Involuntary Teacher Transfer

Call to Action

The objective of this column is to heighten awareness of this issue by exploring what is known about the incidence and effects of involuntary transfer, examining forces that may lead to involuntary transfer decisions and applying what is known to the field of special education. The analysis will include a look at two studies that have used reliable data to examine the links between involuntary transfer and student achievement. The column is also a call to action for more data to be collected at the national level that documents what is happening specifically within special education.

When looking at the research on this topic, it is evident that large-scale surveys used to collect data on schools and staffing issues are missing some important nuances with regard to special education. Special education teachers, for instance, are sometimes reassigned from one specialty area to another. Those with noncategorical certifications may be transferred (e.g., from teaching preschool students with autism in a self-contained class one year to teaching high school students with learning disabilities in a resource setting the next year). There is virtually no research into this type of transfer within special education. Several large-scale, national data sets exist that could potentially examine this process in special education, but the questions have not been asked. For instance, the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) includes questions about changes in assignments that teachers have experienced (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Earlier rounds of the SASS included information on 14 special education fields, but recent rounds lump all of these special education fields into one category, special education. The question about transfers from one special education area to another cannot be assessed currently using this potentially rich data source. Only changes in assignment from general education to special education or vice versa can be examined. Special educators need to be at the table when new rounds of SASS and other large-scale data sets are being shaped so that they can submit questions that will elucidate the involuntary transfer process as it occurs within special education.

Considering the emphasis at the federal and state levels for data-driven decision-making (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse), research about the practice of involuntary transfer should be an educational policy priority. Such practices in the field of education have suffered in the past from a lack of examination because of the absence of reliable data (Ingersoll, 1999). There are now excellent sources of data, including the SASS, to assess administrative tools such as this, but only if the relevant questions are asked.

What Is the Picture for Special Education Teachers?

Despite the scarcity of systematic scrutiny into involuntary transfer specifically, one salient pattern has been identified that has particular relevance for the field of special education. Special educators are moving and leaving the field at greater rates than general education teachers (Keigher, 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004) and are more likely than general education teachers to report that they left teaching because of an involuntary staffing decision (Boe et al., 2008). Perhaps involuntary transfer within special education is one reason why special education teachers are moving out of the field.

Special educators in public schools moved to a different school at a rate of 9.8% in comparison with an average of 7.3% of general education teachers. They also left the profession at a rate of 12.3% compared to 7% in other fields (Keigher, 2010). There are several major theories in the literature about why special education teachers transfer (or leave teaching altogether), including (a) burnout because of stress, (b) case overload, (c) lack of preparation (Fore, Martin, & Bender, 2002), and (d) school staffing actions such as involuntary transfers (Edgar & Pair, 2005). In fact, the largest source of demand for new hires into special education is because of special education teachers migrating to general education (Billingsley, 2005).

Involuntary Transfer Is a Current and Often Contentious Practice

It is apparent from current educational events, from interviews conducted by the author with special education directors, and from two very important recent studies on the topic (Grissom, Loeb, & Nakashima, 2013; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2011) that involuntary transfer is a current and ongoing administrative practice that affects the lives of teachers and students. One of the issues at the center of the 2012 teacher’s strike in Chicago was that teachers could be laid off because of the closing of traditional public schools and the opening of more charter schools (Rado, 2012). Teachers and the union disagreed with each other about whether the laid-off teachers would be reassigned and how this would happen. Reassignment after being laid off would constitute an involuntary transfer. In another example from the same year, another large urban school district involuntarily transferred 53 teachers from low-performing schools. The district offered to pay the teachers $2,500 but also required them to agree to a teacher evaluation plan that the union did not want to accept. An arbitrator ruled that the transfers violated the teachers’ contract. This ruling was upheld by the state Supreme Court (Pasaic, 2012).

Riordan and Stivers (2011) conducted interviews with special education directors as a way to gain a preliminary sense of how frequently involuntary transfers occur within special education, even if on a very small, local scale. The special education administrators were located in nine districts in a three-county region just outside a major metropolitan area. Special education directors in all nine districts reported that some teachers had been reassigned in the previous year from one special education area to another. Eight of the nine reported at least one involuntary transfer and in two of those eight districts, all of the reassignments were involuntary. In the remaining six districts, the number of involuntary reassignments from one special education area to another ranged from one third to two thirds. Although this does not necessarily reflect national trends, it is clear, particularly from current events, that involuntary transfer is an established and ongoing practice.

Scientific Inquiry Into Involuntary Transfer

Until recently, there has been very little data gathered to link involuntary teacher transfer to student achievement. Two recent studies, one of which dealt specifically with involuntary transfer, are at the forefront of making the link from involuntary teacher transfer to student achievement.

Ronfeldt et al. (2011) challenged the conventional wisdom regarding the effect of teacher quality in the presence of other powerful factors. The authors looked at the negative effects of teacher turnover on the stability of the school community. They found evidence that turnover itself, regardless of the quality of the incoming new teachers, weakens the fabric of the school community and creates discontinuity in program implementation and knowledge of students, both of which extend even to the students of stayers, or teachers whose assignments did not change. From an organizational perspective, Ingersoll (2003) shared the following insight:

While schools in some ways resemble economic-production organizations, in other ways they resemble another kind of institution altogether—the family. But not surprisingly, similar to families the presence of a positive sense of community, belongingness, communication, and cohesion among members has long been held by education theory and research to be one of the most important indicators and aspects of effective schools. (p. 12)

Grissom et al. (2013) specifically examined the effects of involuntary transfer on student achievement. They compiled information from a 3-year study of involuntary transfers using data from one of the largest school districts in the country. The purpose of the study was to investigate the district’s involuntary transfer policy, including which teachers were transferred, where they were moved, and how their performance compared before and after the transfer. The district purposely chose to transfer the lowest performing teachers in the lowest performing schools to higher performing schools, with the intent to improve equity and efficiency in the system. District administrators proceeded from the assumption that greater equity would be achieved within the district if teachers were distributed more fairly within the district; that is, if involuntary transfers could counteract the tendency for the best teachers to move to the highest performing schools and students. Efficiency (or greater productivity) would be obtained by increasing overall district output without increasing district costs by using involuntary transfers to match teachers more effectively with schools. For example, some teachers may be better suited to working with English language learners even though they might not be the best teachers (Grissom et al., 2013).

The study, therefore, examined the contention that involuntary transfer could be an effective administrative practice. Grissom et al. (2013) found evidence that the Miami–Dade program was an effective tool to achieve equity, as “involuntarily transferred teachers were systematically moved to higher performing schools” (p. 1). However, the results regarding efficiency were mixed. Although the involuntarily transferred teachers did not demonstrate any value added increase in student achievement, “in their new schools, transferred teachers had fewer absences, suggesting a gain on one measure of productivity” (Grissom et al., 2013, p. 4). The researchers placed greater weight on the finding for absences because the involuntarily transferred teachers were moved to a more productive group of students, making the test score comparison with their old schools very difficult. Moreover, the authors pointed out that not only did the transferred teachers’ absenteeism rate decline significantly in their new schools, but their replacements in their old schools also had fewer absences. Thus, both equity and efficiency increased with this program. Under certain conditions, involuntary transfer may have favorable reasons.

The Effects of Involuntary Transfer on Teachers

It is also essential to understand the impact of involuntary transfer on teachers. By its nature, an involuntary transfer has the effect of compromising a teacher’s sense of control over his or her work. Ingersoll (2006) examined data from the SASS (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009) and from interviews with teachers in all fields to document the problems of teacher turnover, especially for new teachers. This scrutiny of teachers as workers (and schools as workplaces) led to an examination of teachers’ perceptions of how schools treat them, as well as their observations of their workplace environments. Ingersoll found that some conditions of the school workplace can lead teachers to feel disempowered and treated as nonprofessionals (Ingersoll, 2006). Indicators of deprofessionalization include lack of control over one’s work. Ingersoll proposed that school systems characterized by excessive bureaucracy and top-down decision making create an atmosphere that may seem to be less like white-collar work settings and more like factories; productivity is the goal and teachers are more similar to workers than to professionals (Ingersoll, 2006). This disempowerment theory presumes that the gap between the anticipated white-collar environment and the blue-collar reality leads to teacher dissatisfaction and eventually turnover. Although there are no data to link this organizational theory specifically to involuntary transfer, by its nature, involuntary transfer is a top-down decision with the potential to create a sense of disempowerment.

Hannay and Chism (1985), however, discovered that teachers who were involuntarily transferred often felt stigmatized and as if they were being punished. Santoro (2011) discussed how it is important for teachers to feel moral rewards of teaching and doing good work. When the conditions of teachers’ work changes dramatically, particularly if there is not a good match in the transfer, it can lead to demoralization and a sense of incompetency (Santoro, 2011). Teachers who were involuntarily transferred generally reported lower levels of satisfaction (Cascone et al., 2010), and teacher satisfaction has important implications for retaining teachers (Mathieu, 1991; Perie & Baker, 1997).

Not all involuntary transfers are destined for failure, however. A later study by Hannay and Chism (1988) found that whether a transfer was voluntary or involuntary had less of an effect on a teacher’s professional growth than the beliefs and attitudes of the teacher about the transfer. Teachers who embraced the challenges of teaching and were open to new ideas were more likely to experience growth as a result of a transfer. Although teachers can perceive involuntary transfer as stressful (Collins & Masley, 1980), this can also be a way for some teachers to regenerate their teaching methods (Hannay & Chism, 1988; Hollingsworth, 1981).

Just as change can bring challenge, it can also bring opportunities for personal and professional growth (Stivers & Cramer, 2009). When teachers and administrators view change as a process with predictable stages, they can anticipate the primary challenges that will surface at each stage and work together to identify and use the resources needed to ensure that the transition is successful. Stivers and Cramer (2009) offered teachers guidance in understanding the change process, working through resistance, and using change as a catalyst for professional development.

Forces That Increase the Likelihood of Involuntary Transfer

Both professional journals and the popular press are drawing attention to current financial pressures within school systems that lead to a reorganization of the teaching force. Major cities across the United States are facing severe cuts in teaching staff. In a 2011 Education Week article, for instance, Cavanagh called attention to the way in which the national trend of school district downsizing can lead to involuntary transfers. Budget cuts lead to a reduction in the teaching staff, which can cause schools to transfer the remaining teachers to cover vacancies. New teachers are particularly vulnerable. Because of the complexities of teachers’ contractual agreements, which sometimes limit who can be transferred in a given year, new teachers are at greater risk of being involuntarily transferred (Goldhaber & Theobald, 2011; Koski & Horng, 2007). Cavanagh reported results from the American Association of School Administrators survey, showing that a majority of superintendents cut jobs in 2010 and anticipated cutting more in 2011. Although some superintendents reported that they preferred to use voluntary transfers first, it is clear that some involuntary transfers are inevitable in the current economic climate. All of these forces increase the likelihood of involuntary transfer.

Involuntary transfer may also be the result of a set of human resource management predicaments (Ingersoll, 2006). Sometimes shifting student populations or changing program structures can lead to new personnel needs. School administrators have the difficult task of providing a broad array of programs with limited resources. It is less expensive and quicker to reassign teachers than to conduct a search for a new teacher (Ingersoll, 2006). There are also times when schools need to address accountability concerns. For example, a school at risk of being shut down or reorganized because of low performance may need to involuntarily transfer low performing teachers to nontested subjects or to another school. This desire for stronger credentials can result in involuntary transfer of someone out of the classroom who does not have as much certification as a new teacher with the certification.

Conclusions

Certainly, there are positive aspects to involuntary transfer. The achievement of equity and efficiency in a school system is no small accomplishment. If done on a limited basis, strategically, sensitively, and with support, involuntary transfer can be a tool to improve outcomes for students. Recent research suggests that an involuntary transfer policy can be used to promote school district goals and benefit students and teachers. Involuntary transfer can boost the productivity of relatively low-performing teachers. Of course, the operative word in both of the preceding sentences is can. On the other side, involuntary transfers can also be a source of teacher disempowerment, alienation, and apathy, all of which can result in the loss of productivity. We must identify the nuances that determine whether this practice is successful and effective, or not, for students and schools.

This is a topic whose time has come. It is important for special educators and administrators to be at the table when this issue becomes more prominently examined. As surveys are being constructed, special education experts need to submit questions reflective of their unique insights about what works and what fails. When policy makers ask to see the data that result from such research, the right questions must have been asked, specifically as they pertain to special education. As Grissom et al. (2013) show in their study, involuntary transfer can be a strategy to help even the playing field for children by making their opportunities to learn more equitable. One of the core purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is to guarantee equity and equality of educational opportunity for children with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). Therefore, it is critical that we understand how involuntary transfer is used as a strategy or practice in special education and how students, teachers, and schools are affected. For now, it remains absent from the research agenda.