Teaching.up.edu



Teacher Retention and AttritionLiterature ReviewNameUniversity of PortlandTeacher Retention and AttritionLiterature ReviewTeachers enter the profession through traditional and, with growing frequency, alternative programs (Ingersoll, 2001; Kelly, 2004) with different beliefs and understandings about their abilities (Lavigne, 2013). New teachers in particular move from school to school and in-between districts with great frequency (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001). Whether teachers return to the classroom year after year is considered to be a critical factor in successful student performance. The factors that influence teacher attrition and retention are varied and complex. While some literature is concerned with purely numbers related to teacher attrition and retention, most literature is more nuanced in this field as the complexity of teacher beliefs, employment factors, stress, salary, entry into the profession and the like are themselves becoming better understood.In this literature review three categories have been identified: teacher factors such as teachers’ personal perception of students and the importance of compensation, organizational factors such as how teachers enter into the profession and the influence of administration on retention and attrition of teachers, and combined factors such as literature which is built on the understanding of multiple factors and the development of research models. Research models are important in that they organize and manipulate large data sets. A note about definitions: the majority of the literature defines stayers as teacher who return to the same school the following year and leavers as those who do not return to the same school the following year. For the purposes of this literature review I have followed this convention.Teacher FactorsTeachers’ BeliefsGiven that teachers are more likely to move from low-performing to higher-achieving schools (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004) and new teachers are more likely to move from school to school and district to district early in their careers (Hanushek et al., 2004) teachers’ beliefs about themselves and their students are important. Teachers’ beliefs about their students and themselves can influence a teacher’s decision to stay or leave the field. Lavigne (2013) found that while new teachers often feel they are in survival mode, they do consider their students and not simply focus on themselves. The more positive and adaptive teachers’ beliefs are about students, especially related to both student and teacher feelings of pride and participation, the more likely the teacher will last in the profession and become a career teacher. New teachers with initial positive beliefs during the challenging first five years of teaching are more likely to develop those views and remain in teaching (Lavigne, 2013). In a survey of Maine teachers, Coladarci (1992) found that general and personal efficacy, the individual’s confidence and agency in being able to execute the complex work of teaching, is strongly correlated with one’s commitment to teaching. Teachers who believe they can do the work and have positive beliefs regarding their students are more likely to persist in the profession.Academic AbilityTeachers believe they are important in their students’ lives and influence students’ accomplishments. It is not unreasonable to consider a teacher’s own academic success as a harbinger of what is to come for his or her students. In a study of North Carolina teachers’ NTE scores, Schlechty and Vance (1981) found that the higher academic ability of a teacher the higher the likelihood they would leave teaching. The inverse is also found to be true: the lower the academic ability of the teacher the longer they will remain in teaching. During the study period there was an overall decline in NTE scores for all groups, particularly for White women. It may be that the decline in scores was reflective of external factors such as new opportunities for African-Americans and women at the time (Schlechty & Vance, 1981). Greiner and Smith (2009) did not find a relationship between teacher’s undergraduate grade point average (GPA) and retention and attrition rates. In explaining the quality of teacher candidates Greiner and Smith (2009) also suggest a shift in who enters the profession: “Traditionally, teaching had been one of the most attractive career options for minorities” (p. #). In a more recent North Carolina study, Goldhaber, Gross and Player (2010) found that academically talented teachers, as identified by higher SAT and pre-service test scores, are more likely to leave the profession and have a higher transfer rate if they stay. These teachers are also more likely to leave challenging teaching placements such as schools with high African-American student populations or schools identified as low-performing (Goldhaber et al., 2010). In research based on ACT scores, pre-service skills tests, and GPA Lantham and Vogt (2007) did not find more academically able teachers were more likely to leave teaching. However, higher GPA combined with professional development focused teacher training was a statistically significant factor related to retention (Lantham & Vogt, 2007). Ingersoll, Merrill, and May (2012) found that in addition to being more likely to have advanced degrees, math and science teachers, as compared to the overall new teacher population, were more likely to have attended selective undergraduate institutions. This selectivity was not found to have a significant impact on retention and attrition during the teachers’ careers (Ingersoll et al., 2012).Stress and BurnoutPopular thinking around teacher attrition related to burnout views burnout as an emotional issue; that the teacher does not have the emotional fortitude or inner personal resources—they just cannot “take it”—and chooses to leave the profession. Several researchers recognize the inherent complexity of burnout and stress. Hong (2010) noted pre-service teachers show a naiveté regarding teaching and those who left teaching demonstrated emotional burnout. Santoro (2011) found educational reform policy could strip moral rewards of teaching and lead to attrition. Doney (2013) found resilience to be adaptive and suggests resilience in novice teachers should be nurtured deliberately and purposively in order to encourage retention. Managing multiple facets of one’s life is complicated and ever changing; this contributes to the necessity of developing the resilience necessary for longevity in teaching. Schaefer, Long and Clandinin (2012), in an attempt to reframe current thinking, identify teacher attrition as a process not an individual event. This changes the focus from retention to sustaining teachers. In this manner, teacher education programs might include coursework on teacher identity development (Schaefer et al., 2012). Retention of beginning teachers may be better if the new teachers have a more complete understanding of teaching, learning, and teacher identity development (Hong, 2010). Further, Santoro (2011) suggests there is a difference between demoralization and burnout—especially when approached from a perspective of attrition. Santoro suggests systemic approach to look at the organizational practice of teaching, rather than a personal (blame the teacher) approach (2011).Teacher RecognitionAdvancement in teaching can be a challenge. There is not a career ladder for teachers who choose not to leave the classroom. Teaching is a career where the salary structure is often guided by individual states and further negotiated by local unions. As such, years of experience and furthering one’s education are the methods by which teachers generally advance on the pay scale (Elfers, Plecki, & Knapp, 2006). For most teachers who intend to stay in the classroom, the only way to advanced salary is to continue teaching. Acknowledging that accomplished teachers can strengthen overall retention and in order to encourage highly effective teachers to remain in the profession, the option for teachers in the U.S. to become nationally certified was established. The UK developed a similar program called Advanced Skills Teachers to honor teacher expertise and attempt to raise teachers’ perceived public status. Much like National Board Certification in the U.S., Advanced Skills Teachers go through a rigorous evaluation process. Through a survey (N=849) and follow-up interviews (N=31) it was found Advanced Skills Teachers have increased job satisfaction individually, but no greater satisfaction as related to public perception. (Fuller, Goodwyn, & Francis-Brophy, 2013). Hakel, Koenig, and Elliott (2008) in their evaluation of advanced level certification report fifty-two percent of Ohio and forty-nine percent of South Carolina National Board Certified teachers plan on staying in the classroom as long as they are able. Thirty-eight percent of the general Ohio teacher population and thirty-five percent of South Carolina’s general population teachers surveyed indicated planning on remaining in the classroom as long as they are able (Hakel at al., 2008). This suggests that retention is higher among teachers with National Board Certification, however a more broad-based study is recommended (Hakel et al., 2008). In the UK, Advanced Skills Teachers have kept good teachers in the classroom (Fuller et al., 2013). Money MattersWhile the effects of teacher recognition suggest increased retention, it does not seem clear that salary significantly impacts teacher retention. Harrell, Leavell, van Tassel, and McKee found salary to be a major predictor of attrition (2004). Schaefer et al. (2012) indicated higher salary leads to higher retention and that some beginning teachers identify salary as the only reason to stay in the profession. Higher salary, especially for new teachers, leads to lower attrition (Kelly, 2004). Other researchers found that to some who left teaching salary was not a factor while for others it was (Coladarci, 1992; Schaefer et al., 2012). According to Hanushek et al. (2004), annual gain in salary of those teachers who move districts is modest, just over four percent of annual pay. Other factors that may influence a teacher’s move to another district are student demographics, SES level of students, and district test scores. When the models are adjusted for these factors, the salary increase is statistically significant. By the sixth year teaching the effect of salary on attrition is negligible (Hanushek et al., 2004).The more money spent on central office, the less time teachers stay with the district (Gritz & Theobald, 1995). Similarly, when resources are directed away from the classroom and teachers, there is a higher turnover rate in beginning teachers (Gritz & Theobald, 1995). “Teachers leave the profession due to a lack of money and would most likely return for more money” (Harrell et al., 2002, p. 56). Therefore, funds increased in the direction of teachers may increase retention in the district (Gritz & Theobald, 1995). Literature on this topic is as varied as the ways in which teachers prepare themselves to enter the anizational FactorsEntry into ProfessionTeachers are considered to be giving and altruistic by the public. Indeed factors such as academic ability, income, and status are not the only considerations when addressing attrition and retention. Ingersoll et al. (2012) found math and science teachers come from more academically selective colleges and universities yet more frequently leave teaching after their first year of employment. Math and science teachers are more likely to hold degrees in their field and have less formal teaching preparation and background in children and learning. Despite their selective background, attrition is still high among new math and science teachers (Ingersoll et al., 2012). Just fewer than ten percent of first year teachers with strong pedagogical background left teaching (Ingersoll et al., 2012). The attrition rate for first year teachers without a pedagogical background was nearly twenty-five percent (Ingersoll et al., 2012). Participation in a traditional certification program increases a teacher’s chance of staying in the profession as do more coursework in pedagogy and teaching methods and activity in a professional organization (Ingersoll et al., 2012; Kelly, 2004). Kelly (2004) found advanced certification such as a higher degree and additional subject matter coursework increased retention, but was not statistically significant. Professional development focused teacher education positively impacts teachers’ persistence in the classroom (Lantham & Vogel, 2007). Teach for America teachers in difficult placements are more likely to leave the school of initial placement, and teaching altogether, than those with more appropriate placements. Difficult placements include: teaching out of subject area, teaching more than one subject, teaching more than one grade. Appropriate placements include: teaching one grade, one subject, and in one’s field (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010). Of teachers working in an in-field placement, those teaching in science were more likely to leave teaching altogether than others, even when compared to those teaching out of their field (Donald & Johnson 2010; Ingersoll et al., 2012). Other research also found this to be true but not significant statistically (DeAngelis & Presley, 2011; Kelly, 2004). New teachers have higher mobility than more experienced teachers—often due to lack of seniority. Those teachers who begin teaching and stick with it are found to have been more committed initially, as pre-service teachers (Chapman, 1984; Coladarci, 1992). These teachers also feel they are putting their own education to use (Chapman, 1984). Teachers’ first experience in the classroom was a critical factor in determining longevity in the field (Chapman, 1984). Those who left teaching had less positive experiences in their early teaching positions making it more likely they did not become career teachers. About half of all Teach for America teachers remained in the profession after five and six years. This indicates some may see Teach for America as a volunteer experience while others view the program as an alternative to traditional teacher certification and as part of a long-term career (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010).Racial MismatchIn a 2011 study Renzulli, Parrott, and Beattie examined teacher retention, school organizational structure (public and charter), and school racial demographics (African-American, Hispanic, and White). While they found an overall awareness of negative perception towards African-American students from all groups of teachers, the racial mismatch for White teachers is more negative than for non-Whites. African-American teachers are found to be less satisfied teaching in majority African-American schools (Renzulli et al., 2011). This is explained as a status issue or by teacher perception of student quality. African-American teachers in majority African-American schools are more likely to leave their schools than White teachers in majority White schools (Renzulli et al., 2011). This same finding is also statistically significant for African-American Nationally Board Certified teachers (Hakel et al., 2008) however Hanushek et al. found the opposite: African-American teachers in Texas moved to schools with higher African-American student populations and Hispanic teachers who moved followed typical trends (2004). White teachers in African-American schools are five times more likely to leave teaching than White teachers in White schools (Renzulli et al, 2011). No significance was reported in the retention rates of teachers of color as compared to White teachers in a Washington State study (Elfers et al., 2006). North Carolina teachers in schools with high African-American student populations were found to transfer within district and to other districts at a higher rate (Goldhaber et al., 2011). The awareness of negative perception towards African-American students from all groups of teachers may not racially motivated, but a fair understanding of student quality (Renzulli et al., 2011). If this is the case, the authors recommend further exploration of oppositional culture (Renzulli et al., 2011).In charter schools, White teachers are found to be more satisfied with their teaching positions, even in instances of racial mismatch, than in public schools (Renzulli et al., 2011). Even so, teachers at charter schools are more likely to leave their school and leave the profession than public school teachers. Charter schools may provide teachers with greater autonomy that may increase teacher satisfaction. At the charter schools, increased satisfaction with autonomy counterbalances negative racial mismatch (Renzulli et al., 2011).Retirement Teacher mobility is at its highest at the beginning and end of a teaching career (Hanushek et al., 2004; Ingersoll, 2001). According to Hughes (2012) other studies say teachers in low-SES schools will leave sooner than those at high-SES schools. Hughes finds the opposite. Taking into account factors of experience, salary, technology, students and parents, SES, and workload, it was found that nearly eighty-four percent of surveyed teachers planned to teach until retirement (Hughes, 2012). Hanushek et al. found attrition to be the highest among teachers with experience levels at thirty years of more (2004). This suggests large numbers of teachers do work until retirement. Newer teachers were less likely to think they would teach until retirement; however, retention rates grow as teachers gain experience (Hanushek et al., 2004). New teacher rate of leaving the profession was twice that of experienced teachers. The likelihood of a new teacher leaving one district for another was nearly four times that of an experienced teacher (Hanushek et al., 2004). Ingersoll supports these findings in a study examining teacher turnover as it relates to school characteristics and organizational conditions (2001). Retirement does not account wholly for staffing issues school face. The major issue is the “revolving door”—teachers leaving, not for retirement, but due to dissatisfaction, other employment, and other reasons (Ingersoll, 2001). Organizationally, recruitment must address real issues of attrition, not retirement (Ingersoll, 2001).In a small study related to retirement, Martinez, Frick, Kim, and Fried (2010) examined a program that placed retirees into the classroom as volunteers. It was found older adult volunteers, especially retired teachers, contributed to retention by creating positive classroom environment, connecting with students, and mentoring new teachers. Programs such this demonstrate retired teachers commitment to the profession and may help provide retired teachers with meaningful experiences connected to their profession (Martinez et al., 2010).District AttritionA large study of Washington State data investigated teacher mobility throughout the state, with a special focus on twenty districts, in which Elfers et al. (2006) found that new teachers are not leaving the profession as drastically as anticipated. Seventy-two percent of new teachers in 1996 stayed in the Washington system five years later. In fact, the majority of all teachers stay in the same school. Among the movers, most teachers stayed in the same district (Elfers et al., 2006). More effective teachers are likely to stay in a district while the least effective teachers are those more likely to leave the profession. Those who do stay are more likely to transfer within district and to other districts (Goldhaber et al., 2011). Smaller districts tended to loose more new teachers than larger districts, while most beginning teachers (four or less years teaching) stayed in their original district five years later (Elfers et al., 2006). Attrition at individual schools was found to be more significant than previously thought (DeAngelis & Presley, 2011; Elfers et al., 2006). In higher achieving student populations there is a statistically significantly lower rate of teacher retention (Hanushek et al., 2004). Teachers are more likely to leave high-poverty urban and suburban schools due to perception of home support, discipline issues, lack of support services, and lack of support of professional learning. Some of these factors may be mitigated by administrative support such as the establishment of respectful environment for teaching and learning, support in working with students and parents, and an emphasis on student performance (Elfers et al, 2006; Goldhaber et al., 2011). Based on the findings the authors recommend further state studies specifically focused on mobility patterns and teacher perception of mobility in order to help the state understand itself in terms of national trends and local issues (Elfers et al., 2006). Policy makers and school administration need to consider individual schools with attrition issues, and look beyond teacher attrition as a systemic problem with new teachers (DeAngelis & Presley, 2011).Administrative InfluenceSchool administrators have influence over the tone and culture of a school, including retention and attrition of their teaching staffs (Brown & Wynn, 2007). Interestingly, Boyd, et al., (2011) found that not just an administrator’s actions but what teachers think about administrators is critical in teacher retention. For teachers at all experience levels, teacher perception of administration is overwhelmingly the greatest factor in teachers’ decisions to stay at or leave a school (Boyd et al, 2011; Gardner, 2010). Since teachers are more likely to leave low-performing schools (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Hakel et al., 2008), supporting and developing effective school leadership is especially important in typically low-income and low-performing schools (Boyd et al., 2011). More than other teachers, music teachers are itinerant, receive less support working with special populations, change jobs more frequently, and leave teaching for other jobs with better pay and benefits. Administrative support is a critical factor in music teacher retention (Gardner, 2010). Brown and Wynn (2007) studied administrators and teachers at schools with low attrition rates. Among their findings were schools with professional learning communities experienced greater retention. Principals can be proactive or reactive in supporting teachers. These studies add to the body of knowledge by identifying the specific practices of principals with low attrition in their buildings. These include continued professional development, shared decision-making, developing teacher leadership (even of new teachers), and a shared vision of student learning (Boyd et al., 2011; Brown & Wynn, 2007). Administrators are critical factors in setting this tone and can be influential in retaining bined FactorsFactors Are Not IsolatedAll of the reason teachers become career teachers or leave teaching early on are unknown and those that are known do not exert influence in isolation from one another. Many studies report limitations of this nature (DeAngelis & Presley, 2011; Donald & Johnson, 2010; Hanushek et al., 2004; Ingersoll, 2007). Billingsley, in a 2004 review of literature, focused on special education teacher attrition identified four themes as major influencers in teacher attrition and retention: teacher characteristics and personal factors, qualifications, work environment, and teacher affective reactions to work. Similarly, Rinke in a two-year case study of urban science teachers found teachers to be on “a continuum from integration to participation in the educational system” (2011, p. 655). The lived experience of teachers and factors related to the work of teaching are not experienced in isolation, and these factors relate to retention and attrition. In order to sustain educators, there must be a focus on many factors, not just one or two—a holistic approach is necessary (Billingsley, 2004). Rinke gives specific recommendations to place teacher recruitment and teacher education within the context of the school or position in order to provide the individual with a better understanding of the educational system as a whole and to better understand the assumptions they bring with them when entering into the profession (Rinke, 2011).Rural placements are hard to fill (Kelly, 2004; Sharplin, O’Neill, and Chapman, 2011). Both all teachers and new teachers follow the same movement patterns: Rural teachers typically move to another rural district while large urban, small urban, and suburban teachers are all more likely to move to suburban schools (Hanushek et al., 2004). Teachers need support in many ways, especially as they connect to their new teaching environment in order to increase retention (Sharplin et al., 2011). Teacher education programs are encouraged to provide resilience related professional development for teacher candidates and schools and districts should better attend to coping strategies and mental health of teachers (Hanushek et al., 2004; Sharplin et al., 2011).Models of Stayers and LeaversResearchers often use models to organize and manipulate data in order to better understand a research question. For example, Chapman and Hutcheson (1982) focused a study on teacher attrition as it related to skill, ability, and values of the teacher. They found that skill sets differed between teachers who stayed with teaching and teachers who left for another career. Stayers had strong organizational skills. Leavers had strong analytic skills. Additionally, they found that between both stayers and leavers professional relationships are important factors to be aware of when considering retention and attrition; particularly the teacher-administrator relationship. Leavers, who for the most part remained in education in some capacity, were found to value autonomy, salary, and making a group contribution. Stayers typically sought approval from administrative, friends, and family. Chapman (1983) developed a model to better understand the differences between stayers and leavers. Starting with personal characteristics leading to educational preparation and commitment to teaching, influenced by early teaching experiences and other factors (such as other job options) feed into how well one is integrated into the workplace and the position. This leads to career satisfaction that drives the decision to remain in teaching or leave the profession (Chapman, 1983). The model was subsequently tested (Chapman, 1984) and led to findings already mentioned in this paper.Gardener (2010) created a model based on the outcome as teacher status. Doney developed a resilience model identifying the interaction between negative and positive outcome events (2012). Mathematical models to study variation among multiple variables were created by Donaldson and Johnson (2010), Goldhaber et al. (2011), Gritz and Theobald (1995), Hanushek et al. (2004), Ingersoll (2001), Kelly (2004), and Renzulli et al. (2011). Models are also developed to describe findings. When examining teacher’s beliefs as aligned with organizational norms and teacher needs as met or not met by administrator ability and willingness, Swars, Meyers, Mays, and Lack (2009) developed a model to explain the relational needs in their findings around teacher retention. They suggest that the relational model developed could be useful to both administrators and teachers in a variety of situations when conflict between beliefs and practice arise. Sharplin et al. (2011) created a conceptual model, related to their conceptual framework, as a way to view their study participants.ConclusionWhile teacher turnover can impact student experience in school, teacher mobility is not always a problem (Goldhaber et al., 2010); most teachers teach until retirement (Hughes, 2012). Teachers might leave their school of initial placement for a better match with their teaching philosophy (Santoro, 2011) or due to their low seniority status (Ingersoll, 2001). Younger teachers may leave the profession early in their career to raise a family and later return to teaching (DeAngelis and Presley, 2011). Commitment to the profession and early teaching experience influence the longevity in the profession (Chapman, 1984; Coladarci, 1992; Donaldson & Johnson, 2010). Race of student population, academic background and ability of the teacher, and student achievement level have all be found to impact teacher retention and attrition (Goldhaber et al., 2010; Hakel et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2004; Hughes, 2012; Renzulli et al., 2011; Schlechty & Vance, 1984). Teacher attrition and retention are expected phenomenon in education. Factors leading to both attrition and retention are complex and do not act in isolation.References Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333. Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2007). Teacher retention issues: How some principals are supporting and keeping new teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 664-698. Chapman, D., & Hutcheson, S. (1982). Attrition from teaching careers: A discriminant analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 93-105. Chapman, D. W. (1983). A model of the influences on teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(5), 43-49. Chapman, D. W. (1984). Teacher retention: The test of a model. American Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 645-658. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching.?Journal of Experimental Education,?60(4), 323-37.DeAngelis, K., & Presley, J. (2011). Toward a more nuanced understanding of new teacher attrition. Education and Urban Society, 43(5), 598-626. Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). The price of misassignment: The role of teaching assignments in Teach for America teachers' exit from low-income schools and the teaching profession. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 299-323. Doney, P. (2013). Fostering resilience: A necessary skill for teacher retention. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 645-664. Elfers, A. M., Plecki, M. L., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Teacher mobility: Looking more closely at "the movers" within a state system. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 94-127. Fuller, C., Goodwyn, A., & Francis-Brophy, E. (2013). Advanced skills teachers: Professional identity and status. Teachers & Teaching, 19(4), 463-474. Gardner, R. D. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Factors that influence the retention, turnover, and attrition of K-12 music teachers in the United States. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(3), 112-121. Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2011). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistence in the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), 57-87. Greiner, C., & Smith, B. (2009). Analyses of selected specific variables and teacher attrition. Education, 129(4), 579-583. Gritz, R. M., & Theobald, N. D. (1996). The effects of school district spending priorities on length of stay in teaching. Journal of Human Resources, 31(3), 477-512. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers.?Journal of Human Resources,?39(2), 326-354.Harrell, P., Leavell, A., & van Tassel, F. (2004). No teacher left behind: Results of a five-year study of teacher attrition. Action in Teacher Education, 26(2), 47-59. Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1530-1543. Hughes, G. D. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics, organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 105(4), 245-255. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2012). Retaining teachers. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 30-34. The impact of certification on teachers’ career paths. (2008). In M.D. Hakel, J. A. Koenig, & S.W. Elliott (Eds.), Assessing accomplished teaching advanced-level certification programs: Committee on evaluation of teacher certification by the national board for professional teaching standards. (198-209). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Kelly, S. (2004). An event history analysis of teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking, and socially disadvantaged schools. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(3), 195-220. Latham, N. I., & Vogt, W. P. (2007). Do professional development schools reduce teacher attrition? Evidence from a longitudinal study of 1,000 graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 153-167. Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Beginning teachers who stay: Beliefs about students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39(0), 31-43. Martinez, I. L., Frick, K. D., Kim, K. S., & Fried, L. P. (2010). Older adults and retired teachers address teacher retention in urban schools. Educational Gerontology, 36(4), 263-280. Renzulli, L. A., Parrott, H. M., & Beattie, I. R. (2011). Racial mismatch and school type: Teacher satisfaction and retention in charter and traditional public schools. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 23-48. Rinke, C. (2011). Career trajectories of urban teachers: A continuum of perspectives, participation, and plans shaping retention in the educational system. Urban Education, 46(4), 639-662. Santoro, D. A. (2011). Good teaching in difficult times: Demoralization in the pursuit of good work. American Journal of Education, 118(1), 1-23. Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., & Clandinin, D. J. (2012). Questioning the research on early career teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 106-121. Schlechty, P. C., & Vance, V. S. (1981). Do academically able teachers leave education? The North Carolina case. The Phi Delta Kappan, 63(2), 106-112. Sharplin, E., O’Neill, M., & Chapman, A. (2011). Coping strategies for adaptation to new teacher appointments: Intervention for retention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 136-146. Swars, S., Meyers, B., Mays, L., & Lack, B. (2009). A two-dimensional model of teacher retention and mobility. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 168-183. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download