Teacher Retention and Turnover
Teacher Retention and Turnover Dashboard PDF
Donley, J. & States, J. (2019). Teacher Retention and Turnover Dash Board. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/staff-retention-turnover.
As research has reliably demonstrated, classroom teachers exert the strongest influence on the educational outcomes of students (Coleman et al., 1966; Hanushek & Rivken, 2006); these include both short- and long-term academic outcomes (Chetty, Freidman, & Rockoff, 2014; Lee, 2018) as well as noncognitive outcomes such as motivation and self-efficacy (Jackson, 2018). Teachers become more effective as they accumulate years of teaching experience (Kini & Podolsky, 2016); when teachers leave a school, they take along their knowledge and expertise in instructional strategies, collaborative relationships with colleagues, professional development training, and understanding of students’ learning needs at the school, all of which harm student learning and school operations and climate (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013; Simon & Johnson, 2015). (For a complete analysis see Teacher Turnover Analysis Overview and Retention Strategies)
Summary and Conclusions
Teacher turnover has been a persistent challenge; while the national rate has hovered at 16% in recent decades, more teachers are leaving the profession, contributing to teacher shortages in hard-to-staff subjects and schools. The failure to retain teachers has a generally negative impact on students and schools. Problems with teacher turnover contribute significantly to teacher shortages and result in the inequitable distribution of effective and qualified teachers across schools. Economically disadvantaged schools suffer high levels of turnover and are forced to hire larger numbers of alternatively certified teachers, who are more likely to turn over. While value-added research suggests that less effective teachers are more likely to depart schools (thus benefiting workforce quality), other research using teacher licensure scores as a proxy for teacher quality suggests that more effective teachers with more experience are more likely to turn over (thus lowering workforce quality).
Teacher turnover is also detrimental to student achievement and the adverse consequences may extend even to students of teachers who remain in schools. The impact of turnover may also include disruptions to school operations and teacher collegiality, the loss of institutional knowledge, and reluctance by teachers to engage in teacher leadership activities, all of which can serve as barriers to school improvement. Further, turnover is quite costly in terms of separation and hiring costs, as well as losses to educational productivity when schools lose more experienced teachers to less experienced ones.
Turnover can be positive when it improves the quality of the teacher workforce. Strategic retention of effective teachers combined with the departure of ineffective teachers, has the potential to maximize the benefits of turnover and improve workforce quality. However, hard-to-staff schools may also require incentives to both retain their best teachers and attract effective candidates to fill the slots vacated by less effective teachers.
Mover and Leavers
Figure 1. Percentage of public school teacher movers and leavers, 1988–1989 through 2012–2013
Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics report “Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2012–13 Teacher Follow-up Survey” (Goldring, Taie, & Riddles, 2014).
Reasons Why Teachers Leave
Figure 2. Sources of teacher turnover, 2011–2012 to 2012–2013
Adapted from Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019). Note: percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.
While the percentage of movers has remained fairly consistent across 25 years of the study, the percentage of leavers increased substantially from 1991–1992 and peaked in 2004–2005, suggesting increasing problems with attrition during that time period. In fact, an additional analysis of the sources of turnover from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 found that voluntary preretirement turnover (including movers and leavers) represented two thirds of the turnover rate during these years (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019), as shown in Figure 2.
Types of Schools Where Teachers Move
Figure 3. Percentage of public school teachers who moved to a different school by school level and destination, 2011–2012 to 2012–2013
Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Digest Report (2017).
Research shows that the movement of teachers out of schools differs by school level and type of school, and is not equally distributed across states, regions, and districts (Ingersoll et al., 2018). Recent national data from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 show that 8.9% of elementary teachers moved to a different school compared with 7.2% of secondary teachers, but secondary teachers were more likely to leave teaching (8.3%) than elementary teachers (7.1%) (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Figure 3 depicts the destination of teachers who moved to a different school. Elementary teachers were much more likely to move within-district than outside of the district, while approximately equal rates were seen for secondary teachers. Few elementary or secondary teachers transferred to a private school. While private schools may have advantages such as better working conditions (e.g., smaller class sizes) (Orlin, 2013), they may be less likely to attract public school teachers due to lower salaries and lack of compensation for years of service in teacher retirement systems.
Figure 4. Turnover rates at charter schools and traditional public schools, 2004–2005 to 2012–2013 
Adapted from Goldring et al., 2014; Stuit and Smith (2012).
While these trends are encouraging, there is a great degree of variability in turnover in charter schools across various regions and states. For example, Newton and colleagues (2018) found significantly higher turnover rates in Los Angeles charter schools than in traditional public schools, even when controlling for student, teacher, and school characteristics. Specifically, elementary charter school teachers had approximately 35% higher odds of leaving and secondary charter school teachers were close to 4 times more likely to exit their schools than their counterparts in traditional public schools. Naslund and Ponomariov (2019) found that Texas charter school teachers turn over at twice the rate as traditional public school teachers (36.7% versus 18.2%).
Figure 5. Percentage of public school teacher movers and leavers by teacher ethnicity, 2012–2013 
Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics report “Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2012–13 Teacher Follow-up Survey” (Goldring, Taie, & Riddles, 2014). Data are not included for teachers of other ethnicities due to reporting standards not being met because of unacceptably high standard errors.
Studies by Ingersoll and colleagues (2017) and Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019) also found larger gaps between teachers of color and White teacher movers than leavers, and the data in both studies suggested that the difficult working conditions in many hard-to-staff schools were responsible for the higher rates of minority teacher turnover. Minority teacher turnover in these schools may be particularly problematic given research that suggests positive academic and behavioral benefits for minority students assigned to teachers of the same ethnicity (Redding, 2019).
Figure 6. Teacher turnover by type of school and teacher certification, 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 
Adapted from Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019)
Alternatively certified teachers are more likely to work in urban schools in disadvantaged communities, where working conditions are often less than optimal (Cohen-Vogle & Smith, 2007), with less preparation and support than for traditionally certified teachers (Redding & Smith, 2016). Combining teaching and coursework for certification likely is overwhelming and contributes to the difficult professional situation for these teachers (Redding & Henry, 2019).
Figure 7. Turnover for math/science and special education teachers, 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 
Adapted from Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond, (2019)
Figure 7 shows that while no significant difference in turnover has been found for special education teachers in Title I versus non-Title I schools, rates are considerably higher in high-minority compared with low-minority schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019). Special education teachers overall have higher average turnover rates than general education teachers, particularly during the early career years (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Vittek, 2015). These teachers are likely to face difficult working conditions, such as excessive paperwork, lack of collaboration with colleagues, lack of appropriate induction/mentoring, and lack of administrative support, all of which increase the likelihood that they will transfer to a general education position or leave teaching entirely (Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008; McLesky, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004; Vittek, 2015).
Teacher-Reported Reasons for Turnover
Understanding the reasons teachers leave may help educators develop solutions to address teacher concerns and reduce turnover.
Figure 8. Factors important in teachers leaving the profession
Adapted from Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond (2017). Figure displays percentages of teachers reporting each factor as important; teachers were able to select more than one reason, so percentages do not total 100.
Figure 9. Factors important in teachers moving to another school
Adapted from Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond (2017). Figure displays percentages of teachers reporting each factor as important; teachers were able to select more than one reason, so percentages do not total 100.
Dissatisfaction was most frequently cited by both movers and leavers as important in their decision to leave. Leavers most frequently cited testing/accountability (25%), problems with administration (21%), and dissatisfaction with teaching as a career (21%) as sources of dissatisfaction; the family/personal reasons they cited included moving to a more conveniently located job, health reasons, and caring for family members. Two thirds of movers reported dissatisfaction as a reason to move, citing concerns with school administration, lack of influence on school decision making, and school conditions such as inadequate facilities and resources (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond’s 2019 research also found that a perceived lack of administrative support and compensation were significantly related to turnover. These findings highlight the importance of working conditions in teacher retention.
Teacher Working Conditions
Working conditions are an important predictor of teacher turnover (e.g., Borman & Dowling, 2008; Goldring et al., 2014; Ingersoll et al., 2018; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012), and offer potentially malleable school conditions that can be shaped by changes to educational policy (Katz, 2018). Research has demonstrated that student demographics are important in teachers’ decisions to remain at their schools and that they most often leave schools containing large numbers of low-income, low-achieving, and minority students (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2006; Hanushek et al., 2004). However, teacher interviews have revealed that dysfunctional school contexts that make it difficult to succeed with these student populations, rather than the students themselves, are responsible for the decision to leave (Allensworth et al, 2009; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Johnson et al., 2012). In fact, several studies have demonstrated that teacher working conditions explain most of the relationship between student demographics and teacher turnover (Allensworth et al., 2009; Ingersoll et al., 2018; Ladd, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2015).
Citations
Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago Public Schools.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/schools-teachers-leave-teacher-mobility-chicago-public-schools
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409.
Bryk A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Carver-Thomas, D. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Teacher_Turnover_REPORT.pdf
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36), 1–32.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679.
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2006). High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1345–1379.
Cohen-Vogel, L., Smith, T. M. (2007). Qualifications and assignments of alternatively certified teachers: Testing core assumptions. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 732–753.
Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012–13 Teacher Follow-up Survey (NCES 2014-077). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014077.pdf
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED012275.pdf
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326–354.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education, vol. 2 (pp. 1051–1078). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
Ingersoll, R., & Merrill, E. (2017). A quarter century of changes in the elementary and secondary teaching force: From 1987 to 2012 (NCES 2017-092). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., & Collins, G. (2018). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force—updated October 2018. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=cpre_researchreports
Jackson, C. K. (2018). What do test scores miss? The importance of teacher effects on non-test score outcomes. Journal of Political Economy, 126(5), 2072–2107.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), p. 1–39.
Katz, V. (2018). Teacher retention: Evidence to inform policy. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Retrieved from https://curry.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/epw/Teacher%20Retention%20Policy%20Brief.pdf
Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of the research. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Teaching_Experience_Report_June_2016.pdf
Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261.
Lee, S. W. (2018). Pulling back the curtain: Revealing the cumulative importance of high-performing, highly qualified teachers on students’ educational outcome. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 359–381.
McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5–21.
Naslund, K., & Ponomariov, B. (2019). Do charter schools alleviate the negative effect of teacher turnover? Management in Education, 33(1), 11–20.
Newton, X., Rivero, R., Fuller, B., & Dauter, L. (2018). Teacher turnover in organizational context: Staffing stability in Los Angeles charter, magnet, and regular public schools. Teachers College Record, 120(3), 1–36.
Orlin, B. (2013, October 24). Why are private-school teachers paid less than public-school teachers? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/
Redding, C., & Henry, G. T. (2019). Leaving school early: An examination of novice teachers’ within- and end-of-year turnover. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 204–236.
Redding, C., & Smith, T. M. (2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086–1125.
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36.
Simon, N. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36.
Stuit, D.A, & Smith, T.M. (2012). Explaining the gap in charter and traditional public school teacher turnover rates. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 268–279.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of Education Statistics.Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_210.30.asp
Vittek, J. E. (2015). Promoting special educator teacher retention: A critical review of the literature. SAGE Open, (5)2, 1–6.
