Teacher Retention and Mobility:

Transcription

1 Teacher Retention and Mobility: A Look Inside and Across Districts and Schools in Washington State A Report Prepared for the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession Prepared by: Margaret L. Plecki Ana M. Elfers Hilary Loeb Amrita Zahir Michael S. Knapp University of Washington College of Education March 2005

2 This report was commissioned by the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP), a non-profit organization intent on helping students achieve by ensuring they have the teachers they need. To accomplish that goal, CSTP supports research to examine the conditions of teaching and disseminates both short summaries and full reports to those interested in improving teaching quality in Washington state. To learn more about CSTP and its work: Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession Jeanne Harmon, Executive Director P.O. Box 1246 Silverdale, WA jeanne@cstp-wa.org CSTP receives funding from the Stuart Foundation < To view this report online, visit The suggested citation for this report is: Plecki, M. L., Elfers, A. M., Loeb, H., Zahir, A., Knapp, M. S. (2005). Teacher Retention and Mobility: A Look Inside and Across Districts and Schools in Washington State. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. For technical questions about this report, contact: mplecki@u.washington.edu.

3 CONTENTS Executive Summary...iii Part One: Focusing on Teacher Retention in Washington State... 1 Introduction... 2 Purpose and Framework for Analysis... 2 Framework for This Study... 3 What We Already Know and Need to Know About Teacher Retention... 4 What National Research Tells Us... 4 What Research Tells Us About Washington State... 6 Study Questions and an Approach to Answering Them... 8 Part Two: Results of the Analysis...11 Question 1: Teacher Retention and Mobility Across the State...11 Question 2: Retention and Mobility Across and Within Districts...13 Comparing Teacher Retention in Different Districts...14 Comparing Retention Among Schools Within the District...16 Question 3: Retention and Teachers Experience, Age, and Ethnicity...18 Retention of Teachers by Years of Teaching Experience...19 A Closer Look at the Retention of Novice Teachers...21 Teachers Age in Relation to Staying and Leaving...22 Retention and Teachers of Color...27 Question 4: Retention and School Characteristics, and its Relation to Student Performance...28 Question 5: Retention of School Principals...36 Conclusions: What Leaders and Policymakers Can Learn From These Analyses...40 Dispelling Myths About Retention and Mobility in the State...40 Themes That Emerge From the Analysis...41 Messages for State and Local Policymakers...42 What These Analyses Cannot Explain...43 Bibliography...45 Appendix A: Technical Notes...48 Appendix B: District Data Tables...51

4 LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS Tables Table 1: Twenty-District Sample with Selected Characteristics...9 Table 2: District Retention...15 Table 3: Percent Teachers Retained at the Same School, by District and School Level...17 Table 4: District Retention by Teacher Experience...20 Table 5: Novice Teacher Retention...23 Table 6: District Retention by Exiters and Age...26 Table 7: Teacher Retention by Ethnicity in Selected Districts...28 Table 8: All Schools Poverty, Retention and Student Performance...29 Table 9: Correlations with Teacher Retention by District...30 Table 10: Correlations with Teacher Retention by School Level...32 Table 11: Factors Associated with Differences in Teacher Retention: Results for the Three Largest Districts...33 Table 12: Factors Associated with Differences in Teacher Retention: Results for Four Districts...34 Table 13: District Principal Retention...38 Charts Chart A: Statewide Teacher Retention and Mobility After Five Years...12 Chart B: Retention of Teachers in Same School by Experience...21 Chart C: Statewide Percent of Teachers by Age Group in Chart D: Statewide Exiters and Age: Percent of Teacher Exiters After 5 Years...25

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines teacher retention and mobility in Washington s teaching force at state, district, and school levels during a recent five-year period ( and ). First, we provide data about overall retention patterns across the state. We then turn our attention to a more intensive look at 20 districts. The 20 districts selected represent the range of district size, poverty level and regions of the state, and include many of the largest districts. The 20 districts represent nearly 30 percent of the state s teaching force (14,286 classroom teachers) and over a quarter of the state s students (276,641 students). For these 20 districts, we present a school-by-school examination of teacher mobility, comparing patterns among districts and also looking inside districts. We examine retention and mobility in relation to student demographics, measures of student learning in reading and mathematics, and other school and district characteristics. Our analyses also focus on issues related to the retention of novice teachers, teachers of color, and school principals. Specifically, this report answers the following five questions: 1. What percentage of Washington teachers stay in the same school, move to another school or district, or leave the Washington education system after five years? 2. How do districts differ in the number of teachers who stay at the same school, move within the district or to another district, or exit the system over a five-year period? To what extent do schools within the same district have similar retention rates? 3. Do teachers of varying experience levels, ages or ethnicity stay, move or leave the system at different rates? 4. How is teacher retention or mobility related to student poverty, race or performance on state assessments? 5. What are the retention and mobility patterns for school principals? Are there differences in retention between elementary, middle school and high school principals? Statewide Patterns of Teacher Retention When examining data for all teachers in Washington state in , we find that five years later...58 percent remained as classroom teachers at the same school percent moved to another school in the same district....9 percent moved to work in another school district percent left the Washington education system. iii

6 These statewide statistics show that the actual drain on the teacher workforce is considerably less than is often believed, and that the picture in Washington state is not necessarily the same in comparison with other states, or the national profile. In short, the findings dispel some important myths about the state s teaching workforce: Myth 1: Half of Washington s teachers leave the profession within the first five years. Not so, the actual figure is closer to a quarter of the teacher workforce. Myth 2: Washington districts are losing many teachers to other districts. Teacher mobility inside a district is greater than movement to other districts. Across a five-year period, less than 10 percent of a district s workforce, on average, has gone to another district. Myth 3: Washington is losing a disproportionate number of teachers from the workforce. Once again, this appears not to be the case. One-fifth of all teachers left the Washington system after five years. Easily half of the leavers are retirees, and some of the others may have left only temporarily (e.g., to raise a family). These overall patterns offer helpful reference points for understanding retention and mobility of the state s teachers, but they stop short of telling the more detailed story of retention and mobility that can only emerge from a closer look inside districts. Retention and Mobility Across and Within Districts A school-by-school examination inside 20 districts reveals sizeable differences with respect to the rates at which teachers are retained in the same school or somewhere within district boundaries. Districts differ in the extent to which their teachers stay at the same school after five years. The percentage of teachers who stayed at the same school within their district varied considerably by district (40 to 78 percent retained at the same school). The same variation is true of the districts ability to retain teachers within district boundaries. One district kept barely half (54 percent) of its teacher workforce after five years, while another retained 83 percent. Generally speaking, teachers move more often between schools within the same district than between districts. Retention rates at individual schools varied by as much as 83 percent within the same district. Overall, less than 10 percent of teachers move from one district to another in the state. The largest urban districts have the lowest rates of movement outside the district. Contrary to some common perceptions, the three largest districts in the state (Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane) have iv

7 among the lowest rates of teacher mobility (5, 4 and 3 percent, respectively) from one district to another in Washington state. The larger the district, the greater the amount of movement from one school to another within the district. In part reflecting the larger number of schools to which teachers might transfer or be reassigned, the larger districts in our sample typically witnessed twice or more the amount of teacher movement between schools compared to smaller districts. Despite these differences, the general pattern of retention and mobility found statewide holds true for districts. With few exceptions, the greatest percentage of teachers remain at their school, a smaller percentage leave the system, an even smaller percentage move within the district, and finally the smallest percentage switch districts. Retention and Teachersʼ Experience, Age and Ethnicity The characteristics of the teachers themselves in particular, their level of experience, age and ethnicity make a difference in whether the teachers stay, move or leave the profession. The most and least experienced teachers have lower retention rates in the same school after five years than their colleagues in the middle range of experience. The largest districts in the state do not have a disproportionate number of inexperienced teachers in their workforce, contrary to popular perceptions. For example, in Seattle, Tacoma, Lake Washington, Evergreen and Spokane, about 20 percent of the teacher workforce had four or fewer years of experience in , a figure not far from the state average. Some districts, especially the larger ones, witness greater movement among novice teachers than other districts. For some districts, retention of novice teachers in the same school was less than 40 percent, while in others two-thirds or more of the novices stayed in place. Nearly half of all teachers who leave the Washington system are probably leaving due to retirement. Overall, teachers of color are retained at the same school after five years at approximately the same rates as White teachers, with the exception of African American teachers whose retention rates are slightly lower. To be sure, few districts in our sample have substantial numbers of teachers of color. Among the nearly 14,300 teachers in our sample, approximately 90 percent are White. In some districts, the retention of teachers of color exceeded retention rates for White teachers. v

8 Teacher Retention in Relation to School Characteristics and Performance At first glance, teacher retention may not appear to be closely linked to characteristics of the school or student performance. This is what one finds when considering all 421 schools in the 20 districts, irrespective of the district in which each school is located. While poverty, race, and student performance are all strongly correlated across these schools as they are nationwide teacher retention appears uncorrelated at first sight. However, when examining the relation among these factors one district at a time (and in districts with enough schools to make such correlations meaningful 1 ), a different story emerges. In seven large districts, teacher retention, the school s student characteristics, and measures of student learning are related to one another. Most noticeably in these districts, Teacher retention is related to the composition of the school s student population in particular to the poverty level and racial make-up of students. Schools serving a greater number of students in poverty retain fewer of their teachers after five years. Schools with a greater percentage of White students tend to retain a greater percentage of their teachers at the same school after five years. Schools serving a larger proportion of African- American students retain fewer of their teachers across the same period. In a mutually reinforcing pattern, school poverty, retention and school performance are linked to one another. Poverty rates are strongly associated with student performance. In some districts, higher performance (on measures of mathematics and reading) is associated with both lower poverty and higher retention rates of both experienced and novice teachers. Even though the overall pattern between retention and poverty is generally similar in most of the seven largest districts in our sample, the strength of the relationship varies across the districts. The link between poverty, teacher retention and student performance is not largely or uniquely an urban phenomenon. We found evidence of this relationship in large suburban districts as well. Retention of School Principals The study also took an initial look at the retention of school principals and its possible relation to the retention of teachers. Our analyses reveal that over the five-year period, School principals are more likely to move than teachers, though they typically do so within their own districts. Of all schools in 1 This type of analysis is best conducted in larger districts, where there are more schools. We selected the seven largest districts in our sample for this analysis (see Part Two of the report for details). vi

9 the sample, only 36 percent had the same principal for each year over the five-year period. Approximately two-thirds of principals stayed within district boundaries, as compared to three-quarters of teachers. Retention rates for principals at elementary, middle and high schools are similar in most cases. However, in Tacoma and Spokane, high school principals are retained at higher levels than in other districts. Principal stability in schools has some bearing on teacher retention. To some extent, the more principals a school had over the fiveyear period, the lower the retention of teachers. What Leaders and Policymakers Can Learn From This Analysis For state policymakers, the pattern of overall stability in the state s teaching force should underscore the importance of supporting currently employed teachers. In particular, this means that state leaders should: Recognize that recruitment efforts should be targeted in specific ways. Statewide attention is still needed in shortage areas (e.g., math, special education and bilingual education) and with respect to recruiting teachers of color. However, generic approaches to enhance the overall supply of teachers are likely to be less productive. Enhance support mechanisms for those now in the classroom. The majority of teachers are retained within the state, especially teachers in the mid-career years. Given this relative stability, efforts to provide effective and needed professional development and other types of support for teachers work are likely to have a lasting impact. Focus more attention on teachers in their early years of teaching. The frequent movement of novice teachers suggests that more may be at work than a natural process of settling into a new profession. Greater attention to mentoring and induction support would be an investment well worth consideration. For district leaders, the pattern of retention and mobility is more immediate and likely to be a unique reflection of local or regional conditions, school-level dynamics, and district policies. At the district level, the challenge is to analyze where the district s schools are succeeding at retaining teachers and where they are not, how these retention patterns map on to the relative poverty level of student populations within the district, and what the consequences are for student performance. In particular, district leaders can: Commit to understanding the specific longitudinal picture of teacher retention and mobility for all schools within the district. This vii

10 picture should consider school characteristics (e.g., poverty level, student ethnicity and language background), teacher characteristics (e.g., experience, age, ethnicity), and school performance in relation to retention patterns. Adopt a data-based approach to examining district policies, practices and working conditions that influence teacher retention at the school level. Data about teacher retention should be incorporated into decision-making regarding district policies such as teacher assignment, transfer and overall staffing. Schools with chronic turnover should be a focus of concern at the district level. Implement strategies for enhancing teacher support at the school level. Data about retention and mobility can help prompt questions about school-level working conditions and the effectiveness of school improvement strategies. School-by-school retention information might prompt earlier intervention at the district level in cases where retention statistics are signaling causes for concern. In short, this analysis argues that the full retention story can only be understood within particular districts, and that district leaders are in an especially good position to think through the meaning and implications of the unique retention and mobility patterns in their own district. Longitudinal retention and mobility data offer a systematic baseline for district planning, and a prompt for more careful consideration of what might be going on to promote or inhibit healthy continuity and supportive working environments in each school. Finally, for both state and district leaders, the findings underscore the usefulness of developing appropriate, feasible, and useful analytic tools and methods for conducting accurate retention and mobility analyses. Data-based analyses of teacher retention and mobility can help sharpen the questions that state and district policymakers need to address as they consider ways to improve the equity of access to a high quality education for all of Washington s school children. viii

11 PART ONE: FOCUSING ON TEACHER RETENTION IN WASHINGTON STATE Classroom teachers are vital to the work of any school or educational organization. Recruiting qualified teachers to fill classroom positions, supporting their work, and retaining them is essential for uninterrupted student learning and for schools to operate effectively. In recent years, questions of teacher retention and turnover have sparked considerable debate in policy circles. However, little research exists nationwide on the extent to which teachers move from one school or district to another or exit the profession, or the factors that may influence this (e.g., teacher experience, age, ethnicity, school and district characteristics, etc.). Teacher attrition and turnover has important policy implications, but is it as pervasive and widespread a problem as some commonly-held perceptions might suggest? Teacher turnover consists both of mobility and attrition not just the loss of individuals from the profession, but also their movement between schools and districts. However, teacher turnover is not necessarily a negative phenomenon. As in most organizations, some level of employee attrition is normal and appropriate. Not only does it remove those for whom teaching may not be a good job fit and allow for retirement, but it also serves to prevent stagnation through the introduction of new ideas and energy into an organization. Gross measures of teacher attrition, however, do not provide an adequate portrait of state or district affairs, nor enough information to form appropriate policy strategies. Only recently has the study of teacher retention embraced a more comprehensive understanding of mobility. Three major categories define the movement and attrition of the teaching force: Stayers: Those who stay in the same school Movers: Those who move to other schools in the same district, or to other districts, or to private schools Leavers: Those who exit the teaching profession, either temporarily or permanently Earlier statistics on teacher mobility included only the stayers and leavers. By accounting for the movers a more detailed understanding of teacher turnover can be achieved. To date, the matter has been investigated primarily through large-scale national studies that shed light on the nature of teacher retention and mobility, and the possible reasons why teachers stay or move. As yet, there has been no systematic examination of retention in Washington state. In the first section of the report, we outline and provide background for this study, identify five broad questions which can be answered using existing state data sources, and describe the framework and approach used to address these questions. 1

12 INTRODUCTION Purpose and Framework for Analysis The main purpose of this research is to examine teacher retention and mobility patterns in Washington state and explore how they vary across districts, and across schools within districts. In this report, we take a closer look at the teachers in 20 districts over a recent five-year period and provide illustrative cases of the characteristics and movement of teachers and the nature of schools within these districts. The 20 districts selected represent the range of district size, poverty level, and regional location. These districts include many of the largest districts in the state, and hence a large percentage (over a quarter) of the state s school children and nearly a third of the teachers. In this analysis, student demographics, measures of student learning, and other school and district characteristics are included as additional factors which may be related to the retention and mobility of teachers. These analyses rest on the premise that it is crucial to understand how well schools in Washington state, as elsewhere in the nation, are able to retain their teachers and factors that may account for this. Until now we had no way of knowing the extent, distribution, or consequences of the retention problem in Washington state. National survey data provide some clues regarding overall rates of teacher turnover and hints at where the variations in turnover may lie. A recent analysis of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) suggest a 13.2 percent annual teacher turnover in schools nationwide (Ingersoll, 2001a, 2001b). This statistic includes those who transfer to other schools and those who leave the profession. Furthermore, some indicators suggest that retention rates tend to vary more between schools within districts than between districts and states. This finding implies that certain school characteristics (such as school working conditions, the socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity of students) may motivate teachers to leave their jobs more often than the commonly-perceived reasons of retirement and child-rearing (Ingersoll, 2001b). Despite its analytic power, however, SASS data cannot answer questions about within-district teacher mobility. 2 And, as a national sample not designed to represent statistically each individual state, it cannot tell us with any certainty about the situation in Washington state and whether it might differ from other states or from overall national trends. 2 While national studies using SASS data are instructive, they are not wholly comparable to the work presented in this report for several reasons. First, they are based on survey data from a representative sample of schools across the United States during four collection cycles (years , , and ). Teacher turnover in the various studies is defined in specific ways. For example, Ingersoll (2001b) defines teacher turnover as not teaching in the same school as last year (p. 510), though the teacher could be teaching in the same district. 2

13 Accordingly, there is a need for Washington state-specific analyses at both district and school levels that are based on actual numbers of teachers who move from one district or school to another over a period of time. In this study, we concentrate primarily on teacher mobility at the school level, where teacher departures have the greatest potential for disrupting the learning opportunities for students, and where there may be some potential for reducing this disruption. As schools constitute organizations that are highly dependent on the coherence, commitment, and continuity of their staff to produce positive student outcomes, a high degree of teacher turnover can be a serious and cost-intensive problem (Ingersoll, 2003; National Commission on Teaching and America s Future, 2003). From a policy perspective, schools and districts are not simply at the mercy of a regional job market or demographic trends. Other matters, like school characteristics and conditions, may also contribute to teacher dissatisfaction and departure, as can differences in regional cost of living and teacher salary levels. 3 Framework for This Study This research is part of a larger body of work examining the quality of teachers and teaching in Washington state. Often referred to as a matter of teacher quality, the issue actually concerns three distinct yet interrelated things: the quality of teaching, the quality of the teaching force, and the quality of support for teachers work (Plecki et al., 2003). The quality of teaching refers to the instructional delivery and pedagogical strategies which support student learning. The quality of the teaching force involves the personal characteristics and qualifications of teachers that contribute to their effectiveness in the classroom. The quality of support for teachers work denotes workplace conditions conducive to student and teacher learning over time and in which teachers are provided opportunities for continued professional development. The issues of teacher retention and equitable distribution lie at the intersection of these three factors. In order to understand teachers work and what results from it, we need a clear picture of who is being taught and how teaching talent is distributed among students. The distribution of teaching talent, and indeed the capabilities of all teachers working with students of color or from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, also may be an important part of the story. Examining the retention and mobility of the Washington teacher workforce lies squarely within the agenda of the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP). The Center has sponsored this analysis, along with other Washington specific analyses of the state s teachers using database and survey work (Center 3 However, in Washington, the state salary allocation schedule makes movement between districts on the basis of compensation alone a less prominent factor than exists in other states with greater district salary differentials. 3

14 for Strengthening the Teaching Profession, 2003; Plecki et al., 2003; Knapp, Elfers & Plecki, 2004). The Center describes itself as follows: an independent, non-profit organization intent on helping Washington state s students achieve by ensuring they have the teachers they need CSTP will take these steps to accomplish its mission: examine the conditions of teaching in Washington state; engage educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public in improving teaching; amplify the voice of experienced teachers to shape state policies. (CSTP website, February 2005) In the past two years, the Center has supported analyses that determined the characteristics and distribution of the state s teachers, as well as an initial examination of the retention of novice teachers. Three subsequent surveys of a stratified random sample of the state s classroom teachers shed light on their assignment and certification, the working conditions in their schools, and their access to and use of professional development opportunities. From these analyses, it was clear that a more specific picture of the continuity or change in the teaching force in individual schools, as well as in districts, would greatly inform questions about the quality of teaching and learning in the state. This report seeks to address some of those concerns. WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW AND NEED TO KNOW ABOUT TEACHER RETENTION Certain aspects of teacher retention and mobility have been studied nationally and, to a limited extent, in Washington state. From these sources we can construct an initial understanding of likely dynamics in Washington, and at the same time, identify important but unanswered questions about the state s teacher workforce. What National Research Tells Us Studies done in other states and with national data sources provide a helpful backdrop for our work. Not only do they establish aggregate rates of teacher retention and turnover (Luekens, Lyter, & Fox, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001a), but also help to pinpoint possible explanations for teachers staying, moving, or leaving the profession. Many of these are personal reasons the desire for career change, departure due to job dissatisfaction, family pressures but many organizational conditions are potentially part of the story. According to a series of national studies, 4

15 lack of collegial and administrative support, student misbehavior and disinterest, insufficient salary, lack of teacher autonomy, unreasonable teaching assignment, lack of professional development opportunities, inadequate allocation of time, and large class size all contribute to the departure of teachers (Berry, 2004; Ingersoll, 2003; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Kelly, 2004; Luekens, Lyter, & Fox, 2004; Theobald & Laine, 2003; Watlington et al., 2004). These studies also help us to know what kinds of teachers are likely to stay or leave, and whether basic demographic facts about a school might account for teachers decisions. In this regard, several reports point to differential leaving by teachers who might be highly desirable to retain. For example, in one study, leavers are most often highly regarded as effective classroom teachers, and score higher on tests such as the SAT and ACT (Theobald & Laine, 2003). In addition, the retention of teachers of color may be a concern, as indicated in one large national analysis and a study of four large districts of South Florida (NCES, 2003; Watlington et al., 2004). The study of Florida s four districts found that with the exception of one district, the retention rate of Black teachers was lower than for Hispanic or White teachers, yet Hispanic teachers stayed at higher rates than White teaching staff. Class or school size, on the other hand, either hardly influence attrition rates or have an inverse relationship to the rate of departure with larger schools being less prone to teachers leaving (Ingersoll, 2003). Socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged school environments can also both contribute to higher attrition rates, while overall poor behavioral school climates are often indicative of a high rate of teacher turnover (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Kelly, 2004). Of specific concern are the effects of governmental policies on teacher retention and mobility in particular, the implementation of standards and accountability measures. The policy mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), for example, while placing teaching quality on the educational reform agenda, may affect the desire of teachers to stay on the job, due to the pressure of external control and what may be perceived as punitive sanctions (see, for example, Berry, 2004, and Cohen-Vogel & Harrington, 2005). A number of studies suggest these burdens are likely to be felt most strongly in high-minority, low-income schools that employ insufficient credentialing practices for new teachers (Achinstein, Ogawa, & Speiglman, 2004; Berry, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Malen & Rice, 2004; Smith & Rowley, 2005). In such hard to staff schools, factors such as teacher s pay, working conditions, teacher education and recruitment, induction support for novice teachers, and high quality alternative credentialing programs (e.g., UCLA s Center X, Colorado State University s Project Promise, and Chicago s Academy for Urban School Leadership) may be especially important for keeping teachers (Berry, 2004). Here and in other settings, policymakers have focused growing attention on ways to support novice teachers. Given the generally higher rates of turnover 5

16 among the first five years of teaching, research has explored how induction and mentoring programs may reduce novice teacher attrition. Researchers found that the participation in a combination of mentoring and group induction programs could reduce beginning teacher turnover (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), though the qualitative distinctions among these programs and their relative cost-effectiveness are not always clear (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Noting how accountability measures exert external control on teachers commitment to teaching, Smith and Rowley (2005) have documented various school-level responses that might enhance teachers commitment to their school and the profession among them, teachers participation in classroom- and schoolbased decision-making, participation in professional development activities, a collaborative work environment, and administrative support. In particular, these researchers found that commitment to their school and profession, together with participation in professional development activities, lowered the turnover rate of the teachers they examined. What Research Tells Us About Washington State To make informed decisions about issues of teaching quality, state and local policymakers need good information. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the state is compelled to provide some evidence of a highly qualified teaching workforce, and assurances that this workforce serves all children equally well. But beyond that, the spirit of the state s own standards-based reform of the last decade argues for understanding what it will take to help all students meet standard. A relatively stable teacher workforce, in which teaching talent is equitably distributed and supported, is a first step towards that goal. Recent studies have attempted to shed light on Washington s teacher workforce in different ways, though mostly in terms of supply and demand for teachers overall, or in particular subject areas. One study of educator supply and demand in Washington state (Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2002) confirms anecdotal reports regarding shortages in particular subject matter areas such as special education, mathematics and physics. Another developed specific implementation strategies to strengthen mathematics teaching in Washington through recommended changes in credentialing and preparation programs (Professional Educator Standards Board, 2004). One study examined chronic teacher turnover in one urban Washington district (Guin, 2004). This research offers a glimpse of the patterns of teacher turnover in selected schools within the district, and provides an example of the need for statewide and district-specific baseline data on issues of teacher retention and mobility. Prior CSTP-commissioned research has yielded a general portrait of the state s teaching force, including overall indicators of supply and demand, as well as the 6

17 retention of first-year teachers statewide (Plecki et al., 2003). Findings from this report suggest that the available teacher workforce statewide is sufficient to fill most positions, though the state may experience shortages in certain subject areas and in particular regions of the state. Statewide student enrollment is projected to continue to grow through 2012, but at a much slower rate than the previous decade. While the number of teachers eligible to retire in the near future is expected to increase, there is also a sizeable group of experienced educators to take their place in subsequent years. However, the ethnic profile of the state s workforce is not particularly well-matched with the student population. As the student population has grown ever more diverse racially and ethnically, the rate of growth of teachers of color has been much slower. This initial report also contained a statewide analysis that suggested relatively few novice teachers leave the system: approximately 72 percent of beginning teachers in 1996 were still in the Washington education system five years later. Looking at the aggregate state data, however, begs various questions concerning retention at school and district levels. A preliminary analysis at the district-level data revealed that districts do vary considerably in the extent to which their teachers move among schools, leave for other districts or private schools, or exit the Washington education system. We have learned other things about retention of the state s teachers from a fast response survey system built by the CSTP-commissioned research team. Survey instruments, designed to complement and build upon the earlier database analyses, were deployed to a standing sample of 400 classroom teachers in Washington during the school year (Knapp et al., 2004). The stratified random sample, carefully constructed to include the full range of individuals in classroom teaching positions, gave teachers opportunities to express their views on various aspects of their working conditions, including what motivates them to stay in their school and in the profession. The surveys provided confirming evidence of the relative stability of Washington s teacher workforce from the teachers point of view, while underscoring conditions that either reinforced their desire to stay in teaching or caused them to doubt that choice. For example, most teachers report being satisfied with their choice of profession and plan to remain in teaching, while pointing to several aspects of their collegial environment (supportive colleagues, collaborative work environment, support from an administrator) as the most important reasons for staying at their current schools. A majority (60 percent) of teachers in the state, however, have considered leaving the profession at some point in their career. For them, a variety of pressures make teaching an unattractive professional choice, especially, overall workload, frustration with state education reform policies, class size, and lack of time to do my job well (Knapp et al., 2004). 7

18 Study Questions and an Approach to Answering Them While these information sources offer insight into the nature and overall stability of the Washington teacher workforce, they leave unanswered important questions about the state system as a whole, and about differences among districts, schools and teachers themselves. In this report we answer the following questions: 1. What percentage of Washington teachers stay in the same school, move to another school or district, or leave the Washington education system after five years? 2. How do districts differ in the number of teachers who stay at the same school, move within the district or to another district, or exit the system over a five-year period? To what extent do schools within the same district have similar retention rates? 3. Do teachers of varying experience levels, ages, or ethnicity stay, move or leave the system at different rates? 4. How is teacher retention or mobility related to student poverty, race or performance on state assessments? 5. What are the retention and mobility patterns for school principals? Are there differences in retention between elementary, middle school and high school principals? A first place to look for answers to these questions is existing state databases, and it is here that we begin. An enhanced version of the state s personnel database offers a number of possibilities for deepening our understanding of the teacher workforce (see Appendix A). This data provides an opportunity to examine both district and school-level influences and can help inform the design and implementation of state and district policies aimed at improving retention rates in locations where turnover is greatest. The data in this study also provides a baseline of information from which to examine other questions related to the equity of distribution of teacher quality across a variety of schools and districts. Both to further refine the database and tools, as well as to demonstrate what comparative analysis between and within districts could yield, this study has concentrated on a stratified sample of 20 districts in the state, which represent a range of factors that might influence the composition of the teaching workforce namely, poverty rate, enrollment size and region of the state. These sample districts, along with enrollments, regional location, and poverty levels appear in Table 1. 8

19 Table 1: Twenty-District Sample with Selected Characteristics Districts Student Enrollment ( ) Educational Service District Two Largest Districts in WA Seattle 47, Tacoma 33, Districts with Enrollment between 1,000-32,000 Districts with 0-20% Student Poverty Lake Washington 24, Bellevue 15, Olympia 8, Hockinson 1, Districts with 21-30% Student Poverty Edmonds 21, South Kitsap 11, Richland 9, Naches Valley 1, Districts with 31-43% Student Poverty Evergreen (Clark) 23, Bellingham 10, Oak Harbor 6, Ephrata 2, Districts with 44%+ Student Poverty Spokane 31, Yakima 14, Walla Walla 6, Aberdeen 4, Districts with Enrollment less than 1,000 Oroville Winlock While not statistically representative of the state s districts 4 this strategic sample provides a representation of districts and schools in various parts of the state, serving students with widely varying educational needs and circumstances. The sample includes districts serving nearly 30 percent of the state s teaching force (14, 286 classroom teachers) and over a quarter of the state s students (276,641 students). The following working definitions were used in analyzing the data: Teachers were defined as those public school teachers whose assignment is the instruction of pupils in a classroom situation and who have a designation as elementary teacher, secondary teacher, or other classroom teacher. Other teachers serving in 4 A statistically representative sample of the state s districts would result in a sample comprised primarily of districts under 1,000 students (half of the districts in the state), rendering the sample less useful for this set of analyses. 9

20 specialist roles (e.g., reading resource specialist, library media specialist) were not included in these analyses (see Appendix A for more details). Schools were categorized according to grade level served. Elementary schools included schools with any of the grades K 6 and none of grades Middle schools included schools serving primarily any of grades 6 9. High schools included any of grades 9 12 and none of grades K 8. Combined schools included those schools with one or more of grades K 6 and one or more of grades 9 12 (see Appendix A for more details). This retention analysis tracked the assignment of teachers at two points in time, and , noting which teachers were still employed somewhere in the system at the later time and which had exited the system. Four categories appear in the analyses: Stayers teachers assigned to the same school(s) in and in Movers in teachers who moved to other schools in the same district, or changed assignment (other than a classroom teacher) within the same district Movers out teachers who moved to other districts or to private schools, either as a classroom teacher or in some other role Leavers teachers who exited the Washington education system, either temporarily or permanently 5 5 Leavers may have retired, re-entered the system in subsequent years, left Washington to teach in another state or completely left the profession (see the next section for more detail). 10

21 PART TWO: RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS In each subsequent section of this report, we highlight and address a different key question related to teacher retention and mobility in Washington state. We begin with a look at statewide patterns and trends. Question 1: Teacher Retention and Mobility Across the State What percentage of Washington teachers stay in the same school, move to another school or district, or leave the Washington education system after five years? Though our focus in this analysis is on teacher retention within schools and districts, it is helpful to briefly summarize statewide retention patterns, so that the results from the 20-district sample can be put into perspective. Accordingly, we conducted a statewide analysis as a basis for comparing and contrasting results from the 20-district sample. Statewide statistics also provide a means for comparing the overall conditions in Washington state with portrayals of conditions nationally and in other states. The statewide data includes 51,996 individuals who served as classroom teachers in Washington in and represents 49,573 full-time equivalent staff. The primary results of this analysis can be summarized as follows: A majority of the state s teachers stay in the same school after five years and nearly three quarters are still classroom teachers in the same districts. Only a fifth leave the Washington education system altogether after a five-year period, and of these many are retirements, putting to rest a common perception that Washington is losing a disproportionate number of teachers from the workforce. On average, districts are not losing many teachers to other districts. The basis for these claims is presented in more detail below. The overall patterns of staying, moving and leaving present an image of relative stability in the aggregate. Considering all classroom teachers in , five years later, it is clear that a majority stay as teachers in the same school and nearly three-quarters are still classroom teachers in the same district. The actual figures are summarized in Chart A. 11

22 Chart A: Statewide Teacher Retention and Mobility After Five Years (1998 and 2002) 58.2% Stayers in same school 58% 13.9% Movers in district 14% 8.6% Movers Leavers out of from district the 9% 20.2% Leavers WA from education the WA education system 20% system 20% Movers out of district 9% Stayers in same school 58% Stayers in same school 58% Movers in district 14% Movers in district 14% Movers out of district 9% Leavers from the WA education system 20% Note: Totals add to more than 100% due to rounding. Several other facts about the state s teacher workforce become clear from examining the chart. The actual drain on the teacher workforce is considerably less than is often believed. Only a fifth leave the Washington education system altogether across a five-year period, and of these many are retirements. These results confirm preliminary findings established in our earlier work on the teacher workforce (Plecki et al., 2003). Generally speaking, districts are not losing many teachers to other districts. On average, less than 10 percent (8.6) of teachers moved to another district. Among the teachers who moved from their original assignment, more either left the Washington system (20.2 percent) or moved to another assignment within their current district (13.9 percent) than left for employment with another school district in Washington. Given current data limitations, it is not possible to track those who leave the Washington education system to their next occupational destination. However, we can reasonably assume that the likely reasons for leaving include: Retirement Employment in education outside Washington state Employment outside education, here or elsewhere Departure from the workforce (often temporarily) due to childrearing or other personal reasons 12

23 Though a database cannot offer a full account of the reasons for leaving teaching, one can get some clues from the available data. The extent to which retirement is a likely reason for leaving the system can be estimated by analyzing the age distribution of the 10,721 teachers from who did not appear in the Washington database in the school year (see Chart B in a later section). Of these teachers, 41 percent were age 56 or above in , and an additional 15.4 percent were in the range of years old. Based on this data, we can estimate that retirement was a likely reason for the departure of a sizable portion of those of who left the system probably close to half of the leavers. It is also possible that some of those who were not in the database had only temporarily left the system and may have re-entered in a subsequent year. A discussion of the age composition of the workforce in the 20 districts appears later in this report. The overall patterns of teacher movement stop short of telling the more detailed story of retention and mobility at the district and school levels. By disaggregating the data at school and district levels, patterns of high and low retention can be identified, as well as the relationship between retention and school performance, and inequities that may not be so visible at the state level. In the next sections we attempt to systematically present what we know about teacher retention at the district- and school-levels in light of key factors such as district size, school and student characteristics, student performance, and teacher characteristics (experience, age and ethnicity). The story of teacher retention takes place on multiple dimensions and consequently we provide information that addresses issues at different levels in the educational system (state, district and school). Question 2: Retention and Mobility Across and Within Districts How do districts differ in the number of teachers who stay at the same school, move within the district or to another district, or exit the system over a fiveyear period? To what extent do schools within the same district have similar retention rates? In order to address this question and subsequent questions in this study, we turn to our analysis of the 20 districts in the sample. By analyzing district- and schoollevel data from this sample, we find that after five years: Districts differ in the extent to which their teachers stay at the same school after five years. The percentage of teachers who stayed at the same school within their district varied considerably by district (40 to 78 percent retained at the same school). The same variation is true of the districts ability to retain teachers within district boundaries. One district kept 13