Beating a Dead Horse... That's Still Kicking
M.G. Terrell noted in the comments section of the previous blog entry that Richard Ingersoll, the dean of teacher retention studies, has a 2004 report that shows annual teacher turnover in urban high-poverty schools at 22 percent. Terrell stated this is still below the turnover rate in private sector employment, and that is correct. However, we still have to point out some crucial facts in the Ingersoll study.
You have to read Ingersoll's work because he is diligent, and perhaps the only academic spending time on this issue. But the Ingersoll study also relies heavily on the School and Staffing Survey of 1993-94. His 2000-01 numbers (see bottom of page 4) he calls "preliminary estimates."
Ingersoll also lumps together "movers" and "leavers." He addresses the reasons why in the 2004 report, and he is persuasive. But NEA and AFT are hardly going to tout as a problem the practice of teachers who leave inner city schools for better positions in the suburbs.
Let me emphasize that Ingersoll studies urban high-poverty schools, which, when it comes to teacher retention, have problems that cannot reasonably be extrapolated to all schools, such as the Reuters story tries to do. And they are a small percentage of all schools. Nevertheless, why do teachers move or leave? Ingersoll found the answers are:
1) "school staffing action" (they are laid off, non-renewed, fired or transfered);
2) "family or personal" (babies or illness);
3) "dissatisfaction" (more on that in a minute);
4) "to pursue another job" (in or out of education);
5) "retirement."
So, let's do a little number crunching.
In a year, 22 of 100 teachers in urban, high-poverty schools leave or move. Of the 22, 20.4 percent cite "dissatisfaction" as the reason for leaving or moving. That's 4.5 teachers of the original 100. Of those 4.5 teachers, 26.9 percent cite "poor salary" as the reason for their dissatisfaction. That's 1.2 teachers of the original 100.
So, out of every 100 teachers teaching in an urban high-poverty school, one left or moved primarily due to salary dissatisfaction.
You want to solve the teacher retention "problem?" Stop firing them, tell them not to have babies, and don't let them retire. Those reasons account for 90 percent of your turnover.
Perhaps when we get some recent data, we will have learned that the picture has changed. I doubt it. Until that time, this is a phony issue.
You have to read Ingersoll's work because he is diligent, and perhaps the only academic spending time on this issue. But the Ingersoll study also relies heavily on the School and Staffing Survey of 1993-94. His 2000-01 numbers (see bottom of page 4) he calls "preliminary estimates."
Ingersoll also lumps together "movers" and "leavers." He addresses the reasons why in the 2004 report, and he is persuasive. But NEA and AFT are hardly going to tout as a problem the practice of teachers who leave inner city schools for better positions in the suburbs.
Let me emphasize that Ingersoll studies urban high-poverty schools, which, when it comes to teacher retention, have problems that cannot reasonably be extrapolated to all schools, such as the Reuters story tries to do. And they are a small percentage of all schools. Nevertheless, why do teachers move or leave? Ingersoll found the answers are:
1) "school staffing action" (they are laid off, non-renewed, fired or transfered);
2) "family or personal" (babies or illness);
3) "dissatisfaction" (more on that in a minute);
4) "to pursue another job" (in or out of education);
5) "retirement."
So, let's do a little number crunching.
In a year, 22 of 100 teachers in urban, high-poverty schools leave or move. Of the 22, 20.4 percent cite "dissatisfaction" as the reason for leaving or moving. That's 4.5 teachers of the original 100. Of those 4.5 teachers, 26.9 percent cite "poor salary" as the reason for their dissatisfaction. That's 1.2 teachers of the original 100.
So, out of every 100 teachers teaching in an urban high-poverty school, one left or moved primarily due to salary dissatisfaction.
You want to solve the teacher retention "problem?" Stop firing them, tell them not to have babies, and don't let them retire. Those reasons account for 90 percent of your turnover.
Perhaps when we get some recent data, we will have learned that the picture has changed. I doubt it. Until that time, this is a phony issue.
Post a Comment