Teacher Retention 1

Teacher Retention

Gene Fellner, Claire Fontaine, Noah Golden, and Judy Touzin

Colloquium II
U Ed 70002
Professor Picciano
April 24,0 2008
 Teacher Retention 2

Teacher Retention: An Introduction

In the landmark publication of A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on

Excellence in Education, the findings section warns of “severe shortages of certain kinds of

teachers” (National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983). More recent

research indicates that the phrase “certain kinds” refers to highly qualified teachers in our

nation’s urban schools, especially those that serve working-class and poor communities. The

crisis is not, as is often believed, primarily due to higher rates of teacher retirement, nor is it

attributable to increases in student enrollment or a failure to recruit teachers to work in those

schools categorized as 0lowest performing. Recent studies suggest that it is our apparent inability

to retain the most credentialed teachers in our lowest performing schools that has fueled the

crisis.

Though 230,000 teachers enter the school system every year, about 290,000 leave the

system entirely and an additional 250,000 “role change,” which is to say that they assume non-

teaching positions or “migrate” 0between schools. In the latter case, the move is almost always

from poorer schools to wealthier ones. According to a longitudinal study by Quartz et al. (2008)

entitled “Careers in Motion” that follows 823 graduates of UCLA’s prestigious “Center X”

teacher education program over a period of eight years, over 50 percent of these well-prepared

beginning teachers initially placed in poor urban schools left full-time classroom teaching over

the course of the study: 15 percent left the profession entirely and 35 percent “role-changed” out

of full-time teaching positions. The comparative significance of these teacher attrition statistics is
 Teacher Retention 3

somewhat ambiguous, the study indicates, considering that 15 percent of lawyers also cease

practice within eight years. Nevertheless, teacher attrition is a serious problem that policymakers

concerned about ensuring quality education for all our students need to address.

In California, for example, 20 percent of schools, almost all located in low-income

communities, have a teaching staff that is 20 percent non-credentialed. Furthermore, the teacher

turnover rate in these high poverty schools is 50 percent higher than it is in low poverty schools

(Futernick, 2007). This trend negatively impacts the quality of education we offer our most

underserved communities and imposes great economic expense on poor schools and districts that

must recruit and mentor new teachers all over again (Quartz et al., 2008). Given the

preponderance of evidence that teacher quality is the most influential variable associated with

student performance, the retention of highly credentialed teachers is a critical issue to the

educational policymaking community.

The research of Quartz et al. (2008) and 0Darling-Hammond (2003) 0indicates that working

conditions are the main cause of teacher attrition. One Center X graduate “described his

profession as ‘stagnant’ concerning salary and status: ‘in

0 the business world, you can always

become an associate-this and then you can become ‘vice-this’ and then ‘director.’ In teaching

you’re just a teacher’” (Quartz et al., 2008, p. 240). Decent salaries, manageable class sizes, and

effective mentoring in the early years are important aspects of teachers’ working conditions, but

agency and professionalism in the field are even more critical. It is essential that we address
 Teacher Retention 4

these issues on the level of national policy if we wish to retain highly qualified teachers in order

to promote a quality education for all students.1

Perspectives on the Retention Crisis

Research suggests that one factor that contributes to teacher attrition is inadequate

compensation (Darling-Hammond, 2003). Allegretto, Corcoran and Mishel (2008) found that

teaching in a public school carries a de facto penalty in the form of 14.3 percent lower wages

than occupations with comparable qualifications. In 1960, female teachers earned 14.7 percent

more than similarly educated women, but by 2000 the wage premium had become a 13.2 percent

deficit. Applying a historical lens reveals the 1990s as a particularly brutal decade during which

teachers' salaries remained flat while college graduates' salaries increased 12.7 percent.

But salary is not the only aspect of compensation that is problematic, nor it is the most

relevant to the current teacher retention crisis. Guarino, Santibañez and Daley (2006) assert that

teachers' work is governed by the labor market theory of supply and demand, and they frame the

decision to become or remain a teacher a rational process that considers the factors of salary and

benefits as part of a larger equation of total compensation that also includes working conditions,

personal satisfaction and ease of entry. According to Guarino et al., even as the educational

community has recognized teacher quality the single most important factor influencing student

achievement, it has permitted "the widespread and systemic devaluing of teaching" by the

1 One could argue that, at present, it is not a governmental priority to provide quality education within underserved
communities.
 Teacher Retention 5

districts competing for teachers’ labor. In so doing, society denies the real worth of teachers'

work and their status as competent and marketable adults who trade self-consciously in labor.

This conception of teachers and their work is apparent in the top-down governance model

that situates authority and decision-making with policymakers, legislators and administrators far

removed the realities of the classroom. Though teachers often feel devalued by the lack of

adequate monetary compensation, studies show that they find the micromanagement and loss of

autonomy more offensive. Financial incentives like signing bonuses, tuition credits, housing

subsidies and performance-based alternatives to the traditional salary scale may encourage

teacher retention in certain markets, but until teachers perceive their own agency and enjoy a

sense of being valued by the community this war of attrition may proceed unabated.

Dirkswager (2002) describes in Teachers as Owners a mechanism he calls teacher

professional partnerships that small groups of educators in the charter school movement have

used to claim autonomy and right of self-rule. He argues that viewing teachers as employees

discourages them from assuming meaningful leadership roles. He perceives that teacher power is

neutralized and undermined by the commoditization of teacher labor. Dirkswager's proposal,

while perhaps appealing to those among us who would advocate a wholesale re-envisioning of

the school system, may not be a viable policy recommendation for precisely this reason.

Futernick's (2007) study of 2,000 former teachers' reasons for leaving the profession

within four years, A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers, finds that "instructional,

collegial and systemic conditions" of the teaching and learning environment are more important

to teachers than financial compensation. Bureaucratic impediments like excessive paperwork, the

constant stream of mostly avoidable interruptions, and a generalized powerlessness to exercise

 Teacher Retention 6

control over important details of their working lives were cited by 57 percent of leavers, while 42

percent identified inadequate system supports like insufficient or inappropriate resources, limited

opportunities for collaborative planning, an ineffective or unsupportive principal, and district-

level dysfunction as reasons for leaving. Accountability pressures were named by 35 percent of

leavers. Low morale and the associated condition of burnout is a symptom of a combination of

these interrelated dissatisfactions that only real change is likely to relieve.

Up until the last half-decade, research into teacher turnover sought to locate an

explanation for thinning ranks in teachers' dispositions and qualifications, considering factors

like age, philosophic orientation, and the quality and extent of preparation (Ingersoll, 2001).

More recent work, however, emphasizes the interactive relationship of teacher and school

(Futernick, 2007). By re-situating teachers’ words and actions in the context from which they

developed, schools emerge as contested sites in an ongoing struggle between teachers and

administrators. Teachers’ specialized expertise as constructed through their lived experience is

de-legitimized by the officially sanctioned knowledge of administrators and district supervisors.

Such structural and organizational critiques recognize in-group power and authority as the

currency of school governance. They understand institutional effectiveness as a function of

teacher retention patterns which in turn reflect the positionality of schools on a spectrum from

the goal of participative leadership to the current reality of directive leadership (Somech, 2005).

Authority to lead may just as well be distributed among a group of diverse stakeholders as

concentrated in the singular hands of a titular head, yet this is seldom the case. The reluctance of

administrators to relinquish control may0 be one of the greatest obstacles to teacher leadership.
 Teacher Retention 7

A small but growing body of literature examines the implications of the demographic

changes facing the teaching profession. The most prominent contributions are made by the

Project of the Next Generation of Teachers (NGT) at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

NGT aims to anticipate the issues facing the future of the teaching force, particularly in the areas

of recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. In one study, Johnson and Birkeland (2003) find

that a dispositional and expectational divide separates the "next generation” of teachers from

their boomer colleagues now approaching retirement. When the latter group was hired in the

1970s, fewer attractive career options presented themselves and lifelong careers were the norm.

Individuals who enter the field today, however, expect to change lines of work multiple times,

both within and outside the field of education. Johnson and Birkeland argue that there is a

genuine need to acknowledge this reality and to carve out appropriate pathways for shorter-term

teachers in order to avoid losing them entirely.

A Possible Policy Initiative

Several researchers have suggested possible policy initiatives that may address the issue

of teacher retention. Darling-Hammond (2000) calls for longer preservice education and

tightened certification regulations, while Ballou and Podgursky (2000) argue in favor of multiple

pathways and deregulation of teacher certification. But regardless of how teachers gain entry to

the profession, the challenge of keeping them invested in classroom work still stands. One

promising initiative to improve retention rates among experienced and highly certified teachers is

the creation of hybrid roles, particularly those that promote comprehensive support structures by

drawing from the expertise of seasoned veterans to improve the practice of newer teachers.
 Teacher Retention 8

For example, a successful teacher may find it desirable to work in the classroom for part

of the day while also serving as a mentor or coach to other teachers for the remainder of the day.

The ongoing and intensive support that hybrid teacher-mentors can provide may be critical to the

effectiveness and longevity of newer teachers. Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) show that a system of

"comprehensive induction" that includes high-quality structured mentoring, common planning

time, ongoing professional development, membership in a broad network of teachers from

different schools, and standards-based evaluation of classroom performance halves attrition rates.

Villar and Strong (2007) demonstrate that comprehensive induction pays off, literally; for every

$1 invested, schools see a payoff of $1.37.

But a broader definition of hybrid roles that incorporates dual-capacity work within a

school as in the teacher-mentor model, as well as the potential for flex-time positions may lead to

even greater returns in terms of retaining the “next generation” of teachers. Hybrid flex-time

positions could take many forms: the aforementioned teacher-mentor model and a similarly-

constructed teacher-administrator position might offer new challenges and the potential for

advancement to effective educators committed to school-based work; teacher-writer or teacher-

artist positions could entice those more oriented toward self-fulfillment and creative expression

to remain in the classroom; and teacher-policy advocate or teacher-community organizer

positions could retain individuals with political inclinations or aspirations. These possible

reconstructions of what it means to be a teacher speak to the salient concerns of agency and

professionalism that are arguably the main causes of the current crisis in teacher retention.

Implications for Further Research

 Teacher Retention 9

Though the issues addressed by the studies under review point to critical issues in teacher

retention, it should be noted that none of them address the relationship between teacher retention

in poor urban schools and either the motivations of teachers who enter teacher education

programs or the substance and philosophical bent of teacher-education courses. We have also not

reviewed the literature that correlates issues of teacher retention with community involvement in

schools or various models of student participation in school operations.0Additionally, the studies

we have reviewed do not address the literature on social and economic conditions as a factor in

student “achievement” (Anyon, 2005). Though the studies do relate the retention of highly

qualified teachers to high student performance, they do not examine the criteria by which student

achievement is evaluated. Still, they all make a powerful case that we are losing our best teachers

not because we do not successfully recruit them but because, once hired, we do not create an

environment that values their professionalism either symbolically or in economic terms, nor do

we provide them with the support or resources with which to excel along with their students.

References0

Allegretto, S., Corcoran, S., & Mishel, L. (2008). The teaching penalty: Teacher pay losing
ground. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.epi.org/
content.cfm/book_teaching_penalty.

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social
movement. New York: Routledge.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the
evidence? Teachers College Record, 102(1), 5.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the

evidence. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 28.
 Teacher Retention 10

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6.

Dirkswager, E. J. (2002). Teachers as owners: A key to revitalizing public education. MD:

Scarecrow Press.

Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California’s teachers so all students learn.
California State University, Sacramento.

Guarino, C., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review
of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173-208.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. M. & Kralik, J. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the
research says. ECS Research Review.

Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a "sense of success": New teachers explain
their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.0

Quartz, K., Thomas, A., Anderson, L., Masyn, K., Lyons, K., & Olsen, B. (2008). Careers in
motion: A longitudinal retention study of role changing among early-career urban
educators. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 218-250.

Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to

managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.

Villar, A., & Strong, M. (2007). Is mentoring worth the money? A benefit-cost analysis and five-
year rate of return of a comprehensive mentoring program for beginning teachers. . Santa
Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center.