Teacher Retention Final

Teacher Retention

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

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

1

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 nonteaching 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 districtlevel 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 similarlyconstructed teacher-administrator position might offer new challenges and the potential for advancement to effective educators committed to school-based work; teacher-writer or teacherartist 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 fiveyear rate of return of a comprehensive mentoring program for beginning teachers. . Santa Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center.