Teacher Retention: Why They Stay: November 2018

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329330018
Teacher Retention: Why They Stay
Preprint · November 2018

DOI: 10.31124/advance.7403942.v1
CITATIONS READS
0 207
2 authors:
Michael Kurtz Henry St. Maurice

Stevens Point Area Public School District University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Rhetoric View project
Leopold Studies View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry St. Maurice on 03 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AERA Open
Teacher Retention in Wisconsin: Why They Stayed
Journal: AERA Open
Manuscript ID Draft
Manuscript Type: Regular Articles
Additional Keywords: Staffing
This study on teacher retention in one state that had major changes in
Fo
staffing policies was based on national studies. A survey was completed by
425 practicing teachers from four Wisconsin school districts. Perception
data were gathered from 319 participants who reportedly planned to
Abstract: continue teaching at their current schools. Findings showed that their
rP
decisions were influenced by gender, age, current school teaching
experience, and grade levels. Analyses of responses found significant
relationships among intrinsic motivation, school organizational
characteristics, and school climate.
ee
rR
ev
iew
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aeraopen
Page 1 of 45 AERA Open
1
2
3 Title: Teacher Retention in Wisconsin: Why They Stayed
4
5
6 Abstract: This study on teacher retention in one state that had major changes in staffing policies
7
8 was based on national studies. A survey was completed by 425 practicing teachers from four
9
10 Wisconsin school districts. Perception data were gathered from 319 participants who reportedly
11
12
13
planned to continue teaching at their current schools. Findings showed that their decisions were
14
15 influenced by gender, age, current school teaching experience, and grade levels. Analyses of
16
17 responses found significant relationships among intrinsic motivation, school organizational
18
19
characteristics, and school climate.
Fo
20
21
22 Keywords: Teacher Retention; School Effectiveness; Professional Development
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
Highlights:
27
28
29 • Characteristics associated with teacher efficacy were the strongest reasons to stay.
rR
30
31 • Relationships with students and colleagues influenced decisions to remain.
32
ev
33
• Participants’ responses were strongly influenced by grade levels.
34
35
36 1. Introduction
iew
37
38 This quantitative study addressed teacher retention at the school level. It used a survey of
39
40 teachers who have remained in teaching positions in Wisconsin to study their perceptions of
41
42
43 conditions that affected their decisions to stay at their current schools amidst political strife over
44
45 a law (Wisconsin Budget Repair Act, 2011) that limited collective bargaining for most public
46
47 employees including public school teachers. We were curious what motivated teachers who
48
49
50
chose to stay under circumstances that affected their status, compensation, and morale.
51
52 Policymakers and practitioners all aver that the stated primary objective of K-12 school
53
54 systems in the United States is to provide every student with a high-quality education (Guarino,
55
56
57
58
59
60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aeraopen
AERA Open Page 2 of 45
1
2
3 Santibanez, & Daley, 2006). Hosts of researchers and policymakers have claimed that teacher
4
5
6 quality is the most salient school-related variable in predicting student achievement (Darling-
7
8 Hammond, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hattie, 2003; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges,
9
10 2004; Hanushek, 1992). However, recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers have challenged
11
12
13
US school leaders faced with beginning teacher attrition rates ranging from 30 to 50% within the
14
15 first five years of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 1997; DeAngelis & Presley, 2011; Grissmer &
16
17 Kirby, 1991; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003) and total teacher turnover rates ranging from 13.2% to
18
19
15% (Ingersoll, 2001).
Fo
20
21
22 Recent international studies have focused on teacher recruitment (e.g., Lindqvist,
23
rP
24 Nordänger & Carlsson, 2014; Struyven & Vanhournout, 2014) rather than retention, which
25
26 Cooper & Alvarado (2006) identified as a problem most salient in the US and UK (p. 1).
ee
27
28
29 Our study of teacher retention in our region of the US was designed to allow for
rR
30
31 intervening variables such as temporary exits, transfers within school districts, and transfers
32
ev
33 across school districts (Boyd et al., 2011). We focused on three predictor variables: teacher
34
35
36
characteristics, school characteristics, and organizational conditions (Ingersoll & May, 2012, p.
iew
37
38 441). We studied teacher and organizational characteristics (Table 1) related to teachers’
39
40 decisions to remain in their current teaching positions.
41
42
[Insert Table 1 about here]
43
44
45 1.1 Teacher characteristics.
46
47 In many studies of teacher characteristics that relate to retention, gender is a salient
48
49 characteristic. Borman and Dowling (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 34 quantitative studies
50
51
52 on teacher retention and identified gender in 19 of the 34 studies, more than any other teacher
53
54 characteristic. A majority of the literature reviewed found that males were less likely to leave
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 teaching than females (e.g. Borman & Dowling, 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll, 2001).
4
5
6 However, some of the reviewed studies found males more likely to depart than females (Harris &
7
8 Adams, 2007; Watlington et al., 2004). Another study found that males were just as likely to
9
10 leave the teaching profession as females (Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).
11
12
13
Ethnicity is another salient characteristic that has been related to retention. Three studies
14
15 have concluded that retention rates for minority teachers were higher than nonminority teachers
16
17 (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll, 2001). Two other studies found
18
19
relatively stable relationships between race and ethnicity and teacher retention (Ingersoll & May,
Fo
20
21
22 2012, Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).
23
rP
24 Studies that examined age as a characteristic of teacher retention consistently reported a

25
26 pattern of high attrition for young teachers and very low attrition for mid-career teachers until a
ee
27
28
29 threshold was reached where attrition rates rose sharply as older teachers neared retirement
rR
30
31 (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Grissmer & Kirby, 1997; Guarino et al., 2006; Harris & Adams,
32
ev
33 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll & May, 2012). Some researchers used age and teaching
34
35
36
experience interchangeably (Ingersoll, 2001). However, not all beginning teachers are young
iew
37
38 teachers. For this reason, years of teaching experience was another characteristic of teacher
39
40 retention in some studies (Darling-Hammond, 1997; DeAngelis & Presley, 2011; Grissmer
41
42
& Kirby, 1991; Hughes, 2012; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).
43
44
45 Retention rates have been found to differ among grade levels. Borman and Dowling
46
47 (2008) examined 14 studies that compared elementary teachers to secondary teachers in their
48
49 meta-analytic review of the research on teacher retention and teacher turnover. Their results
50
51
52 indicated that elementary teachers were more likely to leave the teaching profession. However,
53
54 Hughes (2012) did not find a statistically significant relationship between grade level and
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 teachers’ plans to remain teaching until retirement. Ingersoll and May (2012) had similar results,
4
5
6 finding no statistical significance for the likelihood of turnover between elementary and
7
8 secondary teachers.
9
10 Highest degree earned is a teacher qualification variable used to study teachers’ decisions
11
12
13
to continue teaching. Borman and Dowling (2008) analyzed 13 studies that compared attrition
14
15 rates of teachers with graduate degrees to teachers without graduate degrees. Their findings
16
17 indicated that teachers with graduate degrees were slightly more likely to leave the teaching
18
19
profession than teachers without graduate degrees.
Fo
20
21
22 1.2 Organizational characteristics.
23
rP
24 The literature suggests that organizational characteristics associated with school climate
25
26 such as teacher influence, student behavior, school safety, staff relations, and administrative
ee
27
28
29 support impact teacher retention. Boyd et al. (2011) defined teacher influence as: individual
rR
30
31 teachers’ involvement in school decision making and autonomy in classrooms. Several studies
32
ev
33 linked teacher influence with teacher retention (Boyd et al, 2011; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll,
34
35
36
2001; Ingersoll & May, 2012). Many studies have examined relationships among student
iew
37
38 behavior and teacher retention (Boyd et al., 2011; Gonzalez, Brown, & Slate, 2008; Ingersoll,
39
40 2001; Ingersoll, 2002; Ingersoll & May, 2012; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009). In one study, Ingersoll
41
42
(2001) indicated that student behavior that pertained to school safety was not a particularly
43
44
45 strong characteristic of teacher retention overall with only 2% of teachers who were dissatisfied
46
47 with teaching and left the profession reporting an unsafe environment as a reason to leave.
48
49 Staff relations as a characteristic of teacher retention refers to the professional and social
50
51
52 relationships teachers have with other teachers. Boyd et al. (2011) found that the more positively
53
54 teachers perceived relationships with other staff, the more likely they were to remain. Inman and
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Marlow (2004) also found a relationship between collegiality and teacher retention from their
4
5
6 survey of beginning teachers from randomly selected schools in Georgia. Fifty-seven percent of
7
8 teachers with four to nine years of teaching experience indicated that collegiality contributed to
9
10 their decision to stay in the teaching profession; however, the percentage decreased to 13% for
11
12
13
teachers with zero to three years of experience.
14
15 Among studies of administrative support and teacher retention (Boyd et al., 2011; Certo
16
17 & Fox, 2002; Gonzalez et al, 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002;
18
19
Ingersoll & May, 2012; Weigand 2003), Kukla-Acevedo (2009) found that the odds of a teacher
Fo
20
21
22 leaving were reduced by 16.9% for every standard deviation increase in perceived administrator
23
rP
24 support; however, after analyzing the same data for first-year teachers, she found that
25
26 administrator support was no longer statistically significant. In contrast, Wiegand (2003) found
ee
27
28
29 that although administrative support was important to both veteran and beginning teachers,
rR
30
31 beginning teachers wanted more support from their principals than did veteran teachers.
32
ev
33 Organizational characteristics attributed to school resources such as teaching salary,

34
35
36
instructional materials, and facilities are found in many teacher retention studies. Several studies
iew
37
38 found relationships among teacher salary and retention (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Certo & Fox,
39
40 2002; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; 2012; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002).
41
42
Ingersoll and May (2012) found that teachers were more likely to leave schools where the
43
44
45 necessary teaching materials were not generally available and Boyd et al. (2011) found that
46
47 facilities were related to retention decisions of first-year teachers.
48
49 Other organizational characteristics influenced by school resources that impact teacher
50
51
52 retention are teacher workload, professional development, and induction programs. Certo and
53
54 Fox (2002) conducted qualitative interviews of elementary and secondary teachers to examine
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 teacher perceptions of why their colleagues left teaching. Teacher workload emerged as a major
4
5
6 theme for all grade levels but was particularly strong for elementary teachers. After analyzing
7
8 the impact of professional development on teacher retention, Ingersoll and May (2012) found
9
10 professional development (PD) that focused on content of subjects reduced the odds of turnover
11
12
13
for math teachers by 27% and reduced odds of turnover for all other teachers by 10%. Also
14
15 contributing to teacher retention are resources schools devote to mentoring and induction
16
17 programs. Ingersoll and Smith (2004) found a link between school-induction programs and
18
19
beginning-teacher retention. Teachers who reportedly experienced induction supports were
Fo
20
21
22 found to be less than half as likely to depart as teachers receiving none.
23
rP
24 1.3 Why they stay

25
26 A few studies have identified motivational variables related to teacher retention.
ee
27
28
29 Clarksen (2014) found that teachers were more motivated by intrinsic factors such as working
rR
30
31 with students than by extrinsic factors. Perrachione, Rosser, and Petersen (2008) found that
32
ev
33 participants were influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic variables when examining teachers’
34
35
36
perceptions of job satisfaction and their intent to remain in the profession. The top intrinsic
iew
37
38 reasons were personal teaching efficacy and working with students. The top extrinsic reasons
39
40 were schedule, time off, and retirement.
41
42
A study by Wiegand (2003) investigated nine variables that reportedly encouraged
43
44
45 practicing K-12 public school teachers at lower socioeconomic schools to stay at their current
46
47 schools. Wiegand identified three key variables:
48
49
• Connection to school;
50
51
52 • Comfort at school; and
53
54 • Work to remain (p. 161).
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Other identified variables were:
4
5
6 • Efficacy;
7
8 • Collaboration;
9
10
• Autonomy;
11
12
13 • Vision;
14
15 • Leadership; and
16
17
18
• Facilities (pp. 161-162).
19
Fo
20 2. Conceptual framework.
21
22 In their review of international research on teacher attrition, Struyven & Vanthournout
23
rP
24
(2014) identified three conceptual categories and seventeen considerations most frequently
25
26
ee
27 studied:
28
29 • Expectations
rR
30
31
1. School management;
32
ev
33
34 2. Time;
35
36
iew
3. Attentive, cooperative students;

37
38 4. Happy personal life;
39
40
41 5. Intrinsic value;
42
43 6. Work with children and adolescents;
44
45 7. Perceived teaching ability;
46
47
48
8. Possibility of making a social contribution;
49
50 9. Shaping the future of children or adolescents;
51
52 • School context
53
54
55
10. Facilities and conditions;
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 11. Support by colleagues;
4
5
6 12. Change and innovations;
7
8 13. Challenges by parents;
9
10 14. Learning outcomes;
11
12
13 • Demographic data
14
15 15. Age;
16
17 16. Gender;
18
19
17. Level (pp. 38-39).
Fo
20
21
22 In this project, we asked whether these same categories and variables might also pertain
23
rP
24 to teachers’ decisions to stay in their positions in local schools. Based on our review of
25
26
ee
literature, we built the following conceptual framework: teachers’ retention decisions ensue from
27
28
29 a combination of their personal characteristics, their motivational characteristics, and their
rR
30
31 schools’ organizational characteristics. We did not hypothesize predictors, due the limited scale
32
ev
33 and scope of our study. Our research question was: What teacher characteristics and
34
35
36 organizational characteristics relate to teachers’ decisions to remain at their current schools?
iew
37
38 The purpose of this project was amplified by a local political climate in which teacher
39
40 contracts and collective bargaining rights had been rescinded by legislation in 2011 (Wisconsin
41
42
43
Budget Repair Act, 2011). Widespread protest demonstrations were followed by unusual rates of
44
45 attrition (Clarksen, 2014, pp. 20-21). After six years of changed status and compensation, not
46
47 enough is known about teachers who chose to stay in their positions. Amidst acute political
48
49 change and chronic concerns over recruitment and attrition, we proposed to examine whether
50
51
52 characteristics identified in studies on attrition might also be pertinent in Wisconsin teachers’
53
54 decisions to remain in teaching positions.
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 3. Method
4
5
6 This study analyzed teacher selected characteristic variables and school organizational
7
8 characteristic variables as related to teachers’ reported decisions to remain at their current
9
10 schools. The following attitudinal data were collected: teacher perceptions of personal intrinsic
11
12
13
motivators, personal extrinsic motivators, school climate, and school resources as indicators of
14
15 teacher retention. Of particular interest were the perceptions of subgroups of teachers who
16
17 planned to remain at their current schools. The following subgroups were analyzed: gender,
18
19
current school teaching experience, age, and grade level.
Fo
20
21
22 3.1 Participants
23
rP
24 The population for this study was practicing PK-12 teachers in Wisconsin. This study
25
26 used a single-stage purposive sample of four Wisconsin school districts to access the
ee
27
28
29 perspectives of PK-12 public school teachers in Wisconsin schools. All districts were similar in
rR
30
31 size.
32
ev
33 The teacher survey was completed by 425 practicing teachers during April 2015
34
35
36
representing an approximate response rate of 38%. Of the 421 participants who reported gender
iew
37
38 and ethnicity, the majority were White (n = 407, 96.7%) and female (n = 304, 72.2%). Two
39
40 participants (0.5%) reported American Indian or Alaskan Native, 3 (.7%) reported Asian or
41
42
Pacific Islander, zero reported Black or African American, 4 (1%) responded Hispanic or Latino,
43
44
45 and 5 (1.2%) responded two or more races. Of the 416 participants who reported age, 51
46
47 (12.3%) were less than 30 years of age, 266 (63.9%) were 31 to 50 years of age, and 99 (23.8%)
48
49 were older than 51. The mean age of participants was 42.7 years (SD = 9.8) and the median age
50
51
52 was 43.5. The exact age of three participants was unknown due to the construction of the survey.
53
54 Three participants reported an age of 61 or older and are included in the 51+ category. Mean
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 participant age and standard deviation were calculated using an age of 61 for each of these
4
5
6 participants.
7
8 Grade level was reported by 420 participants and represented with 127 (30.2%) teaching
9
10 elementary, 91 (21.7%) teaching middle school or junior high school, and 165 (39.3%) teaching
11
12
13
high school or senior high school. Thirty-seven participants (8.8%) reported teaching at more
14
15 than one grade level. Highest degree earned was reported by 422 participants where the majority
16
17 of participants possessed a master’s degree (n = 326, 77.3%). Ninety-five participants (22.5%)
18
19
held a bachelor’s degree and one (.2%) held a doctorate.
Fo
20
21
22 Participants averaged 16.6 years (SD = 8.7) of total teaching experience and 11.1 years
23
rP
24 (SD = 8.2) of teaching experience at their current school. Of the 424 participants who reported
25
26 total teaching experience, 46 (10.8%) reported less than 5 years, 54 (12.7%) reported 5-9 years,
ee
27
28
29 165 (38.8%) reported 10-19 years, and 159 (37.4%) reported 20 or more years. Of the 422
rR
30
31 participants who reported current school teaching experience, 112 (26.5%) reported less than 5
32
ev
33 years, 94 (22.3%) reported 5-9 years, 141 (33.4%) reported 10-19 years, and 75 (17.8%) reported
34
35
36
20 or more years.
iew
37
38 The sample participants had similar demographics as the Wisconsin teaching population
39
40 when comparing gender, ethnicity, age, and total teaching experience. Gender and ethnicity data
41
42
for Wisconsin teachers was obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
43
44
45 (WDPI) 2013-2014 School Staff Demographic Reports. The percentage of female to male
46
47 Wisconsin teachers was 74.3% female and 25.7% male with 95.4% of the population classified
48
49 as White. Wisconsin has very few minority teachers representing less than 5% of the teaching
50
51
52 population. Age and experience data for Wisconsin teachers was obtained through the U.S.
53
54 Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) 2011-2012
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). After comparing age and teaching experience, participants
4
5
6 were only slightly older and more experienced than the population. The average age of
7
8 Wisconsin teachers was 41.6 years with a median age of 41.3. Average years of overall teaching
9
10 experience was 14.5 years and average years of teaching experience at the teachers’ current
11
12
13
schools were 8.3 years.
14
15 3.2 Variables
16
17 We made the following assumptions: (a) teacher characteristics influence teachers’
18
19
perceptions of organizational characteristics; (b) intrinsic and extrinsic motivation varies by
Fo
20
21
22 teacher characteristics; and (c) teacher characteristics, motivational characteristics, and
23
rP
24 organizational characteristics impact teacher retention decisions.

25
26 Teacher characteristic variables for this study were gender, age, ethnicity, teaching
ee
27
28
29 experience, grade level, and highest degree earned. The teacher perception scale included
rR
30
31 motivational characteristics and organizational characteristics. The variables from the teacher
32
ev
33 perception scale were divided into four subscales; personal intrinsic motivators, personal
34
35
36
extrinsic motivators, school climate, and school resources. Intrinsic motivational variables were
iew
37
38 personal teaching efficacy, personal connection to the school and community, and a sense of
39
40 comfort at the school. Extrinsic motivational variables were other employment opportunities and
41
42
retirement. The school climate variables for this study were teacher influence, administrative
43
44
45 support, student behavior, parent involvement, staff relations, and school safety. The school
46
47 resource variables were salary, instructional materials, facilities, workload, professional growth
48
49 opportunities, and school or district induction and mentoring programs.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 3.3 Instrumentation
4
5
6 This study used a quantitative survey to gather information about teachers’ perceptions of
7
8 conditions that affected their decisions to remain at their current schools. The survey was cross-
9
10 sectional: data were collected in a short time frame. It contained 40 items in three sections:
11
12
13
backgrounds, future plans, and perceptions (see appendix). It included 33 items adapted or
14
15 modified from the Wiegand Teacher Retention Survey (Wiegand, 2003), four items adapted from
16
17 the Perrachione et al. (2008) survey, and three items added by the researchers. It was self-
18
19
administered online. Statements of participants’ implied consent were included in solicitations
Fo
20
21
22 and the instrument; both were approved by a Human Participants Review Board.
23
rP
24 3.4 Analysis
25
26 Data analysis was conducted in five stages:
ee
27
28
29 1. Background characteristics of respondents;
rR
30
31 2. Analysis of future plans;
32
ev
33 3. Analysis of Likert-scale items for all teachers that plan to remain;

34
35
36
4. Analysis of Likert-scale items by teacher subgroups;
iew
37
38 5. Qualitative analysis of open-ended items.
39
40 In the first stage of analysis, frequency tables were used to determine counts and
41
42
percentages of teachers by gender, age, ethnicity, total teaching experience, teaching experience
43
44
45 at the same school, grade level, and highest degree earned. Mean and standard deviation were
46
47 calculated for age, total teaching experience, and teaching experience at the same school for all
48
49 respondents.
50
51
52 The second stage of the analysis was done in two phases. The first phase used
53
54 descriptive statistics to summarize the future plans of all respondents. A frequency table was
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 used to display counts and percentages of respondents who selected each of the twelve future
4
5
6 plan options. The second phase used a chi-square (χ2) test for independence to examine cross-
7
8 tabulations between teacher characteristics and teacher future plans. Future plans data were
9
10 collapsed into two categories, those who planned to return to their current schools and those who
11
12
13 did not plan to return to their current school. The Pearson χ2 value was used to determine
14
15 significance on tables larger than 2 by 2 (i.e., two categories per variable). The Yates’ correction
16
17
for continuity was used to determine significance on 2 by 2 tables. The significance level was
18
19
set at 95% (p < .05).
Fo
20
21
22 Prior to conducting the third and fourth stages of data analysis, internal consistency was
23
rP
24 analyzed on the sample data for each of the four subscales from the teacher perception scale.
25
26
ee
27 Cronbach’s α value and mean inter-item correlation value were calculated for each subscale.
28
29 Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach’s α values above .70 for intrinsic motivators
rR
30
31 (α = .76) and school climate (α = .85) scales. Less acceptable were mean inter-item correlations
32
ev
33
34
for the two smallest scales, extrinsic motivators (α =.34) and school resources (α =.22). Those
35
36 two scales were used because, as Pallent (2013) wrote, such scores are
iew
37
38 … quite sensitive to the number of items in the scale. With short scales (e.g. scales with
39
40
fewer than ten items) it is common to find quite low Cronbach values … [and] an optimal
41
42
43 range for the inter-item correlation of .20 to .40. (Pallent, 2013, p. 101).
44
45 Twenty-seven of the original 29 items were retained. Two items were eliminated from the
46
47 intrinsic motivators scale in order increase Cronbach’s α scores. The items removed were close
48
49
50 to home and similar to school attended as a child.
51
52 The third stage of the analysis was divided into two phases. The first phase utilized
53
54 paired-samples t-tests to compare mean values of the teacher perception subscales in order to
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 differentiate the level of importance teachers returning to their current schools placed on each
4
5
6 subscale construct. The second phase utilized one-sample t-tests to examine the perceptions of
7
8 teachers who planned to remain teaching at their current schools on the variables within the
9
10 teacher perception subscales. The variables were measured on a six-point Likert-type scale
11
12
13
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The mean value and standard deviation
14
15 was calculated for each variable. The mean value of each item was compared to a neutral score
16
17 value (3.5) to determine significant differences. Cohen’s d was used to determine effect sizes.
18
19
The significance level for both the one-sample t-test and paired samples t-test was set at 95% (p
Fo
20
21
22 < .05).
23
rP
24 The fourth stage of the analysis was used to determine if teacher perceptions varied by
25
26 the teacher characteristics gender, age, current school teaching experience, and grade level.
ee
27
28
29 Independent samples t-test were used to compare the means of variables by subscale over gender
rR
30
31 and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) testing to compare the means of variables by subscale over
32
ev
33 age, current school teaching experience, and grade level. Cohen’s d was used to determine the
34
35
36
effect sizes of independent samples t-tests and Eta-squared (η2) was used to determine effect
iew
37
38 sizes of the ANOVA tests. A post-hoc analysis was conducted with ANOVA on significant
39
40 items to determine where the differences among groups occur. The Tukey HSD post-hoc test
41
42
was used when equal variances were assumed. The Games-Howell post-hoc test was used when
43
44
45 equal variances were not assumed. The significance level was set at 95% (p < .05).
46
47 The fifth stage of the analysis involved a qualitative analysis of the responses of the two
48
49 open-ended items from Section C of the survey. All open-ended responses were analyzed using
50
51
52 coding procedures described by Creswell (2014). Coding and categorizing themes was validated
53
54 by two independent reviewers. Responses to other consideration that influence me to stay were
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 categorized into 14 themes; responses to other consideration that would influence me to stay if it
4
5
6 were present were categorized into 13 themes. Frequencies were reported for each theme and
7
8 segregated by gender and grade level.
9
10 4. Results
11
12
13
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics to summarize the future plans of all respondents.
14
15 Of the 418 participants who responded, 336 (80.4%) planned to remain teaching at their current
16
17 school. The combined percentage of participants who planned to continue teaching at a different
18
19
school either in the same district or a different district was 4.6%. A total of 88.3%, planned to
Fo
20
21
22 continue in education either teaching or in another capacity such as administration or school
23
rP
24 counselor.
25
26 [Insert Table 2 about here]
ee
27
28
29 4.1 Teacher characteristics & future plans.
rR
30
31 The chi-square test for independence indicated a significant association between current school
32
ev
33 teaching experience and participants’ future plans, X2 (3, n = 415) = 9.28, p = .03, with a
34
35
36
medium effect size Cramer’s V = .15. The percentage of participants planning to return to their
iew
37
38 current schools increases the longer they remain at their current schools. Only 70.6% of
39
40 participants with less than five years of current school teaching experience plan to return
41
42
compared with 82.8% of participants with five to nine years, 84.1% of participants with 10 to 19
43
44
45 years, and 85.3% with 20 or more years of current school teaching experience. There was no
46
47 significant association between total teaching experience and future plans, X2 (3, n = 417) =
48
49 4.23, p = .24, between grade level and future plans, X2 (2, n = 376) = 1.63, p = .44, between
50
51
52 highest degree earned (with Yates continuity correction) and future plans, (1, n = 416) = .17, p =
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 .68, between age and future plans, X2 (2, n = 409) = 3.54, p = .17, and between gender (with
4
5
6 Yates Continuity Correction) and future plans, X2 (1, n = 414) = .01, p = .94.
7
8 4.2 Teacher perceptions
9
10 Perception data were gathered from 319 participants who planned to continue teaching at
11
12
13
their current schools. Results from paired-samples t-tests presented in Table 3 indicated that
14
15 participants perceived intrinsic motivation and school climate conditions as stronger reasons to
16
17 remain at their current schools than extrinsic motivation and school resource conditions. All
18
19
comparisons were statistically significant with large effect sizes for intrinsic and extrinsic
Fo
20
21
22 comparisons, intrinsic and school resources comparisons, school climate and extrinsic
23
rP
24 comparisons, and school climate and school resources comparisons.

25
ee
27
28
29 Results from one-sample t-tests indicated that all items from the intrinsic motivation scale
rR
30
31 were statistically significant, each having a mean value above the neutral score (3.5). The
32
ev
33 highest mean value was 5.15 for the survey item positive impact on the students’ personal
34
35
36
growth. The second highest mean value was 5.07 for the survey item positive impact on student
iew
37
38 achievement. The remaining items, listed in order from highest mean score to lowest mean score
39
40 were: comfortable working at this school (M = 4.98), collegial friendships (M = 4.96),
41
42
connection to students (M = 4.72), feel needed at the school (M = 4.46), and connected to the
43
44
45 community (M = 4.43). The Cohen’s d statistic indicated a large effect size ranging from 0.89 to
46
47 2.3 for all items except connected to the community which had a medium effect size (Cohen’s
48
49 d = 0.78).
50
51
52 One-sample t-tests indicated a significant difference between mean scores and the neutral
53
54 score for all four items of the extrinsic motivation scale though only one item, not old enough to
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 receive retirement benefits, had a mean value (M = 3.97) higher than the neutral score (3.5) with
4
5
6 a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.27). Mean values for the other three items were below the
7
8 neutral score (3.5) and ranged from 2.04 to 2.91. The effect size for no other teaching
9
10 opportunities in another school out of the district (Cohen’s d = -1.16) and no other teaching
11
12
13
opportunities in another school in the district (Cohen’s d = -1.06) were large. The effect size for
14
15 no other employment opportunities outside of education (Cohen’s d = -0.37) was small.
16
17 One-sample t-tests indicated a significant difference between mean scores and the
18
19
neutral score for all 10 items from the school climate scale each having a mean value above the
Fo
20
21
22 neutral score of 3.5. The three items with the highest mean scores were: I feel respected by the
23
rP
24 students (M = 5.05) with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.93), I feel respected by the staff (M
25
26 = 4.94) with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.36), and I feel safe at this school (M = 4.92) with
ee
27
28
29 a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.68). The remaining items listed in order from highest mean
rR
30
31 score to lowest mean score were; the principal is supportive (M = 4.88), there is a great deal of
32
ev
33 cooperation among staff (M = 4.70), I have flexibility in planning and teaching my curriculum
34
35
36
(M = 4.58), my principal enforces the rules and backs me up (M = 4.33), a unique student
iew
37
38 program for which I am involved (M = 4.02), I can be involved in decision making (M = 3.98),
39
40 and there is positive parent involvement (M = 3.84).
41
42
One-sample t-tests indicated significant differences between mean scores and the neutral
43
44
45 score (3.5) on four of the six items from the school resources subscale. Mean values for two of
46
47 the significant survey items, good facilities (M = 4.59) and I have the necessary instructional
48
49 materials (M = 4.45) were higher than the neutral score (3.5) with a medium effect size (Cohen’s
50
51
52 d = .75) and a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.88) respectively. Two of the significant items, I
53
54 was in an induction and mentoring program (M = 2.28) and more opportunities for professional
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 growth (M = 3.06), had mean values lower than the neutral score (3.5) with a large effect size
4
5
6 (Cohen’s d = -.88) and a respectively small effect size (Cohen’s d = -.30). The items I am
7
8 satisfied with my salary and I have adequate planning time were not statistically significant.
9
10 4.3 Gender
11
12
13
The independent samples t-test identified six items as having statistically significant
14
15 differences between female and male participants’ perceptions of conditions related to their
16
17 decision to remain at their current schools. All six items had a stronger influence on female
18
19
participants than male participants with mean differences ranging from .33 to .48. The item feel
Fo
20
21
22 needed at this school had the largest mean difference of .48 and was from the intrinsic
23
rP
24 motivation subscale. The item principal support had the second largest mean difference of .45
25
26 and was from the school climate subscale. The remaining four items listed in order from highest
ee
27
28
29 mean difference to lowest mean difference were; involved with decision making (mean difference
rR
30
31 = 0.43), principal enforces rules and backs me up (mean difference = 0.39), connection to
32
ev
33 students (mean difference = 0.38), and cooperation among staff (mean difference = 0.33).
34
35
36
Cohen’s d ranged from 0.28 to 0.42 indicating a small effect size for all six items.
iew
37
38 4.4 Current school teaching experience.
39
40 Table 4 displays ANOVA test results for significant items from the teacher perception
41
42
scale and current school teaching experience.
43
44
46
47 Collegial friendships became a stronger reason for participants to remain the longer
48
49 participants taught at their current school. Games-Howell tests indicated that the mean scores of
50
51
52 participants with less than five years of current school experience (M = 4.55, SD = 1.14) were
53
54 lower than participants with 10 to 19 years (M = 5.12, SD = 0.86) and 20 or more years (M =
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 5.16, SD = .92) of current school experience. Participants’ reported perceptions of feeling
4
5
6 respected by students was also a stronger reason to remain for participants with more current
7
8 school experience. Tukey HSD tests indicated that mean scores for participants with less than
9
10 five years of current school experience (M = 4.85, SD = 0.82) was lower than participants with
11
12
13
20 or more years (M = 5.30, SD = 0.72) of current school teaching experience.
14
15 Not old enough to receive retirement benefits was a stronger reason to remain for
16
17 participants with more current school teaching experience. Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons
18
19
indicated that mean scores for participants with less than five years of current school experience
Fo
20
21
22 (M = 3.37, SD = 1.77) were significantly different from participants with five to nine years (M =
23
rP
24 4.09, SD = 1.73) and 10 to 19 years (M = 4.21, SD = 1.61) of current school experience.

25
26 However, post-hoc comparisons were not significant for participants with 20 or more years of
ee
27
28
29 current school experience.
rR
30
31 Receiving support from the principal and having adequate planning time were stronger
32
ev
33 reasons to remain for new participants than more experienced participants. Games-Howell tests
34
35
36
for principal support indicated that mean score for participants with less than five years of
iew
37
38 current school experience (M = 5.16, SD = 1.11) was higher than participants with 20 or more
39
40 years (M = 4.44, SD = 1.49) of current school experience. Tukey HSD tests for adequate
41
42
planning time indicated that mean score for participants with less than 5 years of current school
43
44
45 experience (M = 3.65, SD = 1.55) was higher than mean score of participants with 20 or more
46
47 years of current school teaching experience (M = 2.98, SD = 1.49).
48
49 4.5 Age.
50
51
52 Table 5 displays ANOVA test results for six significant items from the teacher perception
53
54 scale and three age categories.
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
4
5
6 Participants’ reported perceptions of having a positive impact on student achievement and
7
8 student personal growth was an important reason to remain for all participants but more
9
10 important for older participants than younger participants. Tukey HSD tests for positive impact
11
12
13
on student achievement indicated that mean scores of participants 51 and older (M = 5.22, SD =
14
15 0.78) were higher than participants 30 years old and younger (M = 4.73, SD = 0.67). Games-
16
17 Howell tests on the item positive impact on student personal growth indicated that the mean
18
19
score of participants 51 and older (M = 5.27, SD = 0.66) were higher than the mean score of
Fo
20
21
22 participants 30 years old and younger (M = 4.94, SD = 0.55).
23
rP
24 Having time to plan was somewhat important for younger participants who planned to
25
26 return to their current school but was not an important reason to remain for participants 51 and
ee
27
28
29 older. Tukey HSD tests indicated that mean scores of participants 30 years old and younger (M
rR
30
31 = 4.00, SD = 1.37) was significantly different than mean scores of participants 51 and older (M =
32
ev
33 3.25, SD = 1.54).
34
35
36
Three items were statistically significant for age comparisons but were not strong reasons
iew
37
38 participants provided for remaining. Mean scores by age category for the items no teaching
39
40 opportunities in another school out of the district ranged from 1.76 to 2.15, professional growth
41
42
opportunities ranged from 2.61 to 3.59, and induction program ranged from 1.84 to 3.00.
43
44
45 4.6 Grade levels.
46
47 Table 6 displays ANOVA test results that indicated a significant difference between
48
49 mean scores of participants by grade level categories and 15 items from the teacher perception
50
51
52 scale.
53
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Mean scores on seven items were significantly higher for elementary participants than for high-
4
5
6 school participants. Tukey HSD tests for the items; connection to students were higher for
7
8 elementary participants (M = 4.86, SD = 1.01) than high-school participants (M = 4.51, SD =
9
10 1.06), feel safe were higher for elementary participants (M = 5.12, SD = .69) than high-school
11
12
13
participants (M = 4.79, SD = .81), and respected by students were higher for elementary
14
15 participants (M = 5.23, SD = .66) than high-school participants (M = 4.96, SD = .81). Games-
16
17 Howell tests for the items; involved with decision making were higher for elementary participants
18
19
(M = 4.45, SD = 1.04) than high-school participants (M = 3.53, SD = 1.45), cooperation among
Fo
20
21
22 staff were higher for elementary participants (M = 5.09, SD = .84) than high-school participants
23
rP
24 (M = 4.36, SD = 1.21), respected by staff were higher for elementary participants (M = 5.25, SD
25
26 = .74) than high-school participants (M = 4.73, SD = 1.21), and adequate planning time was
ee
27
28
29 higher for elementary participants (M = 3.68, SD = 1.35) than high-school participants (M =
rR
30
31 3.18, SD = 1.54).
32
ev
33 Two items had mean scores significantly higher for elementary participants than middle-
34
35
36
school and high-school participants. Tukey HSD tests for positive parent involvement were
iew
37
38 higher for elementary participants (M = 4.52, SD = 1.01) than middle-school (M = 3.72, SD =
39
40 1.25) and high-school participants (M = 3.35, SD = 1.17). Games-Howell tests for feel needed at
41
42
the school was higher for elementary participants (M = 4.79, SD = .78) than middle-school
43
44
45 (M = 4.42, SD = 1.12) and high-school (M = 4.22, SD =1.17) participants.
46
47 Mean scores for four items were significantly higher for elementary and middle-school
48
49 participants than for high-school participants. Tukey HSD tests for comfortable working at this
50
51
52 school was higher for middle-school (M = 5.23, SD = .77) and elementary-school participants
53
54 (M = 5.12, SD = .89) than high-school participants (M = 4.81, SD = 1.07). Games-Howell tests
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 for principal is supportive was higher for middle-school (M = 5.23, SD = 1.17) and elementary-
4
5
6 school participants (M = 5.22, SD = .90) than high-school participants (M = 4.45, SD = 1.51),
7
8 principal enforces rules and backs me up was higher for middle-school (M = 4.44, SD = 1.39)
9
10 and elementary-school participants (M = 4.89, SD = .90) than high-school participants
11
12
13
(M = 3.84, SD = 1.37), I have the necessary instructional materials was higher for middle-school
14
15 (M = 4.70, SD = 1.00) and elementary participants (M = 4.61, SD = .90) than high-school
16
17 participants (M = 4.18, SD = 1.20).
18
19
Mean scores of only one item, unique student program for which I am involved was
Fo
20
21
22 significantly higher for high-school participants than elementary participants. Tukey HSD tests
23
rP
24 revealed that mean score of high-school participants (M = 4.30, SD = 1.36) was higher than
25
26 elementary participants (M = 3.80, SD = 1.23).
ee
27
28
29 Mean scores for one item, satisfied with salary, was higher for middle-school participants
rR
30
31 than high-school and elementary participants. Games-Howell tests revealed that mean scores of
32
ev
33 middle-school participants (M = 4.00, SD = 1.34) was higher than high-school participants (M =

34
35
36
3.29, SD = 1.50) and elementary participants (M = 3.43, SD = 1.39).
iew
37
38 4.7 Open-ended
39
40 Of the 319 participants that planned to return to their current school, 129 participants
41
42
wrote at least one response to other consideration that influence me to stay representing 40.4%
43
44
45 of participants. Some participants provided multiple responses. The total number of responses
46
47 provided by the 129 participants were 172 responses. The top five thematic categories
48
49 representing reasons participants provided for staying at their current schools were personal or
50
51
52 family reasons (32 responses), staff support (21 responses), difficult to start over or no other
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 options (19 responses), salary and benefits (17 responses), and working with students and
4
5
6 parents (17 responses).
7
8 Of the 319 participants that planned to return to their current school, 108 wrote at least
9
10 one response to other consideration that would influence me to stay if it were present
11
12
13
representing 33.9% of participants. Some participants provided multiple responses. The total
14
15 number of responses provided by the 108 participants were 148 responses. The top five thematic
16
17 categories representing reasons participants provided that would influence them to stay at their
18
19
current schools were salary and benefits plan (45 responses), workload (27 responses), respect
Fo
20
21
22 or valued (15 responses), administrative support (11 responses), and teacher influence
23
rP
24 (9 responses). Salary and benefits plan had more responses then the next two highest thematic
25
26 categories combined.
ee
27
28
29 5. Discussion
rR
30
31 The results of the future-plans analysis on teacher characteristic variables indicated that
32
ev
33 current school teaching experience significantly influenced participants’ reported decisions to

34
35
36
remain at their current school. Influences of total teaching experience, age, gender, grade level,
iew
37
38 and highest degree earned were not found to be significant.
39
40 The lack of statistical significance for age and teaching experience differs from findings
41
42
of previous studies. Hughes (2012) and Kukla-Acevedo (2009) found that beginning teachers
43
44
45 were more likely to leave teaching than experienced teachers. Previous studies that examined
46
47 age and teacher retention reported a pattern of high attrition for young teachers and very low
48
49 attrition for mid-career teachers until a threshold was reached where attrition rates rose sharply
50
51
52 between age and teacher retention (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Grissmer & Kirby, 1997; Guarino
53
54 et al., 2006; Harris & Adams, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll & May, 2012). Although results
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 for teaching experience and age were not significant in this study, it did show an increased
4
5
6 percentage of teachers who planned to remain increased as total teaching experience and age.
7
8 Less surprising was the lack of statistical significance for a relationship between gender
9
10 and teacher retention. The literature reviewed indicated mixed results for gender and teacher
11
12
13
retention with some studies finding females more likely to stay than males (Harris & Adams,
14
15 2007; Ingersoll & May, 2012; Watlington et al., 2004) and other studies finding males more
16
17 likely to stay than females (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll, 2001).
18
19
This study found that males and females planned to stay at about the same rate (80%).
Fo
20
21
22 There was also no statistically significant difference in influence on retention between
23
rP
24 grade level and highest degree earned. This finding supported findings by Hughes (2012) as well
25
26 as Ingersoll and May (2012), in contrast to findings by Borman and Dowling (2008). However,
ee
27
28
29 Borman and Dowling (2008) found that elementary teachers were only 1.02 times more likely to
rR
30
31 leave the teaching profession than secondary teachers. The finding of no significance for highest
32
ev
33 degree earned supported findings by Hughes (2012) as well as Perrachione et al. (2008), in
34
35
36
contrast with findings by Borman and Dowling (2008), who found that teachers with graduate
iew
37
38 degrees were only slightly more likely to leave the teaching profession than teachers without
39
40 graduate degrees.
41
42
The strongest reasons participants provided for remaining at their current schools were
43
44
45 intrinsic teacher characteristics associated with teacher efficacy. The results support the findings
46
47 by Perrachione et al. (2008) who found that teachers who declared their intent to remain teaching
48
49 were influenced by teacher efficacy and working with students. The finding of a strong
50
51
52 relationship between teacher efficacy and participants’ reported decision to remain suggested
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 that teacher retention may be influenced by teachers’ beliefs in their capacity to make a
4
5
6 difference in the lives of their students.
7
8 Teacher perceptions of feeling comfortable working at a school was a strong intrinsic
9
10 teacher characteristic related to participants’ decisions to remain. The finding supports
11
12
13
conclusions by Wiegand (2003) who also found a strong connection between teacher retention
14
15 and teachers’ feelings of comfort at a school. Although comfort level was slightly more
16
17 important for elementary participants and middle-school participants than for high-school
18
19
participants, most participants reported needing to feel comfortable working at their schools if
Fo
20
21
22 they were to stay. Wiegand (2003) described comfort as unique to each person and meeting a
23
rP
24 person’s comfort needs requires getting to know an individual teacher’s desires and abilities
25
26 similar to the way that teachers and other school personnel support students by getting to know
ee
27
28
29 their needs and strengths (pp. 162-163).
rR
30
31 Personal relationships teachers had with their colleagues were reportedly strong
32
ev
33 influences on participants’ reported decisions to remain. This finding supports research by

34
35
36
Wiegand (2003) who found that collegial friendships had a stronger influence on teacher
iew
37
38 retention for teachers planning to remain at their current schools compared with teachers
39
40 planning to leave. Not surprisingly, collegial friendships became a stronger reported reason to
41
42
remain the longer participants continued to teach at their current schools, suggesting that
43
44
45 friendships among colleagues appeared to grow over time.
46
47 Respect from students was the strongest school climate organizational characteristic
48
49 related to participants’ reported decisions to remain at their current schools. The item I feel
50
51
52 respected by students was used to measure the impact of positive student behavior on teacher
53
54 retention. Previous studies identified problematic student behavior as a reason for teachers to
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 leave their schools or leave teaching altogether (Boyd et al., 2011; Gonzalez et al., 2008;
4
5
6 Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009; Ingersoll & May, 2012). This study
7
8 found that positive student behavior, specifically student respect, impacted participants’ reported
9
10 decisions to remain at their current schools.
11
12
13
The item I feel respected by staff and there is a great deal of cooperation among staff
14
15 were also strong school climate conditions related to teachers’ decisions to remain. The results
16
17 supported the findings by Boyd et al. (2011) and Inman and Marlow (2004) who found that staff
18
19
relations were related to the retention decisions of beginning teachers.
Fo
20
21
22 Another school climate condition that influenced participants reported decisions to stay at
23
rP
24 their current schools was school safety. Interestingly, school safety was not a strong variable
25
26 among the reviewed studies that examined school safety as a predictor of teacher turnover. Boyd
ee
27
28
29 et al. (2011) found no relationship between school safety and first-year teacher retention
rR
30
31 decisions in New York City and Ingersoll (2001) found that only 2% of teachers who were
32
ev
33 dissatisfied with teaching and left the profession reported an unsafe environment as a reason for
34
35
36
leaving. As a corollary, this study found that a safe environment was a strong reason to stay.
iew
37
38 Administrative support was a leading reason participants gave for remaining: a finding
39
40 that reproduced results of previous studes of administrative support and teacher retention (Boyd
41
42
et al., 2011; Certo & Fox, 2002; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll, 2001;
43
44
45 Ingersoll, 2002; Ingersoll & May, 2012; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009). In this study, the relationship
46
47 between administrative support and teacher retention varied by gender, current school teaching
48
49 experience, and grade level. Female participants and elementary participants reportedly
50
51
52 perceived a supportive principal as a stronger reason to remain than male participants and high-
53
54 school participants. A supportive principal was also a reportedly stronger reason to remain for
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 participants with less than five years of current school experience than teachers with 20 or more
4
5
6 years of current school experience, reproducing a result found by Wiegand (2003) who found
7
8 that beginning teachers wanted more support from the principal than did veteran teachers (p.
9
10 163).
11
12
13
Facilities and instructional materials were found to have influenced participants’ retention
14
15 decisions. The finding on instructional materials reproduced results by Ingersoll and May (2012)
16
17 who found that teachers were more likely to leave schools where the necessary teaching
18
19
materials were not generally available. The finding on facilities reproduced results of Boyd et al.
Fo
20
21
22 (2011) who found that facilities were related to first-year participants’ reported decisions to both
23
rP
24 leave teaching and transfer to different schools in New York City.

25
26 This study did not provide support for a relationship between teacher induction programs
ee
27
28
29 and participants’ reported decisions to remain, perhaps because only one item was administered.
rR
30
31 Although results from this study did not find a relationship between salary and
32
ev
33 participants’ reported decisions to stay, previous studies found strong relationships between
34
35
36
dissatisfaction with salary and teachers’ decisions to leave (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Certo &
iew
37
38 Fox, 2002; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; 2012; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002).
39
40 Qualitative analysis of the open-ended items from this study gave some indcations that teacher
41
42
salary may influence participants’ decisions to remain over time.
43
44
45 The two open-ended items provided participants opportunities to address other
46
47 considerations that may be present at their schools that influence them to stay and other
48
49 considerations that may not be present at their schools but would influence them to stay. The
50
51
52 thematic category that had the most responses to the item other consideration that influences me
53
54 to stay was personal or family reasons. The strongest thematic category that emerged in
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 response to the item other consideration that would influence me to stay if it were present was
4
5
6 not found in the literature reviewed and is possibly unique to Wisconsin. The thematic category
7
8 was salary and benefits plan. This theme had more responses than the themes with the second
9
10 and third highest responses combined
11
12
13
The termination of collective bargaining agreements eliminated traditional teacher salary
14
15 schedules. In responses that fit the thematic category salary and benefits plan, participants
16
17 reportedly felt stuck and uncertain of their financial future.
18
19
6. Conclusions
Fo
20
21
22 This study showed that school-level teacher-turnover rate evidently reduced by nearly
23
rP
24 50% after participants remained at their current schools for at least five years. Of the
25
26 participants who reportedly planned to leave, nearly half said that they planned to remain in
ee
27
28
29 education. We conclude that school-level teacher-turnover rates could be reduced if school
rR
30
31 leaders could encourage new teachers to remain a little longer or persuade those who are leaving
32
ev
33 for other schools to remain where they are.

34
35
36
In this study, participants who were reportedly more likely to remain were those who
iew
37
38 responded that they made a difference in the lives of their students, felt a sense of comfort
39
40 working within their school, felt safe at their schools, and developed relationships with
41
42
colleagues within their buildings. We further conclude that administrative support could
43
44
45 influence organizational conditions, provide professional development opportunities, and build
46
47 positive relationships that may improve teacher retention in their schools. Also, district-level
48
49 administrators could provide training for school-level administrators to improve their
50
51
52 effectiveness at developing positive school climates conducive to teacher retention.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Of the teacher characteristics examined, grade level had the strongest relationship with
4
5
6 the reasons participants provided for remaining. Findings by grade level provided additional
7
8 insight into the types of professional development and relationship building techniques that
9
10 would be useful at elementary-, middle-, and high-school levels. We conclude that
11
12
13
administrators should review these findings when evaluating and developing retention strategies
14
15 for their schools.
16
17 Qualitative analysis revealed a finding unique to Wisconsin. Several participants
18
19
indicated need for a district-wide teacher-compensation plans. They expressed concern over low
Fo
20
21
22 salaries, lack of pay raises, and no clear plans for advancement. Finally, we conclude that
23
rP
24 development of clear compensation plans for districts that do not have them should be a top
25
26 priority to improve teacher retention in their schools (Sailer, 2017).
ee
27
28
29 7. Summary
rR
30
31 In this study of teacher retention at the school level, participants reportedly favored
32
ev
33 retention in preferred assignments, as well as administrative communications and support.

34
35
36
School leaders would do well to use these measures to help good teachers stay.
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6 References
7
8 Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
9
10 narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367-409.
11
12
13
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence
14
15 of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research
16
17 Journal, 48(2), 303-333.
18
19
Certo, J. L., & Fox, J. E. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. High School Journal, 86(1), 57-75.
Fo
20
21
22 Clarksen, C. (2014). Why teachers stay: Elementary teachers share perceptions of the job since
23
rP
24 legislative reforms in Wisconsin. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of

25
26 Wisconsin – Milwaukee, (no. 621).
ee
27
28
29 Creswell, J. (2014). Research design (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
rR
30
31 Cooper, J. & Alvarado, A. (2006). Preparation, recruitment, and retention to teachers. Paris, FR:
32
ev
33 International Institute for Educational Planning

34
35
36
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.
iew
37
38 Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
39
40 Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of State
41
42
policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
43
44
45 DeAngelis, K. J., & Presley, J. B. (2011). Toward a more nuanced understanding of new teacher
46
47 attrition. Education and Urban Society, 43(5), 598-626.
48
49 Gonzalez, L. E., Brown, M. S., & Slate, J. R. (2008). Teachers who left the teaching profession:
50
51
52 A qualitative understanding. Qualitative Report, 13(1), 1-11.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1991). Patterns of attrition among Indiana teachers, 1965-
4
5
6 1987. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.
7
8 Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teachers College
9
10 Record, 99(1), 45-56.
11
12
13
Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A
14
15 review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173-
16
17 208.
18
19
Hanushek, E. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political
Fo
20
21
22 Economy, 100 (1), 84-117.
23
rP
24 Harris, D. N., & Adams, S. J. (2007). Understanding the level and causes of teacher turnover:
25
26 A comparison with other professions. Economics of Education Review, 26(3), 325-337.
ee
27
28
29 Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper
rR
30
31 presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on
32
ev
33 Building Teacher Quality, Melbourne.

34
35
36
Hughes, G. D. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics,
iew
37
38 organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research,
39
40 105(4), 245.
41
42
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
43
44
45 American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499.
46
47 Ingersoll, R. M. 2002. The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription.
48
49 NASSP Bulletin 86, no. 631: 16-31.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of
4
5
6 mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis,
7
8 34(4), 435-464.
9
10 Ingersoll, R. M., & Perda, D. (2010). Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers
11
12
13
sufficient? American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 563-594.
14
15 Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.
16
17 Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
18
19
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP
Fo
20
21
22 Bulletin, 88(638), 28-40.
23
rP
24 Inman, D., & Marlow, L. (2004). Teacher retention: Why do beginning teachers remain in the
25
26 profession? Education, 124(4), 605.
ee
27
28
29 Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in
rR
30
31 teacher mobility decisions. Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 443-452.
32
ev
33 Lindqvist, P., Nordänger, U., & Carlsson, R. (2014). Teacher attrition the first five years: A
34
35
36
multifaceted image, Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94-103.
iew
37
38 National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2010). Who will teach? Experience
39
40 matters. Washington, DC: Author.
41
42
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?
43
44
45 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
46
47 Pallent, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
48
49 Perrachione, B. A., Rosser, V. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary
50
51
52 teachers' perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. Professional Educator, 32(2),
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3 Sailer, R. (2017). A typology of alternative compensation plans (Unpublished doctoral
4
5
6 dissertation). Edgewood College, Madison, WI.
7
8 Struyven, K., & Vanhournout G. (2014). Teachers' exit decisions: An investigation into the
9
10 reasons why newly qualified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession or why those
11
12
13
who do enter do not continue teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 37-45.
14
15 Watlington, E. J., Shockley, R., Earley, D. L., Huie, K. K., & al. (2004). Variables associated
16
17 with teacher retention: A multi-year study. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 56-66.
18
19
Wiegand, C. D. (2003). Considerations leading to the retention of K-12 public school teachers:
Fo
20
21
22 Why do they stay? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
23
rP
24 Theses. (Order No. 3112553, University of the Pacific).

25
26 Wisconsin Budget Repair Act 10 § 1-369 (2011).
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
Table 1. Characteristics Studied
6
7 Teacher Organisation
8
Gender Teacher influence
9
10 Ethnicity School safety
11 Age Staff relations
12
13 Grade level Student behavior
14 Highest degree earned Administrative support
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 Table 2. Future Plans
5
6 Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
7 Teaching at this school 336 79.1 80.4 80.4
8
9 Teaching at another school in the district 4 .9 1.0 81.4
10 Teaching at a school in another district 15 3.5 3.6 85
11
12 In a school counseling career 6 1.4 1.4 86.4
13 In a school administrator career 7 1.6 1.7 88.1
14
In a district administrator career 1 .2 .2 88.3
15
16 In a non-education career 10 2.4 2.4 90.7
17 Retired 14 3.3 3.3 94
18
19 At home with child or family member 2 .5 .5 94.5
Fo
20 On sabbatical or other break from teaching 3 .7 .7 95.2
21
22 Other 20 4.7 4.8 100
23
rP
Total 418 98.4 100
24
Missing System 7 1.6
25
26 Total 425 100
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 Table 3. Paired-samples t-test Results for Four Subscale Comparisons
5
6 Pairs Subscale Constructs n M SD Mean df t-test p Cohen’s
7 Diff. d
8 1 Intrinsic & 319 4.82 .62 2.05 318 27.91 .000 1.56
9 Extrinsic 319 2.77 1.03 318
10
11 2 Intrinsic & 319 4.82 .62 .30 318 9.94 .000 .56
12 School climate 319 4.52 .76 318
13
3 Intrinsic & 319 4.82 .62 1.26 318 30.07 .000 1.68
14
15 School resources 319 3.56 .79 318
16 4 Extrinsic & 319 2.77 1.03 -1.75 318 21.67 .000 -1.21
17
18 School climate 319 4.52 .76 318
19 5 Extrinsic & 319 2.77 1.03 -.79 318 10.20 .000 -.57
Fo
20
22 6 School climate & 319 4.52 .76 .96 318 24.89 .000 1.39
23
rP

25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 Table 4. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Current School Experience
5
6 Dep. Var. Subscale df F p η2
7 Collegial friendships* Intrinsic 3 5.13** .002** .06
8
9 Not old enough to receive retirement Extrinsic 3 3.75** .012** .04
10 benefits*
11
12 Principal is supportive* School Climate 3 3.28** .023** .03
13 Respected by students School Climate 3 3.71 .012 .03
14
Adequate planning time School Resources 3 2.81 .040 .03
15
16
* Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch’s Robust ANOVA test results
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 5. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Age
8
Positive impact on student Intrinsic 2 4.72 .010 .03
9
10 achievement
11
Positive impact on student personal Intrinsic 2 .032** .02
12
13 growth*
14 No teaching opportunities in another Extrinsic 2 3.48** .035 .02
15
16 school out of the district*
17 Professional growth opportunities School Resources 2 6.01 .003 .04
18
19 Induction program* School Resources 2 9.66** .00** .05
Fo
20
21 Adequate planning time* School Resources 2 3.22** .041** .02
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5 Table 6. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Grade Level
6
8 Comfortable working at this school Intrinsic 2 5.22 .006 .03
9
Connection to students Intrinsic 2 3.84 .023 .03
10
11 Feel needed at this school* Intrinsic 2 10.10** .00** .05
12 Positive parent involvement School Climate 2 30.43 .00 .17
13
14 Respected by staff* School Climate 2 8.40** .00** .05
15 Involved with decision making* School Climate 2 15.07** .00** .09
16
18 Unique student program in which I am involved School Climate 2 4.21 .016 .03
19
Respected by students School Climate 2 3.56 .030 .02
Fo
20
21 Cooperation among staff* School Climate 2 14.49** .00** .08
22
Principal enforces rules & backs me up* School Climate 2 23.89** .00** .12
23
rP
24 Feel safe School Climate 2 4.07 .018 .03

25 I have the necessary instructional materials* School Resources 2 6.44** .002** .05
26
ee

28 Satisfied with salary* School Resources 2 6.17** .003** .04
29
rR
30 * Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch’s Robust ANOVA test results

31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
Table 1. Characteristics Studied
6
7 Teacher Organisation
8
Gender Teacher influence
9
10 Ethnicity School safety
11 Age Staff relations
12
13 Grade level Student behavior
14 Highest degree earned Administrative support
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 Table 2. Future Plans
5
6 Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %
7 Teaching at this school 336 79.1 80.4 80.4
8
9 Teaching at another school in the district 4 .9 1.0 81.4
10 Teaching at a school in another district 15 3.5 3.6 85
11
12 In a school counseling career 6 1.4 1.4 86.4
13 In a school administrator career 7 1.6 1.7 88.1
14
In a district administrator career 1 .2 .2 88.3
15
16 In a non-education career 10 2.4 2.4 90.7
17 Retired 14 3.3 3.3 94
18
19 At home with child or family member 2 .5 .5 94.5
Fo
20 On sabbatical or other break from teaching 3 .7 .7 95.2
21
22 Other 20 4.7 4.8 100
23
rP
Total 418 98.4 100
24
Missing System 7 1.6
25
26 Total 425 100
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 Table 3. Paired-samples t-test Results for Four Subscale Comparisons
5
6 Pairs Subscale Constructs n M SD Mean df t-test p Cohen’s
7 Diff. d
8 1 Intrinsic & 319 4.82 .62 2.05 318 27.91 .000 1.56
9 Extrinsic 319 2.77 1.03 318
10
11 2 Intrinsic & 319 4.82 .62 .30 318 9.94 .000 .56
12 School climate 319 4.52 .76 318
13
3 Intrinsic & 319 4.82 .62 1.26 318 30.07 .000 1.68
14
16 4 Extrinsic & 319 2.77 1.03 -1.75 318 21.67 .000 -1.21
17
18 School climate 319 4.52 .76 318
19 5 Extrinsic & 319 2.77 1.03 -.79 318 10.20 .000 -.57
Fo
20
22 6 School climate & 319 4.52 .76 .96 318 24.89 .000 1.39
23
rP

25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4 Table 4. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Current School Experience
5
7 Collegial friendships* Intrinsic 3 5.13** .002** .06
8
9 Not old enough to receive retirement Extrinsic 3 3.75** .012** .04
10 benefits*
11
13 Respected by students School Climate 3 3.71 .012 .03
14
Adequate planning time School Resources 3 2.81 .040 .03
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 5. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Age
8
Positive impact on student Intrinsic 2 4.72 .010 .03
9
10 achievement
11
Positive impact on student personal Intrinsic 2 .032** .02
12
13 growth*
14 No teaching opportunities in another Extrinsic 2 3.48** .035 .02
15
16 school out of the district*
17 Professional growth opportunities School Resources 2 6.01 .003 .04
18
19 Induction program* School Resources 2 9.66** .00** .05
Fo
20
22
23
rP
24
25
26
ee
27
28
29
rR
30
31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5 Table 6. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Grade Level
6
8 Comfortable working at this school Intrinsic 2 5.22 .006 .03
9
Connection to students Intrinsic 2 3.84 .023 .03
10
11 Feel needed at this school* Intrinsic 2 10.10** .00** .05
12 Positive parent involvement School Climate 2 30.43 .00 .17
13
14 Respected by staff* School Climate 2 8.40** .00** .05
15 Involved with decision making* School Climate 2 15.07** .00** .09
16
18 Unique student program in which I am involved School Climate 2 4.21 .016 .03
19
Respected by students School Climate 2 3.56 .030 .02
Fo
20
21 Cooperation among staff* School Climate 2 14.49** .00** .08
22
Principal enforces rules & backs me up* School Climate 2 23.89** .00** .12
23
rP
24 Feel safe School Climate 2 4.07 .018 .03

25 I have the necessary instructional materials* School Resources 2 6.44** .002** .05
26
ee

28 Satisfied with salary* School Resources 2 6.17** .003** .04
29
rR
30 * Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch’s Robust ANOVA test results

31
32
ev
33
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
View publication stats

Teacher Retention: Why They Stay: November 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teacher Retention: Why They Stay: November 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Teacher Retention: Why They Stay

Preprint · November 2018

Michael Kurtz Henry St. Maurice

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rhetoric View project

Leopold Studies View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Teacher Retention in Wisconsin: Why They Stayed

Journal: AERA Open

Manuscript Type: Regular Articles

Additional Keywords: Staffing

24 Studies that examined age as a characteristic of teacher retention consistently reported a

33 Organizational characteristics attributed to school resources such as teaching salary,

24 1.3 Why they stay

3. Attentive, cooperative students;

24 organizational characteristics impact teacher retention decisions.

33 3. Analysis of Likert-scale items for all teachers that plan to remain;

24 comparisons, and school climate and school resources comparisons.

24 4.09, SD = 1.73) and 10 to 19 years (M = 4.21, SD = 1.61) of current school experience.

33 middle-school participants (M = 4.00, SD = 1.34) was higher than high-school participants (M =

33 current school teaching experience significantly influenced participants’ reported decisions to

33 influences on participants’ reported decisions to remain. This finding supports research by

24 leave teaching and transfer to different schools in New York City.

33 for other schools to remain where they are.

33 retention in preferred assignments, as well as administrative communications and support.

24 legislative reforms in Wisconsin. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of

33 International Institute for Educational Planning

33 Building Teacher Quality, Melbourne.

24 Theses. (Order No. 3112553, University of the Pacific).

24 School resources 319 3.56 .79 318

24 Feel safe School Climate 2 4.07 .018 .03

27 Adequate planning time* School Resources 2 3.65** .028** .03

30 * Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch’s Robust ANOVA test results

24 School resources 319 3.56 .79 318

24 Feel safe School Climate 2 4.07 .018 .03

27 Adequate planning time* School Resources 2 3.65** .028** .03

30 * Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch’s Robust ANOVA test results

View publication stats

You might also like

27 Adequate planning time* School Resources 2 3.65 .028 .03

27 Adequate planning time* School Resources 2 3.65 .028 .03