Policy Matters Journal PMJ-print1 | Page 26

Recommendation 5: Develop and Implement Predictive Risk-Modeling The final state-level solution involves expanding the role of the Bureau of Educator Certification to include a Predictive Risk-Modeling department. Using organizational psychology tools as well as business standards for predictive analytics, or risk-modeling, this department would be responsible for developing a methodology to predict the turnover risk for each certified teacher or principal in the state of Florida. These risk scores would be used to identify teachers and principals at risk of exiting the profession and would be shared with districts on a regular basis. This risk score could be contained as an element of the statewide Automated Staff Information System that each district is required to maintain. Predictive Risk-Modeling algorithms currently used by the business sector use employment data such as entry cohort, continuing education courses, outside job prospects, and other variables to predict an employee’s likelihood to exit their role (Rosenbaum, 2019). IBM estimates that their proprietary risk-prediction algorithm has a 95% accuracy rate and has saved the company nearly $300 million dollars related to attrition costs (Rosenbaum, 2019). This proposal is difficult to determine a cost for since it would require multiple years of development and could potentially include a request for proposal process. The state would bear much of the costs for implementing this program and any savings would likely be realized at the local school district level rather than at the state level. However, given that much of the monies spent at the local level are distributed at the state level, the state might be able to recoup a portion of any savings that are realized. There are significant case studies from the business world that suggest attrition can be substantially reduced, and that the reduced attrition in turn provides cost savings (Feffer, 2014). There are relatively few examples of risk-modeling use in other areas of human services. One notable exception is the Allegheny Family Screening Tool (AFST) used by Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This tool is “designed to improve child welfare call screening decisions” at the first point of contact that a caller has with the local child abuse hotline (Vaithianathan et. al, 2017). Three outside reviews of the methodology used to develop the tool as well as the tool itself were completed. This process required a two-year evaluation and construction period before the AFST was fully deployed. This is a very politically ambitious proposal and there are several stakeholder groups who may be concerned by this proposal. State legislators might be concerned with several facets of this proposal, including the lengthy time between the initial legislative approval and the eventual deployment of the tool, the uncertainty of the costs associated with this proposal, and the overall ability of local school districts to use the information generated by this tool. Local school districts may have similar concerns and may request additional training in order to understand and best use the risk scores generated by FLDOE. Other stakeholders who may have significant concerns include teacher unions. Teacher unions would likely suggest that risk scores could be improperly used by principals or school districts, resulting in early terminations of teachers or principals with high risk scores. The researcher recognizes that there are significant political and practical hurdles to implementing this recommendation. Though this area of analytical practice is valuable, it is extremely unlikely to gain widespread adoption at this time. This recommendation could be considered by local school districts, though it might be cost-prohibitive for a district to complete this level of sophisticated analysis with their existing resources. 21