The previous two sections have reviewed studies that, explicitly or implicitly, perceived either teachers’ characteristics or working conditions as the primary source of explaining teacher attrition. The three studies in this section take a more holistic perspective about the antecedents of early teacher attrition. Schoepner (2009) described this as “an approach that examines teachers’ entire experiences throughout their short time in the profession” (abstract). In the vast array of literature reviewed in this chapter, only these three studies use theoretical frameworks and research design models that explicitly combine teacher characteristics with their working conditions to build a theory of early teacher attrition.
Schoepner (2009) used interviews with 25 former teachers along with responses to the 2003-2004 SASS and 2004-2005 TFS to investigate why public and Catholic schoolteachers leave the profession early in their careers. Using both sociocultural and commitment theories, she examined the relationship between entering commitment, teaching experience and decision to leave teaching. Her findings suggest that the decision to leave teaching is more complicated
dissatisfaction with their salaries. What is most intriguing about this work is the recognition in the theoretical framework and research design that both what teachers bring into the profession and what teachers experience once in the profession have an influence on the career decisions of teachers. What is left unanswered from this study is how these teachers differ from those who stayed in the profession. The study may have been able to better define differences between those who stayed in teaching from those who left teaching had this study also interviewed teachers who stayed in the classroom.
Olsen and Anderson (2007) did just that. The 15 teachers who participated in their study were urban teachers who had attended the same teacher education program at UCLA called Center X. Six of these teachers were staying in their teaching position the following year and planned to continue classroom teaching throughout their career. Another six were continuing to teach the following year, but were uncertain about their future in teaching; they were considering moving to administration, leaving to start a family or to pursue another career entirely. Finally, three of the teachers were leaving classroom teaching the following year and were shifting into other roles within education. Two entered a doctoral program and the third was becoming an administrator. This research study examined these teachers’ reasons for entering teaching, their preparation, working experiences and finally their future career plans. With this research approach, the authors were able to account for entry characteristics to both the preparation program and into the profession as well as the working conditions and experiences of the study participants. Then comparing these characteristics to the teachers’ future career decisions Olsen and Anderson were able to study the relationships among these factors with the participant’s future careers. In so doing, they found that teacher retention, specifically in urban settings, can be improved by allowing these new teachers to develop into new roles, both inside and outside
the classroom, and to experience professional development and support throughout their career, not just in the first couple of years as induction programs currently do. This study did not weigh the relative importance of teachers’ characteristics against working conditions, only that after several years into teaching (2-6) these teachers reported that professional development opportunities and continued support would increase their desire to continue teaching.
One of the most thorough and well-known studies was conducted by Johnson and
Birkeland and included 50 interviews of new teachers in Massachusetts (2003). The study found that teachers’ career decisions were influenced by their “prior career orientations, financial situations, and preparation” (p. 581) but that it was their experience in the schools that had the greatest impact on their career decisions. Johnson and Birkeland found that teachers who stated that their schools supported their teaching were the teachers that were most likely to remain teaching. On the other hand, teachers who found their schools to be less organized and without the supporting mechanisms for their teaching were more likely to leave teaching. Of particular importance was the professional culture in the school. Some teachers reported working in a “veteran-oriented professional culture,” where teachers valued their independence, privacy and professional autonomy. Others worked in “novice-oriented professional cultures” where youth, idealism and inexperience reign. Finally, there were teachers that worked in “integrated
professional cultures” where teachers of all experience levels engaged in “collegial and collaborative efforts” (p. 605). The researchers found that teachers in integrated professional cultures more often stayed in their position from one year to the next. The other two professional cultures, veteran-oriented and novice-oriented, tended to have teachers that were more likely to leave their teaching position or the profession altogether. What is unclear from this study is how to create these school environments. It is possible that veteran-oriented schools develop that
culture as a result of seeing many new teachers come in only to leave soon after. Also, it might be that novice-oriented schools, which Johnson and Birkeland point out are often charter schools, are too new to have veteran teachers in the school and therefore lack the teaching experience to have another cultural model. In other words, it may be that the composition of the teaching force at the school determines the climate, or it may be that the climate dictates who remains in the school.
Only three studies took this broad view of teacher attrition and asked teachers to report their experiences that may have lead to their leaving the profession. While learning from teachers’ statements about why they left teaching is critical to understanding teacher
perspectives, the teachers themselves may not be the best at isolating or differentiating personal experience from larger trends. Also, they may not be able to adequately compare the role that preparation prior to entering the profession that took place several years earlier to the more recent experience in the schools to know which of the of the two were more critical in
determining their career path. While the work of Schoepner (2009) included large-scale analysis using the SASS and TFS data sets, they were used to inform the interview data rather than place the teacher interviews in a larger context. Thus, despite these studies’ research approach, they are not able to determine if teacher attrition is a result of teachers’ characteristics or working conditions, or even if it is some combination of the two.
Conclusion
Recognizing that what teachers bring into the profession and what they experience once there both play a role in the career decision making of teachers is a critical piece of
indicative of the lack of cohesive research that sufficiently has addressed the issue of what leads to teacher attrition. Primarily examining the impact of teachers’ characteristics or working conditions on teacher attrition leads to an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon and is not able to answer the important policy question of when induction strategies should be implemented to reduce teacher attrition. The next chapter will discuss how this study will compare the relative importance of teachers’ characteristics with working conditions in determining which is the greater influence on early teacher attrition.