1 Teacher Turnover in Dallas ISD, A Sign of Progress or a Symptom

Transcription

Teacher Turnover in Dallas ISD,
A Sign of Progress or a Symptom of Failure?
by Michael A Dryden, LLC
February 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
After various media outlets implied that teacher turnover is acceptable if ineffective teachers
are removed from the teaching profession, the Dallas Morning News editorial board called for
more research to answer whether the turnover rate is a sign of progress or a symptom of failure in
the Dallas ISD. In this report the evidence points towards an unacceptable number of high quality
teachers voluntarily leaving. The work environment created by the Board of Education and
current administration has led to unprecedented voluntary separations from Dallas ISD
employment with the most common exit reason being “employment in another district.” When
examining the Classroom Effectiveness Indices (CEI) it can be shown that the year preceding the
increase in turnover rates 81.1% of highly effective math teachers (CEI >55) returned to teach
math. After the start of extensive teacher turnover, this rate dropped down to 66.5% returning in
2012-13. While this is based on teachers with math CEI scores and not all math teachers, losing
one third of the district’s top math teachers in one year is nothing less than a symptom of failure.
Over the past two years only 56% of teachers across the district remained on the same
campus and 75 campuses retained only half of their teachers or less. Nationally about half the
teachers leave teaching within five years, not two years. Based on the pupil-teacher ratio of the
2010-11 academic year, the district is currently operating with 1,275 less teachers. While there
has been a dramatic drop in the number of teachers, the teacher population bottomed in summer
2013 and is slowly rising due to a massive hiring effort. These new hires are overwhelmingly
younger than in previous years. However, there is no evidence of age discrimination among
teachers involuntarily separated from service.
The impact of churn, or the constant replacement of teachers, has risen exponentially since
the start of the current administration in May 2012. In the 18 months prior to May 2012 the
district hired 853 teachers and 1,153 teachers separated from service. In the 18 months since
May 2012 the district hired 3,469 teachers and 3,263 teachers separated from service. This will
result in the next TEA reported teacher turnover rate at around 20% in Dallas ISD and is due to
current BOT and administration practices, not state budget cuts. This churn seems to accumulate
over the child’s years of education until high school. At high school for every 10% increase in
teacher retention the STAAR accountability achievement rating goes up 9 points on a 0-100 scale.
Three premier high achieving, high teacher retention campuses, the Arts Magnet, Sunset and
Spence, had dramatic drops of more than 30 positive percentage points in a climate survey item
related to the direction their campus was headed. One interesting commonality is that each
campus has a new principal with no Dallas ISD experience.
The current personnel database has a number of discrepancies that need to be resolved. It is
suspected that substitute teachers and certain central staff have been reclassified as teachers.
The BOT should ask for the number of substitute teachers in 2011 versus 2013.
While the evidence so far indicates teacher turnover is a symptom of failure, the qualifications
and assignment of entering versus exiting teachers need to be better understood. If students
have new teachers with fewer qualifications than the exiting teachers, especially bilingual, math
and science teachers, then the disruptive forces behind teacher turnover have been a total failure.
Consistently ineffective teachers must be replaced but not at the expense of highly qualified
veteran teachers.
1
Background:
In early December Matthew Haag at the Dallas Morning News (DMN) wrote an article on teacher
turnover in Dallas ISD claiming that 20 percent of the teachers left the district the previous year. Almost
immediately Eric Celeste at the Dallas Observer countered in his paper’s Front Burner Blog that private
schools and Philadelphia have the same or higher turnover rates and implied, as did his colleague Jim
Schutze, that turnover is a good thing if “bad” teachers are leaving. The editorial board of the DMN
responded to Haag’s article saying the numbers may be out of context and indicated that further
research was needed. The DMN Editorial Board showed how the rates were similar in other Texas urban
districts and reiterated that a high turnover rate may not be bad if underperforming teachers were the
ones being released. The DNM Board then went further to temper their conclusions by asking for further
research.
“But the question is who is leaving and why. It’s hard to know without more analysis of
the data. And until we know the answers, it’s impossible to tell whether the turnover rate
is a sign of progress or a symptom of failure.” (Dallas Morning News, 12 December, 2013)
There is a persistent belief that the root cause of low student performance is ineffective teaching,
ignoring other factors like poverty. No one disagrees with the idea that replacing ineffective teachers
with effective teachers is a solution. The problem is that many low performing schools in Dallas have had
a complete reconstitution of faculty with no appreciable positive impact on achievement. The
identification of teacher effectiveness has been elusive.
From the students’ perspective, campus teacher retention rates, not a district turnover rate, as well as
the retention of high quality teachers is what is important. If the perspective is that bad teachers hurt
the education of students then a district turnover rate is incomplete and a little misleading. School
districts, including Dallas ISD, are famous for passing ineffective teachers through the system instead of
getting rid of them. Those transfers would not show up in any district turnover rate.
“Teacher Churn”:
The practice of churning within businesses seems to have infiltrated education. In business, turnover is
the number of times an asset is replaced during a financial period and churn is the planned, and
sometimes unethical, generation of numerous trades solely to increase commissions, profits or savings at
the expense of the customers. Similarly, teacher turnover is the number of times a teaching position is
eliminated or replaced during academic cycles. Teacher churn is the planned generation of numerous
dismissals and hiring solely to increase financial savings, often at the expense of the real customer, the
student. If the deliverable is to make or save money then churn makes sense. Churn keeps the teacher
salary costs low. Churn undermines pension systems. Churn alleviates the need for extensive
professional development. Churn allows underqualified personnel to teach and exit before their impact
is known. Churn removes due process for beginning teachers, both effective and ineffective.
Paraphrasing the fictional character Gordon Gekko in the movie Wall Street, “Churn, for lack of a better
word, is good. Churn works.”
2
If the deliverable is student learning then churn, or the constant replacement of teachers, could be
detrimental. The goal in education should be to have a stable set of highly qualified teachers in front of
all students, who have a history with the student, and the student’s siblings and family. The district
needs high quality teachers who address more than the cognitive aspect of a child but develop the
creative, emotional, social, and psychological well-being of the child. All it takes is one caring adult to
make a difference in the life of a child. In most cases that adult is a parent or guardian but often it is a
teacher or a coach. Constant campus staff turnover could deny a child the opportunity for a caring adult.
In Dallas, teachers are dealing with what looks like the generation of teacher churn to save money. In the
past few years the district has offered incentive buyouts, eliminated the duty period, froze salaries for
years, eliminated or reduced incentives in difficult to fill subjects, eliminated signing bonuses, enforced
instructional standardization procedures, closed schools, terminated a large number of principals, closed
then tried to repurpose schools, and extended the school working day. Other disruptive behaviors
include school officials publicly denigrating teachers with quotes about experience not being associated
with effectiveness or teaching is an eight hour job, as if teachers never take work home. If sufficient
veteran teachers voluntarily leave and are replaced with younger teachers, the school system avoids
termination lawsuits, age discrimination lawsuits, pay for experience, pay for degrees, and reduces
professional development costs.
By creating an unpleasant and unprofessional work environment teachers will naturally leave Dallas ISD.
The question is not whether teacher turnover is a good thing if it removes bad teachers, but whether the
constant onslaught on teachers removes good teachers and negatively impacts student learning. The
other question is whether teacher disruption is spreading to more and more campuses. It might be a sign
of systemic failure if an induced negative work environment impacts student learning and spreads
beyond historically distressed schools.
Purpose of the Report:
The purpose of this report is to examine the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
teacher enrollments to see if the pupil-teacher ratio changes,
age distribution to see if there is a recent shift towards younger teachers in recent years,
teacher retention by campus to see if increased teacher turnover is becoming systemic,
the expected District turnover rate to see if it resets after the state budget crisis,
hiring and separation patterns to see if churn is accelerating and if there is age discrimination,
the employee exit reasons behind the separation patterns to see the extent teachers are voluntarily or
involuntarily leaving the district,
the relationship between teacher retention and student achievement,
campus climate results at high retention, high performing campuses to see if these premier campuses are
undergoing any recent work environment stress,
the exit status of high quality, effective teachers as measured by CEIs to see if these teachers are more
likely to remain in Dallas ISD when teacher turnover is higher.
3
Media Reported Teacher Turnover Rates.
In a data review of the Dallas media articles on teacher turnover, Matthew Haag started by presenting
the turnover numbers as replicated below.
Table 1
Dallas ISD Teacher Turnover
2010-11
10,751
1,391
12.9%
Total Teachers
Number who left
Departure Rate
2011-12
10,009
1,798
17.8%
2012-13
9,862
2,018
20.5%
Source: Dallas ISD
Notice the drop in total teachers in 2011-12 and a further drop in 2012-13. The context of these drops
can be explained with numerous practices by the district and the state. Obviously, the state budget crisis
in the summer of 2011 was a huge contributing factor. In 2010-11 almost 400 teachers took advantage
of an incentive buyout and starting in 2011-12 the planning period of secondary teachers was eliminated.
This caused a drastic reduction in the need to replace teachers in 2011-12.
The editorial board of DMN responded to Haag’s article citing various district average turnover rates from
the Texas Education Agency’s AEIS reports and showed high turnover is not terribly out of alignment with
other districts, implying Dallas ISD’s rates are basically normal. The problem with this logic is that it
ignores two very important facts, the state dramatically cut education spending over the summer of 2011
and the teacher turnover rates lag by one year. Haag realized this in a subsequent article.
The definition of the district turnover rates is the percent of teachers in a fall (late October) PEIMS
snapshot who are teachers in the PEIMS snapshot one year later. The latest AEIS/TAPR report came out
in December 2013. It represents the number of teachers in the fall 2011 PEIMS snapshot who returned in
the fall 2012 snapshot.
Table 2
Turnover Rates Reported by TEA.
AEIS/TAPR Report
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Estimated 2013-14
Turnover Base Year
Fall 2009 to Fall 2010
Fall 2010 toFall 2011
Fall 2011 to Fall 2012
Fall 2012 to Fall 2013?
Dallas
8.5
12.2
17.8
20.5?
Houston
12.4
17.2
18.7
Irving
12.5
12.9
20.5
Desoto
12.9
10.4
18.8
Source: TEA. Note: underlined values reported by DMN.
See Haag’s article for other rates. http://educationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/12/how-dallas-isds-teacher-turnoverrates-compare-to-other-districts.html/
While the state cut education funding in the summer of 2011, the budgetary impact was not felt until the
beginning of the 2012-13 school year at many districts. As mentioned above, some districts like Dallas
were proactive to the pending cuts as was Houston ISD. Dr. Terry Grier started at HISD in the fall of 2009.
4
In May of 2011, HISD voted to close schools and change teacher evaluations (sound familiar?). In August
2011, HISD noticed the pending shortfall for 2012-13 and adjusted accordingly.
The latest AEIS/TAPR teacher turnover rate seems to be mostly a function of state budget cuts and
selected district early responses. That is why all districts have higher teacher turnover rates in the 201213 AEIS/TAPR report. It is not a function of the practices of the current Dallas ISD administration. The
red flag comes from the reported 20.5% turnover rate reported by Dallas ISD for the 2012-13 school year.
All districts greatly reduced their base of teachers in 2011-12 but after the initial loss of teachers the
turnover rate should drop back into the 10-13% range, not get higher. Haag’s headline, “A fifth of Dallas
ISD teachers departed in Miles’ first year,” is truly shocking. It says the one-time adjustment for budget
cuts is now the norm. TEA will report the official fall 2012 to fall 2013 teacher turnover rate for all
districts December 2014.
The reports by the Dallas Morning News editorial board and the Dallas Observer on teacher turnover
rates took an anomaly, state budget cuts, and interpreted the data as normal. In an attempt to better
understand the nature of teacher turnover in Dallas ISD a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was
made to get snapshots of personnel data from the spring of 2011, 2012, 2013 and late fall 2013. To
standardize the analysis, teachers were categorized as active on November 1 in 2010, 2011, 2012, and
2013, respectively. These time snapshots are very close to the end of October PEIMS snapshot. What
follows is an analysis of that data from a teacher turnover perspective.
Results:
Part I: Teacher enrollments:
Table 1 shows that the campus based teacher enrollments dropped from 10,659 in November 2010 to
9,675 in November 2013.
Table 3
Number of total teachers in DISD
Active
Nov 1 2010
Active
Nov 1 2011
Active
Nov 1 2012
10,659
9,965
9,535
154,662*
154,876*
156,551*
9,675
158,877
2/2014
14.51
15.54
16.42
16.42
297
427
532
321
10956
10392
10067
9996
10,665.2
10,276.7
9,920.82
campus based teachers
Pupils (*from MyData)
From DISD
Pupil Teacher Ratio
non-campus based teachers
total teachers
FTE From
AEIS/TAPR
Active
Nov 1 2013
These numbers are based on personnel classified as teachers and assigned to campuses. There were
personnel assigned as teachers who were in organizations other than a campus. Also, there are
personnel not classified as teachers, like administrators, who may teach a few classes. Substitutes
5
reclassified as teachers could possibly be occurring as there were a substantial number of personnel on
the database with Dallas ISD entry dates in earlier years just becoming teachers. The numbers from the
database are counts of personnel, not FTE counts as reported by the state, and will be higher than FTE
numbers. Enrollments by campus can be found in Appendix Table A-1. Townview campuses were
reported in the database but care must be taken as it seems in some years teachers were assigned to the
main campus (041) and in other years to the individual campuses.
The notion that the reform efforts of the current administration has resulted in fewer teachers is true but
it has stabilized as shown in Table 1. There seems to be an influx of teachers hired from the summer of
2013 up to November 1, 2013 and the teacher population bottomed out last year. Given the same pupil
teacher ratio as 2010-11, the district would need 10,950 classroom-based teachers in November 2013.
While the pupil teacher ratio has stabilized, there is still a shortage of 1,275 teachers if the earlier pupil
teacher ratios are applied.
Part II: Age Distribution.
When examining the age distributions of teachers in Dallas ISD, there is a slight drift towards younger
teachers in general. This small drift may be a consequence of current practices, lack of alternative job
opportunities for recent graduates, or even systemic issues like the state budget cuts. To explore the
data on age, pairs of age distributions are examined.
Figure 1. Teacher Age Distribution November 2010 and November 2013.
6
Figure 1 suggests that as a result of the state budget shortfall, teachers under 40 were impacted the
most, as were teachers above the age of 50. The reader should note the bimodal distribution for both
years and the peaks of younger teachers in November 2013 as compared to November 2010.
Figure 2. Teacher Age Distribution November 2012 and November 2013.
Figure 2 shows large increases in the number of teachers under 28 years old from November 2012 and
November 2013. The trend moreover seems to move towards younger teachers since the summer of
2013.
Looking at these distributional graphs is difficult at the lower age groups. A more informative but just as
difficult graph to read is the cumulative frequency graph. Figure 3 shows that information. To read this
graph, examine the distributions at age 30 years old, where approximately 2,000 teachers were at age 30
or less in November 2013. This compares to 1,500 teacher in November 2011 who were at age 30 or less.
This represents a 33% increase in teachers under the age of 30 in just two years. However, compared to
the rest of the distribution, these values are masked by the volume of all teachers. The actual values for
these age distributions can be found in Appendix Table A-2. It should be noted that there were twice as
many teachers age 24 or younger in 2013 than 2011.
7
Figure 3. Cumulative Teacher Age Distributions November 2010 to November 2013.
Part III. Retention
As a result of financial incentives, removing the teacher’s planning period and state budget cuts in
summer 2011, the number of teachers in November 2011 were significantly lower. Therefore, to test the
retention by campus, the base year was established as of November 2011. With this base it is possible to
examine the retention after one and two years. More importantly the retention over the summer of
2013, the first full year of the current administration’s reform practices without the influence of
additional state budget cuts, can be more fully examined.
Table 4
Number and percent of retained teachers from November 2011
Base
November
2011
9751
Number
Retained
Nov
2012
8114
Number
Retained
Nov
2013
5468
%
Retained
Nov
2012
83%
%
Retained
Nov
2013
56%
The base of 9,751 teachers is different from the actual number of teachers reported earlier due to school
closings. These are campus-based retentions and not district based- retentions. In other words, of the
9,751 teachers at campuses in 2010-11 that still existed in 2013-14, 83% remained on their campus in
2012-13 and 56% were on their campus this fall. This is the average but there was great variation among
campuses, ranging from 57% to 100% retention after one year and 15% to 100% after two years. Overall,
75 of the 221 campuses lost half or more of their 2011-12 teachers in two years. Two hundred of those
schools lost at least 25% of their 2011-12 teachers in two years.
8
Given research shows that about half of the teachers leave the profession in about five years, a two year
retention rate of 56% should be considered undesirably low. The one year retention rate of 83% (17%
turnover) for the 2011-12 base year is high but expected. The retention rates vary tremendously by
campus suggesting it is both a system phenomenon and a local campus/principal phenomenon. Further
research is needed to understand why the retention rates are so low at certain campuses. The retention
rates by campus are in Appendix Table A-3.
Part IV. Expected Turnover Rate.
From November 1, 2012 to November 1, 2013 the 9,384 campus based teachers reduced to 7515 for an
estimated campus based turnover rate of 19.4%. This compares favorably with the 20.5% teacher
turnover rate Matthew Haag calculated. At the campus level the estimated turnover rates ranged from
low values, mainly at magnets, academies and premier campuses with a history of stability, up to 43% at
distressed campuses having at least 20 teachers. Most of these high turnover campuses are predicted to
be elementary schools when the state report is published this December. The estimated 2012-13 campus
based turnover rates are in Append Table A-4.
Part V: Hiring and Employment Separation Trends.
To examine hiring and employment separation trends, the hiring year was defined as June to May and an
employment separation year as September to August. The similar age distributions yet low retention
rates just reported suggest the constant replacing of teachers. A chart of hiring and separation below
shows how churn has accelerated dramatically over the past four years. The nature of this extreme
churn needs to be explored further. Figure 4 below is perhaps the most important illustration in this
document. It clearly shows the acceleration of churn since the current administration took over. Data
for figure 4 can be found in Table A-5
9
Figure 4. Monthly hiring and separation of teachers in Dallas ISD from January 2009 to November 2013.
Hiring patterns in Figure 5 show a clear pattern towards employing younger teachers in recent years.
This would not be an undesirable situation if the younger teachers came with better qualifications than
the exiting teachers. However, that information cannot be answered by the data available for this report
and no assumptions should be made of the qualifications of the “entering” or “exiting” teachers.
Figure 5. Four year age distribution of new teacher hires in Dallas ISD
10
Figure 6 shows that the employment separation data by age reflects the bimodal distribution of the
teacher age distribution. One could think of the first mode (bump) as a resignation mode and the second
mode as a retirement mode. Under the current administration there has been a dramatic increase in
employment separations in the 24 to 50 age range while the “retirement” mode is more comparable to
previous years.
Figure 6. Separation distribution of Dallas ISD teachers by age for 2010-11 to November 2013.
Table 6 above represents both voluntary and involuntary separations. Table 7 below extracts the
involuntary separations and puts the graph on the same scale as Figure 6 so the reader can see that
involuntary separations are a minor part of the total separations.
Figure 7. Four year involuntary separation (termination) distribution of Dallas ISD teachers by age.
Another interesting observation of Figure 7 is that it is basically flat across the age spectrum. This
indicates that involuntary separations, or terminations, are NOT a function of teacher age. There does
not seem to be systemic evidence supporting the notion that the district is consciously targeting teacher
termination by age. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility of age discrimination on an
individual, case by case, basis.
11
Figures 5 through 7 illustrate teachers across all ages are voluntarily leaving Dallas ISD. The issue
presently seems to be the nature of the work environment the district or campuses have created to
invoke or encourage teachers to leave. Both the number of teachers leaving the system and the number
of teachers hired have accelerated dramatically.
Part VI. Reasons for Employment Separation
There are many reasons for voluntary and involuntary separations and so it is important to know why
teachers are leaving. Table 5 below lists some of the reasons teachers have separated from employment
in rank order of the most prevalent motives. The most common reason teachers leave Dallas ISD is
employment in other districts, followed by moving from the Metroplex. This is followed by regular
retirement and then personal reasons. Of great interest is the pattern of separations prior to and after
the current administration took over the decision-making in Dallas. These are highlighted in yellow in
Table 5. Since the current administration came to power there have been dramatic increases in the
number of teachers who voluntarily left Dallas to take positions in other districts, move from the
Metroplex, take employment outside education, or take a promotion outside the school district. These
reasons are indicative of teachers with competencies exiting the system since other entities are willing to
hire them. The complete list of reasons on a yearly basis can be found in Appendix Table A-6.
A pattern emerging is that there is definitely an acceleration of “churn” in the Dallas ISD where many
teachers are leaving and new teachers are being hired at ever increasing rates. To cope with the
increased exodus of teachers the district had to invoke a state law that required teachers to give their
2013-14 employment intentions by mid-July 2013.
Table 5
Reasons for Dallas ISD Teacher Employment Separation by Year
Year
2009-10
2010-11
Sept 2011
April 2012
Previous DISD Administrations
EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER DISTRICT
MOVING FROM METROPLEX
REGULAR RETIREMENT
PERSONAL
REGULAR SEPARATION
10/11 CONTRACT INCENTIVE-RETIRE
10/11 CONTRACT INCENTIVE-RESIGN
EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE TEACHING
12/13 EARLY NOTIFICATION REGULAR RETIREMENT
PERSONAL ILLNESS
NONRENEWAL – RESIGNED
12/13 EARLY NOTIFICATION REGULAR SEPARATION
NONRENEWAL – TERMINATED
TO BE WITH OWN CHILDREN
105
89
128
71
49
0
0
19
0
19
0
0
0
23
69
106
72
60
42
195
179
21
0
24
0
0
0
10
12
11
26
29
16
0
0
6
0
14
4
0
0
5
May 2012
Aug 2012
2012-13
Sept.2013Nov.2013
Current DISD Administration
268
166
174
104
81
0
0
30
0
8
125
0
102
16
402
230
122
114
163
0
0
87
144
57
4
128
17
28
3
13
4
17
21
0
0
11
0
19
0
0
0
0
…continued
12
Table 5 …continued
Reasons for Dallas ISD Teacher Employment Separation by Year
Year
2009-10
2010-11
Sept 2011
April 2012
May 2012
Aug 2012
Previous DISD Administrations
RETURNING TO SCHOOL
FAMILY ILLNESS
NON RENEWAL
RESIGNED BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT
PROMOTION OUTSIDE SCHOOL DIST
RESIGNED IN LIEU OF NON-RENEWAL
CERTIFICATION NOT COMPLETED
RESIGNED IN LIEU OF DUE PROCESS
DECEASED
DUE PROCESS DISMISSAL
NONRENEWAL - EXCESS CHAPTER 21
NONRENEWAL – RETIREMENT
DISSATISFIED WITH LOCATION
AT-WILL
UNHAPPY WITH JOB SITUATION
SEPARATION FOR CAUSE
ALT CERT - NOT RECOMMENDED
EXCESS CHAPTER 21 RESIGNATION
SPOUSE TRANSFERRED
HARDSHIP
9
8
0
3
13
0
15
14
10
9
0
0
2
0
1
2
12
0
8
1
13
12
23
7
9
9
20
13
19
11
0
0
10
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
4
6
0
5
2
0
6
14
7
7
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
12
3
2
2012-13
Sept.2013Nov.2013
Current DISD Administration
35
10
15
3
17
1
5
8
1
1
32
30
6
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
20
36
42
47
24
51
12
7
7
7
2
0
9
18
16
13
3
5
2
11
0
8
0
8
2
0
1
0
4
3
1
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
Part VII. Impact of Teacher Retention on Student Achievement
The lack of teacher retention and its impact on student achievement could be undesirable. To test that
hypothesis, the percent of teachers on a campus retained continuously from November 2010 to
November 2013, or a three year retention rate, was calculated and plotted again the new accountability
achievement scores. Figures 8 through 10 show the results. At each campus configuration there is a
positive relationship between retaining teachers and student achievement. At the high school the
relationship is particularly strong with a correlation of teacher retention to student achievement of 0.67,
which is high for a policy variable impacting student achievement. Almost half of the variability in
student achievement can be explained by teacher retention! Caution should be advised as correlation is
not causation and school selectivity seems to play a large role. Teachers tend to remain at magnets,
academies, and early colleges where the selective students tend to have higher achievement levels. The
teacher retention and student achievement data at the campus level can be found in Appendix A-7.
13
Figure 8. High school campus STAAR achievement levels by three year teacher retention rate
Figure 9. Middle school campus STAAR achievement levels by three year teacher retention rate
Figure 10. Elementary school campus STAAR achievement levels by three year teacher retention rate
14
Part VIII. Climate of High Retention, High Achieving Schools
The upper right quadrants of Figure 8 through Figure 10 represent high retention and high performing
campuses. An examination of Table 6 shows that many of these schools have selective populations as
academies, magnets or early colleges and a history of high achievement. The other campuses, especially
among the elementary schools, have a long tradition in Dallas ISD of being places where it just comes
together. People familiar with Dallas ISD quickly recognize these campuses as premier campuses.
When asked if their campus going in the right direct, three of the campuses listed dropped their positive
ratings by more than 30 percentage points. Those campuses are Sunset, Booker T. Washington Arts
Magnet, and Spence. The reasons behind these precipitous drops are beyond the data collected for this
report and most likely local to each campus. However, it should be noted that all three principals at
these schools had no prior Dallas ISD experience. The District or Divisions should examine what is
happening at each campus as a real and serious consequence might be more voluntary teacher
separations from these premier campuses.
When asked if the district was headed in the right direction, 13 out of the 20 campuses had positive
percentages lower than the district average of 45.3%. For so many premier campuses to positively rate
the direction their own campus but not endorse the direction of the district needs further investigation.
These results point to systemic issues and demand for rigor might be an issue.
Table 6
Selected Campus Climate results for
High Teacher Retention High Achieving schools
Overall, my campus is heading in
the right direction
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Overall, the district is heading in
the right direction
Fall
2013
campus
district
Percent Positive Responses
High Schools
Trinidad Garza Early College
96.4
96.7
100.0
59.3
45.3
Middle College (Lassiter)
100.0
93.3
100.0
54.5
45.3
TAG
100.0
100.0
91.3
34.8
45.3
SEM
55.2
72.7
88.9
41.7
45.3
Skyline
62.5
65.9
58.1
28.8
45.3
W.T. White
53.3
55.6
46.0
32.4
45.3
Sunset
74.3
57.7
26.2
24.5
45.3
Booker T. Washington
95.6
83.6
50.0
22.5
45.3
15
Table 6 …continued
Selected Campus Climate results for High Teacher Retention High Achieving schools
Overall, my campus is heading in
the right direction
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Overall, the district is heading in
the right direction
Fall
2013
campus
district
Percent Positive Responses
Middle Schools
Greiner Middle
80.7
84.0
88.5
36.8
45.3
DESA
93.5
76.5
91.2
70.6
45.3
Stockard
79.1
78.8
69.2
48.1
45.3
Spence
57.8
52.7
11.7
11.7
45.3
Atwell
63.8
45.2
38.7
35.5
45.3
Longfellow
64.1
50.0
69.4
55.6
45.3
Elementary schools
Lanier Elem.
75.5
51.1
61.0
24.4
45.3
Lakewood Elem.
53.1
45.5
67.9
17.0
45.3
Rice Elem.
85.2
84.3
100.0
71.4
45.3
100.0
88.6
95.8
33.3
45.3
Rosemont Elem.
88.5
70.9
86.5
47.2
45.3
Thornton Elem.
74.2
74.1
77.3
43.2
45.3
Travis Elem.
Part IX. Returning status of highly qualified teachers (as measured by high CEI scores)
In an Op Ed piece on 10 September, 2013 to the DMN, Board of Education member Mike Morath stated…
“Has there been an exodus of good teachers? The district’s research-based measure of
teacher effectiveness has been peer-reviewed, with data going back more than two
decades. These figures show the average performance of returning teachers this year is
better than the average of those who departed in the last year. It truly saddens me to see
any good teacher leave our district, but the data is clear: The district is effectively retaining
high-quality teachers.”
The average CEI of those teachers who departed is probably less than those teachers who returned,
especially if any termination proceedings considered the CEI. However, the average by departed versus
returning teachers is not the correct metric. The average value of a math CEI is 50.0 with a standard
deviation of 10.0, by definition. Assuming the CEI is accurately measuring effectiveness then perhaps a
better question from the students’ perspective is what percent of above average teachers with a CEI
greater than 55 return to the system? Since the CEI data for 2012-13 school year was not calculated until
months after the Op Ed piece, Morath must be referring to the 2011-12 CEI scores. Fortunately, the
District has released that CEI information in a FOIA request. In 2009-10, there were 631 out of 778 math
teachers with a CEI score higher than 55 who also had a CEI in mathematics the following year, implying
16
81.1% of the above average math teachers returned to teach mathematics. In 2010-11, two years later
and with an increase in teacher turnover, there were 491 out of 738 math teachers with a CEI score
higher than 55 who returned to earn a mathematics CEI score the following year, implying 66.5% of the
above average math teachers returned to teach mathematics. Morath’s claim that “The district is
effectively retaining high-quality teachers” is not moving in the right direction by Dallas ISD’s own
interpretation of effectiveness and teacher turnover may be one of the reasons. Similar to the data
presented earlier, there is an implication that teacher turnover is causing both effective and ineffective
teachers to leave Dallas ISD.
The assumption that CEI scores are a good system aggregate measure needs to be analyzed in much
greater depth to see if they are actually an accurate and stable measure of teacher effectiveness. CEI
distributions for the two years discussed above can be found in Appendix Table A-8.
Summary.
1. Matthew Haag’s estimate of a reported teacher turnover rate this December of around 20% has
been independently collaborated. The turnover rate for many urban districts is currently around
18-22% due mainly to the impact of the state budget cuts in education or the early responses to
that shortfall. It is expected to reset to a much lower number this December at surrounding
districts but not Dallas ISD.
2. There has been a significant reduction of the number of teachers in the district since the budget
crisis in the summer of 2011 but this number seems to have bottomed out last year. Assuming
the same pupil teacher ratio in 2010 as 2013 the district has 1,275 less teachers in 2013 putting
additional stress on the remaining teachers.
3. Churn, or the constant separation and hiring of teachers, has accelerated. While Board approved
initiatives accounted for the release of teachers two or three years ago, much of the recent
acceleration of teacher turnover has been caused by teachers responding to current practices
and voluntarily leaving the district. The average two year campus retention rate across all
campuses is only 56% with a range between 15% and 100% teacher retention among the
campuses.
4. There has been a noticeable shift over the summer of 2013 towards younger teachers in the age
distribution of new hire teachers. In comparing the District-wide November 2010 to the
November 2013 distributions by age, teachers in the 25-40 and 50 to 65 age brackets were the
most likely to leave DISD.
5. The most common reason teachers voluntarily left Dallas ISD was to be employed by another
district. That exodus seems to have little relationship to age as it mirrors the age distribution of
all the teachers in the district. Of those who were terminated or involuntarily removed from
Dallas ISD service there is no credible evidence of age discrimination. Many teachers had options
and exercised those options.
6. The qualifications and course placement of the new hires is unknown. Besides getting rid of
teachers other districts seem to value, the impact of churn seems to accumulate over the child’s
years of education until high school, where the correlation of teacher retention to achievement
becomes large (0.67). At high school for every 10% increase in teacher retention the STAAR
17
accountability achievement rating goes up 9 points on a 0-100 scale.
Those are strong
correlations and so further well designed studies are needed to attribute causation.
7. The campuses with high retention and high achievement represent known premier campuses in
the district and generally had positive climate ratings. However, the Arts Magnet, Sunset and
Spence had dramatic drops in climate ratings that need to be investigated to prevent further
teacher exodus. The fact that these campuses have new principals with no Dallas ISD experience
may be a factor. Most of these premier campuses do not highly rate the direction the district is
heading.
8. Assuming the CEIs are an accurate measure of teacher effectiveness, prior to the rise in teacher
turnover that started in 2009-10 the District had 81.1% of its effective math teachers (CEI >55)
return and two years later in 2011-12 this rate dropped to 66.5% of the effective teachers
returning. Also, in 2011-12 ineffective teachers (<= CEI of 45) are just as likely to stay as they are
to leave Dallas ISD, 411 teachers stay versus 389 teachers leave)
Discussion
“But the question is who is leaving and why. It’s hard to know without more analysis of
the data. And until we know the answers, it’s impossible to tell whether the turnover rate
is a sign of progress or a symptom of failure.”
(Dallas Morning News Editorial Board, 12 December 2013)
This report started with media accounts on teacher turnover. Most of the media articles implied teacher
turnover is acceptable if the ineffective teachers are removed from the teaching profession. So far the
evidence points more to effective teachers leaving Dallas ISD. Assuming the district can truly identify
ineffective teachers; there is actually minimal evidence of large scale terminations due to ineffectiveness.
Instead, the work environment created by the Board of Education and current administration has led to
massive voluntary separations from Dallas ISD employment. Unfortunately, there is confirming evidence
that highly qualified teachers are also exiting in increasing numbers. With the most common reason
being “employment in another district.” it is difficult to think that churn is improving the workforce in the
Dallas ISD. Even when examining the CEI data it can be shown that above average teachers are less likely
to stay in Dallas ISD since the turnover rate has increased.
There is no credible evidence that the replacement of teachers at low performing campuses works.
There are no examples of massive turnover of staff at low performing schools in Dallas resulting in
subsequent improvement in achievement during the Moses, Hinojosa, or Miles era. Also, for the first
time the district may be witnessing teacher turnover at some of the district’s premier campuses if the
climate survey is any indication.
While the evidence so far indicates no positive impact of teacher turnover, there are two key missing
pieces of information in this report that need to be analyzed. First, the qualifications of entering and
exiting teachers need to be understood. While it is doubtful that last minute hires will have better
qualifications than voluntarily exiting teachers, it is best to wait for the analysis. The second unknown is
whether students learn more as a result of teacher turnover, not whether replacement teachers are
more or less effective.
18
Table A-1
Teacher enrollment by campus
November 2010 to November 2013.
SLN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
Organization Name
BRYAN ADAMS HIGH SCHOOL
ADAMSON HIGH SCHOOL
A MACEO SMITH HIGH SCHOOL
MULTIPLE CAREER CENTER
MOLINA HIGH SCHOOL
HILLCREST HIGH SCHOOL
THOMAS JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL
J F KIMBALL HIGH SCHOOL
LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL
LACEY ALTERNATIVE
PINKSTON HIGH SCHOOL
ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL
SAMUELL HIGH SCHOOL
SEAGOVILLE HIGH SCHOOL
SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL
H GRADY SPRUCE HIGH SCHOOL
SUNSET HIGH SCHOOL
W T WHITE HIGH SCHOOL
WOODROW WILSON HIGH SCHOOL
D W CARTER HIGH SCHOOL
NORTH DALLAS HIGH SCHOOL
SKYLINE HIGH SCHOOL
SCHOOL OF SCIENCE/ENGINEERING
OTTO M FRIDIA HIGH SCHOOL
EMMETT CONRAD HIGH SCHOOL
SCHOOL COMMUNITY GUIDANCE CENTER
MAYA ANGELOU HIGH SCHOOL
JAMES MADISON HIGH SCHOOL
BUSINESS MAGNET
BOOKER T WASHINGTON SPVA MAGNET
RANGEL ALL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
TOWNVIEW-HEALTH PROFESSIONS MAGNET
1
Active
Active
Active
Active
Nov 1,
Nov 1,
Nov 1,
Nov 1,
2010
2011
2012
2013
121
107
106
109
84
73
78
82
66
15
20
28
6
8
9
9
117
109
116
120
85
73
65
75
96
84
84
91
90
77
80
79
76
49
46
44
36
27
27
24
80
69
67
69
55
50
54
46
132
113
101
107
82
64
66
73
85
82
86
76
75
80
87
85
145
126
119
117
135
132
133
131
93
85
86
90
90
67
64
59
104
90
90
93
313
267
262
275
19
24
21
25
16
110
89
80
79
36
28
24
27
13
6
7
7
57
37
38
35
15
31
31
30
60
57
57
59
38
28
29
29
20
35
33
35
Table A-1
Teacher enrollment by campus November 2010 to November 2013.
SLN
37
38
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
62
63
65
68
69
71
72
73
74
76
77
79
83
Organization Name
ROSIE MC SORRELL SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
AND SOCIAL SRVCS
LAW & PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION MAGNET
TAG MAGNET
YVONNE EWELL TOWNVIEW MAGNET
W H ATWELL MIDDLE SCHOOL
T W BROWNE MIDDLE SCHOOL
E H CARY MIDDLE SCHOOL
E B COMSTOCK MIDDLE SCHOOL
FRED FLORENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
GASTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
GREINER MIDDLE SCHOOL
HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL
HOLMES MIDDLE SCHOOL
HOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL
LONG MIDDLE SCHOOL
MARSH MIDDLE SCHOOL
RUSK MIDDLE SCHOOL
ED WALKER MIDDLE SCHOOL
SPENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL
STOCKARD MIDDLE SCHOOL
STOREY MIDDLE SCHOOL
MAYNARD JACKSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
BILLY E DADE MIDDLE SCHOOL
HULCY MIDDLE SCHOOL
PEARL C ANDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
QUINTANILLA MIDDLE SCHOOL
SEAGOVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
DALLAS ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ACADEM
ZUMWALT MIDDLE SCHOOL
LONGFELLOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
EDISON LEARNING CENTER
H W LANG MIDDLE SCHOOL
HECTOR GARCIA MIDDLE SCHOOL
FRANCISCO MEDRANO MIDDLE SCHOOL
SAM TASBY MIDDLE SCHOOL
2
Active
Nov 1,
2010
9
10
15
88
62
54
35
65
75
80
79
117
67
79
100
79
78
54
48
83
59
58
27
35
51
43
57
71
16
38
31
71
92
67
52
71
Active
Nov 1,
2011
Active
Nov 1,
2012
Active
Nov 1,
2013
17
26
16
18
27
17
17
27
17
54
46
35
69
61
62
71
108
58
68
90
68
67
48
46
77
53
42
68
54
37
52
57
61
75
100
54
64
58
75
68
44
48
73
76
45
61
65
39
50
55
57
69
94
58
60
58
75
68
42
46
70
76
43
26
36
30
49
62
14
33
26
54
81
59
49
56
25
56
29
64
63
22
35
26
49
63
50
49
49
73
66
25
32
21
49
69
50
47
54
Table A-1
SLN
85
88
90
100
101
103
104
105
106
108
109
110
111
112
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
134
135
136
137
139
Organization Name
KATHLYN JOY GILLIAM COLLEGIATE ACADEMY
TRINIDAD GARZA EARLY COLLEGE
MIDDLE COLLEGE
ZAN WESLEY HOLMES JR MIDDLE SCHOOL
J Q ADAMS ELEMENTARY
GABE ALLEN (INTERNAL CHARTER) ELEM
WILLIAM ANDERSON ELEMENTARY
ARCADIA PARK ELEMENTARY
ARLINGTON PARK ELEMENTARY
BAYLES ELEMENTARY
BLAIR ELEMENTARY
BLANTON ELEMENTARY
BONHAM ELEMENTARY
BOWIE ELEMENTARY
BRYAN ELEMENTARY
HARRELL BUDD ELEMENTARY
BURNET ELEMENTARY
BURLESON ELEMENTARY
BUSHMAN ELEMENTARY
CABELL ELEMENTARY
CAILLET ELEMENTARY
CARPENTER ELEMENTARY
CARR ELEMENTARY
CARVER ELEMENTARY
CASA VIEW ELEMENTARY
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY
CITY PARK ELEMENTARY
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR LEARNING CEN
CONNER ELEMENTARY
COWART ELEMENTARY
ZARAGOSA ELEMENTARY
JORDAN ELEMENTARY
GEORGE BANNERMAN DEALEY MONTESSORI
DEGOLYER ELEMENTARY
DONALD ELEMENTARY
DORSEY ELEMENTARY
DUNBAR ELEMENTARY
3
Active
Nov 1,
2010
Active
Nov 1,
2011
Active
Nov 1,
2012
18
19
14
16
18
12
41
38
52
46
17
42
48
49
20
44
37
37
62
53
39
40
43
31
26
44
50
34
21
22
45
50
31
40
38
29
38
36
36
42
37
55
48
17
44
49
51
18
40
35
37
65
52
32
42
41
30
29
38
48
34
16
20
44
45
33
39
38
30
37
35
35
Active
Nov 1,
2013
18
20
13
54
37
34
43
39
19
21
14
58
39
35
38
42
39
41
40
33
43
36
34
33
34
61
40
29
39
44
27
29
36
47
29
29
36
34
63
39
30
37
41
25
28
37
46
28
34
37
37
32
34
39
29
27
29
35
32
34
36
31
35
39
27
30
28
38
Table A-1
SLN
Organization Name
140 EARHART ELEMENTARY
JILL STONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT VICKERY
141 MEADOW
142 ERVIN ELEMENTARY
143 FANNIN ELEMENTARY
144 FIELD ELEMENTARY
145 FOSTER ELEMENTARY
146 FRAZIER ELEMENTARY
147 GILL ELEMENTARY
148 GOOCH ELEMENTARY
149 HALL ELEMENTARY
150 HARLLEE (INTERNAL CHARTER) ELEM
152 HENDERSON ELEMENTARY
153 HEXTER ELEMENTARY
154 LARRY SMITH ELEMENTARY
155 C A TATUM JR ELEMENTARY
156 HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY
157 HOGG ELEMENTARY
158 HOOE ELEMENTARY
159 HOTCHKISS ELEMENTARY
160 HOUSTON ELEMENTARY
161 IRELAND ELEMENTARY
162 JACKSON ELEMENTARY
163 JOHNSTON ELEMENTARY
164 JONES ELEMENTARY
166 KIEST ELEMENTARY
167 KLEBERG ELEMENTARY
168 KNIGHT ELEMENTARY
169 KRAMER ELEMENTARY
170 LAGOW ELEMENTARY
171 LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY
172 J T BRASHEAR ELEMENTARY
173 LANIER ELEMENTARY
174 R E LEE ELEMENTARY
175 U LEE ELEMENTARY
176 JACK LOWE, SR ELEMENTARY
177 LIPSCOMB ELEMENTARY
4
Active
Nov 1,
2010
Active
Nov 1,
2011
Active
Nov 1,
2012
Active
Nov 1,
2013
25
20
18
21
25
42
19
29
52
12
45
34
42
24
39
36
46
42
35
21
32
57
23
40
36
36
57
42
68
43
38
51
44
46
41
24
42
43
33
22
40
17
30
53
13
48
29
43
14
35
37
46
41
36
19
33
64
24
40
37
35
52
43
54
42
39
51
44
42
41
20
31
38
32
22
37
21
36
27
52
28
53
44
31
33
44
21
36
28
34
42
39
35
20
28
62
24
35
35
30
39
41
35
40
32
36
42
37
38
20
30
37
28
30
37
45
39
30
19
28
59
22
32
36
26
41
38
34
38
36
37
47
39
39
27
26
34
30
Table A-1
SLN
178
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
Active
Nov 1,
2010
Organization Name
H.I. HOLLAND ELEMENTARY (@ LISBON)
MACON ELEMENTARY
MAPLE LAWN ELEMENTARY
MARCUS ELEMENTARY
MARSALIS ELEMENTARY
MILAM ELEMENTARY
MILLER ELEMENTARY
MILLS ELEMENTARY
MOSELEY ELEMENTARY
MT AUBURN ELEMENTARY
OLIVER ELEMENTARY
PEABODY ELEMENTARY
PEASE ELEMENTARY
PEELER ELEMENTARY
PERSHING ELEMENTARY
POLK ELEMENTARY
PRESTON HOLLOW ELEMENTARY
RAY ELEMENTARY
REAGAN ELEMENTARY
REILLY ELEMENTARY
REINHARDT ELEMENTARY
RHOADS ELEMENTARY
RICE ELEMENTARY
ROBERTS ELEMENTARY
ROGERS ELEMENTARY
ROSEMONT ELEMENTARY
RUSSELL ELEMENTARY
SANGER ELEMENTARY
SAN JACINTO ELEMENTARY
SEAGOVILLE ELEMENTARY
SILBERSTEIN ELEMENTARY
STEMMONS ELEMENTARY
STEVENS PARK ELEMENTARY
HARRY STONE MONTESSORI SCHOOL
TERRY ELEMENTARY
THOMPSON ELEMENTARY
THORNTON ELEMENTARY
Active
Nov 1,
2011
30
41
29
51
36
21
30
30
71
44
30
37
25
29
34
39
30
23
34
32
44
31
35
36
32
29
15
34
44
43
41
58
47
37
28
25
32
5
Active
Nov 1,
2012
26
44
31
53
35
19
25
30
44
42
29
39
29
28
34
37
29
27
34
31
43
26
34
29
36
29
45
33
46
43
44
58
47
33
26
17
31
Active
Nov 1,
2013
28
35
33
54
32
19
26
33
39
38
26
34
28
23
31
35
31
28
33
31
38
36
35
34
31
42
32
39
36
45
46
37
34
24
25
35
33
53
29
18
24
25
40
38
24
37
32
26
34
36
30
26
34
33
38
40
37
39
34
34
42
36
34
35
46
46
43
36
29
29
29
Table A-1
SLN
216
217
218
219
220
222
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
232
233
234
235
236
237
239
240
241
244
247
249
250
260
263
264
265
266
268
269
270
271
272
273
Active
Nov 1,
2010
Organization Name
TITCHE ELEMENTARY
TRAVIS ELEMENTARY
TRUETT ELEMENTARY
TURNER ELEMENTARY
TWAIN ELEMENTARY
URBAN PARK ELEMENTARY
WALNUT HILL ELEMENTARY
WEBSTER ELEMENTARY
WEISS ELEMENTARY
WHEATLEY ELEMENTARY
WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY
WINNETKA ELEMENTARY
WITHERS ELEMENTARY
ROWE ELEMENTARY
NATHAN ADAMS ELEMENTARY
H B GONZALEZ ELEMENTARY
ALEXANDER ELEMENTARY
COCHRAN ELEMENTARY
RUNYON ELEMENTARY
ARTURO SALAZAR ELEMENTARY
FRANK GUZICK ELEMENTARY
ELEMENTARY DAEP
SEAGOVILLE NORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ADELFA CALLEJO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SEGUIN ELEMENTARY
YOUNG ELEMENTARY
DEZAVALA ELEMENTARY
STARKS ELEMENTARY
MCNAIR ELEMENTARY
MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY
DOUGLASS ELEMENTARY
KENNEDY ELEMENTARY
HERNANDEZ ELEMENTARY
MATA ELEMENTARY
SALDIVAR ELEMENTARY
MORENO ELEMENTARY
PLEASANT GROVE ELEMENTARY
6
Active
Nov 1,
2011
Active
Nov 1,
2012
Active
Nov 1,
2013
66
30
67
28
31
44
28
48
36
14
21
52
28
47
34
44
32
47
47
50
43
11
59
28
66
29
25
44
25
44
33
11
24
48
29
45
32
44
28
42
45
46
45
4
51
28
60
27
22
34
26
39
30
54
28
62
24
24
35
30
40
33
21
46
28
37
35
38
26
36
43
43
39
4
36
37
22
46
27
31
34
37
26
36
42
43
43
5
40
39
32
34
28
29
45
35
44
40
30
19
52
42
43
33
26
24
48
35
45
38
25
18
48
42
43
31
26
25
45
31
37
44
25
43
47
33
41
31
26
23
47
35
35
44
22
18
49
32
38
Table A-1
SLN
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
283
284
286
287
288
289
301
303
304
305
352
353
354
358
380
381
389
802
829
830
832
860
880
882
891
Organization Name
BETHUNE ELEMENTARY
KAHN ELEMENTARY
CUELLAR ELEMENTARY
TOLBERT ELEMENTARY
LEONIDES CIGARROA ELEMENTARY
JERRY JUNKINS ELEMENTARY
ANNE FRANK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY
MEDRANO ELEMENTARY
HIGHLAND MEADOWS ELEMENTARY
LEE MCSHAN JR ELEMENTARY
C M SOTO JR ELEMENTARY
ROSEMONT C V SEMOS ELEMENTARY
F G BOTELLO ELEMENTARY
WILMER HUTCHINS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
THELMA E P RICHARDSON ELEMENTARY
GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH
ELEMENTARY
EBBY HALLIDAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BALCH SPRINGS MIDDLE SCHOOL
ANN RICHARDS MIDDLE SCHOOL
KENNEDY CURRY MIDDLE SCHOOL
BARBARA M MANNS EDUCATION CENTER
WILMER HUTCHINS HIGH SCHOOL
HS BARACK OBAMA MALE LEADERSHIP
ACADEMY AT B F DARRELL
JOHN LESLIE PATTON JR ACADEMIC CENTER
PLANNING AND PROJECT SUPPORT
ENRICHMENT CURRICULUM AND
INSTRUCTION SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
STUDENT ACTIVITIES
SOUTH CENTRAL ELEMENTARY AND
ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION LC
EHA TITLE VI-B REGULAR
EHA-B PRESCHOOL CARRYOVER
REGIONAL DAY SCHOOL/DEAF
7
Active
Nov 1,
2010
Active
Nov 1,
2011
58
43
56
34
38
47
76
44
43
51
40
43
41
31
12
14
29
2
4
50
2
44
Active
Nov 1,
2012
Active
Nov 1,
2013
56
40
55
33
39
49
68
39
39
49
43
48
42
33
51
46
38
45
31
37
47
65
38
35
45
37
42
42
30
43
45
37
39
31
34
47
71
42
37
45
39
40
41
31
46
36
36
34
38
10
46
35
35
71
57
42
11
52
40
37
77
63
43
10
59
15
24
20
17
22
25
2
4
2
3
26
28
73
2
47
86
2
42
25
59
2
41
Table A-1
SLN
904
910
916
938
939
942
943
988
990
991
992
994
996
Organization Name
STEM
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
TEACHING AND LEARNING
ADVANCED PLACEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DYSLEXIA SERVICES
ER RELEASE AND SEPARATIONS
EXCEPTION PERSONNEL
EXCESS PERSONNEL
RETIREE PERSONNEL
SUMMER AC'S
EXCESS RESIGNATION
Campus Based Teachers
non-campus based teachers
Total Teachers
Active
Nov 1,
2010
Active
Nov 1,
2011
Active
Nov 1,
2013
4
4
11
11
76
12
72
11
9
18
22
1
12
89
12
24
7
1
16
10659
293
10952
8
Active
Nov 1,
2012
26
12
3
73
11
27
150
13
25
70
9
4
175
13
9965
427
10392
9535
532
10067
9675
321
9996
Table A-2
Teacher age distributions
November 2010 to November 2013.
Cumulative distribution
Nov
2010
Age
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Nov
2011
3
69
111
102
133
181
232
278
281
314
323
334
363
352
349
334
304
299
319
310
241
251
219
220
217
184
201
201
251
251
225
220
250
258
231
268
Nov
2012
40
103
125
126
140
192
234
277
260
301
298
312
356
330
323
329
293
286
308
299
250
242
220
223
204
178
193
190
247
237
216
201
225
232
205
Nov
2013
1
8
81
118
143
156
168
169
224
256
278
249
299
305
288
325
298
300
304
271
262
287
291
247
240
219
215
188
173
177
191
226
224
207
186
207
209
Nov
2010
15
144
193
185
202
206
228
233
274
282
283
260
283
279
288
305
282
282
275
261
244
280
287
234
215
203
220
183
170
180
191
229
215
194
181
191
9
0
3
72
183
285
418
599
831
1109
1390
1704
2027
2361
2724
3076
3425
3759
4063
4362
4681
4991
5232
5483
5702
5922
6139
6323
6524
6725
6976
7227
7452
7672
7922
8180
8411
8679
Nov
2011
0
0
40
143
268
394
534
726
960
1237
1497
1798
2096
2408
2764
3094
3417
3746
4039
4325
4633
4932
5182
5424
5644
5867
6071
6249
6442
6632
6879
7116
7332
7533
7758
7990
8195
Nov
2012
1
9
90
208
351
507
675
844
1068
1324
1602
1851
2150
2455
2743
3068
3366
3666
3970
4241
4503
4790
5081
5328
5568
5787
6002
6190
6363
6540
6731
6957
7181
7388
7574
7781
7990
Nov
2013
0
15
159
352
537
739
945
1173
1406
1680
1962
2245
2505
2788
3067
3355
3660
3942
4224
4499
4760
5004
5284
5571
5805
6020
6223
6443
6626
6796
6976
7167
7396
7611
7805
7986
8177
Table A-2 …continued
Teacher age distributions November 2010 to November 2013.
Cumulative distribution
Nov
2010
Age
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Nov
2011
224
223
281
205
208
171
130
123
96
73
71
48
32
32
19
18
4
5
1
4
6
3
3
1
Nov
2012
221
195
200
232
172
165
139
97
90
67
48
52
27
15
18
11
10
Nov
2013
181
193
155
158
176
132
132
107
69
66
46
37
32
18
14
11
5
9
Nov
2010
193
168
169
138
141
149
107
111
81
49
46
41
27
28
16
14
6
5
8
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
10
8903
9126
9407
9612
9820
9991
10121
10244
10340
10413
10484
10532
10564
10596
10615
10633
10637
10642
10643
10647
10653
10656
10659
10660
10660
10660
10661
10661
Nov
2011
8416
8611
8811
9043
9215
9380
9519
9616
9706
9773
9821
9873
9900
9915
9933
9944
9954
9954
9955
9955
9957
9960
9962
9964
9964
9964
9964
9965
Nov
2012
8171
8364
8519
8677
8853
8985
9117
9224
9293
9359
9405
9442
9474
9492
9506
9517
9522
9531
9531
9532
9532
9533
9533
9535
9535
9535
9535
9535
Nov
2013
8370
8538
8707
8845
8986
9135
9242
9353
9434
9483
9529
9570
9597
9625
9641
9655
9661
9666
9674
9674
9674
9674
9674
9674
9675
9675
9675
9675
Table A-3
Teacher Retention Rates from November 2011
by campus
SLN
School Name
Base Nov
2011
Retained
2012
Retained
2013
1 yr
retention
2 yr
retention
107
82
65
77%
61%
1
2
ADAMSON HIGH SCHOOL
73
63
49
86%
67%
3
A MACEO SMITH NEW TECH HIGH SCHOOL
15
11
8
73%
53%
4
MULTIPLE CAREER CENTER
8
8
6
100%
75%
5
MOLINA HIGH SCHOOL
109
83
62
76%
57%
6
73
62
43
85%
59%
7
84
70
44
83%
52%
8
77
65
45
84%
58%
9
LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL
49
37
20
76%
41%
11
LACEY ALTERNATIVE
27
24
19
89%
70%
12
69
49
35
71%
51%
13
50
45
28
90%
56%
14
SAMUELL HIGH SCHOOL
113
88
47
78%
42%
15
64
54
35
84%
55%
16
82
68
41
83%
50%
17
80
65
45
81%
56%
18
SUNSET HIGH SCHOOL
126
105
81
83%
64%
21
132
115
93
87%
70%
22
85
66
49
78%
58%
23
67
55
33
82%
49%
24
90
66
43
73%
48%
25
SKYLINE HIGH SCHOOL
267
229
185
86%
69%
26
24
22
19
92%
79%
28
89
61
39
69%
44%
29
28
23
18
82%
64%
30
MAYA ANGELOU HIGH SCHOOL
6
6
6
100%
100%
32
37
35
21
95%
57%
33
BUSINESS MAGNET
31
25
20
81%
65%
34
57
50
45
88%
79%
35
28
21
18
75%
64%
35
29
21
83%
60%
17
17
15
100%
88%
38
TOWNVIEW-HEALTH PROFESSIONS
MAGNET
ROSIE MC SORRELL SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
AND SOCIAL SRVCS
JDG SANDERS MGNT FOR LAW AT
TOWNVIEW CENTER
26
22
18
85%
69%
39
TAG MAGNET
16
14
14
88%
88%
36
37
11
Teacher Retention Rates from November 2011 by campus
SLN
School Name
Base Nov
2011
Retained
2012
Retained
2013
1 yr
retention
2 yr
retention
42
54
49
37
91%
69%
43
46
27
19
59%
41%
44
35
25
22
71%
63%
45
69
51
28
74%
41%
46
61
57
39
93%
64%
47
62
53
43
85%
69%
48
71
61
44
86%
62%
49
108
90
74
83%
69%
50
HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL
58
49
24
84%
41%
51
68
55
44
81%
65%
52
HOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL
90
77
38
86%
42%
53
LONG MIDDLE SCHOOL
68
49
28
72%
41%
54
MARSH MIDDLE SCHOOL
67
53
31
79%
46%
55
RUSK MIDDLE SCHOOL
48
36
27
75%
56%
56
46
33
22
72%
48%
58
77
68
52
88%
68%
59
53
45
38
85%
72%
60
42
32
18
76%
43%
62
26
22
17
85%
65%
68
49
42
29
86%
59%
69
62
49
31
79%
50%
71
DALLAS ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
ACADEM
14
11
9
79%
64%
72
33
31
17
94%
52%
73
26
22
14
85%
54%
74
54
42
20
78%
37%
76
81
63
41
78%
51%
77
59
47
19
80%
32%
79
49
36
28
73%
57%
83
KATHLYN JOY GILLIAM COLLEGIATE
ACADEMY
56
43
32
77%
57%
16
16
5
100%
31%
DR WRIGHT L LASSITER JR EARLY COLLEGE
HIGH SCHOOL
18
18
15
100%
83%
12
12
9
100%
75%
101
42
36
26
86%
62%
103
37
31
24
84%
65%
104
55
47
22
85%
40%
105
48
39
29
81%
60%
85
88
90
12
Base Nov
2011
Retained
2012
Retained
2013
1 yr
retention
2 yr
retention
BAYLES ELEMENTARY
44
34
19
77%
43%
BLAIR ELEMENTARY
49
45
33
92%
67%
110
BLANTON ELEMENTARY
51
41
15
80%
29%
112
BOWIE ELEMENTARY
40
33
6
83%
15%
114
BRYAN ELEMENTARY
35
34
27
97%
77%
115
37
32
26
86%
70%
116
BURNET ELEMENTARY
65
60
47
92%
72%
117
BURLESON ELEMENTARY
52
34
15
65%
29%
118
BUSHMAN ELEMENTARY
32
27
18
84%
56%
119
CABELL ELEMENTARY
42
40
26
95%
62%
120
CAILLET ELEMENTARY
41
34
27
83%
66%
121
30
23
14
77%
47%
122
29
25
15
86%
52%
124
CARR ELEMENTARY
GEORGE W CARVER CREATIVE ARTS
LEARNING CENTER
38
34
25
89%
66%
125
48
41
30
85%
63%
126
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY
34
28
9
82%
26%
128
20
18
17
90%
85%
129
CONNER ELEMENTARY
44
37
22
84%
50%
130
COWART ELEMENTARY
45
32
21
71%
47%
131
ZARAGOSA ELEMENTARY
33
27
18
82%
55%
133
39
31
18
79%
46%
134
JORDAN ELEMENTARY
GEORGE BANNERMAN DEALEY
MONTESSORI
38
34
28
89%
74%
135
DEGOLYER ELEMENTARY
30
25
17
83%
57%
136
DONALD ELEMENTARY
37
32
18
86%
49%
137
DORSEY ELEMENTARY
35
31
22
89%
63%
139
DUNBAR ELEMENTARY
35
20
15
57%
43%
140
20
18
12
90%
60%
141
EARHART ELEMENTARY
JILL STONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT
VICKERY MEADOW
22
20
14
91%
64%
142
ERVIN ELEMENTARY
40
37
21
93%
53%
144
FIELD ELEMENTARY
30
24
8
80%
27%
145
FOSTER ELEMENTARY
53
44
31
83%
58%
147
GILL ELEMENTARY
48
40
32
83%
67%
148
GOOCH ELEMENTARY
29
26
12
90%
41%
149
HALL ELEMENTARY
43
33
20
77%
47%
152
HENDERSON ELEMENTARY
35
29
16
83%
46%
153
HEXTER ELEMENTARY
37
32
19
86%
51%
SLN
School Name
108
109
13
Base Nov
2011
Retained
2012
Retained
2013
1 yr
retention
2 yr
retention
LARRY SMITH ELEMENTARY
46
36
27
78%
59%
C A TATUM JR ELEMENTARY
41
35
27
85%
66%
156
HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY
36
31
19
86%
53%
157
HOGG ELEMENTARY
19
15
5
79%
26%
158
HOOE ELEMENTARY
33
28
20
85%
61%
159
HOTCHKISS ELEMENTARY
64
57
43
89%
67%
160
HOUSTON ELEMENTARY
24
24
19
100%
79%
161
IRELAND ELEMENTARY
40
34
20
85%
50%
162
JACKSON ELEMENTARY
37
33
25
89%
68%
163
JOHNSTON ELEMENTARY
35
26
14
74%
40%
164
JONES ELEMENTARY
52
43
25
83%
48%
166
KIEST ELEMENTARY
43
35
21
81%
49%
167
KLEBERG ELEMENTARY
54
41
18
76%
33%
168
KNIGHT ELEMENTARY
42
33
20
79%
48%
169
KRAMER ELEMENTARY
39
32
17
82%
44%
170
LAGOW ELEMENTARY
51
47
27
92%
53%
171
LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY
44
39
35
89%
80%
172
J T BRASHEAR ELEMENTARY
42
36
28
86%
67%
173
LANIER ELEMENTARY
41
40
32
98%
78%
174
R E LEE ELEMENTARY
20
16
13
80%
65%
175
U LEE ELEMENTARY
31
26
12
84%
39%
176
JACK LOWE, SR ELEMENTARY
38
32
19
84%
50%
177
32
24
11
75%
34%
178
LIPSCOMB ELEMENTARY
H I HOLLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT
LISBON
26
24
12
92%
46%
180
MACON ELEMENTARY
44
35
28
80%
64%
181
31
24
18
77%
58%
182
MARCUS ELEMENTARY
53
44
32
83%
60%
183
MARSALIS ELEMENTARY
35
27
21
77%
60%
184
MILAM ELEMENTARY
19
19
14
100%
74%
185
MILLER ELEMENTARY
25
20
12
80%
48%
186
MILLS ELEMENTARY
30
24
6
80%
20%
187
MOSELEY ELEMENTARY
44
36
33
82%
75%
188
42
40
21
95%
50%
189
OLIVER ELEMENTARY
29
26
13
90%
45%
190
PEABODY ELEMENTARY
39
33
24
85%
62%
191
PEASE ELEMENTARY
29
27
23
93%
79%
192
PEELER ELEMENTARY
28
21
13
75%
46%
SLN
School Name
154
155
14
Base Nov
2011
Retained
2012
Retained
2013
1 yr
retention
2 yr
retention
PERSHING ELEMENTARY
34
29
23
85%
68%
POLK ELEMENTARY
37
34
17
92%
46%
195
29
24
18
83%
62%
196
RAY ELEMENTARY
27
23
19
85%
70%
197
REAGAN ELEMENTARY
34
32
19
94%
56%
198
REILLY ELEMENTARY
31
26
17
84%
55%
199
43
33
27
77%
63%
200
RHOADS ELEMENTARY
26
24
17
92%
65%
201
RICE ELEMENTARY
34
30
27
88%
79%
202
ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29
28
12
97%
41%
203
ROGERS ELEMENTARY
36
30
23
83%
64%
204
ROSEMONT ELEMENTARY
29
28
22
97%
76%
205
RUSSELL ELEMENTARY
45
44
29
98%
64%
206
SANGER ELEMENTARY
33
25
18
76%
55%
207
46
36
18
78%
39%
208
43
39
21
91%
49%
209
44
34
21
77%
48%
210
STEMMONS ELEMENTARY
58
49
37
84%
64%
211
47
35
24
74%
51%
212
33
29
26
88%
79%
213
TERRY ELEMENTARY
26
22
15
85%
58%
215
THORNTON ELEMENTARY
31
30
23
97%
74%
216
TITCHE ELEMENTARY
59
43
22
73%
37%
217
TRAVIS ELEMENTARY
28
26
24
93%
86%
218
TRUETT ELEMENTARY
66
57
35
86%
53%
219
TURNER ELEMENTARY
29
28
22
97%
76%
220
TWAIN ELEMENTARY
25
24
18
96%
72%
222
44
39
18
89%
41%
224
25
23
17
92%
68%
225
WEBSTER ELEMENTARY
44
36
27
82%
61%
226
WEISS ELEMENTARY
33
29
20
88%
61%
228
WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY
24
21
13
88%
54%
229
WINNETKA ELEMENTARY
48
39
26
81%
54%
230
WITHERS ELEMENTARY
29
23
17
79%
59%
232
ROWE ELEMENTARY
45
38
19
84%
42%
233
32
28
23
88%
72%
234
44
35
20
80%
45%
235
28
25
13
89%
46%
SLN
School Name
193
194
15
Base Nov
2011
Retained
2012
Retained
2013
1 yr
retention
2 yr
retention
COCHRAN ELEMENTARY
42
33
19
79%
45%
RUNYON ELEMENTARY
45
39
31
87%
69%
239
46
40
35
87%
76%
240
45
38
23
84%
51%
241
ELEMENTARY DAEP
4
4
4
100%
100%
250
YOUNG ELEMENTARY
33
24
16
73%
48%
260
DEZAVALA ELEMENTARY
26
22
14
85%
54%
263
STARKS ELEMENTARY
24
21
13
88%
54%
264
MCNAIR ELEMENTARY
48
38
31
79%
65%
265
MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY
35
32
18
91%
51%
266
DOUGLASS ELEMENTARY
45
38
21
84%
47%
268
KENNEDY ELEMENTARY
38
35
20
92%
53%
269
25
20
7
80%
28%
270
MATA ELEMENTARY
18
17
8
94%
44%
271
SALDIVAR ELEMENTARY
48
34
24
71%
50%
272
MORENO ELEMENTARY
42
36
26
86%
62%
273
43
39
28
91%
65%
274
BETHUNE ELEMENTARY
56
44
30
79%
54%
275
KAHN ELEMENTARY
40
32
25
80%
63%
276
CUELLAR ELEMENTARY
55
43
24
78%
44%
277
TOLBERT ELEMENTARY
33
28
19
85%
58%
278
39
29
13
74%
33%
279
49
39
31
80%
63%
280
68
60
41
88%
60%
281
CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY
39
33
27
85%
69%
283
MEDRANO ELEMENTARY
39
35
28
90%
72%
284
49
39
26
80%
53%
286
43
37
27
86%
63%
287
48
40
26
83%
54%
288
42
41
34
98%
81%
289
33
24
10
73%
30%
301
51
46
27
90%
53%
304
GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
36
30
15
83%
42%
305
34
29
8
85%
24%
354
38
30
17
79%
45%
358
BARBARA M MANNS EDUCATION CENTER
10
10
3
100%
30%
380
46
38
30
83%
65%
SLN
School Name
236
237
16
SLN
381
School Name
HS BARACK OBAMA MALE LEADERSHIP
ACADEMY AT B F DARRELL
389
JOHN LESLIE PATTON JR ACADEMIC CENTER
Base Nov
2011
Retained
2012
Retained
2013
1 yr
retention
2 yr
retention
15
13
10
87%
67%
24
16
7
67%
29%
9751
8114
5468
83%
56%
Total
17
Table A-4
Expected Teacher 2012-13 Turnover Rate
School Name
Active 2012
Nov1
Active 2013
Nov 1
Turnover
Rate
1
106
87
18%
2
ADAMSON HIGH SCHOOL
78
63
19%
3
A MACEO SMITH NEW TECH HIGH SCHOOL
20
13
35%
5
MOLINA HIGH SCHOOL
116
96
17%
6
65
54
17%
7
84
56
33%
8
80
62
23%
9
LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL
46
36
22%
11
LACEY ALTERNATIVE
27
22
19%
12
67
56
16%
13
54
42
22%
14
SAMUELL HIGH SCHOOL
101
77
24%
15
66
48
27%
16
86
63
27%
17
87
66
24%
18
SUNSET HIGH SCHOOL
119
96
19%
21
133
112
16%
22
86
70
19%
23
64
49
23%
24
90
71
21%
25
SKYLINE HIGH SCHOOL
262
217
17%
26
21
20
5%
28
80
65
19%
29
24
23
4%
32
38
29
24%
33
BUSINESS MAGNET
31
26
16%
34
57
53
7%
35
29
26
10%
36
TOWNVIEW-HEALTH PROFESSIONS MAGNET
33
25
24%
38
JDG SANDERS MGNT FOR LAW AT TOWNVIEW CENTER
27
22
19%
42
68
56
18%
43
54
40
26%
44
37
32
14%
45
52
39
25%
46
57
46
19%
47
61
51
16%
48
75
54
28%
18
School Name
Active 2012
Nov1
Active 2013
Nov 1
Turnover
Rate
49
100
87
13%
50
HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL
54
36
33%
51
64
57
11%
52
HOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL
58
45
22%
53
LONG MIDDLE SCHOOL
75
54
28%
54
MARSH MIDDLE SCHOOL
68
52
24%
55
RUSK MIDDLE SCHOOL
44
35
20%
56
48
36
25%
58
73
60
18%
59
76
64
16%
60
45
34
24%
62
25
22
12%
65
PEARL C ANDERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
29
23
21%
68
64
52
19%
69
63
45
29%
71
DALLAS ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ACADEM
22
19
14%
72
35
30
14%
73
26
19
27%
74
49
32
35%
76
63
58
8%
77
50
32
36%
79
49
37
24%
83
49
43
12%
88
20
17
15%
100
ZAN WESLEY HOLMES JR MIDDLE SCHOOL
54
44
19%
101
37
30
19%
103
34
27
21%
104
43
33
23%
105
39
33
15%
108
BAYLES ELEMENTARY
39
30
23%
109
BLAIR ELEMENTARY
41
37
10%
110
BLANTON ELEMENTARY
40
28
30%
112
BOWIE ELEMENTARY
34
21
38%
114
BRYAN ELEMENTARY
33
29
12%
115
34
30
12%
116
BURNET ELEMENTARY
61
51
16%
117
BURLESON ELEMENTARY
40
26
35%
118
BUSHMAN ELEMENTARY
29
23
21%
19
School Name
Active 2012
Nov1
Active 2013
Nov 1
Turnover
Rate
119
CABELL ELEMENTARY
39
28
28%
120
CAILLET ELEMENTARY
44
37
16%
121
27
19
30%
122
CARR ELEMENTARY
29
21
28%
124
GEORGE W CARVER CREATIVE ARTS LEARNING CENTER
36
32
11%
125
47
37
21%
126
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY
29
15
48%
128
34
31
9%
129
CONNER ELEMENTARY
37
26
30%
130
COWART ELEMENTARY
37
30
19%
131
ZARAGOSA ELEMENTARY
32
26
19%
133
JORDAN ELEMENTARY
34
29
15%
134
GEORGE BANNERMAN DEALEY MONTESSORI
39
33
15%
135
DEGOLYER ELEMENTARY
29
23
21%
136
DONALD ELEMENTARY
27
22
19%
137
DORSEY ELEMENTARY
29
23
21%
139
DUNBAR ELEMENTARY
35
27
23%
141
JILL STONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT VICKERY MEADOW
22
19
14%
142
ERVIN ELEMENTARY
37
29
22%
144
FIELD ELEMENTARY
27
18
33%
145
FOSTER ELEMENTARY
52
45
13%
147
GILL ELEMENTARY
44
35
20%
148
GOOCH ELEMENTARY
31
25
19%
149
HALL ELEMENTARY
33
28
15%
152
28
24
14%
153
HEXTER ELEMENTARY
34
25
26%
154
42
35
17%
155
39
31
21%
156
35
27
23%
157
HOGG ELEMENTARY
20
13
35%
158
HOOE ELEMENTARY
28
21
25%
159
62
50
19%
160
HOUSTON ELEMENTARY
24
21
13%
161
IRELAND ELEMENTARY
35
27
23%
162
JACKSON ELEMENTARY
35
30
14%
163
JOHNSTON ELEMENTARY
30
20
33%
164
JONES ELEMENTARY
39
30
23%
166
KIEST ELEMENTARY
41
30
27%
20
School Name
Active 2012
Nov1
Active 2013
Nov 1
Turnover
Rate
167
KLEBERG ELEMENTARY
35
28
20%
168
KNIGHT ELEMENTARY
40
28
30%
169
KRAMER ELEMENTARY
32
22
31%
170
LAGOW ELEMENTARY
36
31
14%
171
LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY
42
39
7%
172
37
35
5%
173
LANIER ELEMENTARY
38
35
8%
174
R E LEE ELEMENTARY
20
20
0%
175
U LEE ELEMENTARY
30
17
43%
176
JACK LOWE, SR ELEMENTARY
37
27
27%
177
LIPSCOMB ELEMENTARY
28
19
32%
178
H I HOLLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT LISBON
28
23
18%
180
MACON ELEMENTARY
35
31
11%
181
33
26
21%
182
MARCUS ELEMENTARY
54
45
17%
183
MARSALIS ELEMENTARY
32
26
19%
185
MILLER ELEMENTARY
26
20
23%
186
MILLS ELEMENTARY
33
19
42%
187
MOSELEY ELEMENTARY
39
38
3%
188
38
23
39%
189
OLIVER ELEMENTARY
26
16
38%
190
PEABODY ELEMENTARY
34
29
15%
191
PEASE ELEMENTARY
28
26
7%
192
PEELER ELEMENTARY
23
18
22%
193
PERSHING ELEMENTARY
31
26
16%
194
POLK ELEMENTARY
35
22
37%
195
31
23
26%
196
RAY ELEMENTARY
28
25
11%
197
REAGAN ELEMENTARY
33
21
36%
198
REILLY ELEMENTARY
31
25
19%
199
38
33
13%
200
RHOADS ELEMENTARY
36
31
14%
201
RICE ELEMENTARY
35
31
11%
203
ROGERS ELEMENTARY
34
28
18%
204
ROSEMONT ELEMENTARY
31
29
6%
205
RUSSELL ELEMENTARY
42
36
14%
206
SANGER ELEMENTARY
32
26
19%
207
39
34
13%
21
School Name
Active 2012
Nov1
Active 2013
Nov 1
Turnover
Rate
208
36
30
17%
209
45
31
31%
210
STEMMONS ELEMENTARY
46
39
15%
211
37
28
24%
212
34
30
12%
213
TERRY ELEMENTARY
24
21
13%
215
THORNTON ELEMENTARY
29
25
14%
216
TITCHE ELEMENTARY
51
45
12%
217
TRAVIS ELEMENTARY
28
26
7%
218
TRUETT ELEMENTARY
60
48
20%
219
TURNER ELEMENTARY
27
25
7%
220
TWAIN ELEMENTARY
22
19
14%
222
34
30
12%
224
26
21
19%
225
WEBSTER ELEMENTARY
39
35
10%
226
WEISS ELEMENTARY
30
26
13%
228
WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY
21
17
19%
229
WINNETKA ELEMENTARY
46
33
28%
230
WITHERS ELEMENTARY
28
22
21%
232
ROWE ELEMENTARY
37
28
24%
233
35
29
17%
234
38
33
13%
235
26
18
31%
236
COCHRAN ELEMENTARY
36
34
6%
237
RUNYON ELEMENTARY
43
38
12%
239
43
38
12%
240
39
32
18%
244
SEAGOVILLE NORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
36
24
33%
247
ADELFA CALLEJO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
37
34
8%
250
YOUNG ELEMENTARY
31
22
29%
260
DEZAVALA ELEMENTARY
26
22
15%
263
STARKS ELEMENTARY
25
15
40%
264
MCNAIR ELEMENTARY
45
38
16%
265
MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY
31
23
26%
266
DOUGLASS ELEMENTARY
37
31
16%
268
KENNEDY ELEMENTARY
44
39
11%
269
25
17
32%
270
MATA ELEMENTARY
43
30
30%
22
School Name
Active 2012
Nov1
Active 2013
Nov 1
Turnover
Rate
271
SALDIVAR ELEMENTARY
47
36
23%
272
MORENO ELEMENTARY
33
28
15%
273
41
33
20%
274
BETHUNE ELEMENTARY
46
40
13%
275
KAHN ELEMENTARY
38
37
3%
276
CUELLAR ELEMENTARY
45
31
31%
277
TOLBERT ELEMENTARY
31
28
10%
278
37
28
24%
279
47
40
15%
280
65
49
25%
281
CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY
38
35
8%
283
MEDRANO ELEMENTARY
35
30
14%
284
45
35
22%
286
37
29
22%
287
42
32
24%
288
42
37
12%
289
30
24
20%
301
43
35
19%
304
GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
35
28
20%
305
35
26
26%
352
BALCH SPRINGS MIDDLE SCHOOL
71
59
17%
353
ANN RICHARDS MIDDLE SCHOOL
57
34
40%
354
42
36
14%
380
52
45
13%
381
HS BARACK OBAMA MALE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY
20
17
15%
9384
7515
19%
Campus based
23
Table A-5
Dallas ISD
Hiring and Separation Patterns by Month and Year
Year
2009
Month
Hired
Terminated- any reason
Year
Month
Hired
Hired
3
4
5
6
7
8
38
56
36
13
4
155
0
276
375
20
16
19
10
333
117
91
2010
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
101
37
34
37
46
29
10
3
1
98
26
390
22
17
8
14
35
12
16
6
10
330
100
73
2010
2011
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
128
47
72
41
73
17
12
0
0
0
1
302
18
21
21
16
43
10
16
11
4
636
80
119
Year
Month
2
2009
Year
Month
1
2011
2012
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Hired
93
93
52
24
74
38
12
12
9
78
12
960
22
28
19
20
66
19
18
15
11
904
195
159
Year
Month
Hired
2012
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
130
60
83
62
127
67
32
6
6
114
48
1336
50
57
37
18
82
37
22
16
13
998
382
160
Year
Month
Hired
2013
2013
9
10
11
128
98
122
49
62
22
24
Table A-6
Employment Separation Reasons by Year
2011-12
Sept-Apr
Year
2009-10
EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER DISTRICT
MOVING FROM METROPLEX
REGULAR RETIREMENT
PERSONAL
REGULAR SEPARATION
10/11 CONTRACT INCENTIVE-RETIRE
10/11 CONTRACT INCENTIVE-RESIGN
EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE TEACHING
12/13 EARLY NOTIFICATION REGULAR RETIREMENT
PERSONAL ILLNESS
NONRENEWAL - RESIGNED
12/13 EARLY NOTIFICATION REGULAR SEPARATION
NONRENEWAL - TERMINATED
TO BE WITH OWN CHILDREN
RETURNING TO SCHOOL
FAMILY ILLNESS
NON RENEWAL
RESIGNED BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT
PROMOTION OUTSIDE SCHOOL DIST
RESIGNED IN LIEU OF NON-RENEWAL
CERTIFICATION NOT COMPLETED
RESIGNED IN LIEU OF DUE PROCESS
DECEASED
DUE PROCESS DISMISSAL
NONRENEWAL - EXCESS CHAPTER 21
NONRENEWAL - RETIREMENT
DISSATISFIED WITH LOCATION
AT-WILL
UNHAPPY WITH JOB SITUATION
SEPARATION FOR CAUSE
ALT CERT - NOT RECOMMENDED
EXCESS CHAPTER 21 RESIGNATION
SPOUSE TRANSFERRED
HARDSHIP
JOB ABANDONMENT
WORK VISA EXPIRED
Before Current administration
105
69
12
89
106
11
128
72
26
71
60
29
49
42
16
0
195
0
0
179
0
19
21
6
0
0
0
19
24
14
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
10
5
9
13
4
8
12
6
0
23
0
3
7
5
13
9
2
0
9
0
15
20
6
14
13
14
10
19
7
9
11
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
1
12
3
0
0
0
12
8
2
3
1
0
2
3
4
1
1
5
0
25
2010-11
2011-12
May-Aug
2012-13
Current Administration
268
402
166
230
174
122
104
114
81
163
0
0
0
0
30
87
0
144
8
57
125
4
0
128
102
17
16
28
35
20
10
36
15
42
3
47
17
24
1
51
5
12
8
7
1
7
1
7
32
2
30
0
6
9
0
18
0
16
1
13
0
3
1
5
2
2
1
11
0
7
7
2
201310/2013
3
13
4
17
21
0
0
11
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
8
2
0
1
0
4
3
1
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
Table A-6 …continued.
Employment Separation Reasons by Year
Year
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Sept-Apr
Before Current administration
RESIGNED WHILE UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE
INVESTIGATION
EMPLOYMENT IN OUT-OF-STATE SCH
STIMULUS
10/11 AT-WILL INCENTIVE-RETIRE
MATERNITY/PATERNITY
10/11 AT-WILL INCENTIVE-RESIGN
CONTRACT NON-RENEWAL-INVOL
DISSATISFIED WITH DUTIES
DISSATISFIED WITH SUPERVISOR
TO BE WITH PARENTS
DISSATISFIED WITH WAGE/SALARY
NO SHOW-CURRENT EMPLOYEE
DISABILITY RETIREMENT
NO SHOW-NEW HIRE
A/C AGREEMENT VOIDED
LEAVE EXCEEDS 180 DAYS
RESIGNATION IN LIEU OF TERMINATION
RESIGNED-ON ADMIN LOA INVESTIG
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT COMPLETED
DISSATISFIED WITH CO-WORKERS
EMPLOYMENT IN SCHOOL IN DALLAS
GETTING MARRIED
LEAVE EXCEEDS 1 YEAR
PROGRAMMATIC BUDGET CHANGES
10/11 AT-WILL RELEASE
DID NOT RENEW CONTRACT-VOL
INS CARD EXPIRED
LEAVE LABOR MARKET ENTIRELY
NEW HIRE-PRIOR TO SIGNING
REFUSED ASSIGNMENT
RESIGNED PENDING A DUE PROCESS APPEAL
SEP RECOMMENDED BY SUPERVISOR
SEPARATION - RECONSTITUTION MATH
TEACHER TO SUBSTITUTE
3
2
0
0
1
0
9
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
26
2
3
11
10
1
9
0
3
1
2
1
5
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2011-12
May-Aug
2012-13
201310/2013
Current Administration
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
3
0
0
6
0
0
2
4
1
2
0
1
2
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Table A-7
Retained at
campus as of
Nov 1 2013
Transferred
in
Total
District
Retained
Achievement
Progress
Gap
Three year Retention and STAAR Accountability Rating by Campus
121
53
6
59
44%
66
22
70
Active
Nov 1
2010
SLN
1
BRYAN ADAMS HIGH
2
ADAMSON HIGH
5
MOLINA HIGH
6
3 year
campus
teacher
retention
Rate
84
45
6
51
54%
70
26
76
117
56
7
63
48%
72
24
76
HILLCREST HIGH
85
38
6
44
45%
70
26
74
7
THOMAS JEFFERSON HIGH
96
38
3
41
40%
64
24
68
8
J F KIMBALL HIGH
90
44
13
57
49%
66
21
70
9
LINCOLN HIGH
76
18
15
33
24%
57
17
62
12
PINKSTON HIGH
80
32
6
38
40%
57
15
60
13
ROOSEVELT HIGH
55
27
7
34
49%
58
16
59
14
SAMUELL HIGH
132
37
17
54
28%
59
15
62
15
SEAGOVILLE HIGH
82
34
4
38
41%
64
21
66
16
SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH
85
38
5
43
45%
55
19
55
18
SUNSET HIGH
145
80
9
89
55%
73
27
78
21
W T WHITE HIGH
135
87
5
92
64%
76
23
77
22
WOODROW WILSON HIGH
93
41
7
48
44%
77
33
75
23
D W CARTER HIGH
90
33
15
48
37%
64
17
67
24
NORTH DALLAS HIGH
104
39
7
46
38%
67
21
61
25
SKYLINE HIGH
313
177
14
191
57%
26
SCIENCE/ENGINEERING
19
16
0
16
28
EMMETT CONRAD HIGH
110
29
16
45
32
JAMES MADISON HIGH
57
21
18
39
33
BUSINESS MAGNET
15
9
2
11
34
BTW SPVA MAGNET
60
37
1
38
62%
35
RANGEL ALL GIRLS HIGH
38
16
2
18
42%
36
HEALTH PROFESSIONS
20
11
0
37
EDU. AND SOCIAL SRVCS
9
0
38
39
LAW & PUBLIC ADMIN
TAG MAGNET
41
TOWNVIEW TOTAL
85
10
15
73
18
75
100
48
99
26%
70
28
81
37%
65
20
63
95
28
95
97
31
95
99
39
99
11
96
32
95
6
6
95
38
94
6
13
6
13
95
100
29
57
94
100
176
114
5
119
65%
GILLIAM COLLEGIATE ACAD.
18
5
6
11
28%
90
35
91
88
GARZA EARLY COLLEGE
19
13
1
14
68%
97
47
97
90
MIDDLE COLLEGE
14
8
3
11
57%
97
38
98
358
BARBARA M MANNS HIGH
12
2
5
7
17%
22
34
22
389
PATTON JR ACAD. CENTER
14
2
3
5
14%
26
.
22
Note: Townview cannot be accurately analyzed
27
Achievement
Progress
Gap
42
W H ATWELL MIDDLE
62
34
7
41
55%
60
33
64
43
T W BROWNE MIDDLE
54
13
6
19
24%
47
26
43
44
E H CARY MIDDLE
35
17
1
18
49%
55
34
62
45
E B COMSTOCK MIDDLE
65
20
11
31
31%
64
33
66
46
75
32
8
40
43%
64
36
63
47
FRED FLORENCE MIDDLE
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
MIDDLE
80
43
7
50
54%
71
37
77
48
GASTON MIDDLE
79
40
3
43
51%
64
35
65
49
GREINER MIDDLE
117
70
3
73
60%
86
42
90
50
HILL MIDDLE
67
22
10
32
33%
66
32
70
51
HOLMES MIDDLE
79
41
7
48
52%
58
35
57
52
HOOD MIDDLE
100
36
29
65
36%
67
39
71
53
LONG MIDDLE
79
25
9
34
32%
74
43
70
54
MARSH MIDDLE
78
30
9
39
38%
71
34
77
55
RUSK MIDDLE
54
22
6
28
41%
63
33
66
56
ED WALKER MIDDLE
48
21
6
27
44%
76
40
79
58
SPENCE MIDDLE
83
48
3
51
58%
68
37
70
59
STOCKARD MIDDLE
59
35
2
37
59%
69
39
73
60
STOREY MIDDLE
58
13
10
23
22%
58
33
58
61
MAYNARD JACKSON MIDDLE
27
17
0
17
63%
62
BILLY E DADE MIDDLE
35
16
9
25
46%
53
30
50
68
QUINTANILLA MIDDLE
57
28
9
37
49%
64
31
66
69
71
27
5
32
38%
59
35
56
71
SEAGOVILLE MIDDLE
DALLAS ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE ACADEM
16
9
2
11
56%
98
36
97
72
ZUMWALT MIDDLE
38
15
7
22
39%
56
39
50
73
LONGFELLOW MIDDLE
31
16
2
18
52%
98
37
97
74
71
21
13
34
30%
49
28
44
76
H W LANG MIDDLE
92
39
17
56
42%
59
35
63
77
67
19
11
30
28%
57
32
65
79
HECTOR GARCIA MIDDLE
FRANCISCO MEDRANO
MIDDLE
52
20
7
27
38%
63
30
73
83
SAM TASBY MIDDLE
71
31
9
40
44%
57
35
78
Active
Nov 1
2010
SLN
Retained at
campus as of
Nov 1 2013
Transferred
in
Total
District
Retained
28
3 year
campus
teacher
retention
Rate
Achievement
Progress
Gap
41
23
3
26
56%
76
52
74
38
23
0
23
61%
57
34
56
104
GABE ALLEN (INTERNAL
CHARTER) ELEM
WILLIAM ANDERSON
ELEMENTARY
52
19
10
29
37%
70
40
59
105
46
27
3
30
59%
81
41
82
108
BAYLES ELEMENTARY
42
18
5
23
43%
58
40
50
109
BLAIR ELEMENTARY
48
31
7
38
65%
62
38
55
110
BLANTON ELEMENTARY
49
11
15
26
22%
43
38
38
112
BOWIE ELEMENTARY
44
4
16
20
9%
71
39
59
114
37
26
1
27
70%
66
42
70
115
BRYAN ELEMENTARY
HARRELL BUDD
ELEMENTARY
37
25
3
28
68%
57
45
45
116
BURNET ELEMENTARY
62
37
3
40
60%
78
39
69
117
BURLESON ELEMENTARY
53
12
9
21
23%
73
47
59
118
BUSHMAN ELEMENTARY
39
15
8
23
38%
55
53
55
119
CABELL ELEMENTARY
40
22
2
24
55%
72
42
81
120
CAILLET ELEMENTARY
43
26
1
27
60%
74
48
69
121
31
12
3
15
39%
51
40
45
122
CARR ELEMENTARY
26
13
4
17
50%
53
48
49
124
CARVER ELEMENTARY
44
23
3
26
52%
42
39
37
125
50
25
3
28
50%
67
42
74
126
34
7
6
13
21%
71
48
68
128
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR
LEARNING CEN
22
15
1
16
68%
78
49
80
129
CONNER ELEMENTARY
45
20
9
29
44%
68
53
63
130
COWART ELEMENTARY
50
20
4
24
40%
62
46
61
131
ZARAGOSA ELEMENTARY
31
15
2
17
48%
63
54
56
133
40
18
4
22
45%
60
40
56
134
JORDAN ELEMENTARY
GEORGE BANNERMAN
DEALEY MONTESSORI
38
25
0
25
66%
92
55
89
135
DEGOLYER ELEMENTARY
29
12
1
13
41%
80
53
75
136
DONALD ELEMENTARY
38
18
7
25
47%
54
33
62
137
DORSEY ELEMENTARY
36
20
2
22
56%
73
41
66
139
DUNBAR ELEMENTARY
36
13
3
16
36%
53
41
52
140
EARHART ELEMENTARY
JILL STONE ELEMENTARY AT
VICKERY MEADOW
25
9
5
14
36%
50
49
53
25
13
8
21
52%
83
43
84
Active
Nov 1
2010
SLN
101
103
141
Retained at
campus as of
Nov 1 2013
Transferred
in
Total
District
Retained
29
3 year
campus
teacher
retention
Rate
Achievement
Progress
Gap
142
ERVIN ELEMENTARY
42
16
9
25
38%
49
40
48
144
FIELD ELEMENTARY
29
7
4
11
24%
71
36
72
145
FOSTER ELEMENTARY
52
23
6
29
44%
64
55
70
147
GILL ELEMENTARY
45
29
3
32
64%
71
37
60
148
GOOCH ELEMENTARY
34
10
9
19
29%
60
32
46
149
HALL ELEMENTARY
42
18
6
24
43%
60
40
74
152
39
14
9
23
36%
74
54
77
153
HEXTER ELEMENTARY
36
18
4
22
50%
92
57
88
154
46
24
2
26
52%
66
41
55
155
42
26
1
27
62%
74
43
66
156
35
18
4
22
51%
66
43
67
157
HOGG ELEMENTARY
21
5
5
10
24%
54
46
51
158
HOOE ELEMENTARY
32
19
1
20
59%
62
34
64
159
57
33
2
35
58%
63
40
60
160
HOUSTON ELEMENTARY
23
15
4
19
65%
92
47
91
161
IRELAND ELEMENTARY
40
17
4
21
43%
67
41
71
162
JACKSON ELEMENTARY
36
21
0
21
58%
95
48
93
163
JOHNSTON ELEMENTARY
36
13
4
17
36%
71
53
65
164
JONES ELEMENTARY
57
24
10
34
42%
64
39
71
166
KIEST ELEMENTARY
42
17
4
21
40%
71
49
75
167
KLEBERG ELEMENTARY
68
16
19
35
24%
74
43
72
168
KNIGHT ELEMENTARY
43
15
5
20
35%
80
40
83
169
KRAMER ELEMENTARY
38
15
0
15
39%
79
57
85
170
LAGOW ELEMENTARY
51
22
13
35
43%
76
53
73
171
LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY
44
33
1
34
75%
92
58
86
172
46
26
9
35
57%
84
57
85
173
LANIER ELEMENTARY
41
31
2
33
76%
82
41
84
174
R E LEE ELEMENTARY
24
12
3
15
50%
74
52
80
175
U LEE ELEMENTARY
JACK LOWE, SR
ELEMENTARY
42
12
7
19
29%
78
63
84
43
19
10
29
44%
51
32
73
33
11
1
12
33%
67
41
66
178
LIPSCOMB ELEMENTARY
H.I. HOLLAND ELEMENTARY
AT LISBON
30
12
9
21
40%
70
52
66
180
MACON ELEMENTARY
41
22
3
25
54%
82
42
83
181
29
16
0
16
55%
67
35
60
Active
Nov 1
2010
SLN
176
177
Retained at
campus as of
Nov 1 2013
Transferred
in
Total
District
Retained
30
3 year
campus
teacher
retention
Rate
Achievement
Progress
Gap
182
MARCUS ELEMENTARY
51
23
6
29
45%
71
43
76
183
MARSALIS ELEMENTARY
36
20
2
22
56%
65
39
65
184
MILAM ELEMENTARY
21
12
0
12
57%
67
57
84
185
MILLER ELEMENTARY
30
11
5
16
37%
63
34
65
186
MILLS ELEMENTARY
30
2
9
11
7%
59
43
53
187
MOSELEY ELEMENTARY
71
33
12
45
46%
64
36
54
188
44
20
3
23
45%
83
189
OLIVER ELEMENTARY
30
12
7
19
40%
56
48
53
190
PEABODY ELEMENTARY
37
22
3
25
59%
85
47
82
191
PEASE ELEMENTARY
25
18
2
20
72%
47
35
45
192
PEELER ELEMENTARY
29
13
3
16
45%
70
41
73
193
PERSHING ELEMENTARY
34
20
3
23
59%
77
45
86
194
39
14
8
22
36%
67
37
73
195
POLK ELEMENTARY
PRESTON HOLLOW
ELEMENTARY
30
16
5
21
53%
79
45
88
196
RAY ELEMENTARY
23
15
2
17
65%
67
46
68
197
REAGAN ELEMENTARY
34
19
2
21
56%
61
41
65
198
REILLY ELEMENTARY
32
15
3
18
47%
78
45
76
199
44
27
2
29
61%
68
55
70
200
RHOADS ELEMENTARY
31
17
5
22
55%
66
42
69
201
RICE ELEMENTARY
35
26
1
27
74%
84
57
86
202
ROBERTS ELEMENTARY
36
11
10
21
31%
203
ROGERS ELEMENTARY
32
15
1
16
47%
73
30
80
204
ROSEMONT ELEMENTARY
29
21
3
24
72%
73
43
70
205
RUSSELL ELEMENTARY
15
10
2
12
67%
69
40
70
206
SANGER ELEMENTARY
34
17
3
20
50%
66
47
67
207
44
17
13
30
39%
66
42
59
208
43
18
4
22
42%
65
43
67
209
41
19
1
20
46%
67
44
66
210
STEMMONS ELEMENTARY
58
33
3
36
57%
66
39
67
211
47
18
6
24
38%
52
38
43
212
HARRY STONE MONTESSORI
37
25
0
25
68%
82
46
82
213
TERRY ELEMENTARY
28
13
3
16
46%
81
42
75
215
THORNTON ELEMENTARY
32
23
5
28
72%
76
58
75
216
TITCHE ELEMENTARY
66
16
16
32
24%
50
35
44
Active
Nov 1
2010
SLN
Retained at
campus as of
Nov 1 2013
Transferred
in
Total
District
Retained
31
3 year
campus
teacher
retention
Rate
.
83
Achievement
Progress
Gap
217
TRAVIS ELEMENTARY
30
22
0
22
73%
99
57
10
0
218
TRUETT ELEMENTARY
67
31
11
42
46%
60
49
55
219
TURNER ELEMENTARY
28
17
4
21
61%
63
52
56
220
TWAIN ELEMENTARY
31
18
4
22
58%
64
45
62
222
44
17
13
30
39%
67
49
61
224
28
15
3
18
54%
82
55
75
225
WEBSTER ELEMENTARY
48
25
9
34
52%
64
41
69
226
WEISS ELEMENTARY
36
18
4
22
50%
67
42
66
228
WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY
21
10
3
13
48%
79
45
75
229
WINNETKA ELEMENTARY
52
21
2
23
40%
70
41
70
230
WITHERS ELEMENTARY
28
15
0
15
54%
85
58
83
232
47
18
12
30
38%
67
51
57
233
ROWE ELEMENTARY
NATHAN ADAMS
ELEMENTARY
34
23
0
23
68%
79
45
81
234
44
18
8
26
41%
71
37
75
235
32
13
5
18
41%
76
53
74
236
COCHRAN ELEMENTARY
47
17
10
27
36%
54
37
44
237
47
29
4
33
62%
72
54
63
239
RUNYON ELEMENTARY
ARTURO SALAZAR
ELEMENTARY
50
34
0
34
68%
70
47
71
240
43
20
5
25
47%
68
42
60
250
YOUNG ELEMENTARY
34
14
1
15
41%
59
41
54
260
DEZAVALA ELEMENTARY
28
13
6
19
46%
68
41
77
263
STARKS ELEMENTARY
29
13
3
16
45%
76
40
71
264
MCNAIR ELEMENTARY
45
30
0
30
67%
70
49
71
265
MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY
35
15
6
21
43%
72
34
72
266
DOUGLASS ELEMENTARY
44
16
11
27
36%
54
56
59
268
KENNEDY ELEMENTARY
40
20
11
31
50%
67
38
63
269
30
6
7
13
20%
58
44
44
270
MATA ELEMENTARY
19
8
6
14
42%
63
41
70
271
SALDIVAR ELEMENTARY
52
20
3
23
38%
70
41
76
272
42
23
4
27
55%
59
50
60
273
MORENO ELEMENTARY
PLEASANT GROVE
ELEMENTARY
43
26
4
30
60%
65
35
51
274
BETHUNE ELEMENTARY
58
29
5
34
50%
80
35
82
275
KAHN ELEMENTARY
43
24
6
30
56%
72
28
74
Active
Nov 1
2010
SLN
Retained at
campus as of
Nov 1 2013
Transferred
in
Total
District
Retained
32
3 year
campus
teacher
retention
Rate
Achievement
Progress
Gap
276
CUELLAR ELEMENTARY
56
23
7
30
41%
61
39
54
277
34
15
6
21
44%
75
31
73
278
TOLBERT ELEMENTARY
LEONIDES CIGARROA
ELEMENTARY
38
13
12
25
34%
61
38
55
279
47
26
1
27
55%
76
45
72
280
ANNE FRANK ELEMENTARY
76
40
3
43
53%
77
53
75
281
CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY
44
25
4
29
57%
62
50
63
283
43
27
6
33
63%
64
37
65
51
25
4
29
49%
57
37
54
286
MEDRANO ELEMENTARY
HIGHLAND MEADOWS
ELEMENTARY
LEE MCSHAN JR
ELEMENTARY
40
21
2
23
53%
68
47
66
287
43
22
5
27
51%
71
51
64
289
31
7
9
16
23%
69
45
69
Active
Nov 1
2010
SLN
284
Retained at
campus as of
Nov 1 2013
Transferred
in
Total
District
Retained
33
3 year
campus
teacher
retention
Rate
Table A-8
CEI Distribution of Mathematics Teachers for 2009-10 and 2011-12
by Returning Status
CEI Score
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66-70
71-75
76-80
81-85
86-90
91-95
above average
(CEI>55)
% stay
below average
(CEI<=45)
% leave
Left after Returned in
Left after remained after
2011-12
2012-13
2009-10
2010-11
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
1
1
11
4
8
10
25
23
17
16
55
45
32
65
112
102
77
153
183
235
122
326
201
312
139
409
244
334
139
394
109
244
66
324
83
130
47
186
33
68
15
62
12
28
10
36
5
15
6
12
2
4
2
5
2
0
1
5
1
2
0
1
247
491
66.5%
147
631
81.1%
389
411
48.6%
259
573
31.1%
34

1 Teacher Turnover in Dallas ISD, A Sign of Progress or a Symptom

Transcription

Similar documents

Directions from NCTAMS to Helemano Elementary School

Castori Elementary School - Twin Rivers Unified School District

11-13-15 - Easton Valley CSD

August, 2012 Dear Group Leader, If you are looking

ADELFA BOTELLO CALLEJO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Adventures with Allatoona Ally

Waples Mill Elementary School

Essentially Elementary From the Principal

District Dateline - Lake Shore Public Schools