendix for complete text of the Form). We will choose the potential interviewees based on
their indication of interest on the Likert Scale survey. After we choose the potential interviewees
we will contact them and send them a copy of the Consent form to peruse. At that time we will
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 44

also give them the overview of the consent form and set up a potential interview time and
location. At the interview we will first get the Consent Form signed and give the interviewee a
copy for their records. In the pilot interviews I directly approached the potential interviewees
and asked them if they would be willing to participate, thus obtaining verbal consent.
Conclusion
The researcher will use qualitative methodology to conduct this study. The precise
methodology will consist of a mixed question survey that includes Likert Scale questions,
Ranking questions, Classification questions, an Open-ended Comment question, and personal
data (if the responder is interested in completing a followup interview). Upon completion of the
survey the researcher will complete a rough analysis of the data and refine the initial interview
questions according to the data gained from the survey results. The researcher will then schedule
the interviews with the eligible sampling (chosen from the volunteers). He will complete the
interviews and code the data for them and descriptive use in the study. He will code and include
the comments from the open-ended survey question as relevant. Once all the data is collected
the researcher will input the Likert and Ranking question results into a data analysis program to
complete the final analysis of the survey data.
All data, survey and interview will be confidential and remain secured by the researcher
in encrypted computer files, or a locked safe as is detailed in the interviewee consent form
(Appendix D).

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 45

CHAPTER 4: Results and Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this research project was to determine the importance and influence that
current California tenure practices have on those people who are directly responsible for hiring
new teachers and for making tenure (permanent status) recommendations once teachers have
reached eligibility under California Tenure Law (See Appendix A for full text). In the case of
teacher hiring this is usually the principal of the school in which the teacher works. However, in
the case of tenure or permanent status recommendations it could include the principal who
initially hired the probationary teacher, a new principal hired after the probationary teacher was
hired at the school, or a district professional hired to oversee tenure or permanent status issues.
Due to the types of questions being asked, all involving the personal perception or opinion of the
survey respondent or interviewee, the researchers chose to use a qualitative methodology to
perform the research. The results and findings of this research is presented in this chapter.
Research Design
The research project was designed using Methodological Triangulation to help validate
and verify the collected data (Brikci & Green, 2007; Creswell, 2009; Fink, 2003;Merriam, 2009;
Shank, 2002). The researchers chose to first collect data using a very anonymous Likert-like
scale survey that included an open-ended comment question at the end and the option for the
respondent to volunteer for further interviewing by including relevant contact information. The
interviewees were chosen from those who volunteered for further interviewing. All contact
information was destroyed as soon as the choice for interviewees was determined by the
researchers. This was done to ensure the anonymity of the interviewee. Anonymity was
important to ensure that the respondents would feel comfortable answering as honestly and
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 46

candidly as possible. There are many stakeholders in public education, including several
government and community organizations, making their positions prone to political and other
pressures. The survey was made available to the determined sample (Southern California K-12
public school principals and administrators directly involved in hiring, tenure recommendation,
or both) through the listserv available through the California Department of Education’s Public
Schools Data (Excel format) updated in 2014). Researchers also obtained email addresses
searches for school website and retrieving the appropriate email addresses directly from the
public site. The survey was made available on June 1, 2013 and open for 8 weeks. It was
expected to garner between 35 and 40 respondents. Forty-two respondents participated.
The interview consisted of an initial questionnaire that formed the basis of the interviews
with the six chosen interviewees from the survey respondents (See Appendix C). The six
interviewees were chosen as a sample of professionals from various levels of experience both in
education generally and in hiring and tenure recommendation responsibilities specifically. The
interviews were conducted in person by the researcher. Each respondent was asked all of the
basic questions, interview protocol allowed for asking further probing questions. The interviews
served as a check on the survey results, helping the researcher further ascertain the accuracy and
validity of the survey data. Methodological Triangulation is a common form of research
validation for qualitative data involving surveys, interviews, and focus groups. In this instance
the researchers chose to forego including a focus group.
The data from both the surveys and interviews were analyzed using a range of available
statistical analysis software. Researchers chose to use Tableau Desktop Professional Edition,
version 8.2 to analyze the Likert-like scale survey results as this program offers numerous ways
to extrapolate and refine the data set for fine grain analysis. For coding and exploring trends in
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 47

the interview data as well as the open-ended answers from the survey (which were immediately
stripped from the survey results into a separate data file), the researchers chose to use the online
service Dedoose.com. The researchers also introduced the survey data into Dedoose in order to
explore patterns and crossover data that appears in both samples.
Demographics
The researchers chose to keep demographic data collection to a minimum, both to
streamline the survey and to more completely insure respondent privacy. The only demographic
data collected came from three survey questions and one interview question (See Appendix B,
Questions 3 – 5 and Appendix C Question 1). These questions allowed the researcher to
determine the experience variation of the sample population. Looking at Table 1, it can be seen
that 57% of the 42 survey respondents have twenty or more years of experience in some area of
the educational field. One respondent chose not to answer this question. Given the answers to
the other two demographic questions by this single respondent the researchers can safely state
that this respondent has worked in education a minimum of 7 years, if they were hired from
another field as a person responsible for making hiring decisions.
Survey Respondent Experience Breakdown
Experience No
Answer
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 20 + Total
Responses 1 0 4 5 8 24 42
Percentage 2% 0% 1% 12% 19% 57% 100%
Table 1 – Years of Experience working on the Education field of the anonymous survey
respondents.
Appendix E, Figure 1 shows graphical comparisons of the demographic data in three
ways. The top graph simply charts how long the various respondents have actually worked in
the field of education. The second and third graphs compare the length of time the respondents
have worked in education overall to the amount of time that they have been in a position of either
hiring teachers or making tenure/permanent status recommendations. It is interesting to note that
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 48

none of the respondents have worked in the education field for less than 6 years, including the
single no-respondent to the first demographic question noted above. As would be expected,
respondents with longer experience also tended to have more experience in making hiring and
tenure recommendation decisions, although in one case a 20+ year veteran of education was not
at all involved in tenure recommendation decisions. Twenty-two of the twenty-four respondents
with 20+ years of experience, or approximately 92%, also had at least 7 years of experience in
hiring teachers, while nineteen of this same group, or approximately 79%, had tenure
recommendation authority for the same length. This is a difference of 13%. It should also be
noted that of the 24 respondents with 20+ yeas of education experience, all but one had some
authority in tenure recommendations.
Any response that is quoted directly from either the survey responses or the interview
response will be cited using the Survey and Interview identifiers. This will maintain the
anonymity of the respondents and still allow readers to identify which quotes came from the
same respondent. The coding is detailed in Table 2

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 49

Survey Respondent/Interview Respondent Labels
SUR INT SUR INT SUR INT SUR INT SUR INT SUR INT
R1 R8 R15 I2 R22 R29 R36
R2 I1 R9 R16 R23 R30 R37 I5
R3 R10 R17 R24 R31 R38
R4 R11 R18 R25 R32 R39
R5 R12 R19 I3 R26 R33 R40
R6 R13 R20 I4 R27 R34 R41
R7 R14 R21 R28 R35 R42 I6
Table 2 – Reference guide for quoted material throughout Chapters 4 and 5. SUR indicates
Survey Respondent Identifiers and INT indicates Interview Identifiers.
Research Question 1
What would changing the length of a teacher’s probationary period have on improving
teacher quality? Although none of the research survey questions directly explored this question,
in both the open-ended comment question at the end of the survey and in the six in-depth
interviews the respondents and interviewees discussed the length of the probationary period as
well as their overall attitudes towards and issues with tenure practices as they currently exist in
California. In the Interview Questions (See Appendix C, Questions 5 - 10) the researcher
specifically asked several questions designed to elicit the respondents’ opinions related to length
of tenure, issues with tenure, improvement possibilities for tenure, and the merit of ending
tenure. Of the 42 total survey respondents twelve chose to include a comment to the open-ended
question (Appendix B, Question 21), or approximately 31% of respondents. Of these responses,
four of them had direct bearing on this research question.
Not one of the interviewees or respondents to Question 21 indicated that the current
process of granting tenure in California was satisfactory. In fact five of the six interview
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 50

respondents indicated that they would prefer to end tenure altogether, and barring that option,
significantly rework tenure to grant administrators more time to make decisions. According to
one respondent, “The current two year probationary period is too brief, especially when new
teachers may be changing assignments year-to-year. I would advocate for a four year
probationary period, to better ensure that public schools are getting the best candidates possible”
(R2, I1). As another interviewee put it, “a lot of that’s learned [teaching skills] and unless people
demonstrate that right now in a year and a half, and that’s really hard to do … you don’t keep
them, and if they had 5 years to grow and show that they could grow, or not grow, or you don’t
see any growth … that would make the process a lot more palatable both for administrators and
for, for teachers” (R19, I3).
All of the interviewees felt that increasing the probationary period to five years was a
positive step and five of the six indicated that one advantage of this increase would be that it
would allow new teachers to time and ability to improve and hone their craft under the tutelage
of professionals, either the principal or their designee or a with teacher that had already proven
their ability to teach well. This ability and time would allow principals the opportunity to both
better help teachers who are obviously struggling in one or two very specific areas and give them
the length of time needed to see if the seemingly good teachers are faking it. This was a theme
brought up by several interviewees, that a person could fake it through the 13 to 15 months
necessary to be granted tenure and once they were safe the façade falls and the principal is left
with a poor teacher who is hard to replace.. This overlapped a little with the ideas in Research
Question Three related to professional development among probationary and tenured faculty.
This research agrees with the previous research reviewed in Chapter 2. Previous
researchers found that length of the probationary period seemed reflect on teacher quality (Carter
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 51

& Savoca, 1992; Lindy, 2010; Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, & Staiger, 2011). The longer probationary
periods allowed principals to actually use professional development and guidance principles to
help a teacher improve their craft (Danielson, 2011; Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007;
Hightower et al., 2011). Beteille, Kalogrides, and Loeb (2009) determined that longer
probationary periods would provide for the retention of higher quality teachers, as it would allow
principals and districts to offer more professional training, especially training that conforms to
the best practices models that involve modeling effective pedagogies and using dynamic teaching
skills to help teachers become comfortable with new curricula, new content, and new methods
(Danielson, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Goldhaber & Hansen, 2010;Hightower et al., 2011;
Koppich, 2005; Winter, 2012). Many of the research studies do not actually directly look at
professional development, but they do include effective professional development as a remedy to
teachers who are given unsatisfactory evaluations, be it objective or subjective evaluations. Since
our research showed that a regular complaint of principals was the lack of professional
development once a teacher had been granted tenure, although regular participation had been
observed prior to tenure, lengthening tenure would likely improve attendance and participation in
professional development projects and programs.
Research Question 2
Given current tenure practices, what factors do principals use to hire new teachers?
This question was answered both through the anonymous survey and through several detailed
answers to interview questions. Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix E show the survey results broken
down by the how many years the respondents’ had in making direct hiring decisions. The
researchers noted that there was little change in the importance of three of the seven
characteristics as the respondents’ hiring experience increased. Previous experience and
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 52

personality/fit played an important role while union contract obligations played a small role in
the decision process for hiring new teachers used by these administrators. On the other hand, as
the respondents increase in experience, the trend moves away from the importance of credentials
and towards the importance of the candidate’s academic record. Also, a candidate’s willingness
to help with other school functions becomes slightly less important as the experience increases.
It is important to note that only 6 of the 42 respondents, or 14%, answered that tenure practice
was either not significant or only slightly significant in their decision-making process. Of these
respondents, 1/3 of them had 3 or fewer years of experience and 2/3s of them had over 10 years
of experience. A full 86% of the respondents felt that current tenure practices was a significant
factor in their decisions about hiring people to fill teaching positions.
Triangulating the 42 survey answers with the six interview respondents showed the
researcher the importance of tenure in the hiring process. This factor was subtext throughout
every interview. Each interviewee talked about thinking about whether or not a candidate that
showed potential could be sufficiently shaped in those 14 or 15 months before tenure decisions
were needed in the district HR departments. One specifically discussed the fact that very few
people are born to teach, and that because of the current tenure practices they would not take a
chance as easily on a person who was potentially a good teacher but rougher than other
candidates around the edges. What struck the researchers was, given how central tenure practice
seemed to be in the decision process of every interviewed subject, that it was not rated even more
significant in the survey question than it was. Even in interview I3/R19, with an administrator
who claims that it does not affect them in their hiring, the subtext was constantly there and the
interview specifically mentioned that good teachers were not being given a chance because of
required caution due to short tenure times. The researchers realize that the interview was
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 53

focused on tenure practices, but the way in which the interview subject went into detail indicates
a certain level of importance beyond the norm.
As was well-stated by R33, “A multiple measures approach that takes credentialing,
experience, writing ability, interview, and the delivery of an actual lesson is in my opinion the
best manner that ensures the right teacher is hired.” Unfortunately, from the data that the
researchers of this study collected, this ideal is undermined by the constant, even if
subconscious, awareness of tenure practices and the need to measure the potential hire within 13
to 18 months of hire. Again, although it was rated as significant or higher by 36 of the 42
respondents, or about 86%, given the dominance this idea carried in the interviews, it was
interesting that only 5, or 12%, rated it as extremely significant and that 6, or a little over 14%
indicated that it was not very significant to their hiring decisions. It is interesting to note that the
three factors in hiring that garnered the most importance, according to the survey responses were
professional credentialing with 19 of the 42 respondents indicating it was very significant or
higher, tenure practices with 21 of the 42 respondents indicating it was very significant or higher,
and fit with 34 of the 42 respondents indicating it was very significant or higher.
None of the previous research in this area explored the importance of tenure practices on
the decisions made by hiring agents making this element of the current study new and potentially
important addition to the research. Previous research on how principals actually hire teachers,
concluded that principals put stock in both personal and professional qualification. In three of
the four previous studies (Cranston, 2012; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010; Ingle,
Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011) the researchers discovered that in the face of imperfect information
and need to fill many positions, principals and other relevant hiring agents tend to default to
hiring people like themselves; people with whom they can get along and who would fit well into
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 54

the existing school environment. Only research done by Dana Balter and William Duncombe
(2006) showed that principals rely primarily on professional measures. With only three previous
small-scale studies and a fourth study, which, although large scale, used hiring records and
written data to derive the information rather than surveys and interviews with hiring agents, the
results are remarkably similar to the data discovered in this current study. Even Balter and
Duncombe found that the willingness of a potential hire to be available for extracurricular
activities was more important than the professional qualifications. Since hiring a teacher
involves many different expectations and principals have both educational and staffing needs that
need to be filled by the potential hire, it is logical that hiring agents look to more than only
professional qualifications when making a hiring decision.
Research Question 3
How has current California tenure practices influenced the relationship between
administrators and teachers in the school setting? This question was put to the interviewers in
three parts, looking at probationary teachers and administration interactions, tenured faculty and
administration interactions, and interactions with the teacher’s unions. In the interview questions
this topic was most often answered as elements of other answers. One interviewee gave this
example,
I can give you an example of a teacher who worked for me. She was solid; very
willing to learn, coming and asking questions, what can I do, you know how can I
make, are you good with me doing this, and asking a lot of questions, the right
questions. Then once she’s tenured, there was a lot of complaining that I never
heard one complaint from in the probationary time. And a lot of going to the
union, that didn’t happen when she was a probationary teacher. She refused to
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 55

participate in the professional development that was offered [new curriculum
introduced] because she didn’t think it applied to her. (I5/R37)
This respondent, later in the interview returned to this example and indicated that this was not an
uncommon response, in their experience. The researchers can infer from this example that the
relations between the respondent and the teacher changed.
Five of the six interview respondents indicated through their answers that professional
interactions with probationary teachers are different than they are with tenured faculty. They all
tended to agree that probationary teachers are more willing to talk and receive critiques than
tenured faculty. Moreover, they all also indicated that the probationary teachers were more
likely to initiate conversations about what they were doing in the classroom. As I4/R20 said,
They don't want me to come by their classrooms as often as they did in the first
couple of years to show me that, ‘Wow, check this out. Oh, isn't this wonderful?’
All of a sudden they'd rather have it that we're not coming through. So those are
some very distinct characteristics that I can tell you I've seen, not all, but in a
large majority.
The idea that the tenured teachers were no longer interested in critiques or evaluations was
echoed in most of the interview respondents’ answers. I1/R2 gave the example,
I have a 4th year here right now, who barely made it through year two. It kills me
that he's too relaxed. He acts like a teacher has been doing this for a while and
doesn't really need to try hard. I think that's wrong, because he barely made it
through probi status, and now it's hard to stretch him.
From the interview responses the researchers can conclude that tenure does have a measured
effect on the relationships between the administration and the various faculty members
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 56

(probationary or tenured). Neither the interviews nor the surveys were able to give any insight
into the relationship between tenured and non-tenured faculty members in a school.
The previous research on principals and tenure decisions has looked heavily at how the
unions and collective bargaining agreements in a district or state affect a principal’s ability to use
certain evaluation measures in the decisions (Koppich, 2005; Moe, 2009; Strunk & Grissom,
2010). Noting the origins of the teacher union movement in the hotbed of the industrial labor
movement, Stunk and Grissom (2010) found that there is an adversarial interaction between
labor and management that is useful in the industrial labor movement but leaves the students
trapped in the middle in the teachers’ union movement. Seniority allows teachers to choose their
assignments rather than allowed principals to assign teachers to schools as needed. This means
that urban and high-poverty schools tend to be staffed with the least experienced and sometimes
least qualified teachers rather than teachers with years of experience (Behrstock & Coggshall,
2009; Nelson, 2006). Moreover, this is one of the argument that caused Superior court Judge
True to rule that all five provisions of the California Tenure Law (See Appendix A) was
unconstitutional: specifically because it put high-poverty school students at a disadvantage due to
teacher assignments (Vergara v, State of California, 2014).
Research Question 4
What were the definable differences in the performance of a teacher prior to compared to
after achieving tenure? Since the interviewees and survey respondents were all hiring
administrators, this question relies on their observations of interactions and behaviors of their
staff. Question Four focuses on looking at whether or not being granted tenure alters the way in
which the teacher preforms as a teacher, while Question Three focuses on more general changes
in attitude and interaction. I4/R20 made a very interesting observation.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 57

I can tell you when the two year mark hits. Some of them, my best teachers that
I've hired, they almost go into a lapse in the third year that you question yourself
about why you tenured them. And unfortunately sometimes when they take that
sigh of relief, they will also become way too comfortable in their position and not
wanting to learn, or thinking they now know everything. I think it's kind of a
mixture of both. And they may not even recognize they're doing it. I think it's
part of having the tenure system the way we have it. I can definitely tell you
there's what I call the third year slump.
In fact, all of the interview respondents indicated that there were real changes in a teacher after
they had been granted tenure. Teachers became less interested in professional development,
showed less innovation in the classroom, and were less open to suggestions for improvement.
This was, for the most part, directly attributed to the teacher being granted tenure. “They're
really like stepping up, and they're asking to do extra things, and it makes you wonder, well
shouldn't we all be perpetually on probationary status. The unions would never go for that”
(I1/R2). This respondent went on to say, “A tenure person knows their protected, and they really
don't have to give a 100%. The probi people, they know they better give a 100%, or they're
gonna be in trouble.” This seems to encapsulate the general observations of the interviewees as
well as several other survey respondents who added comments to their survey.
R32 implied that a change occurs upon granting tenure when stating, “Hiring the best
teachers and unhiring all but the outstanding teachers before they achieve permanent status, are
the most important things we do as administrators.” This emphasis on removing all but the very
best teacher before they attain tenure implies that once tenure has been granted, it is unlikely that
the retained teachers will improve. Since there are often plenty of opportunities for professional
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 58

development and growth, the statement implies that these opportunities will either not be utilized
or will be ineffective. This was seen in the example given above, and the idea that teachers,
upon reaching tenure status, do not continue to seek improvement, even when the curriculum is
changing, was a common theme throughout the interviews. As I4/R20 said, “Sometimes we go
into a profession and it's not our chosen profession, and that's OK. It's better to find that out
then to all of a sudden now have a security of a job, and because they're scared to move, they
don't move.”
There are, according to every interview conducted by this researcher, real and observable
changes in the performance of teachers once they have been granted permanent status. These
changes include refusal to participate or volunteer for outside clubs or activities that do not
include a pay incentive, less interest in innovation and professional improvement, less energy
and enthusiasm in the classroom, less openness to suggestions and critiques, and more
complaints and union actions. I4 went so far as to give the phenomenon a name, the ‘third year
slump.” The idea of a slump, though, can indicate that these changes are sometimes temporary,
due to the immense pressure of the probationary period, and I4 said as much in the interview.
Also I6 indicated that
tenure, what I found does not affect the exemplary probationary teacher. The
exemplary probationary teacher was exemplary because of the art and the science.
When they move into tenure, it’s not that all of a sudden, ‘phew, I’m done.’ It’s
that they didn’t fake it to start with.
Given the repeated caveats in the interviews that these ideas did not apply to every teacher, nor
did they often apply to the very best teachers, it is fair to state that tenure does have an effect on
the way in which teachers who are not exemplary perform in the classroom as teachers. I4 did
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 59

indicate that the third year slump was seen even among the best teachers, but that they returned
in year 4 as outstanding teachers again. The theme in the answers was that once a teacher was
granted tenure, they kind of stayed at whatever level of excellence that they were upon
completing the probationary period. This indicates a change in performance except among the
very best of teachers, who were often still open to ideas and innovations.
The research in this area is often embedded in research related to teacher and/or student
achievement. In studying the performance of teachers over time, researchers have noted a
change in performance that they can relate to tenure (Aaronson, Barrow, & Sanders, 2007;
Betielle, Kalogrades, & Loeb, 2009; Carter & Savoca, 1992; Goldfaber & Hansen, 2010; Ingle,
Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011; Koski & Horng, 2007; Painter 2000; Winters, 2012). As with the
current research, the data tends to be mixed. When a teacher begins as a highly effective teacher
– motivated, creative, engaging – they tend to remain that way throughout their career (Kane,
Taylor, Tyler, & Wooten, 2011; Levin & Quinn, 2003; National Council on Teacher Quality,
2010). Poor teachers that do not improve during their probationary period are not usually offered
tenure. If, for some reason they are granted tenure the research indicates that they will not likely
improve, or take steps to improve (Carter & Savoca, 1992; Hightower et al., 2011). It is the
middle group of teachers that inform this question. Research indicates that once a teacher is
granted tenure, they tend not to improve much beyond that point (Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop,
2011; Jacobs, 2005, 2011; Koppich, 2005; Winters, 2012).
Conclusion
Does tenure/permanent status affect the way in which administrators hire new teachers
and make recommendations for tenure? The short answer is definitively yes. In fact, tenure
practices seem to be among the most powerful underlying considerations in the minds of hiring
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 60

administrators when deciding who to hire and who to keep. According to this research, many
potentially great teachers get passed by because the administrator was unwilling to take the
chance on the prospective hire. This was often because the prospective hire was a little rougher
than normal. It was not that the administrators could not see the potential greatness in the
prospective hire – in fact several mentioned that they had not hired people that they knew would,
with enough time and work, become outstanding, even exemplary teachers – rather it was that
the administrators knew that due to current tenure practice they would not have enough time to
guide the prospective hire into that greatness.
The data collected in this study indicates that principals feel the pressure of tenure
practice when making initial hiring decisions. They also indicate that tenure practices, fit, and
credentials are the three most important factors used in making hiring decisions. This research
data helps improve the understanding of researchers and educators as to how teachers are
actually hired in the state of California, and that tenure law as it is currently practiced is a
significant element in that process.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 61

CHAPTER 5: Discussion and Recommendations
Interpretation of Research Data
The current tenure law and practices in California have come under fire to such a degree
that on 10 June 2014, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu ruled that the law
was unconstitutional. The case, Vergaras v. California, pitted nine students against the largest
teachers’ union in California and hinged on the idea that the law, as it is currently written
disproportionately hampers educational improvement among low-income and minority students
by creating an environment that makes it virtually impossible to remove ineffective teachers
from their positions. In this research study, the researchers, in fact found that this was the major
complaint made by administrators regarding current tenure laws and practices. In fact, it was for
this reason that the researcher added several questions to the interview portion of the study,
specifically asking administrators about potential fixes to the current tenure laws that would
make them acceptable to these hiring officials. Although five of the interviewees felt that the
best solution for tenure was to get rid of it at the K-12 level of education, they also understood
the original intention of the law, protecting teachers from being fired for arbitrary, political, or
religious reasons. They felt that this intent was important to ensure, as there are always political
and religious hot button curriculum elements, such as comprehensive sexual health education or
the theory of evolution. Teachers need to know that they are able to teach these subjects without
fear of losing their job. Given that, all six interviewees discussed possible solutions to the
current tenure issues. Since this court case was decided after the survey questions had been
finalized and the survey had already been made available to prospective respondents, it was
decided that the survey would not be changed.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 62

According to the few papers and studies previously completed on actual principal hiring
practices (Balter & Duncombe, 2006; Cranston, 2012; Harris, Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson,
2010; Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011), principals and other district hiring agents tend to use
proper credentialing, person/fit, and willingness to help in other areas as very important factors
for hiring. They did not find that hiring agents focused completely on professional ability or on
personality, rather on a mix of both factors. In fact, Cranston (2012) indicated that hiring agents
tended to resort to the ‘similar to me’ bias when hiring agents did not have enough empirical
information. In this study, the researchers discovered that among their research subjects, no
interviewee felt that they had enough empirical information on the potential new hire. Given
this, it can be inferred that they defaulted to Cranston’s bias. None of the other researchers in
this area have included local or regional tenure practices in their factors set so this research adds
a new component to the information available for future exploration. Tenure law varies by state
and, according to Frey (2010) 9 states, including California, have grant tenure/permanent status
to teachers after 2 years. The majority of states offer tenure/permanent status after 3 years (if the
teacher returns in year 4 with a few states waiting 4 years or even longer to grant a permanent
teacher tenure/permanent status. With nine states offering tenure in 2 years or less or offering
tenure based on the current collective bargaining agreement (Wisconsin), this current research is
important.
Much research was completed during the 1990s and 2000s showing the uncertainty of
using Value-Added Measures (VAM) as a means of evaluating teachers, one important element
of teachers being granted tenure, but none of these studies took into account the vicissitudes of
real-world politics (Goldhaber & Hansen, 2010; Goldstein, 2007; Guarino, Reckase, &
Wooldridge, 2012; Harris, 2009; Koedel & Betts, 2009; Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009; Newton et al.,
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 63

2010; Winters, 2012). Collective bargaining agreements often define the type of, number of, and
style of evaluation that can be performed on a teacher by a principal or other evaluating agent
(Koski, & Horng, 2007; Lindy, 2010, Nelson, 2006; Strunk & Grissom, 2010). These do not
take into account best practices or the objective recommendations of researchers (Koski, &
Horng, 2007; Lindy, 2010, Nelson, 2006; Strunk & Grissom, 2010). They much more often take
into account the safety of the teachers’ position (Koski & Horng, 2007; Moe, 2009). To make
matter more interesting, some research has shown that the important elements for hiring a new
teacher are Academic achievement and knowledge of the subject area, rather than credentialing
(which has been shown to have almost no predictive power as to the quality of the potential
teacher (Balter & Duncombe, 2006; Cranston, 2012 Koppich, 2005; Moe, 2009). Although this
data has been available for many years, according to our research credentialing, previous
experience and ‘fit’ are the most commonly used factors when principals make hiring decisions.
According to our research another element that seems to take an unusually important place in the
hiring interview, at least as an element in the principal’s decision process, is tenure. Every
principal with which this researcher spoke orbited around tenure, tenure law, and tenure practice,
even when answering other only tangentially-related questions. On the survey, every respondent
indicated that tenure practice was significant or more to their decision when hiring a new teacher.
This element was not taken into account in previous surveys involving factors used by principals
for hiring new teachers.
With current Califirnia tenure practices requiring principals to finalize tenure decisions
by March 15th (to the HR department of the district), most principals are lucky to have 13 or 14
months to work with a probationary teacher (I3, I5). This exceptionally short window to help
improve the teacher, means that a potentially great teacher (one that is identified by the
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 64

administrator as such) who also will need more initial work to become that teacher, gets passed
over for an obviously mediocre teacher that will require less of a time commitment from the
administrator and also can be guaranteed to be at least adequate as a teacher. In nine states,
tenure is granted in two years, thus not giving the hiring agents enough time to really make
strong and well-informed decisions about keeping a potential teacher, or even hiring one in the
first place. How many great teachers were never given a chance in these nine states (California
being one of the largest education systems in the United States) that could have gone on to be
outstanding teachers had the principals felt comfortable hiring them and helping guide and coach
them into greatness? In this research interviewees have already explained to the researchers that
they have generally chosen not to hire teachers who had real potential because they could not
justify the possibility of having misjudged and not being able to remove the teacher. One of the
interviewers related an experience wherein they hired a seemingly good teacher, one who was
excited, open to suggestions, proud of their pedagogy, etc., only to have the hire turn into a
complaining, uninterested mediocre teacher almost as soon as they were granted tenure. The
interviewees all indicated that this type of situation could have been avoided had tenure been five
years, as they hiring agents felt that although people can keep up a front for the 13 or 14 months
necessary to gain tenure; they couldn’t keep it up for four years.
Researchers have consistently found that administrators and hiring staff feel that tenure
has become a shield behind which incompetent teachers are protected in spite of the fact that this
is not in the best interest of the students (Ingle, Rutledge, & Bishop, 2011; McGough, 2003;
Murnane & Steele, 2007; Painter, 2000; Rockoff et al., 2011; Youngs, 2007). Since the various
school districts in the United States; the local, state, and national education departments; and the
bylaws of the local state and national teacher’s associations all purport to place the learning of
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 65

the child in the classroom as their first and overarching priority, then it seems that keeping
incompetent or unqualified teachers in the classroom would be contrary to that mission.
In our research we discovered that most of the administrators we talked to had a complex
relationship with the concept of tenure. All of them understood the importance of the protections
that tenure grants, but most felt that it no longer fulfilled that function. It, instead, had become
this shield for incompetence. All the interviewees were most likely to recommend ending tenure
entirely. One, in fact, stated that tenure protection was no longer necessary as all contract
employees are already protected from arbitrary firing in the modern era. This person understood
the importance of the protection; they just felt that it was now granted in standard employment
law, without the added layer of tenure (I5). Whether or not this is accurate, all of the
interviewees recognized that tenure in some form was going to continue existing. All of them
recommended increasing the length of the probationary period to 5 years. They felt that this
would give them the time necessary to work with those potentially great teachers, and would also
allow them to take more chances in the hiring process. Other research on tenure tended to agree
that probationary status needed to be longer and there needed to be signs of improvement and
desiring to be the best teacher in the probationary teachers before tenure was granted. Five years
would give them the time them needed to accomplish this.
Recommendations for Further Research
There are three areas that the researchers would recommend for further study:
1. a multi-state study of principal hiring decisions;
2. the use of professional development in helping teachers improve; and
3. a comparison of tenure issues in states with collective bargaining units and states
that do not allow collective bargaining.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 66

Each of these areas would further expand our understanding of how principals interact with
tenure and hiring.
Creating a multi-state study is not an easy or quick project. Researchers would need to
ensure that they include samples from states that have various lengths of requirements for tenure,
states that did and did not allow collective bargaining, and states that have removed tenure.
Including all of these samples would give education planners and researchers comparative data
with which to better explore the impact of tenure on hiring, firing, and tenure recommendations.
Moreover, it would give better data on how collective bargaining impacts tenure practices and
student achievement in the classroom. Lastly researchers would have a better large-scale
overview of tenure practices, patterns of behavior in tenure practices, and the effects of not
having tenure on hiring, teacher quality, and student achievement. Moreover, this research
should be coupled specifically with research on the three districts that reformed tenure through
cooperative actions. This would allow for actual useful and pertinent recommendations for
changes to improve teacher quality in schools.
Although this study did not discuss professional development directly, the interviewers
repeatedly discussed it in several oblique ways, usually in the form of not hiring potential
teachers they were uncertain about due to the lack of time available to help them improve.
Professional development has been a recurring theme throughout the research completed by
many researchers on this subject. In fact, throughout the research, it seems that professional
development tends to be a subject that many sample populations desire to explore more fully.
Much research has been completed on the importance of and the types of effective professional
development, but not in the context of how continuing professional development is impacted by
tenure status. In our research one theme kept coming up, that teachers, except for certain highly
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 67

motivated and natural teachers, were open to professional development until the day that they
were granted tenure. After that, it was often observed that they did exactly the amount of
professional development required but were unlikely to introduce new ideas of pedagogies into
the classroom unless mandated by the system (iPads, for example). This is an area of study that
would allow future researchers to more effectively create professional development programs
that actually helped teachers (one complaint of teachers). It would also help researchers see if
the length of a teacher’s probationary status changed the overall attitude towards professional
development.
Lastly, a specific comparison of districts with and without collective bargaining units as
the basis for teacher contracts would allow researchers to compare the difficulties or advantages
of collective bargaining on student achievement, teacher retention, and overall teacher quality.
Given the impression that unions have lost sight of the importance of children and student
achievement in their quest to protect every employee (cite), finding out if that is the case would
help researchers understand the difficulties faced when a system needs to change. This research
might actually help districts and states create more effective and inclusive education policies,
ones that take the teacher into account more thoroughly. Moreover, this research would allow
policy makers, both in the union system and in the administrative system to come together to
reassert the basic reason for the education system, the opportunity for the highest possible quality
education for every student in the classroom.
Recommendations for Current Changes in California Tenure Law
Given the unusual event that occurred in the middle of the research portion of this study,
the courts declaring the California Tenure Law unconstitutional (although the ruling has been
stayed pending appeal), the researchers chose to include questions relating to potential changes
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 68

to tenure law in the interview. As stated in Chapter 4, the researchers had already deployed the
survey portion and had gotten results from them so decided not to alter the survey, but instead
decided to include the opportunity for the chosen interviewees to discuss potential changes to the
system to improve it. Although the interviewees all felt that the best course was to remove
tenure entirely, they also recognized the importance of the protections and felt that there could be
a way to fix the system. The overwhelming consensus was to increase the amount of time before
tenure is granted to at least four years, if not five. This change would give administrators more
time and leeway to help struggling teachers, take chances on potential teachers as new hires, get
a better feeling for the teachers, allow for changes in administration to not be making blind
tenure decisions, and weed out the people simply not suited for teaching. The literature further
suggests changing the contracts and law to specifically streamline disciplinary outcomes for poor
quality teachers such as required professional development programs, team teaching with a
Master teacher, written and verifiable goals with timelines and measures, and a rational
definition of poorly performing (Koppich, 2005; Moe, 2009; Nelson, 2006;.Strunk & Grissom,
2010)
Researchers also noted that in the literature regarding highly effective teachers and
improving student achievement, the blame for the low quality teacher issue is laid at the feet of
administrators (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009) without taking into account the
fact that many collective bargaining agreements specify the types, durations, and number of
evaluations permitted to the administrators in the school. It is good to hold everyone involved in
the issues related to teacher excellence accountable for their contribution to the problems, but to
simply ignore relevant facts can provide distorted conclusions which could result in policy
responses that do not address to underlying issues.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 69

The researchers feel that in the face of this unprecedented opportunity that has been
presented to California to lead the nation in tenure reforms, several specific recommendations are
in order.
The first recommendation comes from the various interviewees and respondents to the
survey, lengthen the time for teacher probationary periods from two years (effectively 15
months) to four or five years (preferably five). This would give the administrators the option of
a wider hiring field, as most of the interviewees stated that they would not even take a chance on
an uncertain teacher, even if they showed the potential to be great, because they did not have the
time necessary to guide and mentor the probationary teacher. It would also allow for poorly
performing probationary teachers to have a real opportunity to improve their teaching and
pedagogy without being under the gun to be perfect in one year. It would further allow for more
in-depth and complete evaluations to be entered into the teacher file, thus if the old administrator
retires or leaves, then the new administrator has better information with which to make tenure
recommendations.
The second recommendation is to integrate best-practices evaluation techniques into the
collective bargaining agreements, so principals and other evaluators (some research recommends
professional evaluators for balance and clarity) have the tools necessary to accurately assess the
probationary teacher performance, both positive and negative and thereby be able to make
reasonable and rational recommendations to help the teacher improve. Evaluation techniques
have been exhaustively researched and there are several general guidelines that can be looked at
during this process.
The third recommendation is that if a tenured teacher fails to comply with a reasonable
plan for improvement after being rated as unsatisfactory or needed assistance (this rating coming
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 70

from an unbiased source agreed upon by the stakeholders), administrators are able to
immediately remove the teacher without substantial mediation. Teachers need to know that they
are expected to improve in their craft, as is the case with most other professional vocations. This
includes updating pedagogy based on best-practices and research, technology improvements and
gains, and innovative thinking and planning. As learning becomes a better understood
phenomenon, there are changes in recommendations on teaching information and skills to
students and these often include changes in the way information and skills are presented.
Moreover, the types of skills and knowledge’s that are important for people changes as
technology and the world changes. These changes need to be quickly and effectively integrated
into the modern curriculum so schools and teachers are effectively fulfilling the basic mission of
the schools.
Conclusion
Principals have an important and difficult job in hiring potential teachers to engage the
students at their school in the most effective and positive possible way. In California, this job is
made more difficult due to the speed at which teachers are granted tenure or permanent status
after initial hiring. To further complicate the issue, the collective bargaining agreements often
dictate the types, duration, and number of evaluations that are allowed to be used by the
administration on teaching staff. Much research has been completed discussing the factors
principals should be looking for when hiring and making tenure recommendation; however, not
much has looked into and studied what factors principals actually use when making these
decisions. This research adds to that small body of work. The researchers confirmed what other
researchers have discovered, that principals tend to rely on credentials, past experience, and
teacher ‘fit’ to make these decisions. This research went further and discovered that tenure
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 71

concerns also play a major factor in hiring decisions by California principals due to the very
short window between hiring and tenure being granted. This information is valuable as nine
states also have this very short time frame. This information showed that principals tend to be
overly conservative when hiring potential teachers. They are not often willing to take any
chances on a potential teacher, even if they can see the potential greatness in them during the
sample teaching session, due to these time constraints. Therefore potentially highly qualified
teachers are not getting the opportunity to work with students because of initial uncertainty by
the hiring agents.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 72

References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the
Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics,25(1), 95-135.
Amrein-Beardsley, A., Berliner, D. C., & Rideau, S. (2010). Cheating in the first, second, and
third degree: Educators' responses to high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 18(14), n14.
Balter, D., & Duncombe, W. (2006, March). Staffing classrooms: Do teacher hiring practices
affect teacher qualifications?. In annual meeting of the American Education Finance
Association, Denver, CO.
Behrstock, E., & Coggshall, J. G. (2009). Key issue: Teacher hiring, placement, and assignment
practices. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D. & Loeb, S. (December 2009). Effective schools: managing
recruitment, development, and retention of high-quality teachers. CALDER Working
Paper 37. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Branch, G.F., Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (February 2012). Estimating the effect of leaders
on public sector productivity: The case of school principals. NBER Working Paper
17803. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Brikci, M. & Green, J. (2007). A guide to using qualitative research methodology. Medecins
Sans Frontieres. Retrieved from:
http://fieldresearch.msf.org/msf/bitstream/10144/84230/1/
Qualitative%20research%20methodology.pdf
California Department of Education. (2011). Fingertip facts on education in California -
CalEdFacts. Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 73

California Department of Education. (2014). Public school database in Microsoft Excel format.
Retrieved from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/pubschls.asp.
California Legislature. (1984). California education code: 44929.21 (Permanent Status)
Cannon, S., Figlio, D., & Sass, T. (2010). The policy choices of effective principals. Economics
of Education Review, 12(4), 281-292.
Carter, S. B., & Savoca, E. (1992). The “teaching procession”? Another look at teacher tenure,
1845–1925. Explorations in Economic History, 29(4), 401-416.
Clayton, J. K., & Johnson, B. (2011). If it aAin’t broke, don’t fix it: A new principal is in town.
Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 14(4), 22-30.
Cranston, J. (2012). Exploring school principals’ hiring decisions: Fitting in and getting hired.
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 135, 1-35..
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35-39.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching.
Kutztown, PA: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.
Dee, T.S. (2003). Are there Civic Returns to Education? NBER Working Paper 9588.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Engel, M., Finch, M., & Huff, J. (2012). Staffing the classroom: How urban principals Find
teachers and make hiring decisions. Retrieved From::
https://aefpweb.org/sites/default/files/webform /HiringDecisions_AEFP.pdf
Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard
Business Review, 85(7/8), 114-121, 193.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 74

Fink, A (ed.). (2003). The survey handbook, Second Edition. Sage Publications.
Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Stellman, L. (2003). Teachers and the law. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon/Longman Publishing, a Pearson Education Company
Frey, D. (2010). State teacher tenure/continuing contract laws. Education Commission of the
States. Retrieved from: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/88/28/8828.pdf
Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Using performance on the job to inform teacher tenure
decisions. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 250-255.
Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer
assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 479-508.
Guarino, C., Reckase, M. D., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2012). Can value-added measures of teacher
performance be trusted? (No. 6602). Discussion Paper series, Forschungsinstitut zur
Zukunft der Arbeit.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of
teacher quality. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 267-271.
Harris, D. N. (2009). Would accountability based on teacher value added be smart policy? An
examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives. Education, 4(4), 319-350.
Harris, D. N., Rutledge, S. A., Ingle, W. K., & Thompson, C. C. (2010). Mix and match: What
principals really look for when hiring teachers? Education, 5(2), 228-246.
Haycock, Kati, and Sandra Huang. “Are today’s high school graduates ready?” Thinking K-16
5(1): 3-17.
Hershberg, T. & Robertson-Kraft, C. (Summer 2010). Maximizing the opportunity provided by
‘race to the top’. Perspectives on Urban Education. pp. 128-131.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 75

Hightower, A.M., Delgado, R.C., Lloyd, S.C., Wittenstein, R., Sellers, K., & Swanson, C.B.
(December 2011). Improving student learning by supporting quality teaching: Key issues,
effective strategies. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough:
Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational
Researcher, 41(2), 56-64.
Ingle, K., Rutledge, S., & Bishop, J. (2011). Context matters: Principals' sensemaking of teacher
hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 579-
610.
Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing
in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 761-796.
Jacob, B.A. (2011). Do principals fire the worst teachers? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis December 2011(33). 403-434. doi:10.3102/0162373711414704
Johnson, S. M. (2010). How best to add value? Strike a balance between the individual and the
organization in school reform. Collective Practice Quality Teaching, 7.
Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2011). Identifying effective classroom
practices using student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 587-613.
Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2011). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher
effectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Education, 6(1), 18-42.
Koppich, J. (2005). Addressing teacher quality through induction, professional compensation,
and evaluation: The effects on labor-management relations. Educational Policy, 19(1),
90-111.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 76

Koski, W. S., & Horng, E. L. (2007). Facilitating the teacher quality gap? Collective bargaining
agreements, teacher hiring and transfer rules, and teacher assignment among schools in
California. Education, 2(3), 262-300.
Levin, J., & Quinn, M. (2003). Missed opportunities: How we keep high-quality teachers out of
urban classrooms. The New Teacher Project.
Lieberman, M. (2012). Market solutions to the education crisis. Cato Institute Policy Analysis
No. 75.
Lindy, B. A. (2010). Impact of teacher collective bargaining laws on student achievement:
Evidence from a New Mexico natural experiment. The. Yale Law Journal, 120, 1130.
Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness.
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Loope, D.R. (1995). Academic tenure: Its origins, administration, and importance. South
Carolina Commission on Higher Education Staff Position Paper. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED382149.pdf.
Mann, H. (1957). 10th annual report to the Massachusetts Board of Education (1846). In
Cremin, L.A. (ed.). The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free
Men. New York, Teacher’s College, Columbia University.
Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.)
Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, (pp. 69-100), Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
McGough, D.J. (2003), Leaders as learners: An inquiry into the formation and transformation of
principals’ professional perspectives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25(4
Special Issue on Educational Leadership), pp. 449-471.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 77

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moe, T. M. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American
Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 156-174.
Murnane, R.J. & Steele, J.L. (2007). What is the problem? The challenge of providing effective
teachers for all children. The Future of Children, 17(1), pp. 15 - 43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of education statistics: Number of
teachers in elementary and secondary schools, and instructional staff in postsecondary
degree-granting institutions, by control of institution: Selected years, Fall 1970 through
Fall 2018. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_004.asp
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). Advancing teacher quality. In Meeting of
California State Board of Education and Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
NEA Research. (2012). Rankings and estimates: Rankings of the states 2012 and estimates of
school statistics 2013. National Education Association. Retrieved From:
http://www.nea.org/assets/ img/content/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates-2013_(2).pdf
Nelson, F. H. (2006). The impact of collective bargaining on teacher transfer rates in urban high-
poverty schools. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.
Newton, X. A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas, E. (2010).Value-added modelling
of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), 2.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Title 2: Preparing, Training and Recruiting High Quality
Teachers and Principals, 20 U.S.C. § 2101 - 2441.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 78

Painter, S. R. (2000). Principals’ perceptions of barriers to teacher dismissal. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(3), 253-264.
Plato. (1997). Apology (G.M.A.Grube, Trans.). In J.M. Cooper and D.S. Hutchinson
(eds). Plato Complete Works, (pp. 17-36), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Ravitch, D. (2010). Why public schools need democratic governance. Phi Delta Kappa, 91(6),
24-27.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from
panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Rockoff, J. E., & Speroni, C. (2010). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher
effectiveness. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 261-266.
Rockoff, J. E., Jacob, B. A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2011). Can you recognize an effective
teacher when you recruit one?. Education, 6(1), 43-74.
Rothstein, J. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on
observables and unobservables. Education, 4(4), 537-571.
Schimmel, D., Stellman, L., & Fischer, L. (2011). Teachers and the law. Pearson Education,
Incorporated.
Shank, G. D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Prentice Hall.
Staiger, D. O., & Rockoff, J. E. (2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect
information. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 97-117.
Strunk, K. O., & Grissom, J. A. (2010). Do strong unions shape district policies? Collective
bargaining, teacher contract restrictiveness, and the political power of teachers’ unions.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,32(3), 389-406.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 79

US Dept. Education. (2011). A Summary of highly qualified teacher data for school year 2009-
10. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/resources.html
Walonick, D. (2013). Survival statistics, 6th Edition. Bloomington, MN: StatPac, Inc.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY:
The New Teacher Project.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Winters, M. A. (2012). Transforming tenure: Using value-added modeling to identify ineffective
teachers. Civic Report. No. 70. Center for State and Local Leadership.
Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators' roles in novice teacher
induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39-62.
Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals’ beliefs and actions influence new teachers’
experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 101-137.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 80

Appendix A: California Tenure Code
California Education Code: 44929.21
44929.21. (a) Every employee of a school district of any type or class having an average daily
attendance of 250 or more who, after having been employed by the district for three complete
consecutive school years in a position or positions requiring certification qualifications, is
reelected for the next succeeding school year to a position requiring certification qualifications
shall, at the commencement of the succeeding school year be classified as and become a
permanent employee of the district.
This subdivision shall apply only to probationary employees whose probationary period
commenced prior to the 1983-84 fiscal year.
(b) Every employee of a school district of any type or class having an average daily attendance
of 250 or more who, after having been employed by the district for two complete consecutive
school years in a position or positions requiring certification qualifications, is reelected for the
next succeeding school year to a position requiring certification qualifications shall, at the
commencement of the succeeding school year be classified as and become a permanent
employee of the district.
The governing board shall notify the employee, on or before March 15 of the employee's second
complete consecutive school year of employment by the district in a position or positions
requiring certification qualifications, of the decision to reelect or not reelect the employee for the
next succeeding school year to the position. In the event that the governing board does not give
notice pursuant to this section on or before March 15, the employee shall be deemed reelected
for the next succeeding school year.
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 81

This subdivision shall apply only to probationary employees whose probationary period
commenced during the 1983-84 fiscal year or any fiscal year thereafter.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 82

Appendix B: Survey Questions
Survey Questions
1. How involved are you in hiring decisions in your school or district?
a. Not Involved
b. Somewhat Involved
c. Involved
d. very Involved
e. Extremely Involved
2. How involved are you in tenure/permanent status recommendations for teachers in your
school or district?
a. Not Involved
b. Somewhat Involved
c. Involved
d. very Involved
e. Extremely Involved
3. How long have you been directly involved in the hiring decision-making process?
a. 0 – 3 Years
b. 4 – 6 Years
c. 7 – 10 Years
d. 10+ Years
e. Not Involved
4. How long have you been directly involved in tenure/permanent status decision-making?
a. 0 – 3 Years
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 83

b. 4 – 6 Years
c. 7 – 10 Years
d. 10+ Years
e. Not Involved
5. How long have you worked in K-12 education?
a. 0 – 5 Years
b. 6 – 10 Years
c. 11 – 15 Years
d. 16 – 20 Years
e. 20+Years
6. When making a hiring decision about a potential teacher, how significant is tenure law as it is
currently practiced in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
7. When making a hiring decision about a potential teacher, how significant are their credentials
in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 84

e. Extremely Significant
8. When making a hiring decision about a potential teacher, how significant is personality/fit in
your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
9. When making a hiring decision about a potential teacher, how significant is the applicant's
academic record/ability in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
10. When making a hiring decision about a potential teacher, how significant is the applicant's
willingness to help in other school activities in forming your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 85

11. When making a hiring decision about a potential teacher, how significant is the candidate's
previous experience in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
12. When making a tenure/permanent status recommendation about a teacher, how significant is
tenure law as it is currently practiced in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
13. When making a tenure/permanent status recommendation about a teacher how significant are
credentials held in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
14. When making a tenure/permanent status recommendation about a teacher how significant is
the applicant's personality or "fit" in your decision?
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 86

a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
15. When making a tenure/permanent status recommendation about a teacher, how significant is
the applicant's involvement in professional development programs in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
16. When making a tenure/permanent status recommendation about a teacher, how important is
the candidate's willingness to help with extra-curricular school activities in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
17. When making a tenure/permanent status recommendation about a teacher, how significant
are previous evaluations in your decision?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 87

c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
18. How significant is the influence of the certificated bargaining unit on hiring decisions?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
19. How significant is the influence of the certificated bargaining unit on tenure/permanent status
decisions?
a. Not Significant
b. Somewhat Significant
c. Significant
d. Very Significant
e. Extremely Significant
20. How much emphasis do you give objective/value-added measured evaluation results for an
individual teacher when making tenure/permanent status recommendations?
a. No Emphasis
b. Some Emphasis
c. A Great Deal Of Emphasis
21. Do you have any further comments about teacher hiring, retention, and tenure you would like
to share with the researchers?
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 88

22. If you would be interested in participating in a further in-person interview, Please include
your name, a good contact telephone, and a good contact email.

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 89

Appendix C: Interview Questions
Before beginning the interview the researcher will state his name, the reason for the interview,
and the location of the interview.
The following questions will all be asked but the researcher is free to ask further probing
questions to clarify or pursue a relevant topic brought up by the interviewee.
1. Would you please state your name, position, as well as any experiences, training,
education, any other background that helped prepare you for your current role in
education?
2. Would you please describe how teachers are evaluated in the California public school
system?
3. What role does tenure take in that evaluation process?
4. What impact, if at all, does tenure have on the teacher hiring process?
5. How long does a principal have before making a decision about granting a teacher
permanent status?
a. What impact does this time period have on the decision-making process?
6. How long does a principal have before making a decision about granting a teacher-
permanent status, and what impact does this time period have on decision making?
7. Utilizing a wide-scale view, how might the performance of a probationary teacher
compared to that of a permanent teacher?
8. What are the benefits of tenure?
9. What are the negatives or challenges of tenure?
10. How might tenure be improved? Is it possible?
11. What impact, if any, has tenure had on your decision making regarding teacher retention
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 90

and non-reelection?
12. What impact would extending tenure from 2 to 5 years have on the teacher retention and
reelection process?
13. Would the elimination of tenure help or hinder the teacher-retention process?

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 91

Appendix D: Consent Form for Follow-up Interview
Introduction and Purpose
My name is Joe Hyde. I am a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Southern California, Rossier
School of Education. I would like to invite you to take part in my research study, which
concerns how current California Tenure law and practices affect your hiring and retention
decisions for teachers.
Procedures
If you agree to participate in my research, I will conduct an interview with you at a time and
location of your choice. The interview will involve questions about how you view California
tenure practices and how these practices inform your hiring and retention practices. It should last
about 30 minutes. With your permission, I will audiotape and take notes during the interview.
The recording is to accurately record the information you provide, and will be used for
transcription purposes only. If you choose not to be audiotaped, I will take notes instead. If you
agree to being audiotaped but feel uncomfortable at any time during the interview, I can turn off
the recorder at your request. Or if you don't wish to continue, you can stop the interview at any
time.
Benefits
There is no direct benefit to you from taking part in this study. It is hoped that the research will
help researchers better understand the actual decision-making process used by principals when
hiring teachers so they can better address methods to help principals make this important
decision..
Risks/Discomforts
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 92

As with all research, there is a chance that confidentiality could be compromised; however, we
are taking precautions to minimize this risk.
Confidentiality
No other researchers will be participating in this study; therefore you will not be interviewed by
anyone else. Furthermore, no one other than myself will have access to the raw data or any of
my notes taken during the interview.
Your study data will be handled as confidentially as possible. If results of this study are
published or presented, individual names and other personally identifiable information will not
be used unless you give explicit permission for me to do so.
To minimize the risks to confidentiality, we will maintain separate folders on our computer in
which all audio and transcription copies will be saved and which will be password protected
When the research is completed, I may save the tapes and notes for use in future research done
by myself or others. I will retain these records for up to 24 months/years after the study is over.
The same measures described above will be taken to protect confidentiality of this study data.
Compensation
You will not be paid for taking part in this study.
Rights
Participation in research is completely voluntary. You are free to decline to take part in the
project. You can decline to answer any questions and are free to stop taking part in the project at
any time. Whether or not you choose to participate in the research and whether or not you
choose to answer a question or continue participating in the project, there will be no penalty to
you.
Questions
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 93

If you have any questions about this research, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at
951-378-1439 or joedhyde@gmail.com.
Any questions or concerns about this study should be directed to the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) for Studies Involving Human Subjects: Behavioral Sciences Committee and USC. The
IRB may be contacted through the Rossier School of Education at USC.
Consent
You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep for your own records.
If you wish to participate in this study, please sign and date below.
_____________________________________________________________________
Participant's Printed name, Signature, and Date
_____________________________________________________________________
Investigator's Printed name, Signature, and Date

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 94

Appendix E: Figures

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 95

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 96

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 97

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 98

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 99

Curriculum Vita
Joe Hyde
1691 Jade Court
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 378-1439
joehyde@gmail.com

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE:
I am an energetic, innovative, and experienced instructional leader devoted to improving
education through collaboration and targeted change. I have proven skills in planning and
implementing appropriate research-based (best practices) curriculum and instructional practices
at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. I have strengths in administering positive
student discipline, student services, CWA practices, technology innovation, personnel relations,
problem solving, and supporting both new and veteran educators through a shared decision-
making process.

EDUCATION:
University of Southern California .......................................................................... Los Angeles, CA
 Ed.D. in Educational Leadership ....................................................................... 2012 - 2015
 Expected Graduation Date ................................................................................... May 2015
 GPA 4.0

University of Redlands ............................................................................................... Redlands, CA
 M.A. in Educational Administration .................................................................. 2004 - 2005
 Graduation - Administrative Credentials .......................................................................2005
 GPA 3.88

California State University - San Bernadino ..................................................... San Bernadino, CA
 Multiple Subject Teaching Credential (English Supplement) .......................................1999
 Credentials .....................................................................................................................1999
 GPA 3.57

California State University - San Bernadino ..................................................... San Bernadino, CA
 B.A. in English Literature .................................................................................. 1993 - 1996
 Graduation - English Literature .....................................................................................1996
 Dean’s List ......................................................................................................... 1993 - 1996
 GPA 3.75

Crafton Hills College .................................................................................................... Yucaipa, CA
 A.A. in Liberal Studies ...................................................................................... 1990 - 1993
 Graduation - Liberal Studies ..........................................................................................1993
 Dean’s List ......................................................................................................... 1990 - 1993
 GPA 3.77

PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 100

PROFESSIONAL WORK HISTORY:

Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District
12797 Third Street
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Phone: (909) 797-0174, ext. 138

Director of Targeted Student Intervention
 Oversee's all district-wide intervention and enrichment programs.
 Develops and implements supports that directly relate to the district's Local Control
Accountability Program (LCAP)
 Areas of major focus include
o increasing high school graduation rate
o district-wide Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS)
o Restorative Justice and alternatives to suspension
o Establishing elementary to middle and middle to high school bridge programs.
Principal, Ridgeview Elementary School May 2011 - September 2014
 Managed all aspects of elementary education for Ridgeview Elementary School
 Implemented an Intervention through Enrichment Program to assist at-risk students
 Coordinated student behavior therapy groups with Southwest Guidance
 Significantly improved literacy through a school wide Response to Intervention program
 Designed, funded, and implemented an afterschool math intervention
 Designed, funded, and implemented a Homework Club primarily for at-risk learners
 Served as an elementary representative on the District SARB panel
 Designed, coordinated, and implemented a targeted intervention for Intermediate (level 3)
English Learners
 Successfully integrated nearly 200 at-risk learners from dosing schools to our campus
 Developed and implemented successful positive behavior intervention supports (PBIS)
 Actively researched and sought alternatives to suspensions to improve student outcomes
 Built a robust, vibrant, and active English Language Advisory Committee
 Served as the district CWA repetitive on an as needed basis Chairperson of District
Administrative Expulsion Panel
 Significantly improved average daily attendance through positive school climate and
incentivization
 Established a robust and active site level Saturday School for attendance recovery
 Trained in Local Control Funding and Local Control Accountability Plan regulations
 Actively participated in county (Riverside) intervention and positive student outcomes
training
Assistant Principal (Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment), YHS/YHS9
 Actively supported the site Principal's vision of improving the graduation rate of all
learners
 Responsible for the design, development, and implementation of the master schedule
 Facilitated development of district ELA (9-12) curriculum and instruction maps
 Responsible for the administration of all district, county, statewide, and Advanced
Placement
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 101

 assessment
 Site Gifted and Talented Education Coordinator
 Developed Collaboration Plan and Professional Learning Community (PLC) to address
drop-out crisis
 Active Parent Teacher Association participant
 Western Association of Schools and Colleges review chairperson
 Site School Attendance and Review Board administrative representative
 Site Alternative Education Liaison
 Primary site discipline administrator
 Maintain a safe and orderly school environment for over 3200 high school students
 Oversee the campus monitor team
 Designed and implemented the site disaster plan
 Administrative liaison for the ASB
 Served as a representative on the district budgetary advisory team
 Sound understanding of Rti, 504s, the IEP process, and manifestations
 Observed and evaluated 30 classified and certificated employees in 2009-10
 Assist the Principal in recruiting and interviewing for new staff
 Working knowledge and experience of professional learning communities and to support
staff and students

Hemet Unified School District
1791 W. Acacia Ave.
Hemet, CA 92545
Phone: (951) 765-5100

Assistant Principal, Diamond Valley Middle School
 Actively supported the site Principal's vision of improving English and Math skills of at-
risk student populations
 Responsible for the planning and implementation of the master schedule
 Site English Language Coordinator
 Assisted in planning and administration of statewide testing
 Refined a comprehensive school-wide positive discipline plan
 Maintain a safe and orderly school environment for over 1600 middle school students
 Oversee the campus supervisor team
 Designed and implemented the Single Plan for Student Achievement
 Responsible for the site categorical budget
 Technology committee chairperson
 Administrative liaison for ASB
 Served as the administrator designee on the School Site Council on 15 occasions
 Sound understanding of Rti, 504's, the IEP process, and manifestations
 Observed and evaluated 23 certificated employees in 2006-07
 Assist the Principal in recruiting and interviewing for new staff
 Presented and served on a number of district expulsion panels
 Working knowledge and experience of PLC's to support staff and students
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 102

Beaumont Unified School District
350 Brookside Ave.
Beaumont, CA 92223
Phone: (951) 845-1631

English Teacher
Department Chair
Teaching Coach
Beaumont High School June 1999 - January 2006
Administrative Designee, Beaumont High School January 2004 - January 2006
 Beginning Teacher Support and Assistance Support Provider
 Experience as Principal Designee at San Andreas Alternative School & Beaumont High
School
 Beginning Teacher Support and /Peer Assistance Review Panel Committee Chairperson
 English Department Head 2003-2006
 Master Teacher who mentored 6 successful student teachers
 Organized, designed, and implemented a standards based curriculum plan for English,
grades 9-12.
 2004 Western Association of Schools and Colleges Leadership Team
 Organized, designed, and implemented the Wrestling program at BHS
 Head Wrestling Coach, BHS, 2003-2006
 Varsity Club Advisor
 Assistant Varsity Football Coach, BHS, 1999-2005
 Beaumont Teachers Association site representative
 Beaumont Teachers Association negotiations committee member
 Graduate, B.U.S.D. Management Training Program
o Gained management experience as administrator designee
o Acquired valuable leadership training
o Successfully completed Strengths-based training program
o Actively participated in management internships at various school sites
o Conducted collaborative interviews for secondary teaching positions
o Mentored and supported new staff members
Elementary Teacher, Wellwood Elementary School
 First-grade teacher
 Site technology representative
 District technology committee member
 Program Quality Review Team Member
 Beaumont Teachers Association site representative
 Assisted in implementing alternative reading programs
 Reading and Math Interventionist (Intercession)
 California Early Language and Literacy trained

MEMBERSHIPS AND ORGANIZATIONS:
 Association of California School Administrators, Chapter President, 2010-2012
PRINCIPAL’S PERSPECTIVE 103

 Association of California School Administrators member, 2005 - Present
 District Association of California School Administrators, 2009·2012
 California League of Elementary Schools member
 California League of Middle Schools member
 California League of High Schools member
 Optimist International Club, Beaumont, CA- member, 2003 Present
 National High School League member
 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development member

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
 2006 ACSA Curriculum & Instruction Academy Certificate
 2010 ACSA Personnel Academy Certificate

AWARDS:
 2010 San Bernardino County Office of Education Model SARB Award

Abstract (if available)

Abstract When selecting a new teacher, principals use many different techniques and measures to ensure that they hire the person best suited for the position. This research explores one factor in the hiring decision that has not been previously looked at or discussed in the literature, either that literature which has been completed to determine the most effective factors for predicting future teacher success or the research that has shown the factors that principals actually use to hire teachers. In California and eight other states, teachers are automatically granted tenure on the first day of their third full year teaching, giving principals less than 18 months to determine whether or not the probationary teacher is a highly effective teacher. In this study, the researchers surveyed 42 Southern California principals and other persons authorized to hire teachers and interview a subset of 6 of those surveyed to determine how much of an influence the current tenure practices in California affect their decisions when interviewing and hiring new teachers, and whether or not they felt that tenure practice could be improved. Researchers discovered through both the surveys and interviews that the current tenure practices had a large impact on hiring decisions. Even in cases when interviewees stated that it was not a large factor, the interview was dominated with answers in which tenure was a major factor. The interviewees agreed that if the teacher probationary period was lengthened to five years, then many of the pressures and issues that tenure brought up in the hiring process would be alleviated. Researchers concluded that current tenure practices are a major element in the process of hiring teachers in California and that it actually results in the loss of potentially great and dynamic teachers because principals were not willing to take the risk on the candidate.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Digital teacher evaluations: principal expectations of usefulness and their impact on teaching

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals

PDF

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play

PDF

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

An examiniation of staff perceptions of a data driven decision making process used in a high performing title one urban elementary school

PDF

Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males

Asset Metadata

Creator Hyde, Joseph D. (author)

Core Title The principal's perspective of current tenure practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/03/2015

Defense Date 11/24/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag evaluation,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,probationary,professional growth,teacher,tenure

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member), Vreeman, Eric (committee member)

Creator Email joedhyde@gmail.com,josephhy@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-537317

Unique identifier UC11297763

Identifier etd-HydeJoseph-3215.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-537317 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HydeJoseph-3215.pdf

Dmrecord 537317

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hyde, Joseph D.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA