Split Positions in Education: Well Intended but Problematic for Educators and Students

In the winter of 2013 I was presented with an opportunity: I could become an instructional mentor (IM) at 0.4 FTE but to do so I’d have to give up two of my classes and work the reminder of the year in a split mentor/teacher position. I was excited to mentor new teachers because of how influential my own mentor had been, but I wasn’t sure about the timing. That year I had four sections of AP World History and a pilot class that I was designing combining 11th grade AVID and IB Theory of Knowledge (TOK). I was not eager to leave any of my students, but I knew that I couldn’t leave the AVID/TOK class due to the unique relationships involved as well as the pilot nature of the new course. I was also afraid of betraying my AP World History students by leaving them with a long-term substitute only three months before their exam.

Despite my concerns, I knew this would be a foot in the door for a possible full time mentor position the following year, which I was definitely interested in. I was additionally concerned that, due to the split position, I wouldn’t be an effective teacher or mentor, thereby letting down the students I left, the students I retained, and the new teachers I would be mentoring. In the end I agreed to take the position, aware of the potential challenges. We don’t get to pick when opportunity knocks.

The split position was immediately challenging. Because of my insistence on keeping the AVID/TOK class, I taught AP World History periods 1, 2, and AVID/TOK 7th period at my high school while doing IM work during the middle of the day. This meant that I could only meet teachers between 2nd and 7th periods (essentially 9:15AM-1:30PM) and I had novice teachers across the district at four other schools, not to mention continuing responsibilities at the high school. If a teacher needed me to observe a particularly difficult 7th period class, I simply couldn’t do it. I had one teacher with 1st and 2nd periods as planning, so we always had to meet after school which was inconvenient for her and limited my ability to provide appropriate support. As a result, the mentoring relationship never fully developed. I often had to artificially end meetings to return to school and more than once I returned late to my 7th period AVID/TOK class because of traffic in town, leaving my AVID students frustrated and underserved. You can’t simply be five minutes late to a class of students the way you might be able to with a meeting of adults.

In addition to the scheduling challenges, I found it difficult to find time to work with the rest of the IM team. I couldn’t always make team meetings, or they had to be scheduled around my own highly restrictive schedule. I missed out on the micro-moments of interaction where you informally ask a team member for advice, or help them problem solve a particularly challenging situation and I never felt like part of the team even though everyone was extremely welcoming. There simply was not enough contact time.

My attention was continually divided and I could never do my best work as either teacher or mentor. Both roles are intellectually demanding and I was always swapping from one mindset to the other. The cost is too high in both time and focus to be constantly switching back and forth. I found myself regularly eating lunch in the car on the way to a meeting, and doing most of my lesson planning and grading at night because my planning time turned into travel time. I felt disconnected from my school, my students, and the other mentors.

The semester of the split position made the choice to move completely out of the classroom easier. The experience helped me realized that in order to do my best work I needed to fully commit to either mentoring or teaching. I briefly toyed with the idea of trying to mentor a 0.8FTE while continuing to teach the AVID/TOK class but this was simply out of the question as each role demands full attention for quality performance.

Districts often make split positions for teachers due to cost or enrollment, hiring a teacher at two schools to help them work full time. To a certain extent we are helping the teacher by getting them greater FTE (and consequently more pay) when we wouldn’t be able to otherwise,  but when we hire a teacher at 0.4 FTE at once school and 0.6 at another we neglect the significant cost incurred by travel and switching roles. Reimbursing a teacher financially for travel, does not refund their lost time for planning and building relationships. When I was split between mentoring and teaching it required more then 1.0FTE to do both roles properly.

That experience is exacerbated by the rigidity of the teaching schedule and the multiple responsibilities that teachers have beyond their standard workday. You can’t be flexible and meet a student or parent before school if you’re physically teaching at a different location in the mornings.  You can’t integrate into a staff culture at two buildings then their staff meetings are scheduled at the same time. You make a choice to be more involved with one building and your relationships at the other suffer for it. When a district sets times for parent/teacher conferences you simply have to choose a school. This negatively impacts everyone in the equation.

To make matters even more problematic, novice teachers are typically assigned the lion’s share of split positions. To an extent this is understandable; as teachers gain seniority we want to honor that commitment by assigning them more desirable positions, but this means that novice teachers who already need more support are put in a more challenging position than the veteran. Additionally, novice teachers are unlikely to be in a financial position that allows them to refuse the additional FTE at a second school and work part time in favor of developing their practice. In an extreme case I supported a teacher with 0.5  total FTE who worked at three different buildings spanning students from 1st grade to 12th grade. She is an extremely strong educator and made the experience work, but only by working far above and beyond her assigned FTE for no additional compensation. She worked beyond full time hours for half time pay. Her professional growth and her sense of accomplishment would have been much accelerated in a more supportive teaching assignment at a single school.

A better option than the split position would be to find other ways to fill out a teacher’s FTE  at a single school. I appreciate that finances and a given teacher’s endorsement can make this challenging, but it would go a long way to showing support for a new teacher. The current structure of compensating teachers solely by the number of sections they teach allows for little flexibility in work assignments.

It would be particularly supportive for a school or district to commit to hiring beginning teachers in a full time capacity even when they teach fewer classes. The additional time could be then spent in collaboration, observing peers, co-teaching, or working with a mentor or coach. This built in time would also respect that beginning teachers need additional support to do the same level of work of the veteran teacher. It is unreasonable to expect the beginner to operate at the same standard as the veteran, however, that is precisely the environment that a beginning teacher finds when they begin work. I respect that this is a challenging and expensive solution, however, rates of teacher attrition, particularly in large, urban, poverty-impacted districts are simply unsustainable. Providing a more inviting initial experience would help teachers remain in the profession longer to build their skills. It would also go a long way to building loyalty with a district or an individual school.

I appreciate that the split position really is the only option at times and I had the luxury of choosing my split position for career advancement as opposed to ensuring that I could pay rent, but we need to know up front to expect reduced effectiveness. I’m glad that my evaluation at the time was not linked to my students’ test scores. How can we reasonably provide the same evaluation for a teacher who is full time at a single school and a teacher split between multiple locations? The split teacher simply cannot provide the same level of focused attention. The split position should be explicitly noted in a teacher’s evaluation, or they should receive an additional stipend to acknowledge the particularly challenging assignment. Splitting a teacher’s FTE should be a last resort and not standard practice.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: