Mutual Consent Hiring
Presentation to the Ohio Senate Education Committee
March 2015
© TNTP 2013
Mutual consent policies rest on a simple principle: teachers should always
choose their schools and schools should always choose their teachers.
25%
Mutual consent policies have mutual
benefits for teachers and schools.
Quality matches make for
more effective teachers.
• Teachers get to work at schools that are good
fits for their talents. 90% of Chicago teachers
who transferred under mutual consent rules
said the process resulted in a good match.
• Teachers are more effective when they work in
schools that are good fits—which is much
more likely to happen under mutual consent
staffing rules.
• Schools get the strongest possible
instructional teams. 76% of Philadelphia
principals said mutual consent rules helped
them build strong teams, compared to only
44% of principals at schools without mutual
consent.
• Research has shown that 25% of teachers’
effectiveness in the classroom depends on
the quality of the match with their school.*
* Source: C. Kirabo Jackson, “Match Quality, Worker Productivity, and Worker Mobility: Direct Evidence From Teachers,” May 2010. The study
found that North Carolina elementary school teachers who transferred schools between 1995 and 2006 tended to be more effective (measured by
growth in standardized test scores) after they transferred due in part to the “match effect” of their new schools.
/2
In Memphis, non-mutual consent hires were more likely to rank in the lowest
category on evaluations and less likely to rank in the highest category.
TEM Distribution of 2012 Hires
32%
32%
28%
28%
27%
16%
16%
11%
7%
2%
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Non-Mutual Consent (n=116)
Level 4
Level 5
Mutual Consent (n=1,210)
/3
Last year in CMSD, only 11% of principals were satisfied with the QUALITY of
non-mutual consent hires caused by necessary transfers
Necessary CMSD transfers (non-mutual consent/direct
placement or restricted choice)
11% Satisfied
Voluntary CMSD transfers (mutual consent)
40% Satisfied
External teaching candidates (mutual consent)
53% Satisfied
Overall pool of teaching candidates
23% Satisfied
0%
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
20%
40%
Somewhat satisfied
Combined n=47
60%
Satisfied
80%
100%
Very satisfied
/4
CMSD Principals think restricting their hiring choice directly harms their
school and their students.
“There's nothing more frustrating than having to take a necessary transfer
when I know that person isn't a good teacher.”
“I believe that if someone is a necessary transfer they should have to
interview for their position. The fact that they can blow off the interview
fair and still be placed is not appropriate.”
“I believe the necessary transfer process must be revised. It is harmful to
our school and is focused on providing a job for an adult with no
consideration for students.”
/5
More and more states and districts across the country have created
policies to end forced placement and provide for mutual consent hiring.
• Colorado state law prohibited forced placement in 2010 and requires mutual consent hiring
of teachers.
• DC Public Schools current collective bargaining agreement prohibits forced placement of
teachers.
• Louisiana state law eliminated forced placement in 2012. For teacher placement, district
superintendents must delegate teacher hiring decisions to school principals.
• Rhode Island state law prohibited forced placement in 2009 by adopting regulations that
require personnel decisions to be driven by student learning and require each district "to
maintain control of its ability to recruit, hire, manage, evaluate, and assign its personnel."
• Tennessee state law eliminated forced placement in 2013 and instead now requires teachers
and principals to mutually agree on an excessed teacher's school placement.
/6
For mutual consent to be effective, districts should provide options for
teachers that lose positions due to layoffs or school closures
Options might include:
• Preferential treatment and support in the hiring process – displaced teachers deserve help
finding new positions that are a good fit
• Reasonable limitations on how long teachers may earn a salary without having a full-time
position (e.g., 6-12 months)
• Provisions that allow displaced teachers to be re-hired at previous seniority level if/when they
find a new role.
/7
Appendix
The following slides also illustrate the impact of mutual consent hiring
/8
Changes to TN law, as well as district strategies, enabled Memphis schools to
move toward 100% mutual consent hiring.
School Year
Number of
non-MC hires
Number of MC
hires
% of hires
through MC
2011-12
100
1096
92%
2012-13
135
1672
93%
2013-14
45
2342
98%
2014-15
0
2151
100%
• To meet this goal, the district started to track mutual consent hiring four
years ago to better gauge improvement.
• Additionally, the district worked across different internal departments, the
union and with principals and teachers to create an environment where
choice was prioritized in the hiring process.
/9
Forced-placement encourages principals to “game” the system by
transferring or excessing poor performers.
When poor-performing teachers are
transferred or excessed, it merely
shifts the problem to another school.
“Poor teachers are just moved from
school-to-school. When moved, issues
that the person had at the previous
school are not formally shared with the
next principal.”
More than half of the principals in
El Dorado, Arkansas have
encouraged a poor-performing
teacher to transfer.
57%
—Akron Public Schools Principal
/ 10