The purpose of this preliminary draft think piece is to focus on the issues surrounding the use of substitute teachers from the perspective of impact upon students and quality of instruction.

It is available for perusal and comment by anyone who is interested. You may e-mail the author.

It does not, at this time, constitute a document even distributed to other Board members, let alone deliberated or voted upon.

Indeed, until the Board has concluded its evaluation and eventual installation of the Carver initiative (see, e.g., "Executive Limitations") it is not even clear whether the subject matter would be considered “policy” for the Board, or “administration” for the Superintendent.

Among the other perspectives are:

• Fulltime teachers need occasional relief from the daily demands of the classroom.

• Substitute teachers need reasonable and fair levels of pay for the work they do.

• School districts are confronting a substitute teacher shortage in their recruiting efforts.

• There is a significant economic cost for a school district resulting from its use of substitute teachers.

The assumption – which is intuitive rather than research-based – is that learning suffers to some degree when substitutes are used. (a) The substitute may not be as professionally qualified as the fulltime teacher. (b) The substitute will almost always have less understanding of what the fulltime teacher, for whom s/he is substituting, had in mind for the day: what they have covered, are expecting, will cover, and why they are doing it. In some cases the substituted activity may result, in effect, in a lost classroom hour (from the perspective of the fulltime teacher’s semester plan). (c) Discipline may suffer somewhat as students may want to test the limits with a new teacher.

The challenge then becomes, “How can we serve the purposes we seek to achieve with the availability of substitute teachers, while simultaneously maximizing the amount of time fulltime teachers are spending with their students?”

From this perspective, “What are the primary causes of the need for substitute teachers?’
 

(1) It turns out that, apparently, as much as one-third to one-half of the need for substitutes, and their cost for the District, is self-inflicted by the District. “In-service” programs are often scheduled during the school day.

(2) Contracts with teachers often provide that “sick days,” “personal,” and “emergency” days are “use-‘em-or-lose-‘em.” In other words they are a “benefit” only if used. (See, e.g., Gerald LaBlanc, “Letter: Why they’re sick so often in D.M.,” Des Moines Register, October 10, 1999, p. 5AA.)

On the other hand, shifts in hours and pay – that total the same, or even more – might be acceptable if the options were to be explored with teachers at the outset rather than after firm decisions have already been made.

Here are some possible options:
 

(a) Avoid district-created conflicts for teachers that require the use of substitutes. Schedule in-service time after school, on weekends, or during the summer or other recess periods. Encourage teachers to attend programs put on by others only during times that will not require the use of substitutes.

This might very well not be a cost saving move for the District. That is, the cost avoidance from the teachers not being absent from class (i.e., the payment that doesn't have to be made to a substitute) would often be more than offset by the additional cost of “per diem” payments to teachers attending the in-service programs.

However, (1) there would be some cost avoidance, and (2) the priority value of improved quality and continuity of instruction would have been achieved (by having the regular teacher in the classroom more days, rather than using substitutes). Moreover, (3) by removing from administrators the “free good” option of scheduling in-service and other programs during the school day, and requiring additional pay for teachers, there might be a more rational, benefit-cost evaluation of the inherent worth of the scheduled programs.

(b) Provide some financial incentive for each sick, or other approved absent, day not used by a teacher. This could take the form of either a “bonus” payment at school year’s end or a per diem payment found mutually agreeable to the District and the teachers.

(c) Encourage “team teaching” arrangements that would permit a little more flexibility in the form of team members covering for each other, or rescheduling the time for essential class work that does not require low student-teacher ratios (such as, for example, lecturing, or watching videos). Perhaps a skilled associate regularly assigned to the building could be used on such occasions as well.

(d) Consider assigning “permanent substitutes” to a building who could take up most, if not all, of the slack when needed. This would at least have the advantage of making substitutes available who have somewhat more familiarity with the administrators, teachers, students and culture of a building.