Skip to:

The IMPACT Of Teacher Turnover In DCPS


What does this mean in the real world? educationally meaningful increase in achievement scores – about eight percent of a standard deviation in math and five percent in reading, though the latter estimate is only significant at the 90 percent confidence level How could such a net gain be worth all the costs - ranging from money costs to turmoil? So, of course, exiting low-performers raised scores. But, predictably, IMPACT increased frustration and attrition by high performers, dropping those net gains. So, doesn't that lead to the real question - that the researchers ignored? What were the results of IMPACT on the majority of teachers? IMPACT advocates have ignored their burden of proof. Why do they believe that their efforts to exit low-performers didn't hurt the effectiveness - and undermine the education values - of the majority? John Thompson

Why didn't the authors of this "paper" disclose their relationships to organizations influential in creating/ preserving IMPACT with the release of their "findings". Also, it appears as though their "findings" surreptitiously created metrics that would offer positive calculations on behalf of their intended outcome. In other words, when a former TFA staffer writes a paper to defend the program created by another TFA alum, under the leadership of a former TFA big wig, they may have had some implicit bias from the outset, or an intended goal to achieve. It is VERY easy to rearrange/redesign a mathematical formula to produce the results that are intended. As a colleague of several DCPS Teacher selection ambassadors, it is ludicrous to say that there is a plethora of educators waiting in the wings, in fact as of 2/4/2016, there are still 50 vacant positions in DCPS. Each year we replace around 700 teachers, and throw them into an IMPACT system without ANY (actually one whole hour) of explicit training on the expectations of the IMPACT rubric or its application. The fact that IMPACT scores changed from one set of teachers to another could also be attributed to the relationship Principals have with their teachers. If a Principal doesn't "like" a teacher, they can bomb their IMPACT score (after all, it's a he said/she said scenario) which the teachers' only recourse is a grievance at the end of the year. This "study" speaks nothing to the relatively high level of discretion and personal biases that are also included in the IMPACT system. As a former ME (Master Educator) explicitly explained to me: "The first 5 years of IMPACT were entirely designed and purposed to fire people. People who had been in the district a long time cost a lot of money, and the central office understood that the only way to remove them was to create a system which they could control almost all of the data being entered (through principals and MEs- many of whom have long since been fired or departed because they were informed by central office that "too many people were receiving too high scores") that would cut away at the targeted teachers' professional integrity." It is interesting to me that the people who oversaw the creation of IMPACT were not long standing educators with skin in the game (after all, Rhee proudly boasts of taping the mouths of children in Baltimore in her less than 2 year stint teaching) but rather "policy" people concerned with the corporatization of education. Imagine is the President nominated a Surgeon General with two years of actual experience, they would be laughed out of the Senate, but somehow the "ed reform" movement adores and welcomes such a lack of actual experience. Maybe, just maybe, we should read the tea leaves and determine that it is crippling POVERTY that surrounds students in the 7500 hours a year that they are away from school (compared to the 1200 hours or so in school per year). But, the dirty secret is that "ed reform" is INCREDIBLY profitable, and addressing poverty in a meaningful way would meant that companies would actually not profit as much because taxes would most likely have to be levied to offer more comprehensive social services (wrap around and such). Ask yourself one question, who benefits the most from these evaluation systems. If a teacher works thirty years and retires, they may be lucky in their life to be compensated nearly $2,000,000 over their career plus retirement. Those teachers know all their students, the families, their living situations, and have close ties. Michelle Rhee has made that in the last 3 years by trumpeting her failed view of only analyzing data and treating human children as little more than a data metric to be used however needed to bring about more money to enrich her and her friends (see also Kaya Henderson and TNTP) while still leaving students well behind.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


This web site and the information contained herein are provided as a service to those who are interested in the work of the Albert Shanker Institute (ASI). ASI makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the information contained on or linked from The visitor uses the information provided herein at his/her own risk. ASI, its officers, board members, agents, and employees specifically disclaim any and all liability from damages which may result from the utilization of the information provided herein. The content in the Shanker Blog may not necessarily reflect the views or official policy positions of ASI or any related entity or organization.