Assisting struggling teachers effectively

Abstract

In this research, we examine strategies school principals have used to assist struggling teachers. In an open-ended questionnaire designed for this study, we asked 219 school principals to describe a successful intervention they held. The results show that principals prefer supportive assistance to organizational changes (such as moving the teacher to another class). They rarely used confrontational approaches. A content analysis of the strategies that enabled successful intervention identified four conditions: (a) principals’ willingness to intervene; (b) intensive use of measures and resources; (c) the teacher’s willingness to make changes; and (d) the need for flexibility in managing the intervention. The findings indicate the need to train principals to assist struggling teachers more effectively and to encourage them to become more assertive. This requires a professional development program for teachers and principals, guidance in classroom management, as well as organizational, financial, and human support.

Keywords

Struggling teachers principals poor performance professional development

Introduction

Not all committed and motivated teachers are successful to the same degree, and some teachers face significant challenges. These poor performing teachers often lack subject matter knowledge, have difficulties managing their classes, impose unreasonable discipline, behave unprofessionally, and willfully neglect their duties (Alexander and Alexander, 2009). These teachers have a negative effect on their students, distract others from doing their work, consume much of the principal’s time, and take the place of other workers who might be of more help to the organization (Hanushek, 2009).

Several terms have been coined to describe these teachers. Some, such as “incompetent” address the worker’s personality (Bridges, 1992). Another term, “marginal”, refers to the teacher’s social situation. “Challenging” refers to a teacher’s relations with the principal (Yariv, 2004), while other terms, “under performance” (Middlewood and Abbott, 2017) or “poor performing”, evaluate the teacher’s behavior (Banfield et al., 2006) or effectiveness (Wragg et al., 2000). All these labels carry a judgmental attitude that portrays the teacher as the one with the problems, but difficulties at work (and successful performance) are influenced by various sources, and should not be portrayed as a dichotomous phenomenon. The current study adopts a less stigmatizing term: “struggling teacher”. We refer to veteran staff members who “have worked for more than five years and still face substantial and ongoing difficulties at work; teachers whose performance, according to the principal is below the expected norm”. We assume that many teachers may face significant challenges during their career, and that temporary setback is normal and may be reversible. School principals confronted with these challenges must be prepared to cope with them and to make efforts to improve the teacher’s performance.

According to studies in several countries, ineffective teachers are estimated to comprise an average of 5 to 7% of the work force (Yariv, 2004; Bridges, 1986; Lavely et al, 1992; Tucker, 1997; Zhang, 2007) and perhaps even up to 15% (Dandoy, 2012). These figures are universal and stable. For example, a 2007–2008 American Schools and Staffing Survey indicated that about 82% of 4601 school principals decided to renew the contracts of all tenured teachers, regardless of the quality of their performance, even those who rated “unsatisfactory” and “fair”. Similar findings are presented by Weisberg et al. (2009), who surveyed 15,000 teachers and 1,300 school administrators, found that that more than 99% of teachers received a rating of “satisfactory” on a binary (satisfactory or unsatisfactory) teacher evaluation tool. In addition, 81% of school principals acknowledged that at least one tenured teacher in their school was performing poorly.

Such barriers may sound odd considering the last decade’s reforms that emphasized quality assurance and provided school principals with greater autonomy. Middlewood and Abbott assert that “support staff have become more closely monitored and subject to accountability measures often imported from the business world” (Middlewood and Abbott, 2017: 11). The implications of these reforms are twofold: first, principals are required to prove higher quality and performance at their school, and would therefore be less tolerant of struggling teachers; and second, when principals have greater autonomy, they can more easily discontinue the employment of a struggling teacher, which may clash with the interest of professional unions to protect that teacher. Many countries have developed evaluation procedures for teachers in an attempt to better manage and support poor-performing teachers (Middlewood and Abbott, 2017).

The reasons so few principals attempt to remove incompetent teachers, especially regarding the pressure to improve students’ achievements and maintain managerial accountability, are complicated (Weisberg et al., 2009). Numerous studies have reported the enormous complexities and obstacles principals face in coping with poor performing teachers: the teacher’s denial of difficulties; the possible lack of information, sometimes intentionally hidden by inspectors and colleagues; and the maneuvers and occasional deceptions used to postpone any of the principal’s actions (Bridges, 1986, 1992). Furthermore, some scholars argue that managerial faults and principals’ reluctance to examine themselves is also a part of the problem (Middlewood and Abbott, 2017; Wragg et al., 2000). Needless to say, a difficult organizational climate may exist, in which teachers’ unions may block efforts to dismiss incompetent teachers (Range et al., 2012), and governmental regulations may prevent principals from making desired changes. Dismissal of teachers is a lengthy and very expensive procedure (Bridges, 1992; Gibbs, 2014), resulting in stress on all sides. In addition, principals may hesitate to provide feedback or to take decisive action, which could slow down any intervention they consider (Yariv, 2006).

According to Hollinger “there is no training provided on how to identify and provide the support teachers need to improve” (Hollinger, 2016: 9). Australian principals complain that they are not trained to handle the paradox of simultaneously being supporter and assessor of underperforming teachers, or to manage procedures that are onerous, bureaucratically complex in delivery and professionally challenging. Jacob and Lefgren (2008) suggested that if principals had greater autonomy with regard to hiring and promotion decisions, it would be more likely that they would be able to distinguish between the most and least effective teachers in their buildings. In contrast, Dandoy (2012) found that when principals faced barriers to discontinuing a teacher’s contract (such as union protection, teachers’ tenure, and amount of time or effort required to deal with the process of dismissing a teacher), they were more likely to express dissatisfaction with their jobs, to have dissatisfied staffs, to express a desire to transfer to a different school, or to make an effort to decrease the impact of those barriers.

As struggling teachers are difficult to remove, it would make more sense to find more ways to assist and improve them. No studies to date have directly examined the conditions and measures that lead to effective intervention. “Success” and “effective” are relative terms, and the outcomes are judged according to the principals’ initial goals which tend to change from one case to another.

Assisting struggling teachers

Assisting struggling teachers often involves the use of positive or supportive measures, but sometimes principals need to adopt formal and tougher means that may take time and drain personal resources of all those involved (Thompson, 2009). Surveying over one hundred school administrators, Bridges (1986, 1992) found that once principals identify poor performing teachers, they prefer to tolerate and protect them, sometimes suggesting in-service training. When there is no improvement, they refer the teacher to ‘escape hatches’, other positions (e.g. librarian, and teaching individual students) to limit the damage. Teachers in California may be transferred to other schools, with a chance to improve under new conditions. When school enrollment declines, or financial situations deteriorate or complaints from parents and colleagues continue, principals are forced to make difficult decisions. Sometimes they rely on the district’s annual summative evaluation results to substantiate allegations of incompetence and initiate steps toward dismissal.

Dealing with allegations of incompetence is stressful for everyone (Yariv, 2006; Bridges, 1986). When principals and school inspectors first notice problems, they prefer to ignore them. As the situation gets worse, they are gradually forced to take measures. Such a modus operandi helps them minimize conflicts with the teacher and decrease their own burnout. Fidler and Atton (1999) argue that an assertive approach and immediate intervention are necessary when problems arise. Hesitation to act contributes to the teacher’s dysfunctional situation and prevents any chances of turning “ugly ducklings into swans”– improving the situation – as Bridges (1992) found. Supervisors he interviewed said it was a shame to spend resources on teachers whose performance would remain at best below average. They asked, “Is it worth the agony?” (Bridges, 1992: 72). The examples he cites represent severe cases of persistent failure not being handled on time. Another mistaken strategy that Bridges mentions refers to principals’ tendency to record and criticize the incompetent teachers’ performance as they initiate a process of dismissal. These steps involve a heavy personal and administrative burden. Such intervention negatively affects the teachers and results in a lowered sense of professional competence, reduced motivation, less willingness to meet the principal’s expectations, and an increased sense of anxiety. School administrators in California, according to Bridges, faced bitter and harsh responses by teachers who rejected criticism, opposed the principals’ plans, and refused to take their advice. Occasionally, when the district decided to dismiss them, teachers filed lawsuits that took years and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Very few empirical studies have described such interventions aimed to assist struggling teachers. In a representative sample of schools in Taiwan, Cheng (2014) examined how school principals cope with poor performing teachers. He found that principals used several active measures to encourage, assist, and support teachers. They asked other staff members to invite the struggling teacher to observe their lessons and join their teams; they offered guidance, and encouraged the teachers to attend courses on teaching methods. Cheng found that the use of two or more different measures was more effective than a single approach. He also found, according to the Equity Theory, that, to the extent possible, it is essential to reduce the gap between teachers’ and the principal’s perceptions about the fairness of these measures. It is also essential to assure equitable allocation of the workload among staff members, and it is important for them to express satisfaction with respect to the nature of intervention in assisting a struggling teacher. Such means, Cheng believes, improve the quality of teaching and raise teachers’ morale.

Another study examined the effectiveness of mentoring. Traditionally mentoring is used in basic professional training but is used infrequently with experienced teachers. In a unique study, Flesch (2005) offered thirteen elementary school teachers (including two males) intensive mentoring (IM) for two weeks that included an observation and feedback discussion. Flesch used her experience to demonstrate new teaching techniques to her colleagues. Her presence gave the teachers an intensive working model, a unique opportunity to consult, share personal dilemmas and discuss teaching methods. During the IM, teachers experienced emotional stages that involved coming to terms with the loss of old habits and ideas. By the end of the program, nine out of thirteen teachers showed marked progress, and reported how the mentoring had improved their performance and strengthened their sense of self-efficacy (Kass, 2012).

Finally, intervention can be assessed according to its actual outcomes, the teacher’s decision to stay or leave. Yariv and Coleman (2005) found that one-sixth of the 40 cases of “challenging teachers” left the profession temporarily (e.g. took a leave of absence), while one-third went to another school. Wragg et al. (2000) found that 70% of failing teachers left teaching and changed their profession, while an improvement occurred in a quarter of the cases, especially with novice teachers (with up to ten years of experience). Bridges (1986) also found that teachers who had worked for ten years or less improved their performance whereas teachers who had worked for more than ten years were less likely to change.

The Israeli context

In Israel, approximately 164,000 teachers work in 3850 schools: two-thirds teach in elementary institutions; and the rest in junior and senior high schools (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Most of these teachers are employed by the government, and they enjoy the public sector’s generous labor agreements (including job tenure) and the protection of two strong teachers’ unions. Very little is known about the identity of struggling teachers, factors that contribute to their difficulties or how to solve them. According to several studies (Friedman, 2006; Friedman and Gavish, 2003), adverse conditions in many classrooms leave one-quarter of Israeli teachers stressed and burned out. Interestingly, some of these teachers are college graduates who have just entered the profession (Gavish and Friedman, 2010). In another study 40 elementary school principals described an average of 7% of their staff members as “challenging”, most of whom showed insensitivity toward their students or had low motivation and burnout (Yariv, 2004).

How does the educational system cope with and assist these teachers? In a study on teacher dropout Arviv-Elyashiv and Zimmerman (2013) describe a category of incompetent teachers, primarily with poor pedagogical skills. In extreme cases, the Ministry of Education may dismiss such teachers after a lengthy and painful process. Other teachers, who have tenured positions, remain in their jobs or are transferred from school to school until they retire. Yariv and Coleman (2005) held semi-structured interviews with forty elementary school principals about a case of a struggling teacher. The respondents mentioned an average of three supportive measures and two organizational measures. The use of threat and dismissal were rare and their frequency was similar in both studies.

The goal of this study is to answer two questions:

What are the measures principals used in successful interventions?

What conditions are necessary to bring about such change in teacher performance?

Research method

This paper is based on a two-stage project that examines who struggling teachers are, and how school principals cope with their professional and personal difficulties. The study is based on the premise of the “learning from success” approach (Sykes et al., 2006). Here, we report the findings of principals’ accounts to an open question about a successful individual intervention they held. We believe that due to their professional responsibility and acquaintance with every staff member, principals are the best informants. Having a relatively large sample of cases provides rich data to explore various conditions necessary for successful interventions.

Participants

Using a convenient sampling method, we reached 219 principals (of whom 59% were women) who responded to the survey. Most of the respondents (82%) have Master’s degrees, the rest have Bachelor’s degrees (15%) and PhDs (3%). These principals have been working an average of more than nine years, while a quarter of them (27%) have worked in two or more schools. 63% of the schools were elementary schools, 14% were middle schools and the rest were high schools. Among these institutions, 10% were large schools (over 800 pupils), of which about 11% included 600–800 pupils; medium sized schools (400–600 pupils) which were a quarter of the populations; and the rest were small schools (18%). For practical reasons, the sampling took place mainly in the Northern (56%) and Haifa regions (26%), while only 18% covered other geographical regions in Israel. Over half of the schools were affiliated with the secular sector (Jewish), a third was orthodox and the rest were Arab-speaking institutions (in comparison, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the similar nation-wide figures in 2015 were 38, 14, and 22%, respectively). The average number of staff members in each school was 47, the median was 39 and the range was 5–63. The socio-economic status of the schools was 5.92 within a 1–10 scale where the highest number refers to the poorest.

Tools

Principals were asked to fill in a short questionnaire about an individual case in which they assisted a struggling staff member. The first section addressed demographic aspects of their own schools and professional experience. The next paragraph defined the target population of ‘struggling teachers’ “who have been working for more than five years and, in the opinion of the principal, are experiencing significant long-term difficulties in their job performance”. Then, in an open question, principals were asked to describe a successful intervention that brought about an improvement in a struggling teacher’s performance. No other guidelines were given.

Procedure

After developing an initial version of the research tool, we asked three teachers to fill in the questionnaire and provide comments about its clarity and relevance. Then we applied to the chief scientist of the Ministry of Education and received approval to begin the study. Our research assistants contacted principals by telephone, introduced themselves, and arranged an appointment. About 85% of the principals agreed to participate in the study. Since it was difficult to reach principals (many of them did not return calls), we decided to use also an online version of the questions. We approached school inspectors who agreed to send an online questionnaire to the principals they supervise. Of the 600 prospective principals who received that request, about 120 responded positively (20%).

Data processing

The content analysis of the open question addresses the two research questions.

Measures principals used

We first extracted out of the principals’ 111 accounts any sentence or word that describe specific measures they used (e.g. ‘I decided to accompany and listen to her, consulting her how to overcome her distress’). Second, attaching an initial category to each word or phrase (‘accompanying and supporting’ and ‘consulting’ respectively) (see Table 1). Third, integrating the initial categories into 14 clusters of sub-categories. For example, statements such as “guidance by the principal” (mentioned 13 times), “on the job training” (3) and “guidance by the school counselor” (3) were categorized as “guidance”. These 14 categories were later re-organized into 10 main categories that were later grouped into four main strategies (see Table 2). In order to reach a sufficient level of validity and reliability, two professional judges (the authors) separately coded the sentences. Comparing their analysis reached a congruence level of 94%. Cases in dispute were discussed until a consensus was reached. Such coding procedure (Cohen et al., 2011) managed to overcome the wide range of verbal expressions, partial representation of the content, overlapping of concepts and words and difficulty comprehending what the principals meant. Enclosed are the categories extracted from the statements of measures used by the principals.

Table 1.

Coding the measures used by principals (n = 111).

Example of statements	Sub-categories
My vice principals and I conducted several observations at his classes	Classroom observations
I filled the teaching structured evaluation form. I initiated an evaluation process. To assist her, not to criticize.	Formal and informal evaluation.
We mapped and identified her strengths and weaknesses.	Mapping teachers’ performance.
We developed an educational plan to advance each of her students socially and emotionally.	Developing a plan with the teacher.
We had several feedback talks.	Feedback discussion.
I guided her personally.	Guidance.
We had many talks.	Mentoring.
Many talks of reinforcement and encouragement.	Providing reinforcement and encouragement.
She received support by the school counselor.	Support.
I helped build respectful relations with her pupils.	Keeping warm relations.
Mobilizing the school’s resources in order to assist her.	Providing tools and teaching materials.
Inviting external supervision visits.	Ongoing supervision.
I had to change her job…from homeroom teacher to subject matter teacher.	Changing teaching positions.
I encouraged 11 teachers to retire in the last 5 years. Fear and threat must remain outside.	Sanctions, threats and initiating a dismissal procedure.

Table 2.

Frequencies of measures principal used (n = 111).

Sub-categories of measures (14)	Main categories (10)	Main strategies
	Classroom observations (17)	Preparing the intervention (52)
Formal and informal evaluation (6)	Performance evaluation (24)
Mapping teachers’ performance (18)	Performance evaluation (24)
	Developing a plan with the teacher (11)
	Feedback discussion (30)	Assisting measures (175)
Guidance (38)	Guidance (58)
Mentoring (20)	Guidance (58)
Providing reinforcement and encouragement (27)	Supporting (63)
Support (32)
Keeping warm relations (4)
	Providing tools and teaching materials (11)
	Ongoing supervision (24)
	Changing teaching positions	Organizational measures (20)
	Sanctions, threats and initiating a dismissal procedure (4)	Sanctions and threats (4)

Conditions for success

The term ‘condition’ in scientific inquiry is generally associated with an experimental design that introduces a condition (or manipulation) directly affecting the variation of the dependent variable. Here, we adopt the logic of quasi-experimental design (Cohen et al., 2011), searching for ‘natural conditions’ that possibly influence the outcomes of the principals’ successful interventions. More specifically, we search for behavioral aspects (e.g. principals’ direct involvement) that have been mentioned repeatedly. To accomplish this, we used the coding tables to count certain aspects like number and type of measures used; and the number of people involved in the intervention. We also searched for qualitative arguments (principals’ explanations of ‘what works’) mentioned in the principals’ accounts.

Ethical considerations

Researchers and practitioners who wish to explore this phenomenon are faced with major obstacles. First, ‘Principals don’t like to talk and admit these [teachers] exist in a school’ (Fuhr, 1993: 23). Shared feelings of frustration and embarrassment may be covered up with a heavy layer of denial and false descriptions. Second, moral, ethical and practical difficulties restrict the use of certain research methods (e.g. interviewing the involved teachers). During the study, several precautions were taken to guarantee the moral and ethical standards of the procedures, including providing an informed consent and protecting the respondents’ anonymity and confidentiality. By the end of the questionnaire, we expressed our belief about the benefits of the study (Cohen et al., 2011: 75) saying “our findings would assist principals and other stakeholders to cope with one of the most complicated problems in the educational system”.

Findings

Measures principals used

Over half of the principals responded to the open question, though 2 out of 113 accounts were too short or vague and were omitted. Principals who did not respond probably lacked the relevant experience of managing an intervention that resulted in success. There may also be other reasons some principals did not respond.

Coding the principals’ responses identified 262 specific measures being used (e.g. ‘I decided along with the teacher to change the textbook she/he used’). Principals used an average of 2.6 activities per intervention, but they may have adopted other measures they did not report. A content analysis reveals four main strategies (Table 2). First, collecting information and planning intervention together (mentioned 52 times). In some cases, principals invited parents to share their children’s experience with the teacher, and in other cases they met to find creative solutions to a problem. At the second stage, principals mentioned providing assistance (mentioned 175 times). These measures were given either directly by the principal (“supporting and backing her certainly helped”) or by other staff members (“the school counselor met with the teacher and suggested the use of additional [teaching] methods during the lessons”). Some principals invested efforts in enhancing the teacher’s prestige among pupils and colleagues. Interestingly, the principals preferred providing emotional support (92%), whereas other professionals on the staff (67%) offered practical professional guidance. The third measure, though rarely used (n = 20), are the organizational measures – most often changing teachers’ roles and positions. Fourth, are the principals’ threats or attempts to transfer the teacher to another school or to initiate dismissal.

Although only four principals mentioned these measures, that extreme modus operandi is presented separately to show that successful intervention is mainly achieved by containing and assisting instead of taking ‘the ultimate option” (Middlewood and Abbott, 2017: 119).

Necessary conditions for effective intervention

Using content analysis, we identified four conditions that facilitated positive outcomes: (a) the willingness of the principal to become involved; (b) the diversification of activities and aid resources; (c) the willingness of the struggling teacher to make changes; and (d) the flexibility of the management of the intervention.

The principal’s willingness to assist

Successful intervention entails principals’ decision to become directly involved. Almost all the principals described their involvement and 58 of them did take direct active measures:

During our meetings, I showed her how to teach language skills; I helped her with Hebrew language lessons. That was my former position as a mentor in the Ministry of Education. We met together to identify her needs; we set goals for change and improvement. We built some teaching units together. I observed her class and immediately afterwards, we discussed the lessons. We had many such discussions during that year. In addition, the school’s counselor advised the teacher. My personal support did help [her] improve her teaching quality and sense of self-efficacy. I have to admit that in the beginning, we faced tremendous challenges, but her success increased her motivation to improve.

I tend to observe the [teacher’s] lessons, enter her classes unexpectedly, sitting there and watching. We hold many formal and informal talks during her free time. I show others how much I respect her, but I also informed her of the complaints I heard [about her teaching] and the problems I observed [during her lessons].

In other cases, principals navigated the intervention indirectly and called upon other staff members to become involved. Principals’ cooperation includes an investment of time, paying attention and allocating school resources (e.g. guidance by school counselor, and budgeting courses). Such mobilization of efforts reflects the principal’s change of attitude toward the teacher (“listening…listening to her! Understand her point of view”). It also ignites “a magic circle of success” that radiates a sense of empowerment and increases the willingness and confidence of staff members to assist their struggling colleague. For example, a principal asked the teacher to teach a different subject and switch to lower grade levels. That move improved the teacher’s social ties with pupils and colleagues, their professional status, and quality of their teaching. Another primary school principal concluded a successful intervention: “The basis for success was promoting an open discussion that helped me understand the teacher. Such a non-threatening climate helped us succeed”. The principals’ determination is essential when immense efforts result in disappointing outcomes.

Intensive use of measures and resources

Successful intervention entails a systematic use of various measures, often carried out in parallel or as a series of consecutive activities. Almost all the respondents’ accounts mentioned at least one measure offered by at least one person. A content analysis identified 50 cases in which principals used three or more measures. The following example counts the many useful strategies that involved several people:

Due to [the teacher’s] difficulties with some ‘complicated’ students, I suggested that she divide the class into groups and adjust her teaching to the pupils’ abilities. I also encouraged her to pay attention to each pupil personally; to show she trust them and try strengthen their self-confidence and motivation; I suggested her to consult with the school’s pedagogic mentor in developing lesson plans. I also invited outside supervisors who observed her lessons and provided feedback; she visited some colleagues in other schools who teach similar populations in order to learn their teaching methods; I provided her with a budget to purchase teaching resources, such as games and other items.

In another junior high school, we counted no less than nine measures the principal used to assist a math teacher who faced tremendous discipline problems. Clearly, not only the number of activities and professional being involved, but also the consistent and determined efforts to adopt creative means and to mobilize various resources brought about the change.

The teacher’s willingness to change

Several principals warned that any interventions would fail without the teacher’s willingness to adapt themselves to the school’s norms and standards of teaching. Others stressed how important is the teacher’s determination to improve their performance and learn new technology-based methods of instruction. Although principals describe their own actions and views, most of the accounts either directly illustrate the teachers’ cooperation or enable them to infer their cooperation from the ample efforts made on the interventions and successful outcomes:

A new teacher who arrived last year and taught 7th grade, faced discipline problems, and had a difficult time managing her classes. Her willingness to accept [my advice] and [her] desire to improve led to a significant change.

One of my experienced teachers asked to retire, but [the Ministry of Education] denied her request. She was disappointed and angry. I had heard many complaints about her [performance] during the last few months. I threatened to revoke her position as an ‘educator’. She understood. We agreed to initiate a process to improve her teaching. We looked carefully at her classroom teaching, established goals and allocated roles and responsibilities. We also decided to set times to meet on a regular basis. It was a phenomenal success. I think her willingness and commitment explains the significant improvement.

The second quote is rather exceptional. Principals often realized that “some [veteran teachers] simply do not want to get improved and without the threat of dismissal they would not listen to criticism or make any changes”. Interestingly, other principals believe that fear and threat are counter-productive, claiming that providing support and advice was sufficient.

Flexibility in managing the intervention

The fourth condition, designing interventions that would suit the teacher’s capabilities and personality, is only partially supported here. Few principals explained: ‘I asked her to fulfill certain tasks that were consistent with her status and capabilities’. In many other cases, their account exemplified how tuned in they were to the teacher’s unique situation. Taking measures, such as transferring teachers to less demanding positions, reducing the size of their classes, and asking them to teach subjects less prone to pressure of external evaluation, certainly placed a heavy organizational burden. Some principals were particularly considerate and helped new teachers fit in socially, or to solve conflicts with other staff members which demonstrated their willingness and determination to assist their staff members:

I had a problematic teacher who was highly professional and ambitious, someone who strived to succeed, but had emotional problems. She was on psychiatric medication. I knew she used to threaten and offend her students. Being so dominant and controlling frightened me. I decided to give her a meaningful managerial position, instead of the position as an ‘educator’ of first and second grade classes in order to benefit from her extraordinary capabilities and minimize her daily contact with pupils and colleagues. Initially, when she first heard about my decision, it caused a major crisis, but later she underwent a positive change. Today I would not even dream of letting her go.

Summarizing the conditions necessary for successful intervention, one principal explained how open discussion promoted understanding and enabled him to rebuild a struggling teacher’s career. Once it comes from a non-threatening place, it works. At best, such intervention “empowers students and teachers, adopting a language that facilitates a better future for our students. Such a process reveals a commitment to students and teachers.”

Discussion

School principals who wish to assist their struggling staff members face enormous obstacles. The few available studies, which documented principals’ day to day efforts, have shown the personal and organizational deadlock in which a teacher’s tendency to deny having difficulties comes face to face with a principal’s reluctance to provide meaningful feedback or to take decisive actions. This deadlock prevents effective intervention (Yariv and Coleman, 2005; Bridges, 1992).

The current study examines, for the first time, what types of intervention school principals used successfully. Unlike Flesch’s (2005) impressive work as a mentor, here we examined what administrative steps are necessary to assist struggling teachers overcome their difficulties. We elaborated on Cheng’s (2014) quantitative findings with detailed qualitative findings that can provide principals with guidelines for improving the performance of their staff.

Adopting an organizational approach

There is a common tendency to view struggling teachers as being solely responsible for their own difficulties. Scholars maintain that more often poor teaching results from a poorly functioning system than from individual shortcomings (Fidler and Atton, 1999; Futernick, 2010; Wragg et al., 2000). A difficult organizational climate, uncompromising teachers’ unions (Range et al., 2012), and strict governmental regulations make it difficult too for principals to dismiss incompetent teachers. Futernick argues that:

Rather than blame teachers, we must ensure they work within a highly functional system – one that, at a minimum, provides meaningful performance evaluations, high-quality professional development, reasonable class sizes, reliable and stable leadership, and time for planning and collaboration (Futernick, 2010: 59).

The current findings provide guidelines for establishing a positive organizational climate and effective professional development. Advancing successful intervention begins with the principals’ decision to accept the challenge and cope with the problem (Friedman, 1995) by preparing a multi-dimensional, inclusive plan for effective intervention involving a variety of methods and professionals. Such a plan includes finding practical solutions to support the struggling teacher. Only when these “positive” measures fail should school principals use more formal sanctions and/or threats to transfer a teacher to another school or initiate a dismissal procedure. These findings reflect a universal modus operandi found in previous studies (Yariv, 2004; Bridges, 1992; Cheng, 2014; Wragg et al., 2000). The reliance on containment and support reflects the principal’s preference to invest in professional development and to avoid open conflict with individual staff members (Wragg et al., 2000).

The conditions enable successful intervention

Comparing the use of the same tools in both effective and ineffective interventions, (Yariv and Coleman, 2005; Bridges, 1992; Cheng, 2014) demonstrates that it is not just the tools themselves, but rather the conditions in which they are applied, that make the difference. Based on a content analysis, we found four conditions that facilitate a positive climate that encourages all the parties to mobilize their best intentions and capabilities to enable change to take place.

First, principals must be ready to work hard, assume responsibility and become directly involved. Such a decision requires courage and determination, and it contrasts with principals’ tendency to shy away from conflicts and threats, found in previous studies (Yariv, 2009; Bridges, 1992). The decision not to accept the current situation, even at the expense of difficult negotiations and emotional stress, is an essential first step to change the current situation. The majority of principals in our study realized that without their support, struggling teachers would never regain their confidence and sense of self-efficacy (Kass, 2012), and would have refused to begin the grueling journey of leaving behind some entrenched working habits (Flesch, 2005).

The second prerequisite for success is the use of a variety of measures and the involvement of other staff members. When principals realize they cannot carry the burden alone, they involve other professionals. Bringing in a pedagogic mentor, school counselor or asking the school’s supervisor to intervene was meant to create a “blanket of support”. Many principals said they have developed a detailed program that includes some or all of the six measures proposed by Tucker (2001): define the problems; setting goals; selecting methods; setting a timetable; implementing the program; and tracking the results. The generous allocation of resources and professional assistance increased a sense of mutual responsibility and gratitude that motivated the teacher to cooperate and double her efforts (Grant, 2013; May and Supovitz, 2011). In many cases, the intervention changed the negative sentiment of pupils and colleagues toward the struggling teacher and convinced them that the principal was determined to solve problems by creating a sense of solidarity among the staff. In that respect, Cheng (2014) found that school principals consider their steps, among other things, by the consensus of the fairness and the necessity of the measures being taken. The smaller the gap the more likely staff members are to support the principal’s initiatives, reaffirming that the intervention is morally and professionally sound. It appears that principals who are willing to admit their problem and ask for help (Nir, 2009) thereby finding partners in the solution are more likely to succeed.

Third, the struggling teacher’s cooperation and willingness to assume responsibility, admit faults, and ask for assistance. Earlier studies have found that many failing teachers, mostly experienced ones (Bridges, 1992) refuse to engage in the long and painful process of transformation (Flesch, 2005), probably due to their rigid personality (Yariv, 2004). Being a full partner dramatically increases the odds of bringing about a change. Sparks and Lucas-Horsley (1989) suggest five staff development models in educational settings. Two of them are done through observation and assessment and training. These initiatives are usually taken by the school principal, together with other senior staff members. The principals in our study adopted similar measures. Three models are based on teacher involvement: (a) teachers themselves should plan professional development because they know their professional needs; (b) researchers should identify the issues to tackle and strive to solve them; and (c) teachers in question, alone or in collaboration with colleagues, should study their performance and strive to improve it. The principals’ reports do not indicate the extent to which struggling teachers became sufficiently involved. Further inquiry is necessary to address that issue.

Fourth, flexibility in managing the intervention. As in any educational setting, no uniform prescription is available for any certain problem. Planning and accommodating a unique intervention for each individual teacher, rather than imposing a rigid scheme, may save much personal agony and failure. In their reports about successful interventions, many principals viewed their roles as instructional leaders who need to develop individual relationships with teachers to better understand the unique needs and circumstances of these teachers (Hollinger, 2016, 50). Some principals supported staff members by providing a good working model – sending the teacher to observe colleague’s lessons. Another principal backed “weak” teachers by encouraging them to take stricter disciplinary measures with some pupils when necessary.

Strengthening the sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) of teachers who have experienced many failures emerges as a necessary condition to encourage teachers to cooperate with their principal and believe in their abilities to succeed (Kass, 2012).

Limitations and recommendations

The current study provides some answers, but raises many questions. First, we need to explore which criteria principals use to define a successful intervention. Second, in addition to the principals’ accounts, other voices must be heard, especially those of the struggling teachers themselves. Third, it is essential to understand in greater depth the constraints and considerations affecting principals’ interventions. Fourth, a more elaborated and systematic qualitative and quantitative inquiry would provide more detailed findings. For example, more careful examination regarding the principals who did not respond to the online questionnaire is needed. It is unlikely that all the non-respondents had not been able to deal successfully with a struggling teacher. It might even be that they had terminated the contract of such a teacher, but they might not have classified this resolution as ‘successful,’ while some respondents did. Equally, some of the non-respondents might have tried three strategies to improve the performance of a struggling teacher and yet these had not worked, so they could not class them as successful.

In addition to further empirical research, it is essential to provide principals with measures to identify and assist individual teachers to overcome their personal and professional difficulties. For example, Fidler and Atton (1999) recommend the following principles: (a) evaluation of a teacher’s performance based on facts and not rumors; (b) providing support combined with uncompromising demands for significant improvement; (c) identifying and implementing creative solutions instead of maintaining conservative practices; (d) protecting the teacher’s dignity by favoring solutions that respect rather than punish; (e) focusing on approaches that prevent future failures which may accept the situation of a failing teachers as inevitable; and (f) uncompromising insistence to protect and maintain the interests and needs of the students.

In conclusion, only accepting mutual responsibility to find solutions will help teachers and principals overcome professional and personal setbacks. Both partners need support, not criticism, and leaders in the educational system need evidence and explanations. Achieving these professional goals means providing principals and teachers with professional development programs, organizational counseling, significant on-going organizational support and extra allocations of finances, time and human support.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Ditza Maskit, Dr Hansa Diab, Snait Eilon, Naama Ben Yosef, Einav Gindi and Doron Yariv for their assistance.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) also thank the MOFET Institute for a generous grant that enabled this study.

References

Alexander

(2009) American Public-School Law. 7th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Arviv-Elyashiv

Zimmerman

(2013) Dropout from Teaching in Israel: Who Drops Out and How the Educational System Copse with that Phenomenon. A Research Report. Tel Aviv, Israel: MOFET Institute. [In Hebrew.]

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Banfield

Richmond

McCroskey

(2006) The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education 55(1): 63–72.

Bridges

(1986) The Incompetent Teacher: The Challenge and the Response. Revised edition. London, UK: The Falmer Press.

Bridges

(1992) The Incompetent Teacher: Managerial Response. Revised edition. London, UK: The Falmer Press.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2016) Education in Israel. Available at: http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/cw_usr_view_SHTML?ID=702 (accessed 26 March 2017).

Cheng

(2014) Attitudes of principals and teachers toward approaches used to deal with teachers’ incompetence. Social Behavior and Personality 42(1): 155–175.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011) Research Methods in Education. 7th edition. London, UK: Routledge.

10.

Dandoy

(2012) Principals’ Perceptions of Barriers to Dismissal of Poor-Performing Teachers. University of Kansas: Doctoral dissertation.

11.

Fidler

Atton

(1999) Poorly Performing Staff in Schools and How to Manage Them. London, UK: Routledge.

12.

Flesch

(2005) Mentoring the non-coping teacher: A preliminary study. Journal of Education for Teaching 31(2): 69–86.

13.

Friedman

(1995) School principal as a decision-maker: Thought patterns and problem-solving processes. Studies in Educational Administration and Organization (Hebrew) 19: 5–24.

14.

Friedman

(2006) Classroom management and teacher stress and burnout. In: Evertson

Weinstein

(eds.) Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp.925–944.

15.

Friedman

Gavish

(2003) Teacher Burnout: The Shattered Dreams of Professional Success. Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold Institute. [In Hebrew.]

16.

Fuhr

(1993) Managing mediocrity in the classroom. School Administrator 50(4): 26–29.

17.

Futernick

(2010) Incompetent teachers or dysfunctional systems? Phi Delta Kappan 92(2): 59–64.

18.

Gavish

Friedman

(2010) Novice teachers’ experience of teaching: a dynamic aspect of burnout. Social Psychology of Education 13(2): 141–167.

19.

Gibbs

(2014) It’s really difficult to fire a bad teacher: A group of Silicon Valley investors wants to change that. TIME Magazine.

20.

Grant

(2013) Give and Take. London: Penguin Books.

21.

Hanushek

(2009) Teacher deselection. In: Goldhaber

Hannaway

(eds) Creating a New Teaching Profession. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, pp.163–180.

22.

Hollinger

(2016) Self-Reported Principal Leadership Practices that Support Struggling Teachers for Improvement. Middle Tennessee State University: Doctoral Dissertation.

23.

Jacob

Lefgren

(2008) Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics 26(1): 101–136.

24.

Kass

(2012) Don’t Be Afraid of Fear: Development of a Personal and Professional Sense of Self Efficacy. Tel Aviv, Israel: MOFET institute. [In Hebrew.]

25.

Lavely

Berger

Follman

(1992) Actual incidence of incompetent teachers. Educational Research Quarterly 15(2): 11–14.

26.

May

Supovitz

(2011) The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(2): 332–352.

27.

Middlewood

Abbott

(2017) Managing Staff for Improved Performance: Human Resource Management in Schools. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.

28.

Nir

(2009) To seek or not to seek professional help? School leaders' dilemma. Journal of Educational Administration 47(2): 176–190.

29.

Range

Bret

Scherez

Haines

(2012) School leaders’ perceptions about incompetent teachers: Implications for supervision and evaluation. NASSP Bulletin 96(4): 302–322.

30.

Sparks

Loucks-Horsley

(1989) Five models of staff development in teachers. Journal of Staff Development 10(4): 40–57.

31.

Sykes

Rosenfeld

Weiss

(2006) Learning from Success As Leverage for School-Wide Learning: A Pilot Program–2002-2005. Jerusalem: Myers-JDCBrookdale Institute.

32.

Thompson

(2009) School Leadership: Heads on the Rock? London, UK: Routledge.

33.

Tucker

(2001) Helping struggling teachers. Educational Leadership 58(5): 52–55.

34.

Tucker

(1997) Lake Wobegon: Where all teachers are competent. Or have we come to terms with the problems of incompetent teachers? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11(2): 103–126.

35.

Weisberg

Sexton

Mulhern

. (2009) The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New Teacher Project. Avaiable at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515656.pdf (accessed 11 August 2017).

36.

Wragg

Haynes

Wragg

Chamberlin

(2000) Failing Teachers? London, UK: Routledge.

37.

Yariv

(2004) Challenging teachers: What difficulties do they pose to their principals. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 32(2): 149–169.

38.

Yariv

(2006) Mum effect: Principals’ reluctance to submit negative feedback, Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(6): 533–546.

39.

Yariv

(2009) Principals’ informal methods for evaluating poor-performing teachers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21: 283–298.

40.

Yariv

Coleman

(2005) Managing challenging teachers. International Journal of Educational Management 19(4): 330–336.

41.

Zhang

(2007) Teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivators in college classrooms: A cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Education 56(2): 209–221.