According to a recent study, from 2003 to 2007, the turnover rate for Chicago principals was 73%, meaning that 61% of the lowest performing elementary schools have had three or more principals since 2000. Likewise, researchers Ed Fuller and Michelle Young examined data on Texas public schools from 1996 through 2008. They found that only 50% of newly hired principals stay on the job for three years. Seventy percent leave before their five-year anniversary.

The researchers point out that the impact of principal turnover on the schools is devastating:

• Principals assigned to low-performing schools generally are less experienced
• They received their training from less selective programs
• Inexperienced, under-qualified principals tend not to stick around long;
• They are less adept attracting and hiring the best teachers.
• They have high teacher turnover because they good at retaining well-qualified teachers.
• They are likely to be replaced by yet another inexperienced, under-qualified principal

Speaking before the Texas House Public Education Committee, Fuller testified that, “A “revolving door” pattern among principals makes it difficult for most reform efforts to gain traction. For high-needs schools, the average principal needs to remain in place for four to five years at the elementary level and five to seven years at the secondary level, Fuller says, adding that it takes a minimum of three years on average for principals to make a “substantial, lasting difference.” The larger the school, the longer it takes,” Fuller says. “The longer the school has been without a stable principal, the longer it takes. The greater the teacher turnover, the longer it takes. The lower the achievement, the longer it takes.”

Furthermore, Fuller pointed out that “Contrary to popular belief, principals do not leave because of low pay, but because they feel “micromanaged” by central office staff or they lack the necessary resources to be successful. They also report frustration with a rigorous and punitive accountability system. “Principals get really frustrated when that happens,” Fuller says. “They don’t have the tools and autonomy to do their jobs well.” Surprisingly, characteristics such as race, age, gender, rural versus urban districts, and certification test results had a negligible impact on retention.”

Let me get this straight. The poorest schools attract the least experienced principals who, in turn, attract the least experienced teachers, and the least experienced principals leave earlier, which results in more teacher turnover.

And the national strategy to turn around the lowest performing schools is to perpetuate the turnover problem by creating more turnover? Furthermore, principals have only two years instead of the four to seven years needed to improve student performance before they must be replaced. How do you think that will work out?