8/3/2019 Paper 2726

1/31

1

Teacher Turnover in New York Citys Public Middle SchoolsA paper prepared for the fall, 2011 APPAM conference

Will Marinell and Aaron Pallas

Several recent studies and a high profile report have underscored the importance oflearning more about the causes and consequences of teacher turnover in New York Citys middleschools. One recent investigation found that rates of turnover were higher among first-year New

York City middle school math teachers than among elementary teachers and that the most

effective middle school math teachers who left their schools after one year tended to leave the

lowest-performing schools.1

Further, a panel of experts recently noted that many of New York

Citys middle schools possess characteristics associated with high rates of turnover, such as large

percentages of underperforming students and high rates of principal turnover.2

Given the role

that students performance in middle school can have on their progress towards post -secondary

work and study,3

it seems critical to learn more about middle school teacher turnover in order tohelp schools develop strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining effective teachers, while

simultaneously limiting turnovers damaging consequences.

To date, however, there has not been a comprehensive resource that addresses central

questions related to New York City middle school teacher turnover and identifies importantavenues for future research. The Research Alliance for New York City Schools aims to fill this

gap through a three-year, mixed-methods study of New York City middle school teacher

turnover. The goals of this project are to describe the rates and patterns of turnover over the past

decade, identify middle school teachers career plans and their impressions of their schools, and

examine the causes and consequences of turnover in middle schools that serve high-need student

populations. This project is a collaboration among researchers at Baruch College (City

University of New York), Teachers College (Columbia), and New York University. The study isorganized into three components, each of which investigates questions related to turnover using

one of the following sources of data: the New York City Department of Educations humanresources administrative records, an original survey of middle school teachers, and case studiesof four middle schools.

This paper presents findings from two of the studys three components. In the firstcomponent of the study, we use human resources data from 2001 to 2010 to identify the

characteristics of New York City middle school teachers, describe the rates and patterns ofturnover over the past decade, and investigate the relationship between turnover and the

characteristics of middle school teachers and middle schools. In doing so, the report aims to

address foundational questions related to turnover and to identify some key questions that futurestudiesincluding the survey and case study components of this larger project should explore

in order to gain a nuanced understanding of middle school teacher turnover. In the secondcomponent of the study, we use data from a survey of 4,214 teachers in grade 6-8 New York City

middle schools to investigate the relationship between middle school teachers impressions oftheir school and their career intentions.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

2/31

2

Background

Teacher turnover is one of the more widely studied topics in K-12 education, and with

good reason. Research indicates that high rates of teacher turnover can leave schools facinginstructional, financial, and organizational costs, which can be difficult to surmount.4 While

some degree of turnover can be constructive for organizations, a perpetual churning of teachers

through schools requires that administrators devote scarce resources to recruiting and orientingnew teachers. Further, turnover can compromise a schools long-term objectives, such as its

efforts to promote a professional culture or strengthen its instructional core through sequential

professional development.5

Evidence suggests that rates of teacher turnover may be particularly high in urban middleschools, especially those serving disadvantaged students. A recent study found that 60% of

novice math teachers in low-performing middle schools left their schools within two years.6

This

same study revealed a potentially vicious cycle, wherein the least effective middle school

teachers rotate through the schools that serve the largest percentages of underperforming studentsand students from minority backgrounds.7 Outside of New York City, research has shown that

middle schools have relatively high rates of out-of-field teaching, a factor that is associated with

turnover, and that some middle school teachers view their assignments as stepping-stones topositions in elementary or high schools.

Methodology

For the first component of the study the investigation of patterns of turnover over the

past decade this investigation uses a discrete-time survival analysis methodology to estimate

the length of time that teachers remain in their schools. From these estimates, we generatestatistics of the percentage of teachers who left their schools within various lengths of time (e.g.,

after their first year, within three years, etc.). The primary sample for this analysis is the 15,628

teachers who were new to one of New York Citys 196 Grade 6-8 middle schools between 2002and 2009.8The analysis follows these teachers careers from the time they enter their school until

they either depart these schools or are censored by the data set in 2010.

To examine teachers impressions of their schools using our original survey data the

second component of this study we conduct two-level hierarchical logistical regression

analyses to investigate the extent to which teachers personal characteristics and theirimpressions of their school predict two outcomes: 1) teachers consideration of leaving theirschool, and 2) teachers consideration of leaving the teaching profession. In the second stage of

this analysis, we conduct multi-level logistical regression to describe the variation among NewYork City middle schools in the proportion of teachers who report that they are considering

leaving their school and/or teaching. In addition, this component of the study examines the extent

to which the variation across schools is attributable to differences in teachers characteristics,school demographics, and teachers impressions oftheir school as a workplace.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

3/31

3

Findings: Component 1

Analysis and Text by Will Marinell

How long do middle school teachers remain in their schools?

This question addresses a topic of central importance to school principals, school systemadministrators and organizations invested in preparing teachers for their work and developing

their capabilities on the job: after teachers enter New York City middle schools, how long do

they remain in their schools? On average, middle school teachers who entered their schoolsbetween 2002 and 2009 remained in these schools for roughly three years. More specifically,

27% of middle school teachers left their schools within one year, 55% within three years and

66% within five years. To situate these rates of turnover within the larger context of the NewYork City public school system, we estimated comparable rates of turnover among the

elementary and high school teachers who were new to New York City schools during the same

time period. Exhibit 1 illustrates the cumulative percentage of teachers who left New York Citys

middle, elementary and high schools after various lengths of time. As the exhibit depicts, the

rates of middle school turnover are either comparable or slightly higher than rates of turnover inelementary and high schools. For example, 55% of middle school teachers left their schools

within three years, as compared with 46% of elementary school teachers and 51% of high schoolteachers. Exhibit 1 also demonstrates that, across all of these school levels, the steepest increases

in turnover occurred during teachers first few years in schools, after which turnover ratesgradually leveled off.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

4/31

4

How have rates of middle school teacher turnover changed over the past decade?

To inform preliminary hypotheses about whether and how turnover may have beeninfluenced by a number of factorssuch as New York Citys movement towards an open-market

hiring systemwe examined whether rates of turnover changed between 2002 and 2007. These

exploratory analyses revealed that rates of middle school teacher turnover declined slightly overthis time period. More specifically, 57% of teachers who entered middle schools during the

2001-2002 school year left those schools within three years. Rates of turnover declined slightly

among teachers who entered their schools over the subsequent five years. Among teachers whoentered middle schools during the 2006-2007 school year, 52% left these schools within three

years. This five percentage-point decrease in turnover rates between 2002 and 2007 represented a

statistically significant negative linear trend; however, the small magnitude of this difference

seemed less notable than the discovery that there was not a year during this time period whenmore than 50% of middle school teachers remained in their schools for longer than three years.

To what extent is turnover characterized by mobility between schools or attrition from the New

York City public school system?

Future studies of middle school teachers career plans and of the factors that influence

whether they remain in their schools, in the New York City public school system, or in teachingshould be grounded in a descriptive analysis of teachers patterns of mobility and attrition. Data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Cumulative

percentageofteacherswholeftthe

irschools

Years in school

Exhibit 1

The percentage of new-to-school middle, high and elementary school

teachers who left their schools between 2002 and 2009

Middle

High

Elementary

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

5/31

5

from the past decade reveal that both mobility (transferring between New York City schools) and

attrition (leaving the New York City public schools altogether) have contributed to New YorkCity middle school teacher turnover. Exhibit 2 illustrates the patterns of mobility and attrition

among teachers who left their middle schools between 2002 and 2009. As the exhibit reveals,

59% of departing middle school teachers were not employed in the New York City public school

system in the year after their departure (referred to as Leavers). By comparison, 41% ofdeparting middle school teachers transitioned to another New York City public school (referred

to as Movers). Further, as the exhibit indicates, 19% of all of the departing middle school

teachers secured assignments in New York City public schools that did not include the middlegrades (Grades 6-8). Twelve percent of all departing middle school teachers transitioned to

middle schools with traditional Grade 6-8 configurations.

Which teacher characteristics are associated with turnover?

Historically, research on turnover has investigated the relationship between turnover and

the characteristics of teachers and schools in an effort to help practitioners and policymakers

identify which teachers leave schools and which types of schools they leave behind.9

Exhibit 3depicts the percentage of teachers with various background characteristics who left their middle

schools within three years. As this exhibit indicates, while these teacher characteristics are allstatistically significant predictors of turnover, turnover rates are similar among teachers within

many of the larger categories, such as race, gender, and subject area. For instance, roughly 50%

of middle school teachers left their schools within three years, regardless of whether they weremale or female, or from Black, Hispanic, or White racial/ethnic backgrounds. Similarly, the

percentage of math and science middle school teachers who left their schools within three years

did not differ notably from rates of turnover among their colleagues who teach other subjects.

There a few notable exceptions to this general pattern of similarity between teachers

characteristics and rates of turnover. More specifically, turnover rates varied across teachers of

different ages, levels of experience, and degree credentials. For instance, among the teacherswho entered their schools between 2002 and 2009, the teachers with the most experience in New

York City schools were associated with the lowest rates of turnover (44% left their schoolswithin three years). By contrast, 55% of teachers who had worked in New York City schools for

three years or less left their schools within the same period of time. In addition, older and

younger teachers were associated with higher rates of turnover than middle-aged teachers. Morespecifically, 61% of teachers aged 55-or-older and 54% of teachers aged 30-or-younger left their

schools within three years. By comparison, 49% of teachers aged 30-55 left their schools within

the same length of time.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

6/31

6

NYC middle school teachers who entered their

schools between 2002-09(N= 18,019)

Departed schools during the

period of observation

(N = 10,405)

The Leavers: Left the NYC

public school system

59%

The Stayers: Remained in

schools for the period of

observation

(N= 7,614)

The Movers: Transferred to

other NYC schools

41%

Remained teachers

37%

Transitioned to schools that did not

includegrades 6-819%

Transitioned to schools that included

grades 6-818%

Assumed non-

teaching roles

4%

Grade 6-8 middle

schools

12%

Grade 6-12

schools

3%

Grade K-8schools

3%

High schools

8%

Elementary schools

5%

Schools with other gradeconfigurations and

ungraded schools

6%

Exhibit 2

Patterns of mobility and attrition among teachers who entered NYC middle schools between 2002 and 2009

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

7/31

7

Exhibit 3Estimated percentage of middle school teachers who left their schools within three years

By selected teacher characteristics

Left within 3 years (%)Statistical

significance

GenderFemale 51

***Male 53

Ethnicity

White 53

**Black 52

Hispanic 48

Other 54

Years of experience in NYC schools

3 years or less 55

***Between 3 and 6 years 50Between 6 and 9 years 47

More than 9 years 44

Degree level

B.A. 51

***M.A. or credit equivalent 50

M.A. and 30 additional credits 55

Other 64

Age

30-years-old or younger 54

***Between 30-55 years-old 49

Older than 55 61

Subject area

Math or science teacher 54**

Non-math or science teacher 52SOURCE: Discrete time survival analyses that model the probability of turnover for the various teacher

characteristics, while simultaneously controlling for other teacher characteristics and contextual factors, such as a

schools NYC borough location and its annual change in student enrollment. Please see the full report and

Technical Documentation for detailed information about modeling procedures.

NOTES: Statistical significance key: ~ p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

Which school characteristics are associated with teacher turnover?

Using a variety of publicly-available data, and controlling for various characteristics ofteachers and larger, system-wide contextual factors10, we examined whether turnover rates

differed across various types of middle schools. Exhibit 4 depicts the percentage of middle

school teachers who left their schools within three years across middle schools with differentcharacteristics. As with the previous exhibit, the statistics presented in Exhibit 4 suggest that

rates of turnover are similar across many different types of middle schools, with a few notable

exceptions. For instance, smaller middle schools were associated with higher levels of turnover,

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

8/31

8

on average. Fifty-five percent of the teachers who entered smaller middle schools (i.e., schools

with roughly 700 students) between 2002 and 2009 left these schools within three years. Bycomparison, schools that enrolled approximately twice as many students lost about 48% of

similar teachers within the same time period.

Exhibit 4Estimated percentage of middle school teachers who left their schools with within three years

By selected school characteristics

Left within 3

years (%)

Statistical

significance

School sizea

692 (25th

percentile) 55

***1,122 (50th

percentile) 51

1,383 (75th

percentile) 48

Quality Review score

Under-developed 51

0.3544Under-developed with proficient features 53

Proficient 52

Well-developed 51

Percentage of students in povertyb

59 (25th

percentile) 52

**71 (50th percentile) 51

83 (75th

percentile) 50

Percent Proficient or higher on NY math assessmenta

30 (25th

percentile) 54

***49 (50th

percentile) 5169 (75

thpercentile) 49

Weighted school environment score from School Surveyb

8.1 (25th

percentile) 51

***9.4 (50th percentile) 49

11 (75th

percentile) 47

Teachers race and whether school had a relatively high

proportion of White studentsa

White teacher, high proportion of White students 47

***

White teacher, not a high proportion of White students 55

Black teacher, high proportion of White students 53

Black teacher, not a high proportion of White students 47

Hispanic teacher, high proportion of White students 53

Hispanic teacher, not a high proportion of White students 46

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

9/31

9

Exhibit 4 (continued)

SOURCE: Discrete time survival analyses that model the probability of teacher turnover across schools with

various characteristics, controlling for all of the contextual factors, teacher characteristics, and school

characteristics in the analysis. Please see the full report and Technical Documentation for detailed information

about modeling procedures.

NOTES: Statistical significance key: ~ p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

a: Data from 2002-09

b: Data from 2008

Motivated by the work of Thomas Dee and others11, we examined the relationship

between turnover and the match between teachers and students racial/ethnic backgrounds.

These analyses revealed that middle school teachers remained in their schools longer when theirracial and ethnic characteristics matched those of a substantial proportion of the students in their

schools. In the typical New York City middle school, roughly 16% of students are White and

84% are non-White. Thus, schools where more than 16% of students are White could be

considered schools with a relatively high proportion of White students even though White

students do not represent the predominant racial/ethnic category in the school.As Exhibit 4 depicts, controlling for other factors, White teachers who were working in

schools with a relatively large proportion of White students were associated with lowerrates of

turnover than were White teachers working in schools where White students did not comprise anuncharacteristically large proportion of the student body. Similarly, Black and Hispanic teachers

who were working in schools that had a relatively large proportion of non-White students were

associated with lower rates of turnover than were Black and Hispanic teachers who wereworking in schools that did not have an uncharacteristically large proportion of non-White

students.

While not the focus of this portion of the study, the relationship between turnover and the

contextual factors for which our analyses controlled, such as the borough in which a middleschool was located, yielded patterns of turnover that future studies should investigate further. For

instance, there were wide discrepancies in the percentage of middle school teachers who left

schools across the five boroughs. Rates of turnover were highest in Manhattan, where 66% of the

teachers who entered middle schools between 2002 and 2009 left within three years. By contrast,within the same period of time, 63% of similar teachers left middle schools in the Bronx, 54%

left schools in Brooklyn, 49% left schools in Queens, and 35% left schools in Staten Island.

Findings: Component 2

Analysis and Text by Aaron Pallas (modified by Marinell for APPAM paper)

In the second component of this study, we use our original survey of middle schoolteachers to further examine the relationships between middle school teacher turnover and both

the characteristics of teachers and schools. The survey data provide the study with measures of

schools operational functioning such as, the quality of the administrative leadership and thelevel of influence that teachers have over school policies that are not available from any other

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

10/31

10

source. Our analysis for this component of the study proceeds in four parts. First, we present the

percentage of middle school teachers who reported considering leaving their school and/or theteaching profession. Second, we examine the extent to which a variety of detailed teacher and

school characteristics predict whether a teacher considered leaving her school. In the third

section, we analyze the reasons behind teachers consideration of leaving their school. In the

fourth and final section, we examine whether there is evidence that some middle schools haveunusually high rates of teachers considering leaving their current school and/or leaving teaching.

We describe the characteristics of the schools that have higher-than-average rates of teachers

thinking about leaving, particularly the attributes of the teachers who teach in them and theschools' demographic characteristics and work environments. In our analyses, we explore the

extent to which we can explain this between-school variation with the various teacher and school

characteristics that we use in our previous analyses within this component of the study.

What percentage of middle school teachers are considering leaving their school and/or

teaching?

We begin by describing teachers' responses to two questions about whether theyconsidered leaving their school or the teaching profession during the 2009-2010 school year.

One-third (33%) of the 4,214 responding full-time middle school teachers reported that they hadconsidered leaving their school during the current school year. A smaller, but still substantial,

fraction22%reported that they had considered leaving teaching altogether during the current

school year. Exhibit 5 shows the four different patterns that teachers reported.

Exhibit 5. Patterns of Thinking about Leaving One's School and Teaching

Pattern of Thinking about Leaving Percentage

Considered leaving neither 61

Considered leaving teaching only 7

Considered leaving school only 16

Considered leaving both school and teaching 16

Total 100

Exhibit 5 indicates that 39% of teachers in the study considered leaving their school or

leaving teaching altogether during the 2010 school year. Arguably, the most detached teachersare the 16% who reported that they both considered leaving their school andthat they considered

leaving teaching. An equal number of teachers stated that they had considered leaving their

school, but had not considered leaving teaching. This latter group presumably is still committed

to teaching, but would prefer to teach at another school. But there is a fourth group of teacherswho report that they had considered leaving teaching, but they had not considered leaving their

school. The fraction of such teachers, 7% of the total sample, is not large, but neither can it be

ignored, as these teachers are expressing an attachment to their current school even as they

consider leaving teaching altogether. One possibility, which became clear only after the surveyadministration was complete, is that this latter group of teachers might be considering remaining

in their current schools, but in non-teaching roles such as assistant principal or some other

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

11/31

11

administrative capacity. The wording of the questions in the survey was less precise than

intended, which creates some ambiguity about these teachers future intentions.

One might worry that considering leaving one's school, or leaving teaching, might befleeting thoughtsa bad day spurring a teacher to fantasize about leaving, rather than a more

durable predictor of a teacher's future behavior. There is some evidence that thinking about

leaving is associated with teachers' plans for staying in their school and for remaining in theteaching force. We asked teachers how long they anticipated remaining in their current school:

until the end of the school year; for another year or two; for between 3-5 years; for between 6-10

years; and for more than 10 years. Teachers who reported thinking about leaving their schooland/or leaving teaching anticipated much shorter stints in their current school. Exhibit 6 shows

this association.

Exhibit 6. Association Between Considering Leaving Current School

and Expected Tenure in School

Considered leaving current schoolExpected tenure in current school No Yes

Until the end of this school year 1% 25%

For another year or two 15 45

For between 3-5 years 24 18

For between 6-10 years 20 5

For more than 10 years 39 7

Total 99% 100%

Of the teachers who reported having considered leaving their current school, one-quarter

expected to leave at the end of the current year, and another 45% expected to stay for at most

another year or two. Thus, 70% of the teachers who reported that they had considered leaving

their school expected to be gone within two years. Only 12% of these teachers expect to stay intheir current schools for more than six more years. Conversely, the teachers who had not

considered leaving demonstrate a strong attachment to their current school. Nearly 40% expect to

remain in their current schools for more than 10 years, and 59% expect to remain for another sixyears or more. Only one in six of the teachers who had not considered leaving their current

school anticipated leaving within two more years.

A similar pattern is observed for teachers who reported having considered leaving

teaching altogether. As Exhibit 7 demonstrates, 41% of the teachers who considered leavingteaching expected to stay in teaching for another year or two. The pattern is quite different for

teachers who did not consider leaving teaching; these teachers expect to remain in teaching for asubstantial amount of time. Sixty percent of the teachers who did not consider leaving anticipate

staying in teaching for at least another 10 years, and more than three-quarters (78%) expect tocontinue as teachers for at least another six years. Only 7% of the teachers who did not consider

leaving teaching anticipate leaving the field within two years.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

12/31

12

Exhibit 7. Association between Considering Leaving Teaching

and Expected Tenure in Teaching

Considered leaving teaching

Expected tenure in teaching No Yes

Until the end of this school year 1% 12%For another year or two 6 29

For between 3-5 years 15 25

For between 6-10 years 18 12

For more than 10 years 60 22

Total 100% 100%

Which teacher and school characteristics predict whether teachers are considering leaving

their school and/or teaching?

In this section, we examine whether a variety of teacher and school characteristics from

the survey predict whether teachers considered leaving their school. We conducted a parallelanalysis with our other outcome of interestconsidering leaving teachingbut do not report the

results, which were similar, for the sake of parsimony. The following five models are estimated:

Model 1 includes a set of teacher characteristics, including experience, certification andcredentials, family status, gender, race/ethnicity, whether the teacher is teaching a new subject or

a new grade level, and commuting time to work.

Model 2 adds to these teacher characteristics four additional social-psychological measures: a

teacher's satisfaction with his/her salary; whether the teacher's peers are encouraging her to stayin the school; the teacher's self-assessment of her effectiveness (i.e., teacher efficacy); and the

teacher's self-report of the strength of her personal ties with students. We might predict that

higher values on these social-psychological dimensions would be associated with a lowerprobability of considering leaving the current school.

Model 3 includes school characteristics, but no teacher characteristics. The school characteristics

included in the model are the school's total enrollment; the percentages of students in poverty,receiving special education services, and English Language learners; the percentage of students

in the school who had been suspended in the prior year; the average median proficiency in math

and English Language Arts for students in the school; the school attendance rate and rate ofstudent stability from the preceding year; and an indicator for the borough in which the school islocated.

Model 4 adds to the Model 3 school characteristics an additional set of school characteristics that

measure various aspects of the school as a workplace. These measures are derived from theaggregated reports of individual teachers in each school and include: teacher collegiality,

principal leadership, parental support, collective responsibility for student learning, school

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

13/31

13

disorder, influence/control over professional matters in the school, the frequency of and

satisfaction with professional development, and the adequacy of the available resources and ofinduction strategies for new teachers. The contrast between Model 3 and Model 4 represents the

unique contribution of the school as a workplace to explaining why teachers consider leaving,

and the extent to which the effects of school structural characteristics in Model 3 are mediated by

the school as a workplace.

Model 5 is the most inclusive model, combining all of the teacher and school characteristics from

the previous models.

Because teachers are nested within schools, we estimate two-level hierarchical logisticregression models with a random school effect and fixed effects for teacher and school

characteristics. This modeling approach adjusts the estimated standard errors for the logistic

regression coefficients for the clustering of teachers with similar characteristics within schools.

As we demonstrate later, there is a significant amount of variation between schools in the

average probability of teachers considering leaving the school (and considering leavingteaching).

To simplify the interpretation of the models, the tables which follow report statistically

significant effects of a variable on the odds of considering leaving. The odds of an event is afunction of the probability of the event, much as we think about odds in games of chance. The

odds of considering leaving ones school is defined as the probability of considering leaving

divided by the probability of not considering leaving. When we refer to a probability of an eventas "50:50," the odds of that event is .50/.50 = 1. Similarly, the phrase "a one in five chance"

equates to an odds of .20/.80 = .25, and a 75% probability represents an odds of .75/.25 = 3.0.

To place these odds in perspective, overall, 22% of the teachers in the study who never

considered leaving teaching reported that they considered leaving their current school. Thisprobability corresponds to an odds of .28. An increase in the odds signifies an increase in theprobability of considering leaving, whereas a decrease in the odds indicates a decrease in the

probability of considering leaving. A 100% increase in the odds of considering leavingthat is,

an odds of .56represents an increase in the relative probability of considering leaving from22% to 36%. A 50% increase in the odds of considering leavingthat is, an odds of .42shifts

the relative probability of considering leaving from 22% to 30%. Conversely, a 50% decrease in

the odds of considering leaving, which corresponds to an odds of .14, represents a decrease in therelative probability of considering leaving from 22% to 12%.

In some cases, distinctions among teachers are represented as contrasts among a set of

categories (e.g., marital status categories), with one category denoted as a "reference category"

against which the other categories are compared. Throughout the analyses, we test whether a setof contrasts collectively is equal to zero, or whether that hypothesis should be rejected in favor ofthe hypothesis that the contrasts collectively differ from zero. Not every contrast in a set needs to

be different for the set collectively to differ from zero, however; for example, the level of some

outcome might differ between divorced teachers and a reference category of teachers who nevermarried, but might not differ between widowed and never-married teachers. The following

exhibits indicate which specific contrasts are significant at p

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

14/31

14

Exhibit 8 displays the extent to which the five models predict the odds of considering

leaving one's school only (compared to not considering leaving the school or leaving teaching).As the exhibit reveals, two features of teachers' work are significant predictors of their

consideration of leaving their school. Teachers who report that they are teaching a subject they

have not taught before are considerably more likely to consider leaving their schools. The 77%

increase in the odds of leaving represents a shift in the predicted probability of leaving from 22%to 33%. Conversely, teachers who report teaching a grade level they have not taught before are

somewhat less likely to consider leaving their school for another school. It is possible that this

pattern reflects the extent to which these changes in teaching assignments are voluntary orinvoluntary. Because middle-school teachers are more likely to be subject-matter specialists than

are elementary school teachers, a shift in subject may represent an unwelcome transition to a new

subject for which a teacher feels less prepared, or which holds less interest. Conversely, a changein grades taught within a middle school may not be nearly as disruptive.

Teachers commuting time also has a powerful effect on the odds of their considering

leaving their school. Not surprisingly, the longer a teacher's commute, the more likely she is to

consider leaving her school. The pattern is particularly pronounced for the longest commutes.

The difference between a commute of 20 minutes or less and a commute of an hour or morerepresents a 147% difference in the odds of considering leaving one's school. An increase of this

magnitude equates to a shift in the probability of considering leaving one's school from 22% to

41%, a very large effect.

Model 2 adds the social-psychological factors of satisfaction with salary, peerencouragement to stay at the current school, teacher self-efficacy and personal ties to students.

For the most part, the patterns displayed in Model 1 are unchanged, suggesting that their

influence on the odds of considering leaving the current school to teach in another school areindependent of these social-psychological factors. When the social-psychological factors are

taken into account, teachers who self-identify as Hispanic or as a race other than Black, Asian or

White are more likely to consider leaving their school than are White or Black teachers.

Three of the four social-psychological factors are associated with the odds of consideringleaving one's current school. Teachers who are more satisfied with their teaching salaries are

more likely to consider leaving, so perhaps the move would not pose a financial risk; a move

within the New York City school system to another teaching position would likely not affect a

teacher's salary and, hence, financial stability. On the other hand, teachers apparently do respondto the influence of others around them and to their own assessments of their teaching

competence. A one standard deviation increase in the strength of the encouragement teachers

receive from those close to them to stay in their current school reduces the odds of consideringleaving the school by 52%. Moreover, those teachers who view themselves as effective are less

likely to consider leaving their current school. But the strength of a teacher's personal ties to

students is not associated with the likelihood of his considering leaving the current school.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

15/31

15

Exhibit 8. Models Predicting the Odds of Considering Leaving One's School to Teach Elsewhere

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

0 to 1 year experience -46% -50% -49%

1 to 3 years experience -21% -17% -20%

4 to 5 years experience 13% 21% 18%

11 to 15 years experience -10% -8% -8%>15 years experience -42% -33% -36%

Black 2% -14%

Asian -15% -19%

Hispanic 69% 48%

Other race 82% 71%

Gender (Male)

Living with domestic partner 12% -2%

Married -32% -33%

Divorced -14% -26%

Separated -76% -69%

Widowed -67% -64%

N of children responsible for -16% -18% -18%

Teaching new subject 77% 63% 58%

Teaching new grade -28% -27%

NYC public high school graduate

NYC Teaching Fellow

Teach For America corps member

Teaching Opportunity Program alum

Other alternative certification

Holds MA degree 39%

Holds MA + 30 credits 5%

Holds doctoral degree 100%

20 to 40 minute commute 29% 15% 11%

40 to 60 minute commute 66% 49% 42%

60 or more minute commute 147% 129% 106%

Satisfaction with salary 17% 14%

Peer encouragement to stay at school -52% -48%

Teacher self-efficacy -22%

Personal ties to students

School total enrollment

School poverty rate

Pct American Indian students 3%Pct Black students -23%

Pct Hispanic students -19%

Pct Asian students -35%

Brooklyn -34% -33%

Queens -40% -50%

Bronx -40% -40%

Staten Island -73% -73%

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

16/31

16

The final point to note before turning to school-level characteristics is the lack of an associationbetween teacher certification status and the probability of considering leaving one's current

school. In both Model 1 and Model 2, there is no evidence that teachers prepared via an alternate

route, such as Teach for America or the New York City Teaching Fellows, are more likely toconsider leaving their current schools for another school than are teachers who entered the field

via a traditional teacher certification program.

Model 3 introduces a set of school characteristics as predictors of the likelihood of ateacher considering leaving her current school. Only two school structural characteristics areassociated with this outcome. First, the teachers in schools located in Manhattan are considerably

more likely to think about moving to another school than the teachers in schools in Staten Island,

the Bronx, and Queens. The odds of teachers in Staten Island schools considering leaving are

77% lower than is observed in Manhattan, which corresponds to a difference in the probability ofconsidering leaving of 10% and 32%, respectively, all else being equal. Second, teachers in

schools with higher rates of student suspensions are more likely to consider leaving their current

school for another school. A one standard deviation increase in the student suspension ratethedifference between 15% and 26%is associated with an 18% increase in the odds of considering

moving to another school. A higher rate of suspensions presumably indicates that the school has

challenges maintaining order and safety, two factors that might be salient to a teacher'sassessment of the suitability of her current school.

Model 4 adds to the equation school-level measures of the school as a workplace. Thedifferences among boroughs persist, which suggests that the reasons that Manhattan teachers are

more likely than teachers in other boroughs to consider leaving their school have little to do with

the school as a workplace. The same logic holds for the fact that teachers in schools with higherrates of student suspensions are more likely to consider moving to another school: it's not that

Exhibit 8 Continued

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Pct Special Education students

Pct ELL students

Pct suspended students 18% 20% 23%

Avg median proficiency

School attendance rate

Student stability rate

Teacher collegiality

Principal leadership

Parental support

Collective responsibility

School disorder

Professional control

Frequency of professional development 15%

Satisfaction with professional development

Adequacy of resources -24%

Adequacy of teacher induction

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

17/31

17

such schools are functioning more poorly, and that teachers are responsive to the organization

and functioning of the school.

In fact, the key story here is that school organization and functioning have relatively littleto do with whether New York City middle school teachers consider leaving their school. This

may be due, in part, to the correlations between these measures then render them insignificant

when added to the model as a group. Of the ten school-level measures of the school as aworkplace, only twothe frequency of professional development activities and the adequacy of

school resourcesare statistically significant predictors of the odds of considering leaving one's

school when the measures were added to the model simultaneously. Somewhat perversely,teachers in schools with more frequent professional development are slightly more likely to

consider leaving their current schools, which may reflect a feeling that professional development

is being imposed on them. (In contrast, satisfaction with professional development is unrelated to

the likelihood of considering moving to another school.) Additionally, teachers who view theresources available to them in the school as adequate are less likely to consider leaving; a one

standard deviation increase in the adequacy of school resources is associated with a 24% decline

in the odds of considering teaching in another school. Other measures of school functioning

such as principal leadership, teacher collegiality, control over school and classroom policies, andschool disorderare not associated with considering leaving the school to teach in another

school. Future modeling approaches will consider the relationship between each of these school

measures and teachers considering of leaving their school by sequentially adding and removingeach measure to the model, one at a time.

One additional pattern that emerges when these school workplace measures are

considered is that the racial/ethnic composition of the school becomes associated with teachers

consideration of leaving the school. Although the racial/ethnic mix of students did not emerge asa statistically significant factor when school structural features alone were considered, there is

evidence that the percentage of Asian students in the school is associated with considering

leaving. A one standard deviation increase in the percentage of Asian students in the school

from, say, 13% to 29%decreases the odds of considering leaving by 35%. This pattern isobserved when school-level measures of academic achievement and disorder are taken into

account, so it does not appear to be attributable to the possibility that schools with high

concentrations of Asian students also tend to be higher-achieving and/or less disorderly.

Finally, Model 5 combines all of the predictors in Model 2 and Model 4 into a singleequation. The results suggest that individual teacher characteristics are more influential in

determining whether New York City middle school teachers considered leaving their school than

are the characteristics of the schools in which they teach. Among the individual teachercharacteristics, experience, teacher race/ethnicity, number of children, teaching a new subject or

a new grade, and time commuting to work all are significant predictors when school-level

characteristics are taken into account at the same time. The same is true for the social-psychological factors of satisfaction with salary and peer encouragement to stay in the school.Moreover, for each of these factors, the magnitude of their effects is virtually the same as in

Model 2, which did not control for school-level factors. This implies that these effects of

individual teacher attributes cannot be explained by how teachers are distributed across middleschools in New York City.

The one instance in which the distribution of teachers across schools might explain the

significance of an individual teacher characteristic is marital status. In Model 2, teachers who

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

18/31

18

were married, separated or widowed were less likely to consider leaving their current schools to

teach in another school than teachers who were never married or who had domestic partners.However, the marital status of teachers differs across schools in the five boroughs, with 38% of

the teachers in Manhattan middle schools reporting that they have never married and do not have

a domestic partner, considerably higher than the percentages in the other boroughs. Taken

separately, teachers in Manhattan schools are more likely to consider leaving for other schoolsthan teachers in schools in the other four boroughs, and teachers who have never married or who

have domestic partners are more likely to consider leaving their current schools. Because of the

association between borough and marital status, the two "cancel each other out" in a statisticalsense.

On the other hand, there is some evidence that some of the effects of schools structural

and workplace characteristics on the odds of considering leaving one's current school might be

due to the distribution of teachers across schools. We have already alluded to the fact thatteachers in Manhattan schools were much more likely to consider leaving their current schools

than teachers in schools in the other four boroughs (Model 4), but the differences among

boroughs are not statistically significant when individual teacher characteristics are taken into

account in Model 5. Part of this may be due to the distribution of teacher marital status acrossboroughs. We also considered the possibility that the differences among boroughs in the

likelihood of considering leaving might vanish due to differences across boroughs in commuting

time. Perhaps a smaller proportion of teachers in Manhattan schools live in Manhattan, due to thecost of living there, and therefore their commute is longer. We have already established that

teachers with longer commutes to their school are much more likely to consider leaving their

school to teach elsewhere than teachers with shorter commutes. Might this explain thedifferences among the boroughs in the odds of considering leaving?

Somewhat surprisingly, commuting time does not account for borough differences in the

probability of considering leaving one's school to teach in another school. To be sure, Staten

Island stands out among the boroughs; 64% of the teachers in Staten Island report a commute of

20 minutes or less, and only 2% of the teachers in Staten Island schools commute more than anhour each way to work. But although Manhattan has the highest proportion of teachers

commuting an hour or more, the percentages are not strikingly different from those in Queens,

the Bronx and Brooklyn. 17% of the teachers in Manhattan middle schools report a commute ofan hour or more, compared to 15% in the Bronx and 13% in Queens and Brooklyn. These

differences, while larger, do not account for the higher probability of considering leaving one's

school observed among teachers in Manhattan schools.

We note one final difference between Model 4, which included both school structuralcharacteristics and school workplace characteristics, and Model 5, which considered individual

teacher characteristics alongside of these school characteristics. Model 4 indicated that teachers

in schools where the resources were judged adequate were less likely to consider leaving theircurrent school to teach in another school. This school-level factor is no longer a statisticallysignificant predictor of considering leaving when individual teacher characteristics are taken into

account. It is possible that the correlation between the adequacy of resources and an influential

teacher-level characteristic might account for this pattern. One candidate is the extent to which ateacher's peers encourage him to remain in his current school. Model 2 indicates that teachers

whose peers think they should stay in their current school are indeed substantially less likely to

consider leaving, and this effect persists once school-level characteristics are taken into account.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

19/31

19

There is a moderately large association between the amount of peer encouragement and the

adequacy of school resources; a teacher's friends are more likely to encourage her to stay in herschool if the school has more resources than if the school has fewer resources. Thus, the effect of

the adequacy of school resources on a teacher's likelihood of considering leaving her current

middle school may be due to the influence of significant others.

What are the reasons that middle school teachers are considering leaving their schools?

We asked the teachers who had reported considering leaving their school to rate theimportance of 14 different factors in influencing their consideration. Teachers rated each factor

as: not at all important, somewhat important, important, or very important. Exhibit 9 reports the

percentage of teachers indicating that a given factor was very important or important, with thefactors listed in descending order of importance. As the exhibit demonstrates, more than three-

quarters (76%) of all teachers who reported having considered leaving their school indicated that

student discipline problems and/or lack of student motivation was a very important or important

factor. Two-thirds (66%) stated that a lack of support from administrators was very important or

important. More than one-half of all teachers said that wanting to have more influence overschool policies and practices and the quality of their school's facilities were very important or

important considerations (56% and 51%, respectively).

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

20/31

20

Exhibit 9. Importance of Reasons for Considering Leaving Current School for Teachers Considering Leaving

Reason for considering leaving current school

% Not at

All

Important

%

Somewhat

Important

%

Important

% Very

Important

% Very

Important

or

Important

Student discipline problems and/or lack of student motivation 14 11 23 52 76

Lack of support from administrators 17 17 25 41 66

Wanting to have more influence over school policies and practices 20 24 32 24 56The quality of your school's facilities 27 22 31 20 51

Lack of professionalism of teacher colleagues 30 23 27 20 47

Frustration about the amount of testing and test preparation in your school 30 23 25 22 47

Concerns about your job security at this school or in this district due to budget cuts 38 19 19 24 43

Wanting to work at a school closer to your home 37 23 19 21 40

Lack of opportunities for professional development as a teacher 37 24 23 16 39

A change in leadership in the school 48 16 16 19 36

Lack of availability of parking at the school 57 14 12 17 29

Wanting to teach a new subject area or grade 54 19 16 11 27

Wanting to leave teaching altogether 57 16 14 13 27

Personal or family reasons (e.g., spouse's job requires moving, health concerns, etc.) 61 12 14 12 26

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

21/31

21

We sought to understand the individual teacher-level (and, to a lesser extent, school-

level) factors associated with rating a particular factor important. The details of these effects aredisplayed in Exhibit 10. Only the statistically significant effects are reported, with blanks for

those teacher attributes which are not reliably different from zero. (As before, we tested whether

a set of categories collectively differs from zero at the conventional criterion of p

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

22/31

22

Column three reports the relative importance ascribed to the lack of influence a teacherhas over school policies and practices. Three teacher attributes are associated with the

importance of this factor: teacher certification status, commuting time, and New Yorker status.

Teachers from New York view their lack of influence over school policies and practices as more

important to their decision to stay in or leave their current school than do teachers who do nothave the ties to New York that a New York City high school diploma signifies. Those teachers

who entered teaching via the Teaching Opportunity Program (TOP) rate their influence over

school policies and practices as a full point more important than do traditionally-certifiedteachers. It is not obvious what features of the TOP, which is a joint program between CUNY

and the New York City Department of Education, would account for this difference. Nor is it

evident why teachers with a moderately long commute might view influence over school policies

Student

Discipline

Lack of Support

from

Administrators

Wanting

More

Influence

Quality of

School

Facilities

Lack of

Professionalism

Testing/

Test Prep

Job

Security

0 to 1 year experience .762

1 to 3 years experience .445

4 to 5 years experience .149

11 to 15 years experience .254

>15 years experience -.197

Black

Asian

Hispanic

Other ra ce

Gender .162 .225

Living with domestic partner

Married

Divorced

Separated

Widowed

N of children responsible for .130

Teaching new subject

Teaching new grade

NYC public high school graduate .217 .209 .173

NYC Teaching Fellow -.230 .011 -.199 -.346

Teach For America corps member -.457 .091 -.594 -.493

Teaching Opportunity Program alum .150 1.009 .758 -.504

Other alternative certification .150 .178 .083 .086

Holds MA degree

Holds MA + 30 credits

Holds doctoral degree

20 to 40 minute commute -.076 -.027

40 to 60 minute commute -.217 -.229

60 or more minute commute -.340 .012

Table 19a. Predictors of Importance of Reasons for Considering Leaving Current SchoolExhibit 10.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

23/31

23

and practices as a less important consideration than teachers with a brief commute from home to

school.

The determinants of the importance of the quality of school facilities as a consideration inleaving is reported in column four. New Yorkers view this as a more important factor than do

non-New Yorkers, which might be rooted in their comparison of the qualities of the facilities

they recall from their own experiences as a student in New York City schools and what they seein their schools and classrooms today. Teachers who entered teaching via alternate routes ascribe

a different importance to the quality of a school's facilities in their thoughts about leaving their

school than do traditionally-certified teachers. The quality of school facilities is less important toTeaching Fellows and especially TFA corps members, and more important to TOP teachers, than

this assessment is to the teaching plans of traditionally-certified teachers.

Columns five and six report the determinants of the importance of the professionalism of

a teacher's colleagues and the amount of testing and test preparation at the school, respectively,

as factors influencing considering leaving one's current school. Although these factors are veryimportant to some teachers, and less so to others, the teacher attributes we observe do not

effectively explain why. Female teachers rate the lack of teacher professionalism as slightly more

salient to them than do male teachers, and New Yorkers rate their concerns about testing and testpreparation as a tad more important in their decision-making than do non-New Yorkers.

The final column of Exhibit 10 displays the predictors of the importance of budget-

related job security as a consideration in thinking about leaving one's building. In an era of

declining school budgets and the annual threat of teacher layoffs, it may be that some teachersfeel more vulnerable than others to the potential loss of their positions. Teachers in the earliest

stages of their careers are much more likely to report that this threat is important to them than are

teachers in mid-career. Although teachers in their first year of teaching are less likely than mid-

career teachers to report that they are considering leaving their current schools, those that do

consider leaving are more likely to view job security as an important consideration than are more

experienced teachers, the vast majority of whom have the due process protections of tenure.Teachers with 11 to 15 years of full-time teaching experience also place slightly moreimportance on budgetary threats to their positions than do teachers with six to ten years of

experience.

Independent of career stage, teachers with financial and legal responsibility for children

place more weight on school and district budget issues in considering leaving their schools thando teachers with no children. Each child increases the importance by .13 on the scale of 1 to 4.

This implies that a teacher with responsibilities for three children rates budgetary pressures as

.33 more important in thinking about leaving their school than does a teacher with no children.

Finally, we see additional evidence that teacher certification status influences the mix of

factors that teachers consider when deciding whether to stay in or leave their current school.Teaching Fellows and TFA teachers express less concern about job security due to budget cuts as

a rationale for considering leaving their schools than do teachers who entered teaching through

the traditional route.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

24/31

24

Do certain New York City middle schools have much higher or lower concentrations ofteachers who are considering leaving their school and/or teaching?

In the final analysis of this component of the study, we shift our focus from the individualto the school as the unit of interest. Although we have considered both the attributes of

individual teachers and of schools, our attention has been directed to understanding why some

teachers consider leaving their schools, and the reasons for leaving that influence theirconsideration. In this section, we examine the variation among schools in the proportion of

teachers who report that they are considering a departure of any kind (i.e., a departure from their

school, from teaching, or from both). Further, we examine whether this variation across schoolsappears to be due to differences among schools in teachers characteristics, school demographics,

or aspects of the school as a workplace.

Across the entire sample of teachers responding to the survey, 39% reported having

considered leaving their current school, leaving teaching, or both. In the average school, the

estimated percentage of teachers considering one of these types of departures from their currentteaching assignment was 43%. We estimated a model which yielded the odds of a teacher

considering any kind of departure for each school. The ICC for this model is .13, indicating that

the school-level average of the predicted percentage of teachers who are considering leavingdoes vary across schools.

The differences among schools are displayed in Exhibit 11, which arrays the estimated

average odds of considering any kind of departure for each of the 125 middle schools in the

study. The lowest average odds, .24, corresponds to an estimated percentage of teachersconsidering some kind of departure of 15%. In contrast, the highest average odds, 3.65,

represents an estimated percentage of 73% of teachers considering some kind of departure. Of

the 125 schools, 24 had an estimated odds of teachers considering a departure that was

significantly below the overall average, and 11 had estimated average odds of teachersconsidering a departure which was significantly above the overall average. As a fraction of the

total number of schools in the study, then, 19% were "stickier" than average, and 9% had moreteachers than average considering departing their school or profession. This is well beyond thefraction of extremely high or extremely low schools that we would expect to observe by chance

alone in a normal distribution of schools, and the differences among schools in the percentages

of teachers considering leaving appear large enough to be of practical importance.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

25/31

25

Having found that there are differences among schools in the concentration of teachers

considering leaving, we investigated whether we could account for these differences bycontrolling for differences among schools in teachers characteristics, school demographic

characteristics, or various aspects of the school as a workplace. We consider four possibleexplanations for the variation among schools. The first explanation examines the amount of

variation among schools which remains after taking account of individual teachers'

characteristicstheir experience, educational credentials, certification route, race/ethnicity,family status, and so on. This approach reveals the extent to which some middle schools have

teachers with higher predicted rates of considering leaving than others because teachers with

different characteristics are distributed differently across middle schools. The second explanation

adds teacher social-psychological factors to the array of background characteristics. This analysisincorporates teachers' satisfaction with their salaries, the extent to which their peers encourage

them to stay in their current school, their perceived effectiveness in the classroom and theirsocial ties to their students as predictors, and examines the extent to which there continue to be

differences among schools in the average odds of thinking about leaving when these individualteacher attributes are controlled for. This explanation looks at the extent to which teachers with

different individual and social-psychological attributes are distributed differently among middle

schools, and the extent to which that variation alone accounts for variations among schools in theodds of considering leaving.

Exhibit 11.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

26/31

26

The third and fourth explanations are of a different character, focusing on the attributes of

the schools in which teachers teach rather than on teachers individual characteristics. The thirdexplanation for variation among schools in the average odds of a teacher considering leaving

emphasizes differences among schools in their demographic characteristics, and the extent to

which these differences alone account for the fact that middle schools have different

concentrations of teachers considering leaving. The fourth explanation attends to the variationamong schools in teachers' reports of the school as a workplace, using the same set of school-

level measures discussed in the earlier sections. This approach summarizes the extent to which

differences among schools in how teachers experience the school as a workplace might accountfor differences among schools in the average odds of considering leaving.

The approach here is to examine the variation among schools in the odds of considering

leaving one's school for another school without any attributes of teachers and schools taken into

account (other than a teacher being in one school versus another), and then to see how muchvariation among schools remains when a particular explanation is considered. The shrinkage in

the amount of variation among schools that is observed when teacher or school factors are taken

into account represents the extent to which those factors "explain" the total amount of variation

among schools. This shrinkage can range from 0%, indicating that there is just as much variationamong schools in the odds of considering leaving when a set of factors is taken into accountand hence the factors did not explain any of the variation among schoolsto 100%, indicating

that there is no variation among schools left after a set of factors is consideredand hence thefactors explain all of the variation among schools.

Exhibit 12 reports the results of these analyses. The left panel of the table considers

school-to-school differences in the odds of a teacher considering leaving his or her current

school. As noted earlier, the ICC for this outcome is .15, indicating that most of the variation inconsidering switching schools is among the teachers within a given school, and a relatively small

fraction15%is between schools. The four rows in Exhibit 12 show the relative explanatory

power of the four explanations for why schools differ in their concentrations of teachers

considering moving to other schools. The distribution of teachers' characteristics across schoolsis the least persuasive explanation for school variation in the percentage of teachers considering

switching schools; these factors by themselves account for just 28% of the total variation among

middle schools in the odds of considering leaving ones current school. When the social-psychological characteristics of teacherswhich themselves might be influenced by the

demographic characteristics of the school and the school as a workplaceare also taken into

account, 63% of variation among schools in the odds of considering switching schools which isaccounted for, just under two-thirds of the total variation among schools. (Put differently, there

still are differences among schools in the average odds of considering leaving, but the schools

are bunched much more closely together when teachers' individual attributes and social-

psychological characteristics are taken into account than when they are not considered.)

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

27/31

27

Rows three and four display the extent to which school demographic characteristics and

measures of the school as a workplace, respectively, explain the variation among schools in theodds that a teacher considered leaving his or her current school to teach in another school in the2009-10 school year. Each of these school-level factors by itself accounts for about two-thirds of

the total variation among schools in the average odds of considering switching schools. Overall,

then, we conclude that the sorting of teachers of different backgrounds into different schoolsdoes not provide a powerful explanation of why schools differ from one another in their averageodds that a teacher considered leaving. When teachers' social-psychological attributes also are

taken into account, the combination of individual teacher characteristics and their social-

psychological beliefs are as successful as the structural features of the school or the school as aworkplace in explaining the variation among schools in the propensity to consider leaving one's

current school to teach elsewhere.

The right panel of Exhibit 12 shows the percentage of the variation among schools in the

average odds of considering leaving teaching altogether which is accounted for by the fourdifferent explanations. The ICC for this outcome is .19, indicating that 19% of the variation in

the odds of considering leaving teaching altogether is between schools, and the remaining

variation in the odds of leaving teaching is among the teachers within a given school. The first

row indicates that differences in teachers characteristics are not a powerful explanation for whyschools differ in the average odds of a teacher considering leaving the teaching occupation, as

these characteristics explain only 29% of the total variation among schools in the odds of

thinking about leaving teaching. In fact, the explanatory power of individual teachercharacteristics, as well as the social-psychological factors introduced in row two, is almost

identical to that observed in the left panel of the table.Rows three and four of the right panel of Exhibit 12 report the percentage of the total

variation among schools in the odds of considering leaving teaching altogether which is

accounted for by school-to-school variations in demographic characteristics and in teachers'reports of the school as a workplace, respectively. In both instances, these school characteristics

by themselves explain nearly three-quarters of the variation among schools in the average odds

that a teacher considered leaving the teaching career. We conclude, therefore, that the features ofmiddle schoolsschools demography, as well as how they function as a place for teachers to

ICC

% of Variance inRandom Intercept

Explained ICC

% of Variance inRandom Intercept

Explained

.15 .19

(1) Teacher background variables 28% 29%

(2) Teacher background + social psych factors 63% 64%

(3) School demographics 64% 73%

(4) School as work environment 68% 73%

Table 23. Explanations for Variations among Schools in the Odds that a Teacher Considered Leaving

Thought about Leaving School to

Teach Elsewhere

Thought about Leaving Both

Current School and Leaving

Exhibit 12.

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

28/31

28

workexplain more of the variation among schools in the odds of teachers considerations about

leaving than do the features of individual teachers. This is true even when teachers' social-psychological beliefs, which may be influenced by the features of the school, are taken into

account. Conversely, the features of the school cannot explain why some teachers within a

school are more likely than others to consider leaving; the individual characteristics of teachers

are more important to understanding this kind of variation, and there is a lot more of it than thereis variation from one school to the next.

Discussion and Next Steps

After having completed two of the three components of this study, we have identified

some patterns of middle school teacher turnover that prompt concern. In addition, using originalsurvey data, we have identified some of the teacher and school characteristics that are related to

both previous teachers decisions to stay in or leave their schools and current teachers (2009 -

2010 school year) consideration of whether to leave their school or the teaching profession.

Below, we summarize the notable findings from the study thus far and briefly consider their

potential implications.The main objectives of the first component of our larger study of turnover were to

address foundational questions related to New York City middle school teacher turnover and

establish the context for the subsequent components of our larger study. Despite the studysdesign being more suitable for raising, rather than answering, questions, several key findings

stand out in their own right. First, more than half of the middle school teachers who entered their

schools between 2002 and 2009 left these schools within three years. Among those who left,nearly 60% left the New York City public school system altogether; less than 30% of those who

moved to other schools within the system transferred to Grade 6-8 middle schools. The relatively

small percentage of teachers who secured assignments in other Grade 6-8 schools suggests that

few of the vacancies created by departing teachers were filled by incoming teachers with recent

experience in similar schools.

These rates of turnover are likely to make it challenging for middle school principals, and

for the teachers who remain in their schools, to establish organizational norms and a shared

vision for their schools teaching and learning environment. Turnover of this nature may requireschools administrators to divert resources away from professional development in order to orient

and support teachers who are new to their buildings, new to the New York City schools, or new

to teaching. In addition, turnover may compromise the continuity of the relationships betweenmiddle school teachers and administrators, students, parents, and the staff at organizations that

partner with middle schools. If middle schools are unstable and impersonal, students may find it

even more challenging to manage the transitions into, through, and out of the middle grades a

time period characterized by numerous social and emotional developments.

12

While descriptiveanalyses of this nature do not support causal inferences, we find associations between turnover

and measurable and malleable characteristics of middle schools, such as school size and the

aspects of schools environment measured by the School Survey (e.g., school safety). Thesefindings suggest the possibility that practitioners and policymakers may be able to influence

turnover by influencing these characteristics of middle schools.

The second component of the study uses data from our original survey of over 4,000

middle school teachers to investigate the percentage of teachers who are considering leaving

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

29/31

29

their school or teaching, the reasons behind these considerations, and the extent to which teacher

and school characteristics help us predict: 1) which teachers are considering leaving their schooland/or teaching, and 2) which schools have higher and lower concentrations of teachers who are

considering leaving their school or the teaching the profession. The results from these analyses

reveal that 39% of middle school teachers were considering some type of departure (i.e., from

either their school, teaching, or both) during the 2009-2010 school year. Further, of the teachersconsidering leaving their school, 70% anticipated doing so within two years. Of the teachers

considering leaving the profession, 41% expected to have done so within the same timeframe.

Taken together, the historic observed rates of turnover among new-to-school teachers (fromcomponent 1) and the anticipated rates of turnover among all current teachers (from component

two) suggest that teacher turnover is likely to be an enduring characteristics of New York City

middle schools in the years to come.

It stands to reason that some portion of policymakers and building administrators mayseek to identify interventions and reforms that might alter these rates and patterns of turnover.

Data from our original survey of middle school teachers presents a complicated picture about

how this might work. Give the important role that teachers characteristics play in predicting

whether teachers are considering leaving their school, it seems that a promising approach mightentail developing school- and system-wide interventions that are responsive to the needs of

different types of teachers. For instance, incentives and reforms that reduce teachers commuting

times may be a promising approach for reducing turnover. Similarly, given how much higher the

odds of considering leaving ones school are among teachers who reported teaching a new

subject area, principals might be well advised to make every attempt possible to resolve staffing

challenges in ways that dont require assigning teachers to new subject areas.

The dearth of associations between measures of the school as a workplace and teachersconsideration of whether to leave their school are puzzling and suggest that interventions or

reforms targeted at the malleable aspects of schools may not, in themselves, overcome the role

that teachers individual characteristics play in influencing their decisions about whether to

remain in schools. Contrary to this general trend, however, school disorder (as measures by the

percentage of a schools students who received suspensions) does play an important role in theirconsideration of whether to stay in their school. Similarly, the extent to which teachers have a

supportive network of peers in their school is related to their consideration of leaving theirschool, suggesting another potential avenue for interventions and reforms to explore.

The remaining case study component of this research project will help us investigate

other important questions related to middle school teacher turnover. Dr. Jennifer Goldstein

(Baruch College) is conducting case studies of four middle schoolstwo schools where rates ofturnover have been historically high, and two where rates have been low that serve similar,

high-need student populations. These case studies will help us gain a better understanding of theextent to which teachers and school administrators perceive turnover as a cause or consequence

of their schools operational functioning. Further the case studies will examine schools

strategies for recruiting, developing and retaining effective teachers and for limiting turnoversdamaging consequences.

The Research Alliance also intends to extend the analyses presented here in order to offer

further insight into the potential causes and consequences of the rates and patterns of turnover. In

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

30/31

30

particular, we hope to examine the extent to which patterns of turnover are the result of teachers

voluntary decisions, as opposed to involuntarily transactions initiated by administrators. Utilizing

various sources of data about teachers effectiveness, we also intend to explore why effectivemiddle school teachers leave their schools and whether particular incentives or changes to their

working conditions appear to keep them in their schools. Using the survey data, we will examine

the relationship between measures of the school as a workplace and actual observed rates ofteacher turnover.

To inform our broader research on the middle grades, we plan on gathering more and

better evidence about whether middle school teachers are prepared, and whether their schools are

organized, to support students academic, social and emotional development during this critical

phase of students schooling. This effort will entail conducting rigorous investigations on topicsthat have not been adequately explored, such as whether particular school grade configurations

(e.g. 6-8, K-8, or 6-12 schools) are more suitable for sustaining and stimulating students growthduring the middle grades. Collectively, the findings from the three components of this study of

teacher turnover and from our future investigations will provide policymakers, practitioners, and

researchers with evidence that can inform their efforts to improve middle schools and middle

grades educationtwo features of the New York City public school system that many agree arevital but imperiled.

1Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2007, September 18). Who leaves? Teacher

attrition and student achievement. Paper presented at the Inaugural Conference of the Research Alliance for New

York City Schools.

2New York City Council. (2007).Report of the New York City Council Middle School Task Force. Retrieved on

December 17, 2010 from:http://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/report/middle_school_task_force_2007.pdf

3Balfanz, R. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and practice brief. Retrieved

on December 17, 2010 from:

http://www2.kapoleims.k12.hi.us/campuslife/depts/electives/dance/Putting%20Middle%20Grades%20Studesnts%20on%20the%20Graduation%20Path.%20%20A%20Policy%20and%20Practice%20Brief.%20%202009.pdf

Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the

graduation path in the urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions.Educational

Psychologist, 42(4), 223-235.

Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association.American Educational

Research Journal, 31(4), 729-759.

4Summarized in Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review

of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education

Milanowski, A. T., & Odden, A. R. (2007). A new approach to the cost of teacher turnover. School Finance

Redesign Project Working Paper 13. Retrieved on December 21, 2010 from:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.2095&rep=rep1&type=pdf

National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future [NCTAF], (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five

school districts: A pilot study. Retrieved on December 17, 2010 from:

http://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTFullReportfinal.pdf

5Neild, R. C., Useem, E., Travers, E. F., & Lesnick, J. (2003). Once & for all: Placing a highly qualified teacher in

every Philadelphia classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.

http://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/report/middle_school_task_force_2007.pdfhttp://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/report/middle_school_task_force_2007.pdfhttp://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/report/middle_school_task_force_2007.pdfhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.2095&rep=rep1&type=pdfhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.2095&rep=rep1&type=pdfhttp://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTFullReportfinal.pdfhttp://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTFullReportfinal.pdfhttp://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTFullReportfinal.pdfhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.2095&rep=rep1&type=pdfhttp://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/report/middle_school_task_force_2007.pdf

8/3/2019 Paper 2726

31/31

6Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2007, September 18). Who leaves? Teacher

attrition and student achievement. Paper presented at the Inaugural Conference of the Research Alliance for New

York City Schools.

7

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2007, September 18). Who leaves? Teacherattrition and student achievement. Paper presented at the Inaugural Conference of the Research Alliance for New

York City Schools.

Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2009). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistance in the

classroom: Are schools keeping their best? National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education

Research Working Paper, Working Paper 29. August, 2009.

8It should be noted these teachers were not necessarily first-year teachers, nor new to the New York City public

school system.

9Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.American Educational

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

10 Our analyses of the relationship between turnover and the characteristics of teachers and schools control for fourfactors that we hypothesized might affect turnover: 1) the school year during which teachers first entered their

NYC middle school; 2) whether a school experienced one or several episodes of principal turnover during the

period of observation; 3) a time-varying measure ofthe annual change in a schools student enrollment; and 4) a

schools NYC borough location. In the full report, we refer to these variables as our baseline covariates. Our

methodology controls for their effects in order to examine the relationships between turnover and the relevant

teacher and school characteristics in our datasets.

11Dee, T. (2005). A Teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?American Economic Review, 95(2),

158-165.

Consortium on Chicago School Research [CCSR] (2009). Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. The

schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School

Research.

12Seidman, E., Aber, J. L., & French, S. E. (2004). The organization of schooling and adolescent development. In

K. Maton, C. Schellenbach, B. Leadbeater, & A. Solarz (Eds.),Investing in children, youth, families, and

communities: Strengths-based researchand policy (pp. 233250). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on

achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.) The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283-331).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Na