attrition 1 a war of attrition andrew t. vestich ......survey, teacher attrition and mobility, the...
TRANSCRIPT
ATTRITION 1
A WAR OF ATTRITION
Andrew T. Vestich
SUBMITTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF EDUCATION SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION
AT NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
August 30, 2009
APPROVED BY: Derek L. Anderson, Ed.D.
DATE: August 31, 2009
ATTRITION 2
ABSTRACT
A WAR OF ATTRITION
by Andrew T. Vestich
Across America, teachers are leaving the education profession - up to one-half of new
teachers are leaving their classrooms within the first five years of their careers (Lambert, 2006).
The costs of such constant turnover are skyrocketing – national financial estimates have reached
over $2 billion per year (Alliance, 2005). It is apparent that a solution must be found.
Nationally, over the past ten years, surveys of teachers, administrators, and parents have been
carried out by organizations such as MetLife, Phi Delta Kappa, and the National Center for
Education Statistics, in order to collect data on this subject. Their findings show that there are
many reasons why teachers quit teaching, including frustration with students, administrators, and
parents, a lack of respect for teachers as professionals, dissatisfaction with salary-levels, and the
amount of personal time that must be sacrificed in order to do the job well. The author
conducted independent research to collect local data on the subject. The focus of this paper is to
compare how teacher’s reasons for leaving the profession in Michigan’s Copper Country
compare with the available national data.
ATTRITION 3
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 02
Chapter I: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 05
Statement of Problem ............................................................................................ 05
Research Question(s) ............................................................................................. 05
Chapter II: Review of Literature ........................................................................................ 06
Defining the problem.
The 39th
A National Priority: Americans Speak on Teacher Quality ......................... 09
Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll ............................................ 07
Teachers; who they are and what they want.
NCES’s 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) .............................. 11
Teacher Attrition and Mobility ................................................................... 13
The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher ............................................ 18
A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why .............................................. 22
Costs of teacher attrition.
Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States ................ 25
The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School Districts .............................. 27
Chapter III: Explanation of Independent Data Collection .................................................. 34
Chapter IV: Explanation of Results of Independent Data Collection ................................. 37
Chapter V: Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 50
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 50
Recommendation ................................................................................................... 53
References .................................................................................................................. 55
ATTRITION 4
Appendix: Charts and Graphs ............................................................................................ 57
ATTRITION 5
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Since the 1970’s, educators have realized that the loss of classroom teachers from the
education profession, or teacher attrition, is a problem (Mark & Anderson, 1978). According to
the National Center for Education Statistics, 8.4% of public school teachers left their classrooms
in 2005 alone (Marvel, Lyter, Peltola, Strizek, & Morton, 2007). In schools across the country,
experienced teachers are leaving, to be replaced by recent college graduates. Oftentimes, the
most qualified are the ones to leave, because they have the easiest time finding more lucrative
employment in the private sector (Alliance, 2005). This is a costly situation. Students find
themselves being taught by less experienced teachers, while school districts have to pay to
recruit and train replacement teachers. Estimates for the nation’s total financial cost in replacing
these teachers have risen to over $2 billion per year (Alliance, 2005).
Research Question
This research project will focus on one specific question – How do the reasons for
leaving the education profession of teachers in Michigan’s Copper Country compare with the
national data?
ATTRITION 6
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Over the past ten years, different organizations have commissioned research regarding
teachers, the education profession, and the costs of teacher attrition. Chapter Two contains a
literature review of eight selected sources. The first two selections - The 39th
Annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup Poll and A National Priority: Americans Speak on Teacher Quality, help to bring
clarity to the problem of attrition. The next four sources - NCES’s 2003-04 Schools and Staffing
Survey, Teacher Attrition and Mobility, The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, and A
Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why, focus on the feelings and experiences of America’s
teachers. The final two selections - Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the
States and The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School Districts – center around the costs
associated with recruiting and training replacement teachers.
ATTRITION 7
The 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public
Schools.
In 2007, Phi Delta Kappa (PDK), an international organization for educators, completed
the 39th
While this edition’s focus was the No Child Left Behind Act, a good portion of the data
collected pertains to the topics of teachers and teacher attrition. To begin with, the Gallup survey
showed that the average American’s beliefs about the role of the public school may be a cause of
teacher attrition. Over the years, the responsibilities of the public school system, and therefore of
teachers, have certainly expanded, and according to Rose and Gallop, (2007) that is exactly what
the American public have wanted. Their data shows that at the time of their survey 67% of
Americans felt that schools should be responsible for a variety of activities beyond the academic,
such as “addressing the social and emotional needs of children” (p. 41). Such an expansion in
the role of educators adds stress and reduces preparation time – two factors that are commonly
cited by those who leave classroom teaching.
edition of their annual education survey. PDK’s sample group consisted of 1,005 adults,
eighteen years of age or older, selected from the Gallup Organization’s 48,000-member
household panel. Individuals were recruited through random-digit dialing methods, and the
obtained sample was then weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population.
The PDK survey also shows however, that Americans did realize that retaining good
classroom teachers is important. According to their data, the vast majority of Americans were in
favor of a litany of incentive plans aimed at retaining qualified classroom teachers. As can be
seen in Table 40 of the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll section of Appendix 1: Tables and Graphs,
95% of the American adult population believed that smaller class sizes would be somewhat or
very effective at enticing teachers into staying in the classroom, while 92% felt that
ATTRITION 8
performance-based financial incentives would be somewhat or very effective. Eighty-seven
percent believed that higher starting salaries for teachers would be somewhat or very effective
(Rose & Gallop, 2007).
The PDK/Gallup survey also examined the public’s beliefs regarding the biggest
problems facing public schools. According to their findings, in 2007 both adults with no
children in school and public school parents gave the most votes to a lack of funding. That was
the only selection that they agreed on, however. Public school parents gave the second highest
percentage of votes to overcrowded schools, the third highest percentage to violence in schools
and the fourth highest to a lack of discipline. Adults with no children in school gave the second
highest percentage to lack of discipline, the third highest percentage to overcrowding, and the
fourth highest percentage was a tie between violence in schools and difficulty in attracting good
teachers (Rose & Gallop, 2007).
This shows the somewhat polar mentality of the American public when it comes to our
schools – most Americans favor a broad range of incentives to keep qualified teachers in their
classrooms, yet only 5% of the nation listed finding/retaining quality teachers as a top problem.
ATTRITION 9
A National Priority: Americans Speak on Teacher Quality
In 2002, Hart and Teeter also carried out nationwide research on Americans’ beliefs
regarding the quality of education and teachers in the American public school system.
Their research was carried out for the Educational Testing Service (ETS), and their
survey’s sampling group consisted of over 1000 adults – 407 parents of school-aged children,
409 educators, and 203 education policymakers. Coldwater Corporation did not attempt to do a
survey that was proportional to the demographics of the United States. Instead, they
oversampled specific demographics (parents of school-aged children, educators, policymakers)
to ensure that the data received was pertinent to their discussion. Individuals were sampled
through personal surveys, as well as focus groups carried out in Raleigh, North Carolina, and
Baltimore, Maryland.
Hart and Teeter found that a majority of Americans – 52% felt a need for comprehensive
reform within the public education system. These feelings were particularly strong in urban and
suburban areas, as well as with college graduates. During the course of the interviews,
individuals were asked about specific areas of reform – “school accountability, teacher quality,
and increases in funding for public schools.” Nearly 2/3 of participants responded favorably to
each of the three (Hart & Teeter, 2002, p. 7).
Their research also shows that both teachers and parents place a portion if the blame for
such a need on the lack of parental involvement. When questioned regarding the most serious
issues facing the American education system, 39% of parents and 58% of educators from the
sample group placed a lack of parental involvement in either first or second place. To put this
into perspective, 21% of parents and 18% of educators put “lack of classroom discipline” in first
ATTRITION 10
or second place, and 13% of parents and 26% of educators voted for “excessive class sizes” as
first or second in importance (Hart & Teeter, 2002, p. 6).
They also assert that Americans relate educational efficiency with teacher quality.
According to their findings, a majority or near-majority of their sample population somewhat or
strongly favored nearly every offered reform in the “teacher quality” category. For example,
70% of respondents strongly favored and 93% somewhat favored the concept of subject area
knowledge tests for teachers, while 50% of respondents strongly favored and 80% somewhat
favored increasing salaries for teachers, even if taxes had to be increased in order to pay for it
(Hart & Teeter, 2002).
ATTRITION 11
Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the United
States 2003-2004: Schools and Staffing Survey.
The National Center for Education Statistics has conducted its own data-mining
regarding schools and teachers in the United States. This information collection has been
conducted five times: in school years 1987-88, 1990-91, 1993-94, 1999-2000, and again in
2003-04. It is one of the most complete demographic studies of teachers and administrators that
can be found.
The 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey, or SASS, included data from three main areas
– public schools, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools, and private schools. Within each of
these sectors, data were compiled regarding school demographics for teachers, principals,
districts, and library media centers. Public schools were selected from the 2001-02 Common
Core of Data. The private school sampling came from the 2001-02 Private School Survey. The
sampling frame for BIA schools came from a CCD list of elementary, secondary, and k-12
schools that were funded by the BIA during the 2001-02 school year.
Random sampling occurred within the sampling frames; however, certain guidelines were
established. For example, they mandated that there be a minimum of 2300 new teachers
surveyed, by sector. Also, a minimum of one teacher and maximum of 20 teachers would be
selected from each school in the sampling frame. The survey went out to 5,400 public school
districts, 13,300 schools, 13,300 principals or building leaders, 62,000 teachers, and 9,400 school
libraries or media centers.
The 2003-04 SASS utilized a quantitative approach, where they gathered information
through a series of surveys, carried out by the United States Census Bureau, on behalf of The
National Center for Education Statistics. These questionnaires were designed to obtain
ATTRITION 12
information about teachers and their education and training, workload, certifications, and
attitudes about their profession. Also, the SASS utilized a fully imputed data-set procedure.
(Strizek et al., 2007).
While the authors do not draw their own conclusions from the information that they
gathered, the data obtained by the SASS is massive and the information does allow for certain
demographic comparisons to be made regarding teachers and the teaching profession, ranging
from ethnicity to average salaries. For example, the survey asked questions regarding job
conditions, which can help explain some of the turnover seen within the profession. The data
showed that teachers had limited preparation time, and needed to work outside of their posted
work-hours. On average, public school teachers worked 38 hours by contract, 29 of which were
spent on classroom instruction. These same individuals reported spending an average of 53
hours per week on teaching and school-related activities – 15 hours more than their work week.
The SASS also gathered information regarding salaries and benefits. Researchers found
that the average public school teacher made $44,400 per year. Forty percent also reported
earning extra pay from their districts for work involving extracurricular activities, averaging
$2,700 per year (Strizek et al., 2007). As reported above, during the time of the survey 48% of
teachers had attained a master’s degree or higher. Between 1997 and 1999, the average salary
for a full-time worker with a master’s degree was $62,300 and $89,400 for someone with a PhD
(Cheeseman & Newburger, 2002). This difference in pay-levels may also be a contributing
factor in the loss of classroom teachers to alternate professions.
ATTRITION 13
Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2004-2005 Teacher Follow-up Survey.
The information gained from the SASS does not, however, come to its full usefulness for
this study until it is utilized along with the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2004-05
SASS Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS). The TFS is a follow-up survey of selected elementary
and secondary teachers who participated in the 2003-04 SASS. Out of the 51,223 public and
private school teachers who were sampled in the SASS, 7,429 teachers were surveyed for the
TFS. The sample was selected by using the SASS teacher base-weights, and has been divided
into five categories for comparison: status (stayers, movers, leavers), sector (traditional, charter,
private), teaching experience, grade level taught, and minority status.
The TFS utilized a quantitative approach, where they collected information through
another series of surveys. First, at the beginning of the 2004-05 school year, participating
schools were mailed a teacher status form (TFS-1), which allowed the surveyors to determine
who were “stayers” – still at the same school, “movers” – still in education but at a different
district, or “leavers” – those who had left the teaching profession. In January of 2005, one-third
of the teachers were mailed follow-up questionnaires, while the other two-thirds were offered the
option of completing the follow-up survey online. Finally, in April of 2005, each individual in
the sampling who had not responded, was contacted and given another opportunity to complete
the follow-up survey (Marvel, Lyter, Peltola, Strizek, & Morton, 2007).
The TFS data create the most complete picture of the thoughts and feelings of the
American teacher regarding their profession, and why some individuals choose to leave
classroom teaching. To begin, the TFS shows that of the 3,214,900 public school teachers who
were active during the 2003-04 school year, 84% remained in the same school or were stayers,
8% moved to a different school or were “movers,” and 8% left the profession altogether, and
ATTRITION 14
were classified as “leavers,” during the following year. This lends validity to the concept that
teacher attrition is a problematic occurrence. It can also be seen that this is a long-term trend, not
a short-term incidence. By looking at Table 1 of the Teacher Follow-UP Survey to the SASS
section of Appendix: Tables and Graphs, it can be seen that turnover rates have increased over
the life of the survey. After the school-year 1988-89, 7.9% of teachers were movers, and 5.6%
were leavers. After the 2004-05 school-year, 8.1% were movers, and 8.4% were leavers.
Table 2 of the Teacher Follow-UP Survey to the SASS section of Appendix: Tables and
Graphs takes the categories of stayers, movers, and leavers, and breaks the information down by
demographics, which creates some very useful comparisons. For instance, the gender, religion,
and school level do not seem to play a major role in affecting who stays or leaves, as their
percentages remain relatively stable. 83.9% of male teachers stayed in their current districts,
while 83.4% of women female teachers stayed. Also, 82.8% of elementary teachers were
stayers, and 84.6% of secondary teachers stayed.
The data suggest that some categories do play a larger role, however. For example, the
amount of full-time teaching experience an educator has seems to be a primary factor. Nearly
20% of educators who had no full-time teaching experience left the teaching profession between
2004 and 2005, compared to 8.1% of those with one to three years of experience, 7.9% of those
with four to nine years, 5.5% of teaches with 10 to 19 years, and 11.2% of teachers with 20 or
more years of experience.
Age seems to be another influencing factor, having its greatest affect on the leavers
category. Of respondents over 50, 4.5% left their districts but stayed in teaching, while nearly
15% of teachers under the age of 30 were willing to change districts.
ATTRITION 15
Teaching status and certificate type also seem to play a role. Part-time teachers stayed
less than full-time (71.6% vs. 84.7%), and left the profession in greater numbers (16.9% vs.
7.5%). Also, people who had no teaching certificate or were granted an emergency certificate
had significantly lower rates of retention within their districts than those with a probationary or
regular certificate, and left the teaching profession altogether at much higher rates (Marvel et al.,
2007).
The TFS study showed the different reasons given as to why individuals in the movers
category decided to leave their school districts, which are summed up in Table 4 of the Teacher
Follow-UP Survey to the SASS section of Appendix: Tables and Graphs. The top reasons given
by public school teachers were – “Opportunity for a better teaching assignment, Dissatisfaction
with support from administration at previous school, and Dissatisfaction with workplace
conditions at previous school.” More that 30% of the teachers sampled rated each of these three
as “very important or extremely important” in their decision to change districts. 46.4% of
private school teachers ranked “Better salary or benefits” as very important or extremely
important, and more than 30% of public school teachers cited Opportunity for a better teaching
assignment” and “Higher job security” as very important or extremely important.
The Follow-Up Survey also explored the different reasons given as to why individuals in
the leavers category decided to leave the teaching profession altogether. The highest percentage
of public school teachers rated “Retirement,” as very important or extremely important; however,
over 25% of respondents within the leaver category cited “To pursue a position other than that of
a k-12 teacher” as very or extremely important. Other top reasons were pregnancy, other family
reasons, and job dissatisfaction. The highest percentage of private school teachers rated “To
ATTRITION 16
pursue a position other than that of a k-12 teacher” and “Other family or personal reasons” as
very important or extremely important (Marvel et al., 2007, pp. 14-15).
The TFS project looked into the occupation and job status of those individuals who left
the teaching profession after the 2003-04 base year. The data show that 30% of leavers retired,
nearly 30% were still working within education but not as a classroom teacher, and 12% were
working in an occupation outside of the field of education. Of those individuals working outside
of the field of education, 62.7% were employed by a private company, business, or individual.
This information must be viewed with caution, however. According to Marvel et al. the standard
error for this graph is equal to 50% or more of the estimated value, which severely limits the
statistical relevance.
Finally, the TFS compiled data regarding aspects of the leavers current occupations, as
compared to their previous position of classroom teacher, which can be found in Table 8 of the
Teacher Follow-UP Survey to the SASS section of Appendix: Tables and Graphs. Twenty
different job aspects were compared and graded as either better in teaching, better in current
position, or not better or worse. The data were further dissected into working in a position in the
field of education but not as a classroom teacher, and working outside the field of education.
Most of the individuals who were still working in a position in the field of education but
not as a classroom teacher found that the benefits and job security were superior as a teacher, or
not better or worse. However, large numbers of former teachers viewed the Intellectual
challenge, general work conditions, manageability of work load, support from
managers/administration, opportunity for advancement, and amount of control that they had over
their own work as more preferable in their new position.
ATTRITION 17
The data also show that many of the individuals who left the teaching profession found
that the benefits and opportunities to make a difference in the lives of others were superior within
the field of teaching. In all other 18 categories however, more of the individuals who left the
teaching profession voted “better in current position” than “better in teaching.” There were wide
discrepancies in some areas: In “Professional prestige,” 47% said better in current position while
only 27.7% said better in teaching; In “General working conditions,” 60.9% said better in current
position while only 14% said better in teaching; In “Manageability of workload,” 65.4% said
better in current position while only 17.6% said better in teaching; In “Ability to balance
personal life and work,” 64.7% said better in current position while only 14.1% said better in
teaching. These responses go far in explaining the thought processes of those who decide to
leave classroom teaching (Marvel et al., 2007, p. 16).
ATTRITION 18
The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Expectations and Experiences.
Since 1984, MetLife has conducted a series of surveys designed to gather data regarding
education, education processes, and the American teacher. In 2006, MetLife carried out the 23rd
A nationally representative sample of 1,001 public school k-12 teachers from throughout
the continental United States were interviewed between March 8
edition of this series.
th, 2006 and March 30th, 2006,
by Harris Interactive, Inc. Also, 500 public school k-12 principals were interviewed between
March 15th, 2006 and April 5th, 2006 and 200 deans and chairpersons of education departments
were interviewed between March 15th, 2005 and April 6th
Data were collected through two different sources, and contained both qualitative and
quantitative elements. First, a quality-control monitored telephone interview system was
employed, called the “CATI” system, or computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. The
questionnaires were programmed into the system with seven specific quality checks, including
question and response series questions, range checks, and consistency checks. Average
completion time was approximately 16 minutes (MetLife, 2006).
, 2006. In order to ensure that the
sample was representative of the overall education population, the sampling data were weighted
to the following four key demographics – school level, gender, religion, and size of place.
The second data collection method employed was focus groups. Harris Interactive, Inc
carried out a series of online bulletin board focus groups. Twenty-four prospective teachers –
individuals who were in an education department and planned on taking a classroom position
within two years - were recruited for the first focus group. Twenty-four former teachers –
individuals who had taught in the k-12 public school system and had left within the last five
ATTRITION 19
years - made up the second. Each focus group was run over a three day period, during which
time members were asked to respond to pre-set questions, create group discussion, and respond
to each others’ comments. These groups were moderated by a member of the Harris Interactive
quality control staff (MetLife, 2006).
The information obtained from MetLife’s efforts is broad in scope, ranging from
administrative perceptions on the quality of today’s incoming teachers to career and job
satisfaction numbers from current classroom teachers. The following information, graphs, and
explanations will sum up the data that is pertinent to this thesis.
According to MetLife’s most current data, k-12 principals were quite satisfied with the
quality and preparation of the America’s newest teachers. According to Figure 1.4 (found in the
MetLife Survey of the American Teacher section of Appendix: Tables and Graphs), 46% of
principals gave incoming teachers a rating of “excellent,” while 45% gave a rating of “very
good.” Teachers themselves however, seemed less sure. Many new teachers felt that their
expectations did not match with the reality of teaching, which brings into questions their
preparedness. For example, 58% found the number of hours a teacher works each weak to be
worse than expected, 37% found the level of professional prestige to be worse than expected,
and 33% found the pay and benefits to be worse than expected. The research also showed that
more than ¼ of new teachers felt either “not at all prepared” or “not too prepared” to engage
families or work with children of differing ability levels. One-fifth felt unprepared to maintain
order and discipline within their classrooms.
The MetLife survey also explored teachers’ feelings about the state of their profession,
and their satisfaction or dissatisfaction levels. According to their research, teacher job
satisfaction was near an all-time high when the surveys were completed. In 2006, 56% of
ATTRITION 20
teachers claimed to be “very satisfied” with their profession, and 34% stated that they were
“somewhat satisfied.” In comparison, the numbers in 1995 were 54% and 33%, while in 1984,
40% were “very satisfied,” and 40% were “somewhat satisfied” (MetLife, 2006).
Given this information, the data contained in MetLife’s Figure 4.3 does not correlate.
According to MetLife’s data, almost 91% of American teachers are very or somewhat satisfied
with teaching, but 26% are still very or fairly likely to leave the teaching profession within the
next five years – much like 1986, when 27% were very or somewhat likely.
What then, is driving out those individuals who are satisfied with their jobs, but still plan
to leave the profession? According to the MetLife study, there are a number of probable reasons.
First of all, a majority of teachers do not feel that they are being compensated accordingly. The
data show that 64% of teachers - nearly two out of every three – feel that the compensation that
they receive is not fair for the amount of work that they do. Many teachers also feel that they do
not receive adequate support from the parents of their students. The MetLife data shows that
approximately one-half of teachers feel that parental involvement and parental understanding of
the school’s curriculum is “inadequate.” Also, approximately one-third of teachers believe that
parents do not support their school’s discipline policy (MetLife, 2006).
The survey also contains teacher feedback regarding the quality of their teaching
experience, during the school year directly prior to the survey. Figure 3.9, found in the MetLife
Survey of the American Teachers section of Appendix: Tables and Graphs, shows the
accumulated data. As can be seen, 65% of teachers felt that they did not have enough time for
planning and grading, and 60% felt that they did not have enough time to help their students on
an individual basis. In fact, 34% felt that they did not have enough time to complete the
classroom instruction that they desired.
ATTRITION 21
Finally, the surveys produced data on what teachers themselves believed would be most
helpful in keeping good teachers from leaving the classroom: 92% believed that providing a
commensurate salary would “help a lot,” 82% cited increasing society’s respect level towards
teachers and the teaching profession, 74% wanted to see an increase in the tools and supplies that
teachers need in order to do their jobs, 67% wanted to see more parental involvement in their
schools.
It is interesting to note that there has been little change in teacher responses to these
questions, over the years. In 1985, 94% believed that providing a commensurate salary would
help a lot, 90% wanted to see an increase in society’s respect level towards teachers, 69% wanted
to see an increase in the tools and supplies that teachers need, and 56% wanted to see more
parental involvement in their schools (MetLife, 2006).
ATTRITION 22
A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why
In 2000, Public Agenda, an independent research organization that focuses on public
policy issues, carried out a survey-based research project on the state of teaching, and teachers,
in America. Public Agenda’s survey sample consisted of public and private teachers and
administrators. Six hundred sixty-four public school teachers and 250 private school teachers
were chosen through a random sample technique from the entire population of U.S. teachers.
The survey focused on the experiences of newer teachers, and therefore screening questions were
utilized to ensure that these teachers had not been in the profession for more than five years.
Five hundred eleven public school administrators were also surveyed. These
administrators were also chosen through random sampling; however, administrators from
districts with more than 2,500 students were oversampled, in order to be more representative of
American demographics. Finally, 802 college graduates below the age of thirty were surveyed.
Three hundred twelve were chosen through a random-digit-dialing system. The other 490
participants were chosen from a list compiled by Survey Sampling, Inc.
Public Agenda engaged in both quantitative and qualitative data collection. In order to
gather broader, qualitative information, researchers utilized a focus group format. Six focus
groups were carried out – three with public school teachers, one with private school teachers, and
two with young (under the age of thirty) professionals from outside the education profession.
Also, telephone interviews were conducted with the public and private school teachers,
administrators, and college graduates under the age of thirty. The interview procedures were
designed by Public Agenda, and utilized questions and quotes gained during the previous focus
groups.
ATTRITION 23
The results of this study bring a different view to the discussion of teacher attrition. To
begin, the authors of this study recognized that there is a nation-wide problem with the retention
of teachers – their research showed that 19% of teachers leave within the first few years. They
do not however, believe that this problem is as severe as others make it out to be. Farkas and
Foleno argued (2000) that while a significant number of teachers leave the profession, those that
choose to stay are highly motivated and highly committed. Their survey of new teachers shows
that 96% of respondents love teaching, and 80% would choose to become a teacher again, if they
had the opportunity to start over. Of these respondents 83% also answered that loving the job is
an essential characteristic of any profession that they would choose.
They also found that while good teachers were leaving, good teachers were also taking
their places. According to the school administrators surveyed, 39% felt that the quality of
incoming teachers has stayed the same in recent years, while 52% felt that the quality has
actually improved (Farkas & Foleno, 2000).
Farkas and Foleno also gathered information on suggested methods for reducing teacher
attrition, and increasing teacher quality. While 75% of respondents felt that teachers were
seriously underpaid, increasing teacher salaries was not at the top of the list. According to their
research, the number one suggestion to increase quality was to reduce class sizes with 86%
responding that this would be a very effective measure. In second place, with 59%, came
requiring teachers to teach in the content area that they majored in. Increasing teacher salaries
came in fourth place. In fact, when given the choice between a school that paid significantly
more and a school where student behavior and parental involvement were significantly better,
86% of the public school teachers and 91% of the private school teachers said that they would
choose the second option (p. 20).
ATTRITION 24
Farkas and Foleno also studied the role of teacher training programs in this dilemma,
surmising that inadequately prepared teachers would be more likely to feel the pressures and
stresses that can cause attrition. In broad terms, new teachers felt that they were well-trained and
prepared (71%), but further probing brought this result into question. When asked about specific
aspects of their preparation, the survey results showed a different picture. Of new teachers 63%
believed that their training program did a fair to poor job in preparing them to deal with the
pressures and stresses of teaching, 57% believed that their training program did a fair to poor job
in teaching them classroom management/discipline skills, and 30% felt that they were not
adequately trained in teaching effectively (Farkas & Foleno, 2000).
Superintendents and principals agreed with this assessment, as 75% noted that teacher
training programs did a fair to poor job in preparing new teachers to deal with the pressures and
stresses of teaching, 68% noted that they did a fair to poor job in teaching them classroom
management/discipline skills, and 42% noted that new teachers were not adequately trained in
teaching effectively (Farkas & Foleno, 2000).
ATTRITION 25
The primary concept of the Alliance for Excellent Education’s policy brief is that the loss
of talented teachers brings not only educational difficulties to school districts, but economic
difficulties as well. Replacing experienced teachers can of course be difficult and time
consuming, but many do not consider the cost involved in recruiting and training replacement
educators.
Teacher attrition: A Costly loss to the Nation and to the States.
The Alliance for Excellent Education did not carry out primary research. Data for this
policy brief came from a number of sources, most notably the U.S. Department of Education and
the U.S. Department of Labor. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor asserts that school
districts experience a financial loss when teachers leave, equal to approximately 30% of their
annual salary (Alliance, 2005). By applying this formula to teacher dropout rates acquired from
The National Center for Education Statistics’ 2004-05 Teacher Follow-up Survey, The Alliance
compiled a state-by-state listing of teacher attrition costs.
They found considerable variance between states. According to the study’s findings, the
greatest loss was recorded by Texas, who had 19,034 teachers leave the profession and 25,768
teachers transfer to other schools, after the 2004-05 school year, for a total estimated cost of
$504,917,385. The smallest financial loss was attributed to North Dakota, which had 398
teachers leave the profession and 554 teachers transfer to other schools, after the 2004-05 school
year, for a total estimated cost of $8,529,097. The state of Michigan had 4,558 teachers leave the
profession and 7,610 move districts after the 2004-05 school year, for a combined estimated cost
of $179,028,746. Nationwide, the estimated non-retirement attrition cost was $4,867,879,421
(Alliance, 2005).
ATTRITION 26
The Alliance for Excellent Education’s findings show that constant turnover within a
district’s classrooms can be financially costly; however, they do not address some important
variables. First, the authors utilize an average-cost formula, which means that some district’s
costs will be above the “30% of a teacher’s annual salary” cited, while some will be lower. Also,
they have accumulated state-by-state costs, but did not further dissect their information. Their
study is simply not as effective as it could be, without knowing how their data demographically
breaks down – urban vs. rural vs. suburban, affluent vs. low-income, etc.
ATTRITION 27
The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School Districts: A Pilot Study
In 2007, Barnes, Crowe, and Schaefer published the results of a survey project involving
five different school districts, carried out for the National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future (NCTAF). Barnes et al. collected financial and human resources data from
three urban and two rural school districts. Prior to data collection, representatives from the
NCTAF visited with the administration and/or human relations department at each of the five
school districts. The meetings were held to explain precisely what data would be needed in order
to complete the NCTAF pilot study. Each district was then left to accumulate the data as they
wished.
Data on teachers and teacher turnover were collected by each district for the 2002-03 and
2003-04 school years, in order to find those individuals who either moved within their districts,
or left their districts completely. Financial statistics were compiled by each district for the 2003-
04 school year, as resources expended during this time would be based on turnover from the
previous year.
According to the study’s findings, each of the five districts showed significant turnover in
their teaching staffs. Table T-4, found in the “Cost of Teacher Turnover” section of Appendix:
Tables and Graphs, shows that between movers – staff that changed schools within a district –
and leavers – those that left their district altogether – the overall turnover rates varied severely.
The two smallest districts were at the extremes; the Jemez Valley Public Schools (JVPS) had a
turnover rate of nearly 43%, and the Santa Rosa Public Schools (SRPS) had a compiled turnover
rate of 15.5%. Turnover rates for the three urban schools came in at 16.5% for Granville County
Schools (GCS), 17.4% for the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), and a startling 30.2% for the
Chicago Public Schools (CPS).
ATTRITION 28
The NCTAF Pilot Study examined teacher turnover through number of different
variables as well, including gender and age. The most germane data examined turnover rates as
compared to levels of teaching experience. Table T-14 shows that the highest rates of turnover
for each of the three urban schools came from those who had zero to five years of teaching
experience. For the two rural schools, there was no such pattern.
There is a problem, however, with the sample size involved with this study. The three
urban schools had a significant data pool; however, JVPS had only 41 teachers, and SRPS had
only 58, which are too small to be statistically relevant. Also, this study only deals with one year
of data. Without corroborating information, it is difficult to draw specific conclusions.
Barnes et al. also researched the costs that each of the five districts accrued due to teacher
turnover. Each district was asked to compile all available information on eight different cost
categories; recruitment, hiring, administrative processing, training for first-time teachers, training
for new hires, training for all teachers, costs associated with the learning curve of new teachers,
and the costs of transfers within the district. Also, four focus schools were chosen from each
district, and each were asked to supply data on the same eight categories. Barnes et al. suggested
that by taking the per teacher amount each district spent, and adding it to the average per teacher
cost for the four focus schools, a total per teacher cost can be derived for each of the five subject
school districts.
The authors ran into serious problems when assessing the accumulated data. They were
able to report that CPS had a per leaver average district cost of $9,501; however, they were not
given any information from the four focus schools, and therefore could not report an accurate
total per leaver cost. MPS were able to report a per leaver average of $8,371 for the focus
schools, but only an $861 average from the district, because the district was unable to give an
ATTRITION 29
accurate account on most of the eight categories. SRPS were unable to report any data
whatsoever, and therefore no estimate could be reached. Only two districts, the GCS and JVPS,
were able to send a full financial report. The GCS found that they accrued $6,233 in district
costs per leaver, and $3,642 in average costs from their focus schools, for a total per leaver cost
of $9,875. The JVPS were able to report $4,366 in per leaver district costs. They had no focus
school information, but are still considered to be fully reported. Due to the small size of their
district (only 41 teachers in the entire district), all finances were handled at the district level
(Barnes et al., 2007).
It should be mentioned again, that the sample-size for the rural schools is rather small and
the financial data reported were only from one year, which are major deficiencies in this pilot
study.
ATTRITION 30
Synthesis of Literature
After reviewing the available literature, certain themes and trends became apparent. To
begin, there is a general agreement that teacher attrition is a problem in the education profession.
For example, the MetLife Survey of the American Teacher found that even though 90% of
teachers surveyed claimed to be either very or somewhat satisfied with the teaching profession,
26% said that they are still very or fairly likely to leave the teaching profession within the next
five years (MetLife, 2006). In the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll, the great majority of
respondents were in favor of a long list of efforts to keep experienced teachers in their
classrooms. The information accumulated by the NCES in the Teacher Follow-UP Survey also
showed that this has been a growing trend. As can be seen in Table:1 of the Teacher Follow-UP
Survey to the SASS section of the Appendix, the percentage of people leaving the teaching
profession has been growing. After the 1988-89 school year, 5.6% of the public school teaching
population left the profession. After the 1994-95 school year, the number had climbed to 6.6%.
By 2004-05, the rate had reached 8.4%. The closest a source came to disagreeing with this was
A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why. The authors concluded that while a significant
number of individuals are leaving teaching every year, those that stay are highly motivated and
caring professionals.
Also, there is a disconnect between perception and reality in many of the sources studied,
or at least a level of confusion in their response data. In A National Priority…, the most
supported methods for improving educational effectiveness were improving teacher quality,
increasing school accountability, and increased funding (p. 7). According to the same study
however, the top answer to the question “What is responsible for the schools’ problems?” was
“Lack of parental involvement” (p. 6). Also, in A Sense of Calling… 71% of new teachers felt
ATTRITION 31
that they were well-trained and well-prepared to enter the classroom as a teacher. 63% of these
same respondents however, believed that their training program did a fair to poor job in
preparing them to deal with the pressures and stresses of teaching, while 57% believed that their
training program did a fair to poor job in teaching them classroom management/discipline skills.
Thirty percent of this same group even felt that they were not adequately trained to teach
effectively (Farkas & Foleno, 2000). In order to clarify this situation, there is a need for more
point specific data, with guided research questions that address such inconsistencies. If these
data conflicts persist, it may point to a need for an increase in efforts to educate the general
public on educational topics.
Another issue that has become apparent is the need for more research on teacher attrition.
While researching the topic it would appear that dozens of sources can be found. Nearly all of
these resources are secondary, however. Upon examination of their bibliographies, most cite the
same small sampling of primary research data. There is a clear need for more financial data as
well. The few studies that have attempted to put a monetary figure to the loss of experienced
teachers are incomplete or statistically irrelevant. Some give state by state figures, but do not
break the information down into counties or school districts. Others use small, statistically
inconsequential samplings.
It is also clear that the general population wants to see a solution to this problem, and is
willing to sacrifice in order to achieve that solution. In the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll,
pollsters found that Americans are in favor of a litany of reforms to keep teachers in their
classrooms including smaller class sizes (95%), financial incentives for teachers (92%),
increasing professional development opportunities (92%), and providing higher salaries for new
teachers (87%) (p. 43). The authors of A National Priority… found that not only did a vast
ATTRITION 32
majority of people favor an increase in continuing education courses for teachers, encouraging
other professionals to enter teaching, and increasing teacher salaries, but 80% were in favor of
increasing teacher salaries even if it meant that they would have to pay higher taxes because of it
(Hart & Teeter, 2002). Teachers themselves want to see a solution to this problem, and have
weighed in on what they believe would be the most effective in increasing teacher retention.
“Providing a decent salary” was one of the most commonly cited solutions, but “providing more
respect for teachers in today’s society, providing better tools and supplies teachers need to do
their job,” and “reducing the amount of time teachers spend in non-teaching duties” (MetLife,
2006, p. 90).
Finally, upon reviewing the available literature it became clear that while many do
choose to leave their classrooms, it is rarely because of the “teaching” aspects of the job. In fact,
most teachers share an enthusiasm for their profession and a love of their students. The MetLife
survey illustrates this point. According to the author’s findings, in 2006 90% of teachers were
very or somewhat satisfied with teaching as a career. Their research data goes back to 1984, and
the lowest rate was in 1985 at 79% (MetLife, 2006). Also, many of the top rated complaints
registered by respondents to the MetLife survey had to do with limitations on their teaching
effectiveness, such as not having enough time for planning, and not having enough time to give
individualized aid to each student. In A Sense of Calling…, 86% of teachers report that those
who enter the teaching profession have a “true sense of calling” (p. 40). In the same study, the
authors found that if teachers were given the choice between higher pay and a school with
increased parental support, 86% said that they would prefer the latter. 82% would take a school
with supportive administrators over higher pay. In the Teacher Follow-Up Survey... individuals
who left the teaching profession rated the reasons for their departure. “Dissatisfied with teaching
ATTRITION 33
as a career” was one of the least cited reasons, at 14.6% (Marvel et al., 2007, p. 14). This trend
is one of the most pertinent to the discussion of teacher attrition. It shows that while the
problems facing teachers cause some to leave, the job itself is still considered worthy by those
involved. Also, knowing that the act of teaching itself is not a cause of attrition can help guide
the problem-solving attempts of districts and administrators, by focusing their efforts. Every part
of the job does not need to change; however, certain aspects must be addressed.
The resources outlined in chapter two put a face to the problem of teacher attrition by
describing the experiences of thousands of American teachers. These statistics not only show the
nationwide attitudes of American educators; they can be used for comparison to the independent
and local research described in chapters three and four.
ATTRITION 34
CHAPTER III
EXPLANATION OF INDEPENDENT DATA COLLECTION
Reviewing the national statistics regarding teacher attrition helps to clarify the causes and
effects of this dilemma; however, national data are not always reflective of local beliefs. In order
to collect corresponding information at the local level, independent data collection occurred.
Independent data were collected through two means – an online survey of current teachers, as
well as personal interviews with former k-12 classroom teachers who left the profession for
reasons other than retirement.
To begin, a survey was created and placed on surveymonkey.com. Administrators at the
three largest schools in Houghton and Keweenaw counties were emailed a request to inform their
teaching staff about the survey, and ask them to go to the web site and take the voluntary,
confidential survey. No names or identifiers such as social security numbers were asked for.
Forty-nine people completed the survey.
The survey consisted of the following questions:
1. How long have you been a k-12 teacher? At which grade level do you teach?
2. What is the highest degree that you have attained?
3. Have you ever, during your career, considered leaving the k-12 teaching profession?
4. If yes to #3 above, then what were the primary factors that lead to your considering leaving?
5. If yes to #3 above - why did you decide to stay in k-12 education?
6. Why did you originally want to go into education?
7. Before you became a teacher, what were you expectations regarding the profession? How did
reality differ?
ATTRITION 35
8. Do you believe that your teacher education classes and student teaching adequately prepared
you for the realities of teaching? If no, then how do you feel they could have been better?
9. What do you like most about teaching? The least?
10. How long do you plan to continue teaching?
Individualized research was also conducted through five in-person interviews with former
k-12 classroom teachers, who left the profession for reasons other than retirement. Local
administrators were contacted, and were asked about former faculty that had left the teaching
profession. These former staffers were then contacted either by phone or by email, where their
participation was then requested.
Each interview took place in a private and secure setting, such as the participant's home.
The interviews were audio taped. In order to maximize participant anonymity, no names were
recorded during the interview process, and no personal identifiers such as social security
numbers were asked for. Each interview took between fifteen and twenty minutes. The
audiotapes and transcripts of said tapes are kept in numerically labeled files, in a locked file
cabinet. The list of names that correspond with the numeric labels is kept in a different, locked,
cabinet.
Each participant was asked the following interview questions:
1. How long did you teach?
2. At what grade level did you teach?
3. What is the highest degree that you have attained?
4. Why did you originally want to go into education?
ATTRITION 36
5. Before you became a teacher, what were you expectations regarding the profession?
6. How did reality differ from your expectations?
7. Do you believe that your teacher education classes and student teaching adequately prepared
you for the realities of teaching?
8. If you answered no to number 7, do you have suggestions as to how you could have been more
properly prepared?
9. What did you like most about teaching? The least?
10. Why did you leave teaching - e.g. what were the primary factors that lead to your departure?
11. What are you doing (professionally) now?
Forty-nine current teachers from Michigan’s Copper Country answered questions
regarding their personal feelings on the subject of teacher attrition, and five former teachers did
the same. Their insights create a picture of the similarities and differences that the Copper
Country’s local teachers share with their national counterparts, regarding the teaching profession
and the causes of teacher attrition.
ATTRITION 37
CHAPTER IV
EPLANATION OF RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT DATA COLLECTION
In both the online survey and the personal interviews participants were asked for baseline
demographic data, and then were asked to relate their personal feelings regarding the teaching
profession. Their responses have been recorded in this chapter.
Response Data for Online Survey:
1. a) How long have you been a k-12 teacher?
Of the 49 respondents:
1 year = 3 6 years =4 11 years =2 16 years =0 21 years =2 26 years =2 2 years = 1 7 years =2 12 years =4 17 years =0 22 years =0 27 years =0 3 years =1 8 years =2 13 years =2 18 years =1 23 years =1 28 years =0 4 years =0 9 years =2 14 years =0 19 years =1 24 years =0 29 years =1 5 years =0 10 years =1 15 years =3 20 years =3 25 years =1 30+ years=10
b) At which grade level do you teach?
Elementary 25 responses
Middle 5 responses High 18 responses
Administration 1 response
2. What is the highest degree that you have attained?
Level Attained:
Number: Percentage of total:
Associates 1 2.0 Bachelors 21 42.9 Masters 25 51.0
ATTRITION 38
Ed Specialist 3 6.1 PhD 0 0.0 Other 8* 16.3
*Responses from “other” included: “double masters, MA +18, almost finished masters, 19 post grad credits, double bachelors degree, 50+ credits beyond Masters, +15, and 75 hours past bachelors for Special Ed. endorsements.”
3. Have you ever, during your career, considered leaving the k-12 teaching profession?
Response: Number: Percentage of total:
YES 17 34.7 NO 32 65.3
4. If yes to #3 above, then what were the primary factors that lead to your considering
leaving?
The 17 of the 49 survey respondents who answered “YES” to question 3 also chose to answer
this question. These 17 individuals generated 22 separate reasons, or primary factors:
Reason/Primary factor:
Number of times mentioned: Percentage of total:
Discipline/Students 2 9.1 Low pay 3 13.6
Long hours 2 9.1 Lack of Administrative support/Weak Admin.
4 18.2
Stress 2 9.1 Parents 2 9.1
Lack of respect 2 9.1 Paperwork 2 9.1
Other* 3 13.6 *Responses from “other” included: “I moved and was having difficulty getting an interview for a teaching job in my new location, desire to try new things, Other interests.”
5. If yes to #3 above - why did you decide to stay in k-12 education?
ATTRITION 39
21 of the 49 survey participants answered this question, generating 24 separate reasons.
Reason for staying:
Number of times mentioned: Percentage of total:
Enjoy teaching/Rewarding job 10 41.7 Stability of the job 2 8.3
Love working with kids 4 16.7 Summers off, holidays, etc. 3 12.5
Other* 5 20.1 *Responses from “other” included: “I went to a school district that had a strong administrator, I was hired at the last minute, Administration changed for the better, variety of teaching challenges, and logistics.”
6. Why did you originally want to go into education?
49 of the 49 survey participants answered this question, generating 52 separate reasons. Reason for going into education:
Number of times mentioned: Percentage of total:
To work with kids 20 38.5 Job security/stability 2 3.8 Inspired by a teacher 4 7.7
To make a difference/give back 5 9.6 To share knowledge/inspire others 5 9.6
Always wanted to teach 4 7.7 Love to learn/ thought I would
enjoy it 4 7.7
To have summers free 2 3.8 Other* 6 17.3
*Responses from “other” included: “it's my gift and passion, In the old days you either became a teacher, secretary, nurse or housewife, Happenstance – just fell into it, This profession fits my personality, I enjoy working with others, and I was bored with being a researcher.”
7. Before you became a teacher, what were you expectations regarding the profession? How
did reality differ?
ATTRITION 40
The answers gained from this section of the web-survey were numerous and ranged widely – too
widely to be summed up through a few categories. The data did show some points of
commonality that can be used for comparison, however.
• 81.6% of respondents said that teaching was not what they had expected. Only 18.4 % said that teaching was “as expected.”
• 14.3% answered that they had erroneous expectations of students, while 16.3% of those taking the survey felt that parents did not match their expectations.
• 44.9% of respondents felt that teaching was more difficult or more challenging
than they had originally expected.
8. a) Do you believe that your teacher education classes and student teaching
adequately prepared you for the realities of teaching?
Response: Number: Percentage of total:
YES 12 24.5 NO 37 75.5
b) If no, then how do you feel they could have been better?
37 individuals answered “NO” to part A of question 8. Therefore, the percentage given below
will be a percent of 37.
Proposed change:
Number of times mentioned: Percentage of total:
Expanded student teaching, classroom observations
11 29.7
More focus on practical, such as legal stuff, design lessons from real curriculum, etc
11 29.7
Training in dealing with parents, families
2 5.4
Behavioral problem/ classroom management
11 29.7
ATTRITION 41
training 9. a) What do you like most about teaching?
All 49 respondents answered question 9, part a.
Like Most:
Number: Percentage of total:
Working with kids 22 44.9 Watching students achieve 22 44.9
The job itself 4 8.2 Other* 3 6.1
*Responses from “other” included: “I really like the people I work with, I like that you get a new set of students every year, and The constant learning I am doing.”
b) The least?
All 49 respondents answered question 9, part b.
Like Least:
Number: Percentage of total:
Behavior problems/discipline 5 10.2 Dealing with parents 6 12.2 Grading/Paperwork! 12 24.5
The “hoops” and politics 11 22.4 Lack of personal time 3 6.1
Lack of job security/Budget cutbacks
2 4.1
Other* 9 14.3 *Responses from “other” included: “Pissant administrators, I don't like the lack of motivation on the part of some students, I like least are the continuing ed classes, Standardized testing, The narrowing of creativity and talent, I don't like the lack of respect for the profession, and I find it frustrating to have people on board who are not giving 100%, whether it be administration or staff.” *Two responses could not be deciphered.
10. How long do you plan to continue teaching?
Response: Number: Percentage of total:
ATTRITION 42
Until retirement 26 53.1
Unsure 10 20.4 Other* 13 26.5
*Responses that fit under “other” were those where the answer could not be used to determine its fit within one of the other two categories. Example response from other: “4 years.”
Interpreting the data:
Local data collections do not generally translate to the state or national level; however
with forty-nine respondents, this data collection does give some insight into the thought
processes of nearly fifty local teachers, and can be used to draw local conclusions.
To begin with, the data shows that seventeen of the forty-nine teachers surveyed, or
34.7%, had considered leaving the teaching profession at some point during their careers – a
significant percentage. Of these seventeen, eight came from the elementary level, eight from the
high school level, and had a diverse range of reasons for considering leaving. The most
commonly expressed reason was a lack of administrative support; however, it was closely
followed by the low pay that teachers receive. Six other reasons were tied for third place,
including dealing with student behavior, long hours, stress, dealing with parents, the lack of
respect given to teachers, and the endless paperwork. These answers mirror data found both in
the interview section of this thesis, as well as research carried out by others.
The survey results also bring into question the methodology used by college education
departments in preparing future teachers. The seventeen respondents who had considered
leaving teaching almost unanimously agreed that their education classes did not adequately
prepare them for the realities of the teaching profession (14 of 17). 75.5% of the forty-nine total
respondents answered the same.
ATTRITION 43
Responses from question seven support the idea of a lack of teacher preparation during
their education classes. When asked how their beliefs regarding the education profession met
with reality, 81.6% said that teaching was not what they had expected; only 18.4 % said that
teaching was “as expected.”
The survey participants gave a number of suggestions for improving education programs
and increasing new teacher preparedness. Many mentioned, for example, altering coursework to
diminish theoretical pedagogical studies in favor of a greater focus on practical concepts such as
lesson design, legal issues within education, and increased training in dealing with behavioral
problems and classroom management. Many respondents also mentioned expanding knowledge
of the realities of the teaching profession by increasing classroom observation time, expanding
student teaching time, and having access to actual classroom teachers for consultation.
The survey data also corroborate the findings regarding why people teach, expressed in
the literature review. According to the findings of the online survey, the number one reason that
people go into the education profession is to work with kids, followed by a desire to make a
difference. A desire to have summers off and the security of tenure were both near the bottom of
the list. Also, when asked what they most liked about teaching, nearly 45% of respondents
answered “working with kids,” while the same number answered “watching students achieve.”
This may help to explain why so many of the teachers who consider leaving the profession
decide to remain in education.
ATTRITION 44
Response Data for the Personal Interviews:
1. How long did you teach?
Respondent: Response: Subject A 3 and 3/4 years Subject B 2 years Subject C 10 years Subject D 12 years Subject E 2 years, plus 2 summers
2. At what grade level did you teach?
Respondent: Response: Subject A 9-12 (Biology, Phys Science, AP Subject B 9-12 (math and physics) Subject C Middle School - 5th to 8th grade (social studies) Subject D 9-12 (physics, chemistry, calculus) Subject E 9-12 (physics, chemistry, computers, physical science, algebra)
3. What is the highest degree that you have attained?
Respondent: Response: Subject A PHD Subject B PHD Subject C Masters Degree Subject D Masters of Science Subject E Masters Degree
4. Why did you originally want to go into education?
Respondent: Response: Subject A Lifetime learner who enjoyed school, interaction with kids,
opportunities to coach, wanted to help young kids. Subject B University had accelerated ed. program, didn't know what else to do
with masters in physics. Subject C Always wanted to be a teacher. Loves children. Subject D Wanted to teach - liked the lifestyle, wanted to start a family, liked
the "idea" of teaching. Had a lot of teachers he/she admired. Subject E Didn't want to sit in a cubicle, really enjoyed working with kids
previously, as a swim coach.
ATTRITION 45
5. Before you became a teacher, what were you expectations regarding the profession?
Respondent: Response: Subject A Pictured lots of interaction and learning, dynamic classroom.
Pictured wonderful environment. Subject B Both of parents are teachers - had the concept that education was
teaching a learning process. Subject C Dreamed that all students would sit quietly, "soaking up every
word." Grading would be fun, students would want to learn. Never thought of dealing with parents.
Subject D Thought all students would be excited to learn. Subject E Had heard that the pay was low, but that you would be making a
difference. Opportunity to share something that they were passionate about.
6. How did reality differ from your expectations?
Respondent: Response: Subject A Lots more paper-pushing than expected. Misjudged amount of
disciplinary issues and distractions. Amount of grading and paperwork.
Subject B Uncomfortable with other teachers, so much younger than them. Administration problems, ongoing professional development.
Subject C Shocked by grading/paperwork load. Shocked by amount of time needed to prepare on a daily basis. Was not prepared for the politics involved.
Subject D Much more time demanding than expected, students were more diverse in background than expected.
Subject E In classroom, frustrated by lack of student, family, and administrative expectations. Job became about "motivating appropriate behavior."
7. Do you believe that your teacher education classes and student teaching adequately
prepared you for the realities of teaching?
Respondent: Response: Subject A No, not at all. Subject B Some yes, some no. To many mandatory classes that didn't apply. Subject C Did a good job in preparing me in a sheltered setting - mainstream
average intelligence kid. Was not prepared for special needs and/or gifted kids. Felt lacking content-wise.
ATTRITION 46
Subject D No. Lacking in classroom management. Subject E Thought so at first, but not prepared for the reality of the educational
landscape and politics involved.
8. If you answered no to number 7, do you have suggestions as to how you could have been
more properly prepared?
Respondent: Response: Subject A Have actual teachers come in to talk to the class about what teaching
is really like. More interaction with actual high school teachers. Subject B Would like to see more focus on subject matter. Does not think that
today's teachers are really experts in their fields. Subject C Getting students into the classroom as much as they can, having
them spend time in overlapping areas (elementary and middle, or middle and high)
Subject D Stress classroom management systems and procedures, learn from real-life examples. Develop teacher-mentor system within districts for new teachers (district, not ed. department responsibility).
Subject E "The more time that they can spend in a real education environment, the better." Also, less generalities and more academic discipline-specific information would have helped.
9. What did you like most about teaching? The least?
Respondent: Response: Subject A Most: Energy level and enthusiasm of some kids. Making an
impact. Least: Discipline issues, paperwork, games you have to play (NCA), wasn't personally/professionally challenged enough.
Subject B Most: Daily process of working with students, getting them to feel more confident with the material, showing real world applications. Least: Administrative runaround, having to handle parents. Drama.
Subject C Most: Interaction with the kids, seeing the light bulb go on. Creativity. Least: Paperwork, and never having enough time! Having to take a lot of work home.
Subject D Most: Liked the students, liked planning lessons, even liked grading papers. Least: Having to deal with discipline issues, non-supportive families.
Subject E Most: Loved working with the kids. Loved seeing kids develop and
ATTRITION 47
mature. Least: Was treated like "one of the kids;" lack of trust from the administration. Wasn't even allowed to have keys to his/her own classroom.
10. Why did you leave teaching - e.g. what were the primary factors that lead to your
departure?
Respondent: Response: Subject A Discipline issues, grading/paperwork. Subject B Unhappy with administration, classroom management problems,
unhappy with changing nature of education (standardized testing) Subject C Felt like after 6 or 7 years, things got easy. Was ready for a new
challenge. Subject D Frustrated - did not feel like there was enough time to adequately
prepare quality lessons. Too much extra work outside of school. Subject E Left to get Master's degree. Had planned to return to the high school
classroom, however opportunities opened up at the collegiate level. Would still consider returning, but feels that the licensing process too difficult to navigate.
11. What are you doing (professionally) now?
Respondent: Response: Subject A University professor and department chair. Subject B College professor. Subject C Works for ISD, in multiple roles. Subject D Sets up professional development for teachers, through ISD. Subject E University professor.
Interpreting the data:
The personal interviews yielded similar results to the online surveys. To begin with, all
five of the interview subjects felt that their teacher preparation programs had been in some way
lacking, ranging from not enough of a focus on content-knowledge, to incomplete instruction on
classroom management. In order to address these perceived deficiencies, each had their own
ATTRITION 48
suggestions. Subjects A and C wanted to see education departments increase the amount of time
their students spend in real classrooms, and have actual classroom teachers visit methods classes
to discuss the realities of the profession. Subject B suggested that today’s teachers are not truly
experts within their academic fields, and wanted to see more focus on subject matter training.
Subject D felt that today’s education departments should stress classroom management training.
There were also large discrepancies between their preconceptions of the teaching
profession, and the realities that they encountered as a classroom teacher - for example, the
amount of paperwork, grading, and out-of-school work required was a surprise to almost all of
the interviewees. Also, the “politics” of the education system were surprising to some.
Difficulties dealing with other teachers, administration problems, and professional development
issues were all mentioned. The students themselves were not what a majority of them expected,
either. The amount and difficulty of discipline issues was a surprise to a number of the interview
subjects, and all of them discussed the disappointment that they felt when they found that many
of their students were unhappy and unmotivated.
Each interviewee was also asked what primary factors lead to their deciding to leave k-12
teaching. Subject A was tired of dealing with discipline issues, and felt that he/she was spending
too much time out of school preparing for lessons and doing paperwork. Subject B was also
tired of dealing with classroom management problems, and was unhappy with the administration
at his/her school. Subject C felt that teaching had become familiar and easy, and was looking for
a new challenge. Subject D left the classroom out of frustration – they did not feel like there was
ever enough time to adequately prepare quality lessons, and were taking too much work home.
The last respondent, Subject E, left to go to graduate school and had actually planned on
ATTRITION 49
returning to the classroom. After completion of a Master’s degree, opportunities opened up to
teach at the university level.
The answers from both the online survey and the personal interviews show that there are
a multitude of different reasons why teachers from Michigan’s Copper Country have considered
leaving the teaching profession, and why some of them did. While each person is unique and has
their own perspective, together they show impressions of over fifty local teachers and former
teachers.
ATTRITION 50
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
According to the 2007 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, nearly 91% of American
teachers are very or somewhat satisfied with their jobs, and yet 26% say that they are still very or
fairly likely to leave the teaching profession within the next five years (p. 67).
It is clear that the American education system has a problem with teacher attrition, and
losing these teachers has a definite effect on our education system. First there is the loss of
teaching efficiency – replacing veteran teachers with new additions to the teaching profession
means a loss of experience, and often times a loss of teaching talent. When this occurs, students
are not getting the highest quality education possible, especially when one considers that often
times the individuals who leave the teaching profession are the highly motivated and most
qualified, because they have the easiest time finding work outside of the education profession
(Alliance, 2005).
There are also financial losses produced by this constant turnover. Studies such as the
Alliance for Excellent Education: August 2005, IssueBrief: Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to
the Nation and to the States, and The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School Districts: A Pilot
Study show that school districts have to spend limited resources on recruiting and training
replacement educators when teachers leave. In some states, the total cost of replacing these
individuals is in the hundreds of millions of dollars - quite a burden for school districts, who are
already facing financial difficulties.
After recognizing this, the question then becomes “Why?” The information collected in
the literature review shows the national data. In order to successfully understand such a problem
however, one must grasp the local reasons as well. The responses garnered through this author’s
ATTRITION 51
independent research shows how teachers in Michigan’s Copper Country compare to the national
statistics.
For some, the pay is simply too low. Many of the teachers surveyed at the national level
felt that their pay-level was too low for the amount of work that they were asked to do. It can be
argued that money is not the primary factor, however. Many of the respondents who left the
teaching profession found that the benefits package within the field of teaching was superior to
the benefits available within their new professions. In fact, in most surveys average pay level
was not cited as a top reason for leaving the field, such as Teacher Follow-UP Survey to the
SASS, where insufficient pay was ranked eighth.
Local responses regarding salary mirrored the national data. Of the online survey
respondents who had considered leaving teaching, only 13.6% cited “low pay” as a primary
factor. None of the five personal interview subjects claimed that low pay had been a primary
reason in their decision to leave classroom teaching.
At the local level, some became increasingly frustrated from dealing with classroom
management issues and disciplinary actions. In many school districts, a substantial number of
students are disinterested with school, or have behavioral issues. One interviewee described their
frustration by saying that the job “became about motivating appropriate behavior," and not
motivating students to learn. In the nationwide MetLife survey, 39% of the teachers involved
stated that “disorderly student behavior” is a serious problem (p. 56).
For others, lack of support was a major issue. Some felt that their administration did not
support them in dealing with classroom discipline; others felt as if they had been abandoned by
parents who dissolved themselves of any responsibility for dealing with their children’s actions
during school hours. Many teachers felt that their state governments had forgotten them as well,
ATTRITION 52
through decreasing monetary support for public schools. Locally, “lack of administrative
support” was noted by 18.2% of the online respondents who had considered leaving teaching as a
contributing factor, and 22.4% marked administrative politics as their least favorite thing about
teaching.
One of the most commonly cited factors by those who left the k-12 classroom however,
was the amount of personal time taken up by the job. Surveys such as the SASS have found
while the average teacher spends approximately twenty-eight hours on classroom instruction,
they spend another twenty-five hours on other school related activities (p. 149). In other studies,
65% of teachers have said that they did not have enough time for planning and grading, and 60%
felt that they did not have enough time to help their students on an individual basis. In fact, 34%
felt that they did not have enough time to complete the classroom instruction that they desired
(MetLife, 2006, p. 52). Also, “paperwork,” “grading,” or “too much extra work outside of
school,” was mentioned as a primary factor leading to their leaving the k-12 classroom by almost
every one of the independent research interview subjects.
ATTRITION 53
RECOMMENDATION
Data collection efforts such as The 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll and The
MetLife Survey of the American Teacher asked teachers themselves, what would be the most
effective measures in reducing teacher attrition rates. In some cases, “providing a decent salary”
was the top suggestion (MetLife, 2006, p.89). This would not however, address the primary
reasons that teachers leave their classrooms. As mentioned above, pay-level was rarely listed as
a top reason for leaving the field, especially in the local surveys. In order to effectively deal with
the problem of teacher attrition, measures should address the actual reasons that people leave.
First of all, teachers must have assistance in dealing with classroom management issues
and disciplinary referrals. Parents and administrators must take a larger role in handling problem
students, or at least giving more support to teachers so that they can handle these problems
themselves. Also, our university education departments must focus more on teaching
appropriate classroom management strategies, to better equip new teachers in handling these
problems. It has also been suggested that since there is usually a plethora of applications to
education programs, perhaps universities should attempt to discourage applicants without the
necessary personal skills.
Next, the issue of time management and preparation time needs to be addressed. Being a
teacher is a time-consuming job, and that will not change. Many teachers, however, are losing
their in-school preparation periods in order to reduce staff requirements and diminish budget
shortfalls. Some grading and paperwork will always be taken home, but classroom teachers
often leave the profession because they feel that they cannot devote enough of their private time
to their families.
ATTRITION 54
Finally, university education departments must instruct teacher-candidates on the realities
of what they will face as an educator. One of the most obvious points of commonality among
those who took part in the independent research was the disconnect between their expectations of
teaching, and what being a teacher was actually like - 81.6% of respondents said that teaching
was not what they had expected. Many young people enter the profession thinking that students
will sit quietly at their desks, enraptured by lessons, and all parents will be helpful and friendly.
Others dream about short work days, and summers off. Until new teachers go into the classroom
with their eyes open regarding students, families, and the state of the American education
system, we will continue to see high levels of teacher attrition.
ATTRITION 55
REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly Loss to the Nation and to
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School
the States. [Electronic Version] Issue Brief.
http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf.
Districts: A Pilot Study. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future, 2007.
Cheeseman, D. & Newburger, E. (2002). The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic
Estimates of Work-Life Earning. Washington DC: US Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Foleno, T. (2000). A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why. New
York: Public Agenda. http://www.publicagenda.org/reports/sense-calling.
Hart, P.D. and Teeter, R.M. (2002). A National Priority: Americans Speak on Teacher Quality.
Princeton, NJ: ETS. http://ftp.ets.org/pub/corp/survey2002.pdf.
Lambert, L. (2006). Half of Teachers Quit in 5 Years. Washington DC: Washington Post
Company. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/
2006/05/08/AR2006050801344_pf.html
Mark, J., & Anderson, B. (1978). Teacher survival rates: A current look.
Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 379-382.
American
Marvel, J., Lyter, D., Peltola, P., Strizek, G., & Morton, B. (2007). Teacher Attrition and
Mobility: Results from the 2004-2005 Teacher Follow-up Survey. Washington DC: US
Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007307.pdf
MetLife Inc. (2006). The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Expectations and
ATTRITION 56
Experiences. New York: MetLife.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2
9/e5/ac.pdf
Rose, L., & Gallup, A. The 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes
Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, September 2007.
http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/eGALLUP/kpoll_pdfs/pdkpol
l39_2007.pdf
Strizek, G., Pittsonberger, J., Riordan, K., Lyster, D., Orlofsky, G., & and Gruber, K. (2007).
Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the
United States 2003-2004: Schools and Staffing Survey. Washington DC: US Department
of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006313.pdf
ATTRITION 57
APPENDIX:
TABLES AND GRAPHS
School and Staffing Survey
Table 18:
ATTRITION 58
Source: School and Staffing Survey, pp. 47-48.
Table 20:
ATTRITION 59
Source: School and Staffing Survey, pp. 51-52.
ATTRITION 60
Table 23:
Source: School and Staffing Survey, pp. 57-58.
ATTRITION 61
Table 26:
Source: School and Staffing Survey, pp. 63-64.
ATTRITION 62
Teacher Follow-UP Survey to the SASS
Table 1:
Source: Teacher Follow-UP Survey, pg. 7.
ATTRITION 63
Table 2:
Source: Teacher Follow-UP Survey, pp. 8, 9.
ATTRITION 64
Table 4:
Source: Teacher Follow-UP Survey, pg. 12.
ATTRITION 65
Table 6:
Source: Teacher Follow-UP Survey, pg. 14.
ATTRITION 66
Table 7:
Source: Teacher Follow-UP Survey, pg. 15.
ATTRITION 67
Table 8:
Source: Teacher Follow-UP Survey, pg. 16.
ATTRITION 68
The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher
Figure 1.4:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 17.
ATTRITION 69
Figure 2.1:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 21.
ATTRITION 70
Figure 2.11:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 34.
ATTRITION 71
Figure 3.2:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 43.
ATTRITION 72
Figure 4.3:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 67.
ATTRITION 73
Figure 3.5:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 47.
ATTRITION 74
Figure 3.12:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 55.
ATTRITION 75
Figure 3.9:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 52.
ATTRITION 76
Figure 6.2:
Source: MetLife Survey of the American Teacher, pg. 90.
ATTRITION 77
Alliance for Excellent Education
ATTRITION 78
ATTRITION 79
Source: Alliance for Excellent Education: August 2005, IssueBrief: Teacher Attrition: A Costly
Loss to the Nation and to the States, pp. 4-6.
ATTRITION 80
A National Priority: Americans Speak on Teacher Quality
Source: A National Priority, pg. 3.
Source: A National Priority, pg. 6.
ATTRITION 81
Source: A National Priority, pg. 8.
ATTRITION 82
Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll
Source: Phi Delta Kappa, pg. 41.
Source: Phi Delta Kappa, pg. 43.
ATTRITION 83
Source: Phi Delta Kappa, pg. 44.
ATTRITION 84
The Cost of Teacher Turnover
Table T-4:
Source: The Cost of Teacher Turnover, pg. 23.
Table T-14:
Source: The Cost of Teacher Turnover, pg. 30.