The Retention Of Secondary School Teachers

EXCELLENCE IN CITIES

THE RETENTION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

Philip Noden

Report 10/2003

October 2003

CONTENTS page 1.

INTRODUCTION

1

2.

THE AGE PROFILE OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION

2

3.

TEACHER RETENTION

4

4.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND PUPIL ATTAINMENT

10

CONCLUSION

14

5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

15

APPENDIX

16

1 1.

INTRODUCTION

The problems of teacher recruitment and teacher retention have both had a high profile in recent years. At the launch of Excellence in Cities (EiC) in 1999, improving teacher recruitment and retention in urban areas was identified as an aim of the policy. Of course, when deciding to enter or leave the teaching profession (or a particular school) the Excellence in Cities policy may not be expected to make a major contribution compared with, for example, the age, sex or seniority of the individual, economic conditions, teachers’ pay and conditions of service and, in the case of those considering leaving the profession, teachers’ workload or pupils’ behaviour. Consequently, this paper addresses some of the crucial issues relating to teacher recruitment and retention, namely regional variations in the age profile of secondary school teachers, factors associated with an increased likelihood of leaving the profession and, finally, the relationship between teaching experience and pupils’ attainment. The focus of this paper is on the relationship between teacher retention and Excellence in Cities. Retention, in this instance, refers to retention in the teaching profession rather than retention by a particular school or LEA. In a previous paper (Noden, 2001), it was noted that, as regards teacher characteristics, the major distinction appeared not to be between teachers working in EiC areas and those in non-EiC areas but rather between those teaching in London and those teaching in other areas of England. Consequently, in the analysis presented in this paper regional differences are investigated. Other recent research has also noted regional variation in the likelihood of leaving the profession (Smithers and Robinson, 2003). Section 2 of this paper briefly discusses the age profile of secondary school teachers in England by way of introduction to the main research question. Section 3 then addresses the main research question: are teachers in EiC schools any more or less likely to leave the teaching profession than their counterparts in non-EiC schools? Section 4 addresses a separate but nevertheless pertinent research question in the context of the evaluation of EiC: what is the relationship between teacher experience and pupil attainment?

2 2.

THE AGE PROFILE OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION

London has a relatively young teaching force (Noden, 2001). The most recent report from the School Teachers Review Body (2003) expressed concern about the age profile of London teachers, the relatively high levels of vacancies, and also staff turnover in the capital. The Review Body consequently sought to produce a larger pool of potential applicants for senior posts in London by enhancing the pay spine for experienced and effective teachers who have met the criteria for crossing the performance threshold. Notwithstanding the very real problems of staff recruitment and retention experienced in London, it is however important to consider the age structure of the London population as a whole and of the teaching profession. Using the Database of Teacher Records for 2001, we identified full-time teachers in service on 31 March of that year. The age profile of teachers was then compared with the 2001 Census results for the following month. The percentage of teachers, and of the population as a whole, falling into five-year age bands (from 25 to 64 for men and 25 to 60 for women) in the English regions is shown in Table 1. It is clear that London had a young population. The Census recorded larger proportions in the 25 – 29, 30 – 34 and 35 – 39 age ranges for London than for any other region. London’s full-time secondary school teachers were also overrepresented in these age ranges relative to teachers working in the other regions. However, these proportions always fell short of the general London population. It is also immediately clear that, in every region, full-time teachers were substantially over-represented in the 45 – 49 and 50 – 54 age ranges compared with the general population. These two age bands accounted for between 34 per cent (London) and 45 per cent (North East) of full-time teachers compared with only 22 per cent (London) and 28 per cent (North East) of the population. London thus had a young teaching force compared with the other regions. However, in all regions the teaching force was relatively mature when compared with the ‘over 25’ working-age population. Given that many teachers are lost to the profession soon after qualifying (Smithers and Robinson, 2003), it is important to take the age profile into account when examining teacher retention.

3 Table 1.

Percentage of the population aged between 25 and retirement age, and percentage of full-time teachers aged between 25 and retirement age, in five year age bands

North East

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

25 – 29 11.8 11.5

30 – 34 14.2 10.6

35 – 39 15.6 9.8

40 – 44 14.6 14.4

45 – 49 13.3 23.1

50 – 54 14.2 22.3

55 – 59 11.2 7.5

60 – 64 5.1 0.7

North West

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

12.4 12.0

14.8 12.2

15.5 10.9

14.0 14.7

12.8 21.9

14.0 21.1

11.4 6.7

5.0 0.4

Yorkshire & Census 2001 Humberside Full-time teachers 2001

12.5 11.8

14.9 11.6

15.4 11.2

14.1 14.9

12.7 21.8

14.0 21.8

11.4 6.5

4.9 0.5

East Midlands

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

12.1 12.2

14.8 11.4

15.4 10.5

14.0 15.1

12.8 23.1

14.2 20.9

11.9 6.4

4.9 0.5

West Midlands

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

12.5 12.9

15.0 11.6

15.2 10.1

13.7 15.2

12.7 22.4

13.8 20.5

11.9 6.9

5.0 0.5

Eastern

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

12.4 14.4

14.8 11.8

15.5 10.8

13.9 14.1

12.7 20.7

14.2 20.4

11.7 7.3

4.8 0.5

London

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

18.1 15.4

18.2 16.2

16.6 13.5

13.4 13.7

10.9 17.6

10.7 16.7

8.5 6.4

3.6 0.6

South East

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

12.3 15.0

14.7 13.8

15.7 11.0

14.2 13.8

12.8 19.6

14.1 19.2

11.5 7.0

4.7 0.5

South West

Census 2001 Full-time teachers 2001

11.6 12.5

14.1 12.2

15.1 11.7

13.8 14.6

13.0 21.4

14.7 20.5

12.6 6.6

5.2 0.5

Source: Database of Teacher Records March 2001 (data supplied by DfES) and National Census 2001

4 3.

TEACHER RETENTION

It was possible to match individual teacher records from the Database of Teacher Records for 1999 and 2000. Consequently, taking full-time teachers employed on 31 March 1999, it was possible to identify where or whether they were teaching (fulltime or part-time) one year later.1 For each LEA, the proportion of full-time teachers in March 1999 who were either no longer teaching (and had not retired) in March 2000, or who had moved to another LEA by that time, are shown in the Appendix. It is immediately clear that EiC LEAs (shown in the table in bold type) appear throughout the list and dominate both the top and bottom of the rankings. LEAs losing the largest proportions of teachers tended to be those located in and around London while many northern EiC LEAs appeared to have very little problem with staff retention (not including retirements). In keeping with recent research on teachers leaving the profession (Smithers and Robinson, 2003), larger proportions of women and of teachers with fewer years of service had left the profession one year later. In addition, teachers closer to retirement age were less likely to leave the profession. Figure 1 shows the proportion of men and women in different age bands who were full-time teachers in March 1999 but were no longer teaching one year later. The greater likelihood of women leaving the profession is most marked in the 25 – 34 age range, presumably reflecting women taking on childcare responsibilities, and in the 45 – 59 age range. Figure 2 shows that, while the proportion of teachers with more than three years’ experience leaving the profession decreased for more mature age bands, among relatively inexperienced teachers (those with less than three years’ service) the proportion leaving remained relatively high – although it should be noted that there are relatively few teachers with less than three years service in the over 45 age group.

1

Of the 178,250 full-time teachers in secondary schools in March 1999, some 98 per cent of records were successfully matched to the 2000 Database of Teacher Records.

5

Figure 1. Full-time teachers leaving teaching by sex and age 16 14

% leaving teaching

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Under 25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

Over 60

Age band Men

Women

Figure 2. Full-time teachers who leave teaching (other than for retirement) by age band and experience 16

% who leave teaching

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Up to 25

25-30

30-35

35-40 Age band

>3 years service

<3 years service

40-45

Over 45

6 In order to examine the relative likelihood of teachers with different characteristics leaving the teaching profession, logistic regressions were carried out. This statistical technique is appropriate when the dependent variable is a ‘black or white’ event. In this case, a teacher either leaves the profession or does not leave the profession – there are no shades of grey. Logistic regression reports results in terms of ‘odds’ and ‘odds ratios’. The ‘odds’ of an event occurring, in this case of a teacher leaving the profession, is the number of cases in which this event occurs divided by the number of cases in which the event does not occur. The ‘odds ratio’ should be understood as the odds of teachers with a particular characteristic leaving the profession divided by the odds of leaving for teachers without that characteristic (controlling for other factors). Odds ratios greater than one therefore imply that a teacher with the particular characteristic is more likely to leave the profession than an otherwise similar teacher who does not have that characteristic. A data file drawn from the Database of Teacher Records was matched with schoollevel information from the Annual Schools Census and LEA level information relating to house prices (derived from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003).2 A range of explanatory variables were considered for inclusion in the model, including sex, teaching experience, the number of years left until reaching retirement age, region, average house prices within the LEA, participation in EiC and the level of eligibility for free school meals at the school. Descriptive statistics for these variables are shown in Table 2. The aim was to identify a relatively parsimonious model. Results for the best fitting model are shown in Table 3, and a graphical presentation of the odds ratios for the different characteristics is shown as Figure 3.

2

Four LEAs were excluded from the analysis (Lewisham, Oldham, Slough, Lambeth) because the two indicators for whether the teacher was in service one year later (on 31/3/2000) were discrepant for more than 10 per cent of teachers. This reduced the dataset from 178,250 teachers to 174,818. A further 5,496 teachers were identified as employed by an LEA but not attached to a particular school (e.g. peripatetic teachers) and so school-level data could not be matched for these individuals. Of the remaining 169,322 teachers, it was possible to match data from the Annual Schools Census and house price data to 164,859 which represents 97 per cent of the school-based full-time teachers from 146 LEAs.

7 Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for predictor variables included in logistic regression

Variable

Mean

Standard deviation

Number of years until retirement % eligibility for free school meals at the teacher’s school Average house price in the LEA

21.5 16.7%

9.7 14.1%

£103,207

£49,767 Percentages 16.5% 52.5% 27.8%

Less than 3 years’ service Woman v. man In EiC LEA

Range 5.9% (North East) to 15.1% (South East)

Region Based on data for 164,859 teachers

Table 3.

Odds ratios for full-time secondary school teachers in March 1999 not being employed in teaching one year later

Variable Less than 3 years’ service v. 3 or more years’ service Woman v. man Decades until retirement (increase/decade) 10 per cent difference in school FSM £50,000 difference in average house price in LEA School in EiC* LEA v non-EiC LEA North East v. West of England North West v. West of England Yorkshire & Humberside v. West of England East Midlands v. West of England West Midlands v. West of England Eastern v. West of England London v. West of England South East v. West of England

Odds ratio Significance (p=) 1.807 1.379 1.340 1.048 1.099 1.043 0.862 0.861 0.756 1.372 1.018 1.219 1.433 1.330

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.246 0.045 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.749 0.000 0.000 0.000

* Phases 1, 2 and 3

The outcome of interest, i.e. leaving teaching, was a relatively rare event and only 4.6 per cent of those teaching full-time in March 1999 (other than those who retired) were not teaching in March 2000. Nevertheless, certain characteristics had a statistically significant relationship with the odds of leaving the profession.

8 For teachers with less than three years’ teaching experience, the odds of leaving the profession were some 81 per cent higher than for an otherwise similar teacher with greater experience. This is shown in Table 3, which shows that the relevant odds ratio is 1.807. This is also shown in Figure 3.3 Similarly, the odds of women not being in the teaching service a year later were 38 per cent greater than for men. The odds of teachers leaving the profession were lower for older teachers. For ease of comparison, this tendency is presented as the number of decades until retirement age. For each additional decade until retirement age, the odds of leaving teaching increased by 40 per cent. Figure 3.

Odds ratios for full-time teachers not being employed in teaching one year later

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

W

D

an om

ad ec

e

n su

10

£5

r

t il %

0k

et i

in

in

en re m

a cre

a c re

se

i se

t i

ch ns

n

e av

o

ol

ra g

M FS

o eh

us

e

c p ri Le

ei

nL

tha ss

EA

n3

a ye

r

ice e rv s s

N

hE o rt

t as N

We ro th rk Yo

st

ir sh

H e&

b um

i e rs

de Ea

s

an id l M t

ds W

tM es

a id l

nd

s

s Ea

n ter

n Lo

do

n So

ut h

Ea

st

Again for ease of presentation, the increased odds of leaving associated with the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) is presented per ten per cent difference in FSM. In this instance the odds were only five per cent greater for each additional ten per cent of pupils eligible for free school meals. This indicates that pupil deprivation, as measured by school-level entitlement to free school meals, had a relatively weak link with the decision to leave the teaching profession.

3

In Figure 3, the small square indicates the value of the relevant odds ratio, and the vertical line shows the 95% confidence interval.

E iC

LE

A

9 For each £50,000 increase in the average house price in the LEA, the odds of leaving the profession increased by ten per cent. Even having taken into account teachers’ age (as the number of decades until retirement) and average house prices, the odds of associated with leaving teaching showed some statistically significant variation between regions. The odds ratios shown for the regions are relative to teachers in the West of England and so reflect whether the odds of leaving teaching were significantly greater or smaller for teachers in other regions. In particular, the odds of teachers leaving the profession in Yorkshire and Humberside, the North West and North East were significantly smaller than for those in the West of England, while the odds of teachers leaving the profession in London, the East Midlands, the South East and the Eastern region were significantly greater. Taking these variables into account, teaching in an EiC area (Phase 1, 2 or 3) did not significantly affect the odds of leaving teaching. If, however, we considered only Phase 1 areas (these being the only areas participating in EiC during the period in question), then the odds of leaving the profession were some 22 per cent greater, while the results for the other variables remain substantially the same. It is not possible to say whether such a difference arises from participation in EiC, pre-existing characteristics of these areas, or factors relating to why teachers choose to work in particular areas or schools.

10 4.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND PUPIL ATTAINMENT

Earlier in this paper, it was noted that London had a younger teaching force than the other regions of England. In this section, we use multilevel modelling to explore the relationship between teacher experience and pupil attainment: is teacher experience related to pupil attainment, taking into account other factors known to be related to attainment? This research question was addressed by aggregating data from the Database of Teacher Records for 2000 to school level to identify the proportion of teachers with different lengths of teaching experience within each school. We calculated the percentage of full-time teachers within the school with less than four years’ teaching experience and the percentage with more than 20 years’ teaching experience. This data file was then merged with a pupil level dataset including GCSE data for 2001, and including 1996 key stage 2 test results and a range of school characteristics shown to be associated with pupil attainment and progress in previous papers for this evaluation (Schagen, 2002). For each pupil, we used the average point GCSE point score as a measure of achievement. In order to improve the statistical properties of the model, a cubic term was included for average key stage 2 test results, and a quadratic term was included for the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals. Descriptive statistics for the variables included in the final model are shown in Table 4, and results for the best fitting model are shown in Table 5. The results are based on 456,338 pupils clustered in 3,079 schools located in 147 LEAs.

11 Table 4.

Descriptive statistics for variables used in multilevel modelling Mean

KS2 average level KS2 average level squared KS2 average level cubed KS2 English level KS2 maths level KS2 science level Percentage eligible for free school meals Percentage eligible for free school meals squared (divided by 100) Percentage of full-time teachers with less than 4 years’ experience Percentage of full-time teachers with more than 20 years’ experience Categorical variables Girl Girls’ school Boys’ school School with sixth form Grammar school Interaction term Grammar school * KS2 average level

3.68 14.06 55.44 3.64 3.64 3.76 17.4% 5.16

Standard deviation 0.74 5.17 29.04 0.86 0.86 0.78 14.6 8.55

18.41%

12.95

37.59%

17.46

Percentages 50% 7.3% 6.0% 57.7% 5.2% Mean 0.16

0.84

Based on results for 456,338 pupils in 3,079 schools in 147 LEAs

In Table 5, we see that the variance is very substantially reduced from the base model (which does not include any background variables) to the final model (including background variables), particularly at LEA and school level. In other words, much of the observed variation between LEAs, schools and, to a lesser extent, pupils is accounted for by differences in the background variables included in the model Prior attainment is taken into account through the three key stage 2 average terms and also the separate effects of the three individual key stage 2 subjects (English, mathematics and science). As would be expected, girls made more progress than boys, by about 0.3 of a level. For girls attending single-sex schools, the effect was even greater. Boys attending single-sex schools made more progress than did boys attending mixed schools. Grammar schools were seen to be positively associated with pupil progress, and this was especially so for those with relatively lower prior attainment (reflected in the

12 negative coefficient for the grammar school * key stage 2 average level interaction term). The negative signs for school level eligibility for free school meals and for schools with a sixth form indicate that progress was less in schools with high levels of entitlement to free school meals, and in schools with a sixth form. Table 5.

Multilevel analysis of average GCSE score including predictor variables for teacher experience

Parameter Base model LEA variance School variance Pupil variance Final model LEA variance School variance Pupil variance Fixed coefficients Key stage 2 average level Key stage 2 average level squared Key stage 2 average level cubed Key stage 2 English level Key stage 2 maths level Key stage 2 science level Girl Girls’ school Boys’ school School with sixth form Grammar school Grammar school*key stage 2 average level Ten per cent difference in eligibility for free school meals (FSM) Percentage FSM squared (divided by 100) Ten per cent difference in percentage of full-time teachers with less than 4 years’ experience Ten per cent difference in percentage of full-time teachers with more than 20 years’ experience All estimates are statistically significant at 0.05 level

Estimate

Standard Error

0.10 0.61 2.15

0.02 0.02 0.00

0.02 0.08 1.11

0.00 0.00 0.00

-3.18 1.11 -0.09 0.27 0.18 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.11 -0.05 3.36 -0.68 -0.42

0.10 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01

0.05 -0.02

0.00 0.01

-0.03

0.01

13 Interestingly, controlling for all these variables, both of the teacher experience variables had negative coefficients. That is, not only was a higher than average proportion of teachers with less than four years’ teaching experience associated with (very slightly) lower GCSE results, but so too was a larger than average proportion of teachers with more than twenty years experience. That is, there may be reason to be concerned about a relatively inexperienced teaching force but there are also reasons to be concerned about a relatively experienced teaching force. Care must be taken in interpreting this finding: although the model demonstrates a relationship between teachers’ experience and pupils’ achievements, it does not demonstrate a causal link.

14 5.

CONCLUSION

The evidence presented in this paper has suggested that, while there was regional variation in the age profile of teachers, older age groups were over-represented in the teaching force relative to the population generally. It also suggests that, at LEA level, there is great variation in the proportions of teachers who either left teaching or moved to another LEA from 1999 to 2000 and that EiC areas feature prominently at both ends of a ranking of LEAs. Taking other factors into account such as sex, age, property prices and levels of eligibility for free school meals, the odds of teachers in EiC areas leaving the profession were not significantly higher than in other areas. However, the odds of teachers in Phase 1 EiC areas leaving the profession from 1999 to 2000 were slightly higher than for those in non-EiC areas. Finally, although the proportion of inexperienced teachers at a school is negatively associated with progress from key stage 2 to GCSE, the same is true of the proportion of very experienced teachers (that is, those with more than 20 years’ experience).

15 BIBLIOGRAPHY OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (2003). Census 2001: National Report for England and Wales. London: The Stationery Office. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (2003). Housing Statistics, Table 585 [online]. Available: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_hous e_609380.xls. NODEN, P. (2001). Teacher characteristics, expectations and attitudes (Excellence in Cities Report 9/2001) [online]. Available: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/documents/EIC/9-2001.doc [18 July 2003]. SCHAGEN, I. (2002). Analysis of Enhanced National Value-Added Dataset from KS2 1996 to GCSE 2001 to Investigate Potential Impact of the ‘Excellence in Cities’ Initiative (Excellence in Cities Report 12/2002) [online]. Available: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/documents/EIC/12-2002.doc [18 July 2003]. SMITHERS, A. and ROBINSON, P. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ decisions to leave the profession (DfES Research Report 430). London: DfES. School Teachers Review Body (2003). Twelfth Report. London: The Stationery Office.

16 APPENDIX Percentage of full-time teachers employed on 31 March 1999 who, one year later, were no longer teaching or had moved to another LEA LEAs participating in EiC are shown in bold type LEA City of Westminster Islington Southwark City of Nottingham Merton Sutton Barnet Medway Richmond Upon Thames Bexley Hounslow Wandsworth Tower Hamlets Hertfordshire Southampton Greenwich Croydon Luton Northamptonshire Waltham Forest West Berkshire Gloucestershire Oxfordshire Brent Newham Kensington and Chelsea Hackney Wokingham Reading Derbyshire Buckinghamshire Sunderland Bromley Rutland Kent Camden Haringey Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Surrey Hammersmith and Fulham Bedfordshire Birmingham Manchester Darlington Thurrock

Left Moved teaching Rank LEA Rank

Total

Rank

17.8 16.7 11.4 11.0 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.8 9.7 8.6 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

6.1 7.5 7.2 4.6 7.2 5.4 5.4 5.4 6.9 3.9 5.6 6.8 4.4 3.9 5.6 7.2 7.1 4.8 2.7 6.6 4.5 2.8 3.9 5.7 6.6 3.0 5.7 4.0 6.7 2.9 3.8 2.3 4.7 2.6 3.2 4.6 6.4

19 2 6 48 4 29 31 28 9 68 26 11 54 69 24 5 8 39 108 15 51 102 67 23 16 97 22 65 13 100 71 123 42 110 89 44 17

23.9 24.2 18.5 15.6 17.8 15.9 15.7 15.3 16.6 12.5 13.8 15.0 12.4 11.6 13.3 14.6 14.4 12.1 9.9 13.8 11.7 9.9 11.0 12.7 13.6 10.0 12.6 10.5 13.2 9.2 10.1 8.6 10.8 8.8 9.3 10.6 12.3

2 1 3 8 4 6 7 9 5 22 14 10 24 29 16 11 12 26 48 13 28 46 32 19 15 45 20 37 17 56 42 67 33 64 54 35 25

5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

5.3 4.4 5.1 3.4 3.5 4.9 3.1 7.4

32 53 35 85 80 37 94 3

11.0 10.1 10.7 9.0 9.1 10.5 8.6 12.9

31 43 34 61 57 36 66 18

17

LEA Southend Ealing Harrow Havering Brighton and Hove East Sussex Bracknell Forest City of Bristol Halton Hillingdon South Gloucestershire Cumbria Leicestershire Hampshire Kingston Upon Thames Solihull Portsmouth Bath and North East Somerset Redbridge Herefordshire North Somerset Stockport Essex Walsall Dorset Wigan Cambridgeshire Sandwell City of Peterborough Staffordshire Redcar and Cleveland Barnsley Warwickshire Salford Isle of Wight Milton Keynes Cornwall Norfolk Knowsley Lincolnshire Tameside Bolton Blackpool Dudley City of Derby Northumberland Sefton West Sussex Telford and Wrekin Sheffield Lancashire Bradford

Left Moved teaching Rank LEA Rank 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

7.2 6.2 5.1 4.7 4.2 3.2 6.6 4.6 5.3 5.5 3.7 1.7 2.8 4.0 4.4 4.7 8.1 4.1 5.9 2.9 3.6 4.1 4.5 4.6 2.3 3.5 3.7 3.3 4.9 2.6 3.6 2.5 4.1 5.4 1.3 5.6 1.6 2.3 3.8 3.1 3.7 2.8 4.6 4.2 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.9

7 18 34 43 58 88 14 49 32 27 73 139 105 63 55 41 1 61 20 99 79 60 52 46 125 82 74 86 36 112 77 117 62 30 143 25 140 126 70 92 75 104 45 57 101 124 113 119 127 131 136 134

Total

Rank

12.6 11.5 10.5 9.9 9.4 8.4 11.7 9.3 10.1 10.2 8.5 6.4 7.5 8.7 9.0 9.2 12.5 8.5 10.4 7.3 8.0 8.5 8.8 8.9 6.5 7.6 7.9 7.4 9.1 6.8 7.8 6.6 8.1 9.4 5.3 9.5 5.4 6.1 7.7 7.0 7.6 6.5 8.3 7.9 6.5 5.9 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.3 5.4

21 30 38 47 51 71 27 53 44 40 70 101 84 65 60 55 23 68 39 88 75 69 63 62 99 81 76 85 58 94 78 95 73 52 128 50 123 105 80 90 82 97 72 77 98 110 102 106 115 117 127 124

18

LEA Doncaster Bournemouth Leicester City Stoke on Trent Swindon Barking and Dagenham Wakefield East Riding of Yorkshire Somerset Suffolk Liverpool Worcestershire Durham Cheshire City of Kingston Upon Hull Coventry Trafford North Tyneside Rochdale Poole Wiltshire Leeds York Wolverhampton Shropshire North East Lincolnshire North Yorkshire Newcastle Upon Tyne Nottinghamshire Bury St Helens Calderdale Blackburn with Darwen Warrington City of Plymouth Torbay Middlesborough South Tyneside Kirklees Wirral Rotherham Devon North Lincolnshire Stockton-on-Tees Hartlepool Gateshead

Left Moved teaching Rank LEA Rank 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6

98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

4.6 2.8 4.2 2.7 5.7 6.9 3.8 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.5 4.2 3.7 2.4 3.6 4.9 6.8 4.0 2.4 2.5 3.4 1.4 4.7 2.3 3.2 2.2 3.4 2.9 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.1 4.5 3.2 2.1 3.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.5 1.8 3.0 2.0

47 103 59 107 21 10 72 116 133 109 111 129 106 115 56 76 120 78 38 12 64 121 114 83 141 40 122 91 128 84 98 66 81 95 93 50 90 130 87 142 138 137 118 135 96 132

Total

Rank

8.1 6.2 7.5 6.0 9.0 10.1 7.0 5.7 5.2 5.9 5.9 5.4 5.9 5.6 7.3 6.8 5.3 6.4 7.7 9.6 6.8 5.1 5.2 6.1 4.1 7.4 5.0 5.8 4.9 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 6.9 5.6 4.2 5.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 4.2 3.4 4.6 3.7

74 103 83 108 59 41 89 116 129 111 113 125 112 118 87 93 126 100 79 49 92 132 130 104 138 86 133 114 134 109 121 96 107 122 120 91 119 136 131 143 140 141 137 142 135 139

EiC areas shown in bold The ’Total’ column may differ from the sum of the ’Left teaching’ and ‘Moved LEA’ columns because of rounding. Four LEAs have been excluded from the list (Lambeth, Lewisham, Oldham, Slough) because of discrepancies between to the 1999 and 2000 datasets.