Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teacher attrition is a current issue in Australia and other economically developed countries, with up to 50 per cent of teachers resigning from teaching within the first five years. Teacher attrition is widely considered to impact negatively on student achievement and the school. The present study of 160 Australian primary and secondary teachers who have been in the profession for up to 10 years investigates whether teachers’ generalised resilience is associated with their intention to leave the teaching profession. As hypothesised, results indicate that lower levels of resilience are significantly related to a higher intention to leave the teaching profession, after controlling for job satisfaction and demographic variables. Implications for teaching conditions related to job satisfaction and the resilience of early career teachers are discussed.

Keywords

Beginning teachers early career teachers job satisfaction resilience (personality)teaching (occupation)teacher turnover teacher attrition

The large proportion of educators leaving the teaching profession is an ongoing issue faced by Australia and other economically developed countries. High levels of teacher attrition impact negatively on student achievement and the school (Ingersoll, 2001). When a teacher leaves a school, institutional memory is lost and the school must spend additional resources hiring and training a new staff member (Ingersoll, 2001; Ramsay, 2000). Teacher attrition may also disrupt the formation and maintenance of trusting relationships between colleagues and between teacher and student, and can lead to poorer student outcomes (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013). At the same time, to maintain a high level of teaching quality, schools need to attract bright, new teachers while retaining and challenging effective existing teachers (Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006).

The present study investigated how resilience, job satisfaction and demographic factors relate to teachers’ intention to leave the teaching profession. Although a teacher’s intention to leave may not translate into actual behaviour, intention to leave a profession is regarded as an immediate antecedent to actual career change or job turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Rhodes & Doering, 1993). Resilience and job satisfaction are considered particularly important to investigate as possible predictors of the decision to leave the teaching occupation which can be influenced by school leaders and policy makers (You & Conley, 2014).

Intention to leave teaching

In Australia, it is difficult to estimate the extent of teacher attrition as state governments have not disclosed such data (Buchanan et al., 2013). Riley’s research examining the attrition of early career teachers in Australia suggested that 40 to 50 per cent of teachers left the profession within the first five years (as cited in Haesler, 2012). A review of the available data in 2005 indicated that 25 to 40 per cent of educators in Western countries resigned within their first five years of teaching (Ewing & Manuel, 2005). In the United States, turnover was estimated to be approximately 13 to 15 per cent of the teaching staff each year, whereby teachers, either left the profession or changed teaching institutions (Ingersoll, 2001).

Retention has consistently been found to be lower for early career teachers than for more experienced teachers (Guarino et al., 2006). For example, Goddard and Goddard (2006) found that 21 per cent of respondents in a survey of 112 1st and 2nd year graduate teachers in Queensland schools reported a serious intention to leave their current teaching position, with 12 per cent indicating a serious intention to leave the profession altogether. This may be because beginning teachers face a number of teaching-related stressors such as high workload, lack of support from school staff and difficulties with student behaviour management (Kyriacou, 2001). Moreover, teaching is one of a few professions where beginners have as much responsibility as experienced workers (Tait, 2008).

Ewing and Smith (2003) suggest that quality induction and mentoring programmes may help retain quality early career teachers in the profession. In a survey of 196 beginning teachers, the majority of respondents reported poorly planned induction in their beginning year, with 70 per cent of beginning teachers having to find their own informal support (Ewing & Smith, 2003). In contrast, the implementation of formal support in terms of a mentoring programme was found to reduce teacher attrition in a small sample of first year teachers from Western Australia (Paris, 2013).

Job satisfaction

One way to reduce teacher attrition is through an understanding and improvement of teachers’ job satisfaction (Ingersoll, 2001; Stockard & Lehman, 2004; Tillman & Tillman, 2008). Ingersoll (2001) reported teacher attrition is largely explained by job dissatisfaction, and not by retirement as was previously hypothesised. Job satisfaction can be thought of as a type of cognitive appraisal, whereby an individual weighs up how a job meets one’s needs, values and expectations (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). More recently, job satisfaction has been defined as “the attitude of an employee toward a job, sometimes expressed as a hedonic response of liking or disliking the work itself, the rewards pay, promotions, recognition), or the context (working conditions, benefits)” (Corsini, 1999, p. 516). It is likely that dissatisfied teachers look for alternative, more attractive job opportunities (Dolton & van der Klaauw, 1999).

Previous research shows a number of factors contribute to teachers’ job satisfaction. Cockburn and Haydn (2004) report teachers gain job satisfaction through working with children, having supportive colleagues, observing student improvement and working within a positive school climate. Similarly, Kim and Loadman (1994) found teachers gain job satisfaction intrinsically through professional autonomy and challenges, and meaningful interactions with students and colleagues. Extrinsic variables such as good working conditions and salary were also found to influence job satisfaction (Kim & Loadman, 1994). Ingersoll (2001) found teachers who left the profession attributed poor job satisfaction to low salary, lack of support from the school administration, poor student motivation and high incidence of student discipline problems. Psychological variables such as self-efficacy (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006) have also been identified as factors influencing job satisfaction. Furthermore, external stressors, such as pupil misbehaviour and time/resource difficulties, have also been found to be related to lower job satisfaction (Borg, Riding, & Falzon, 1991). More recently, the extent to which principles are approachable and supportive has been found to influence job satisfaction (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016). Worldwide data from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) in 2013 suggests that the majority of teachers are satisfied with their jobs, but teaching classrooms with a high proportion of challenging students is associated with lower levels of job satisfaction (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2014). Results from this study also indicated that a supportive and collaborative environment and positive school relationships are associated with increased job satisfaction (OECD, 2014).

Resilience

Given similar teaching contexts, why is it that some teachers thrive and some teachers report poor job satisfaction and consider leaving? As suggested by a number of researchers (see, for example, Beltman, Mansfield, & Price, 2011; Hong, 2012; Tait, 2008), one’s level of resilience may also contribute to teacher attrition. Resilience has been defined as ‘‘the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances’’ (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990, p. 425). Resilience is not an innate characteristic and seems to be a by-product of personal attributes of an individual and the external environment (Gu & Day, 2007; Mansfield, Beltman, Price, & McConney, 2012). Risk and protective factors have been shown to influence levels of resilience. For example, the level of family support typically increases resilience (Benard, 2004). Similarly, Johnson et al. (2010) suggest a supportive school culture, including mentoring, may increase the resilience of early career teachers.

Teachers who are resilient adjust to negative or stressful events by utilising personal and/or environmental resources to bounce back from adversity (Bobek, 2002). Kyriacou (2001) reported that questionnaire studies on the topic indicate that approximately one-quarter of teachers perceive the teaching profession to be “very stressful”, seemingly due to: teaching unmotivated students; maintaining classroom discipline; workload; coping with changes; being evaluated by others (e.g. parents, colleagues, students); relationships with colleagues; self-esteem and status; administration and management; role conflict and ambiguity; and poor working conditions. Having a high level of resilience helps teachers to cope with stress and ward off emotional exhaustion or burnout (Chang, 2009; Tait, 2008). Brunetti (2006) found that higher levels of resilience are especially important for continued productive teaching when working in a more challenging school setting, such as an inner-city American high school.

Resilience may be the key to understanding why teachers leave the profession, given identical and often (dis)satisfying and stressful workplace conditions (Beltman et al., 2011). Hence, efforts aimed at increasing resilience may assist teachers, especially those early in their career, cope with the less satisfying aspects of their work-life and result in them becoming more committed to teaching over the long term (Beltman et al., 2011; Hong, 2012; Mansfield et al., 2012; Tait, 2008).

However, research that has examined factors related to teacher resilience is limited and such studies often suffer from methodological shortcomings. Beltman, Mansfield, and Price (2011) summarised the literature concerning teachers and resilience and found that the majority of the studies which explicitly investigated resilience had small samples sizes of fewer than 30 participants and used qualitative measures, such as interviews or observations, to gather responses. Furthermore, only 16 of the 50 reviewed studies used previously validated instruments to collect data on resilience.

The present study

As previous research has focused on the influence of job satisfaction on teacher attrition and few studies have quantitatively examined the impact of resilience, the present study aimed to investigate whether resilience and job satisfaction are associated with teachers’ intention to leave the teaching profession. It was hypothesised that lower job satisfaction and lower levels of resilience would be related to a higher intention to leave the teaching profession.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were recruited for the study by way of snowball technique and online advertising through teacher online communities in Australia. Potential respondents were invited to participate in a study of early career (i.e. less than 10 years’ experience) teacher job satisfaction, resilience and intention to leave teaching by following a link to the explanatory statement and online questionnaire. Participation was voluntary and responses were gathered anonymously. Recruitment of participants was conducted over a two-month period from June to August of 2014, close to the middle of the Australian school year.

Participants provided demographic information, answered items regarding their intention to leave teaching and completed the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) and the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA). The order of the TJSQ and RSA was randomised to minimise any fatigue effects and to minimise the effect of participant early exit from the survey website. The participants took approximately 15 minutes to complete the online survey.

A number of participants did not complete all sections of the online questionnaire and data was restricted to include only pairwise responses. Thirteen participants omitted one item each from the RSA and these missing responses were replaced using mean substitution which is an acceptable procedure in cases of less than five percent missing data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Two outliers were found and removed from the analysis. Examination of residual plots indicated that the data met the assumption for normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals. After data cleaning, 160 participants remained and were included in subsequent analysis. The final sample consisted of more than 80 percent female (n = 135, 84.3%) and 15 per cent male (n = 25, 15.6%) teachers between the ages of 22 and 52 years (M = 31.11, SD = 6.90). When surveyed, the participants were teaching in an Australian school and had been teaching for a period of 10 years or less (M = 3.69 years, SD = 2.67). The majority of the teachers were teaching in a Government school (73.1%), compared to a Catholic (16.9%) or Independent school (10%). Participants mainly worked in a secondary setting (66.9%) rather than in a primary school (32.5%), with one teacher working in an early childhood setting. The present sample aligns reasonably well with known proportions of Australian teachers in terms of gender the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2011) reports female teachers (70%) outnumber male teachers, with the majority of teachers (64%) working in a Government school. However, the sample consisted of a larger proportion of secondary teachers relative to primary school teachers (67%/33%) compared with the actual proportions in Australian schools (49%/51%; ABS, 2016, Table 4221). Thus, it must be emphasised that this study involved a convenience sample drawn from snowball technique and advertising through online communities which limits the generalizability of results and should therefore be considered as indicative only.

Measures

Intention to leave teaching and future years teaching

Participant’s intention to leave teaching was measured using the sum of three items from an Intention to Leave scale, based on scales developed by Hackett, Lapierre, and Hausdorf (2001), and further refined by Klassen and Chiu (2011) for the teaching profession. Scale items were answered on a five-point Likert-scale. The three items of the scale were “I think about quitting the teaching profession”, “I intend to quit the teaching profession” and “I intend to move into another profession/occupation”. Reliability analysis indicated a high reliability of the Intention to Leave Scale (Cronbach’s α = .91) scale.

Responses of the three items were summed to give a total intention to leave score, out of 15. A score above nine on this scale indicated a high intention to leave teaching, whereas a score of nine or below indicated feeling neutral or unlikely to leave. Therefore, a cut off of nine was chosen as these participants reported an above average indication of thinking of quitting the teaching profession, intending to quit the profession and moving professions.

In addition, participants were asked “How long do you intend to remain in the teaching profession?” and chose one of seven options ranging from “Less than one year” to “I plan to remain in teaching until retirement.”

Job satisfaction

Participants’ Job Satisfaction was measured by the TJSQ. The TJSQ was developed by Lester (1987), in response to a scarcity of robust job satisfaction measures designed for teachers. The TJSQ was validated psychometrically on a sample of 620 teachers from eight school districts in the United States of America and consists of 66 items measuring nine dimensions, described in Table 1.
Table 1.
A description of job satisfaction variables from the TJSQ (Lester, 1987).

Variable Description

Supervision This factor measures two aspects of supervision: supervisory behaviour and interpersonal relationships

Colleagues This factor looks at interactions with work colleagues, including group outcomes, group interdependence and social interactions

Working Conditions This factor relates to environmental characteristics of the teaching situation, including the physical conditions of the working environment and school policies

Pay Items in this factor measure satisfaction with the salary received by teachers, as well as how the teaching salary compares to other professions

Responsibility This factor measures accountability for one’s teaching work, responsibility to help students learn and the opportunity to partake in school policy decision-making

Work This factor measures satisfaction with daily tasks of the teacher, including opportunities to be creative and work autonomously.

Advancement Items in this factor measure the teacher’s perception of opportunity for advancement, such as change in status, promotion or increased wages.

Security This factor includes items measuring perceived stability within the school, specifically school policies related to tenure.

Recognition This factor measures level of attention, praise or notice given by supervisors, students and parents.

Note: TJSQ, Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire.

In the current study, the reliability of the scales contributing to the TJSQ varied but were generally highly reliable: Supervision (Cronbach’s α = .93), Colleagues (.84), Work conditions (.82), Pay (.84), Responsibility (.66), Work (.75), Advancement (.91), Recognition (.79) and Security (.75). In addition, the reliability of the overall Job Satisfaction scale was also high (Cronbach’s α = .95).

Items were answered on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Items were summed together to create a total job satisfaction score, ranging from 66 to 330. The measure was designed such that higher scores indicated higher job satisfaction. Items of this scale have been used in a number of studies on teacher job satisfaction (De Nobile & McCormick, 2008; Lester & Bishop, 1997; McCormick & Solman, 1992a, 1992b).

Resilience

Resilience of the participants was measured by the RSA (Friborg, Barlaug, Martinussen, Rosenvinge, & Hjemdal, 2005). In a review of 15 resilience measures, Windle, Bennett, and Noyes (2011) rated the RSA as having the equal best psychometric properties of a number of reviewed resilience measures with good discriminant and convergent validity in relation to personality and intelligence (Friborg et al., 2005). As there appears to a current lack of readily available measure of teacher-specific resilience, this general resilience measure which is freely available was chosen. The questionnaire comprises 33 self-report items that measure five factors of general resilience and an overall resilience score, ranging from 33 to 165, with higher scores indicating greater resilience. The five factors are: (1) Personal Strength: measures individual’s confidence in their own abilities and judgements, self-efficacy and realistic expectations, as well as their ability to plan ahead, have a positive outlook, and be goal oriented; (2) Social competence: measures individual’s levels of social warmth and flexibility, ability to establish friendships, and the positive use of humour; (3) Structured style: measures the preference of having and following routines, being organized, and the preference of clear goals and plans before undertaking activities; (4) Family cohesion: measures whether values are shared in the individual’s family and whether family members enjoy spending time with each other, have an optimistic view of the future, have loyalty toward each other, and have the feeling of mutual appreciation and support; and (5) Social resources: measure availability of social support and whether the individual has support external to their family.

In the current study, reliability of the subscales of the RSA ranged from Cronbach’s α of 0.67 for the Structured Style scale to Cronbach’s α of 0.88 for the Personal Strength scale, with the other scales also showing high reliability (Social Competence Cronbach’s α = 0.83, Family Cohesion Cronbach’s α = 0.87, Social Resources Cronbach’s α = .84). The reliability of the overall resilience scale was also high (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Results

Intention to leave teaching

Responses to the Intention to Leave Scale showed that about one-third of teachers in the sample (31.9%) intended to leave the teaching profession. In response to the question “How many more years do you plan to remain in teaching?” 53 per cent of participants expressed an intention to remain in teaching for a further 10 years while 23 percent of respondents indicated that they planned to stay in teaching until retirement (see Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Frequency of self-report on years of future teaching (N = 160).

Predicting intention to leave teaching

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted with intention to leave teaching as the dependent variable. Independent variables were entered in the following steps: (1) Demographics (gender, age, primary or secondary cohort of students, number of years spent teaching); (2) Job Satisfaction, as measured by the TJSQ and (3) Resilience, as measured by the RSA.

Table 3 summarises the results of the hierarchical regression. The model was not significant when including demographic variables only, F(4, 159) = 1.54, p > .05, adjusted R²= .01. The addition of job satisfaction significantly improved the model and accounted for a significant proportion of the variance, F(5, 159) = 12.205, p < .001, adjusted R²= .26. The addition of resilience considerably improved the model further, F(6, 159) = 11.74, p < .001, adjusted R²= .29. The final model explained 32 per cent of the variance in intention to leave the teaching profession. Number of years teaching, job satisfaction and resilience were significant predictors of the intention to leave the teaching profession in the final model (Table 2). Specifically, teaching for five to ten years, lower job satisfaction and lower levels of resilience were related to a higher intention to leave the teaching profession.
Table 2.
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis predicting intention to leave teaching (N = 160).

Variable Model 1
Model 2
Model 3

B SE B β B SE B Β B SE B Β

Demographics

Gender^a −.09 .75 −.01 .30 .65 .03 .31 .64 .03

Age .03 .04 .07 −.01 .04 −.03 −.03 −.04 −.05

Student cohort^b −.63 .56 −.09 −.06 .49 −.01 −.12 .48 −.02

Years teaching^c .96 .57 .14 1.16 .49 .17* 1.18 .48 .18*

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction −.05 .01 −.52 −.05 .01 −.46

Resilience

Resilience −.04 .01 −.19

R² .04 .28 .32

F 1.53 12.21 11.74

ΔR² .25 .03

ΔF 52.81 7.01**

Notes: B, unstandardised coefficient beta, SE B, standard error unstandardised coefficient beta, β, standardised coefficient beta.

a
Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female.

b
Student cohort was coded as 0 = primary and 1 = secondary.

c
Years teaching was recoded as a categorical variable where 0 = four years or less and 1 = five to ten years.

*
p < .05, p < .001.

Table 3.
A comparison of mean job satisfaction and resilience components between teachers reporting high or low intention to leave the profession.

Low/Neutral ITL (n = 109) High ITL (n = 51) t p

Job satisfaction

Supervision 3.63 3.10 4.10 <.001

Work conditions 3.48 2.94 4.50 <.001**

Pay 3.09 2.83 1.99 .050

Responsibility 4.33 4.15 2.72 .010*

Work 3.85 3.44 4.70 <.001

Advancement 3.30 2.64 4.43 <.001

Security 3.62 3.16 2.61 .010*

Recognition 3.34 2.75 3.85 <.001

Colleagues 3.89 3.49 4.05 <.001

Resilience

Personal strength 3.87 3.39 3.53 .001*

Structured style 3.87 3.71 1.22 .223

Social competence 3.84 3.55 2.27 .024*

Family cohesion 4.08 3.71 2.87 .005*

Social resources 4.40 4.26 1.40 .163

Note: ITL, intention to leave.

*
p < .05, ** p < .001.

High versus low intention to leave

Additional analyses investigated differences between those teachers who reported a high intention to leave the teaching profession compared to those who reported having a low or neutral intention of leaving (Table 3). Teachers with a high intention to leave rated all job satisfaction components significantly lower than teacher with a low/neutral intention to leave the profession, with the exception of Salary. Low intention to leave and high intention to leave differed significantly on three of the five resilience components, namely Personal Strength, Social Competence and Family Cohesion.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate how resilience, job satisfaction and demographic variables were related to intention to leave the teaching profession in a sample of Australian teachers with up to 10 years of teaching experience. As hypothesised, lower Resilience and poor Job Satisfaction were found to significantly predict intention to leave the teaching profession.

Intention to leave teaching

The results of the present study are consistent with previous research estimating the proportion of teachers who report an intention to leave the teaching profession. Almost one-third (32%) of participants indicated currently having a high intention to leave teaching. Researchers have found similar proportion in previous studies, such as 21 per cent of first and second year teachers in Queensland (Goddard & Goddard, 2006), 25 per cent of practicing North American teachers (Klassen & Chui, 2011) and 32 per cent of early and mid-career American teachers (You & Conley, 2014).

The majority of the current sample (53%) reported that they would remain in teaching for 10 years or less, and this value is also consistent with previous research on Australian teachers. The Australian Education Union Victorian Branch (2007), for example, reported 52% of teachers in their first five years predict staying in teaching for a maximum of 10 years. Comparably high proportions (44%) were also found in a sample of New South Wales where early career teachers reported they would remain in teaching for 10 years or less (Ewing & Smith, 2003).

The results of the current study indicate a large number of teachers are considering leaving the profession. Although intention to leave may not materialise into career change, it is regarded as a significant predictor of actual quitting behaviour (Rhodes & Doering, 1993).

Job satisfaction and intention to leave teaching

Job (dis)satisfaction was found to significantly predict intention to leave teaching. The results of the hierarchical regression showed that teachers with lower job satisfaction reported a stronger intention to leave the teaching profession, as expected. This result supports previous evidence that job satisfaction is negatively related to turnover (Hellman, 1997) and teacher attrition (e.g., Ingersoll, 2001; Stockard & Lehman, 2004; You & Conley, 2014). Job satisfaction may also predict actual quitting behaviour (Kristensen & Westergård-Nielsen, 2004; Rhodes & Doering, 1993) as people who are dissatisfied with their job are likely to consider leaving the profession and look for more attractive work opportunities (Tillman & Tillman, 2008). The current findings highlight the need to increase the job satisfaction of teachers to help decrease the intention to leave the profession and to ultimately discourage actual quitting behaviour.

Additional comparisons between teachers who reported low intention to leave and high intention to leave the profession showed that the two groups differed in their satisfaction of the variables Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Responsibility, Work, Advancement, Security and Recognition. Only one factor – satisfaction with Salary – did not significantly differ between groups. Salary has often been cited as a reason for leaving the teaching profession (Arnett & Polkinghorne, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001; Perie & Baker, 1997), however the present study did not support this finding. Furthermore, Borman and Dowling (2008) examined 14 studies investigating the relationship between salary and teacher attrition. They found that low salary significantly predicted attrition for less experienced teachers (less than five years) and those later in their careers. It is possible that the recent increases in teacher salary in Victoria, Australia (Topsfield, 2013) may help explain this result as the early career teachers in the present study may be satisfied with their current salaries given recent increases. Furthermore, beginning teachers in New South Wales enjoy one of the highest commencing salaries of any graduate profession (NSW Government – Education, 2016).

Resilience and intention to leave teaching

Resilience is a psychological factor thought to influence an educator’s decision to leave the profession (Beltman et al., 2011). In the present study, resilience was found to be significantly related to intention to leave teaching, with less resilient teachers reporting a stronger intention to leave teaching.

Resilience also explained additional variance in the model than job satisfaction alone. Independent measure t tests revealed a significant difference in Personal Strength, Social Competence and Family Cohesion between teachers with low and high intention to leave the teaching profession. Previous research involving resilience and intention to leave has used mainly case studies or interviews (e.g. Hong, 2012; Tait, 2008). Hence the results of the present study strengthen these findings by providing further quantitative evidence of the relationship between resilience and intention to leave teaching. Importantly, resilience was found to explain additional variation in intention to leave teaching over and above job satisfaction and teacher demographics.

Teaching is generally regarded as a stressful occupation, often attributed to a high workload and feelings of incompetence (Kyriacou, 2001), and stress has been found to influence teachers’ commitment and intention to leave the profession (Klassen & Chui, 2011). Teachers who report higher levels of emotional exhaustion report higher intention to leave teaching (Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010) and Tait (2008) suggests resilience can help teachers ward off emotional exhaustion due to stress. The results of the present study may indicate that teachers who are highly resilient may be able to cope better with the stressors and poor working conditions intrinsic to teaching and consequently have less desire to leave the teaching profession (Chang, 2009; Tait, 2008). Importantly, the results of the study highlight the importance of resilience in keeping teachers in the profession.

It should also be noted that overall job satisfaction differentiated those with an intention to leave more so than did general resilience. This suggests that job satisfaction may be a more productive target to change for school administrators as job satisfaction of staff can be argued to be more easily influenced by school administrators, compared with resilience which is a more individual factor.

Limitations and directions for further study

Although the current findings add to our understanding of the relationship between resilience, job satisfaction and intention to leave the teaching the profession, interpretation may be limited by a number of factors. Firstly, the fact that participants were recruited via convenience sampling and may have self-selected as they might have been thinking of leaving teaching means that the sample is unlikely to be representative of all Australian teachers. Demographic analysis, however, indicated the proportions of the sample corresponded well to the percentages of males and females in teaching, and the proportion of teachers in government vs. non-government schools (ABS, 2011). Future studies would benefit from using a larger, probability-based sample of Australian teachers to increase the confidence in the findings.

Secondly, the present study investigated a relatively simplistic model of teacher occupation intention and a number of other variables may influence the relationships studied. For example, it would be worthwhile to investigate whether and how variables such as stress and self-efficacy add to the explanatory power of the hierarchical model. As discussed, previous research indicates that stress may also impact resilience, job satisfaction and teacher attrition (Gu & Day, 2007, Klassen & Chui, 2010, 2011). Self-efficacy, the belief of one’s competency, has also been found to be related to teachers’ occupational commitment, intention to leave and job satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2006; Klassen & Chui, 2011).

Furthermore, the present study did not include any measures of teacher effectiveness or performance. Such information would enable a comparison of the intention to leave of teachers who are performing well versus those who are underperforming.

The present study also neglected to incorporate individual aspects related to teacher attrition such as leaving to start a family, returning to University to study a related higher education degree, or the possibility of moving to occupations still in the education field. Finally, intention to leave teaching may be associated with the availability, quality and attractiveness of alternative teaching positions.

Implications for practice

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study provides further insight into the proportion of teachers who intend to leave the teacher profession, and the role of resilience and job satisfaction in this decision. To keep teachers working in the profession, the present study highlights the need for increased resilience and job satisfaction of teachers. Researchers have known for years that teachers are often dissatisfied with aspects of their job but little appears to have changed, often due to lack of time and financial resources. Instead, schools may be able to help teachers increase their resilience through increased school support and stress/resilience programmes.

Early career teachers often report a lack of support from the school administration and colleagues (Buchanan, 2012) and Stockard and Lehman (2004) suggest the satisfaction of first year teachers is influenced by the environments in which they work, including collegial support and the mentoring they receive. Haynes (2014) recently called for comprehensive induction programmes for new teachers, including ongoing support from a high-quality mentor and common lesson planning times. Long et al. (2012) suggest that multiple factors influence teacher attrition and the effect of induction (including mentoring) programmes can be difficult to isolate. Moreover, they conclude that schools that are supportive and highly collaborative are most successful in retaining beginning teachers.

Furthermore, as a person’s level of resilience is not fixed, resilience programmes could be implemented in schools to help increase the resilience and coping skills of teachers. Lantieri, Nagler Kyse, Harnett, and Malkmus (2011) showed a resiliency intervention on a small group of primary teachers across New York significantly reduced stress levels and strengthened relationships with colleagues compared to a control group. The importance of developing resilience through learning communities is also currently being investigated in teacher training courses (Le Cornu, 2009). Measuring resilience may also be relevant at the point of entry into pre-service teaching programmes (Bowles, Hattie, Dinham, Scull, & Clinton, 2014). Developing higher levels of resilience will allow teachers to bounce back quickly from set-backs, have more confidence in their ability, reduce impact of stress and hopefully work to improve teachers’ job satisfaction.

Conclusion

While the generalizability of the study reported here could be improved by using a larger, probability-based sample, findings of the present study add to a strong and growing body of literature on teacher attrition. Results showed that resilience explained variance in intention to leave teaching in addition to the variance accounted for by job satisfaction and teacher demographics. Thus, any initiatives to increase the resilience of teachers whilst improving working conditions and collegial support for early career teachers by educational leaders would appear highly desirable to decrease the large number of teachers thinking about and subsequently actually leaving the teaching profession.

Variable	Description
Supervision	This factor measures two aspects of supervision: supervisory behaviour and interpersonal relationships
Colleagues	This factor looks at interactions with work colleagues, including group outcomes, group interdependence and social interactions
Working Conditions	This factor relates to environmental characteristics of the teaching situation, including the physical conditions of the working environment and school policies
Pay	Items in this factor measure satisfaction with the salary received by teachers, as well as how the teaching salary compares to other professions
Responsibility	This factor measures accountability for one’s teaching work, responsibility to help students learn and the opportunity to partake in school policy decision-making
Work	This factor measures satisfaction with daily tasks of the teacher, including opportunities to be creative and work autonomously.
Advancement	Items in this factor measure the teacher’s perception of opportunity for advancement, such as change in status, promotion or increased wages.
Security	This factor includes items measuring perceived stability within the school, specifically school policies related to tenure.
Recognition	This factor measures level of attention, praise or notice given by supervisors, students and parents.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Demographics
Gender^a	−.09	.75	−.01	.30	.65	.03	.31	.64	.03
Age	.03	.04	.07	−.01	.04	−.03	−.03	−.04	−.05
Student cohort^b	−.63	.56	−.09	−.06	.49	−.01	−.12	.48	−.02
Years teaching^c	.96	.57	.14	1.16	.49	.17*	1.18	.48	.18*
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction				−.05	.01	−.52**	−.05	.01	−.46**
Resilience
Resilience							−.04	.01	−.19**
R²		.04			.28			.32
F		1.53			12.21**			11.74**
ΔR²					.25			.03
ΔF					52.81**			7.01**

	Low/Neutral ITL (n = 109)	High ITL (n = 51)	t	p
Job satisfaction
Supervision	3.63	3.10	4.10	<.001**
Work conditions	3.48	2.94	4.50	<.001**
Pay	3.09	2.83	1.99	.050
Responsibility	4.33	4.15	2.72	.010*
Work	3.85	3.44	4.70	<.001**
Advancement	3.30	2.64	4.43	<.001**
Security	3.62	3.16	2.61	.010*
Recognition	3.34	2.75	3.85	<.001**
Colleagues	3.89	3.49	4.05	<.001**
Resilience
Personal strength	3.87	3.39	3.53	.001*
Structured style	3.87	3.71	1.22	.223
Social competence	3.84	3.55	2.27	.024*
Family cohesion	4.08	3.71	2.87	.005*
Social resources	4.40	4.26	1.40	.163

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aldridge

J. M.

Fraser

B. J.

(2016) Teachers’ views of their school climate and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learning Environment Research 19(2): 291–307. DOI: 10.1007/s10984-015-9198-x.

Arnett, S. E., & Polkinghorne, F. W. (2010). Job dissatisfaction: A factor in maintaining a highly-qualified family and consumers sciences teacher workforce. Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development, 4(4), 1–13. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=ojwed.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2011). School, Australia: Staff (cat. no. 4221.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4221.0main+features502011.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). In-school Staff (FTE) Table 51a. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4221.02015?OpenDocument.

Australian Education Union Victorian Branch. (2007). New teachers survey. Retrieved from http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/newteacherssurvey2007.pdf.

Beltman

Mansfield

Price

(2011) Thriving not just surviving: A review of research on teacher resilience. Educational Research Review 6(3): 185–207. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.001.

Benard

(2004) Resiliency: What we have learned, San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Bobek

B. L.

(2002) Teacher resiliency: A key to career longevity. Clearing House 75(4): 202–205.

Borg

M. G.

Riding

R. J.

Falzon

J. M.

(1991) Stress in teaching: A study of occupational stress and its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary schoolteachers. Educational Psychology 11(1): 59–75. DOI: 10.1080/0144341910110104.

10.

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. DOI: 10.2307/40071133.

11.

Bowles

Hattie

Dinham

Scull

Clinton

(2014) Proposing a comprehensive model for identifying teaching candidates. The Australian Educational Researcher 41(4): 365–380. DOI: 10.1007/s13384-014-0146-z.

12.

Brunetti

G. J.

(2006) Resilience under fire: Perspectives on the work of experienced, inner city high school teachers in the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education 22(7): 812–825. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.027.

13.

Bryk

A. S.

Schneider

(2002) Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

14.

Buchanan

(2012) Telling tales out of school: Exploring why former teachers are not returning to the classroom. Australian Journal of Education 56(2): 205–220.

15.

Buchanan

Prescott

Schuck

Aubusson

Burke

Louviere

(2013) Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 38(3): 112–129. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.9.

16.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Steca

Malone

P. S.

(2006) Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology 44(6): 473–490.

17.

Chang

(2009) An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review 21(3): 193–218.

18.

Cockburn

Haydn

(2004) Recruiting and retaining teachers: Understanding why teachers teach, London: Routledge.

19.

Corsini

R. J.

(1999) The dictionary of psychology, Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

20.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1984) A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

21.

De Nobile

J. J.

McCormick

(2008) Organizational communication and job satisfaction in Australian catholic primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 36(1): 101–122. DOI: 10.1177/1741143207084063.

22.

Dolton

van der Klaauw

(1999) The turnover of teachers: A competing risks explanation. The Review of Economics and Statistics 81(3): 543–550.

23.

Ewing

Manuel

(2005) Retaining quality early career teachers in the profession: New teacher narratives. Change: Transformations in Education 8(1): 1–16.

24.

Ewing

Smith

(2003) Retaining quality beginning teachers in the profession. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 2(1): 15–32.

25.

Friborg

Barlaug

Martinussen

Rosenvinge

J. H.

Hjemdal

(2005) Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 14(1): 29–42. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.15.

26.

Griffeth

R. W.

Hom

Gaertner

(2000) A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlations of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management 26(3): 463–488.

27.

Goddard

(2006) Beginning teacher burnout in Queensland schools: Associations with serious intentions to leave. The Australian Educational Researcher 33(2): 61–75. DOI: 10.1007/bf03216834.

28.

Day

(2007) Teachers resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education 23(8): 1302–1316. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.006.

29.

Guarino

C. M.

Santibanez

Daley

G. A.

(2006) Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 76(2): 173–208.

30.

Hackett

R. D.

Lapierre

L. M.

Hausdorf

P. A.

(2001) Understanding the links between work commitment constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior 58(3): 392–413. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1776.

31.

Haesler, D. (2012, August 6). The battle to retain teachers begins in the staffroom, not in the Classroom. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/mass-exodus-of-the-educators-20120805-23no4.html.

32.

Haynes, M. (2014). On the path to equity: Improving the effectiveness of beginning teachers. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from: http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PathToEquity.pdf.

33.

Hellman

C. M.

(1997) Job satisfaction and intent to leave. The Journal of Social Psychology 137(6): 677–689. DOI: 10.1080/00224549709595491.

34.

Hong

J. Y.

(2012) Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay? Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching 18(4): 417–440. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2012.696044.

35.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2001) Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal 38(3): 499–534. DOI: 10.3102/00028312038003499.

36.

Johnson, B., Down, B., Le Cornu, R., Peters, J., Sullivan, A., Pearce, J., & Hunter, J. (2010). Conditions that support early career teacher resilience. In Proceedings of teacher education for a sustainable future (pp. 10p).: Australian Teacher Education Association, Townsville, Queensland.

37.

Kim, I., & Loadman, W. (1994). Predicting teacher job satisfaction. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED383707.pdf.

38.

Klassen

R. M.

Chui

M. M.

(2010) Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology 102(3): 741–756. DOI: 10.1037/a0019237.

39.

Klassen

R. M.

Chiu

M. M.

(2011) The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology 36: 114–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002.

40.

Kristensen, N., & Westergård-Nielsen, N. C. (2004). Does low job satisfaction lead to job mobility (IZA Discussion paper series)? Institute for the Study of Labor, Germany.

41.

Kyriacou

(2001) Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review 53: 28–35. DOI: 10.1080/0013191012003362.

42.

Lantieri

Nagler Kyse

Harnett

Malkmus

(2011) Building inner resilience in teachers and students. In: Reevy

G. M.

Frydenberg

(eds) Personality, stress and coping: implications for education, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc, pp. 267–292.

43.

Le Cornu, R. (2009). Building resilience in pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 717–723.

44.

Lester

P. E.

(1987) Development and factor analysis of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement 47(1): 223–233. DOI: 10.1177/0013164487471031.

45.

Lester

P. E.

Bishop

L. K.

(1997) Handbook of tests and measurement in education and the social sciences, Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Co.

46.

Long

J. S.

McKenzie-Robblee

Schaefer

Steeves

Wnuk

Pinnegar

Clandinin

D. J.

(2012) Literature review on induction and mentoring related to early career teacher attrition and retention. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 20(1): 7–26.

47.

Mansfield

C. F.

Beltman

Price

McConney

(2012) Don't sweat the small stuff: Understanding teacher resilience at the chalkface. Teaching and Teacher Education 28(3): 357–367.

48.

Masten

Best

Garmezy

(1990) Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology 2: 425–444.

49.

McCormick

Solman

(1992a) The externalised nature of teachers’ occupational stress and its association with job satisfaction. Work and Stress 6(1): 33–44.

50.

McCormick

Solman

(1992b) Teachers’ attributions of responsibility for occupational stress and satisfaction: An organizational perspective. Educational Studies 18(2): 201–222.

51.

NSW Government – Education. (2016). Benefits and incentives. Retrieved from http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/about-us/careers-centre/school-careers/teaching/teach-with-us/benefits-and-incentives.

52.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). Teaching in focus brief number 5 – What helps teachers feel valued and satisfied with their jobs? Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TIF5.pdf.

53.

Paris

L. F.

(2013) Reciprocal mentoring: Can it help prevent attrition for beginning teachers? Australian Journal of Teacher Education 38(6): 136–158. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n6.5.

54.

Perie, M., & Baker, D. P. (1997). Job Satisfaction among America's Teachers: Effects of Workplace Conditions, Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation. National Centre for Education Statistics: U.S Department of Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412181.pdf.

55.

Ramsay

(2000) Quality matters. Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Report of the review of teacher education, Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Education and TrainingRetrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/teachrev/reports/reports.pdf.

56.

Rhodes

S. R.

Doering

(1993) Intention to change careers: Determinants and process. The Career Development Quarterly 42(1): 76.

57.

Ronfeldt

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2013) How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 50(1): 4–36. DOI: 10.3102/0002831212463813.

58.

Stockard

Lehman

M. B.

(2004) Influences on the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year teachers: The importance of effective school management. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(5): 742–771. DOI: 10.1177/0013161x04268844.

59.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

(2013) Using multivariate statistics, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

60.

Tait

(2008) Resilience as a contributor to novice teacher success, commitment, and retention. Teacher Education Quarterly 35(4): 57–75.

61.

Tillman

W. R.

Tillman

C. J.

(2008) And you thought it was the apple: A study of job satisfaction among teachers. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 12(3): 1–18.

62.

Topsfield, J. (2013, June 13). Teachers accept pay rise. The Age Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/teachers-accept-pay-rise-20130613-2o5z4.html.

63.

Tsouloupas

C. N.

Carson

R. L.

Matthews

Grawitch

M. J.

Barber

L. K.

(2010) Exploring the association between teachers’ perceived student misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology 30(2): 173–189. DOI: 10.1080/01443410903494460.

64.

Windle

Bennett

Noyes

(2011) A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 9(1): 8, DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-8.

65.

You

Conley

(2014) Workplace predictors of secondary school teachers’ intention to leave: An exploration of career stages. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4): 561–581. DOI: 10.1177/1741143214535741.

Variable	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	Β	B	SE B	Β
Demographics
Gender^a	−.09	.75	−.01	.30	.65	.03	.31	.64	.03
Age	.03	.04	.07	−.01	.04	−.03	−.03	−.04	−.05
Student cohort^b	−.63	.56	−.09	−.06	.49	−.01	−.12	.48	−.02
Years teaching^c	.96	.57	.14	1.16	.49	.17*	1.18	.48	.18*
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction				−.05	.01	−.52**	−.05	.01	−.46**
Resilience
Resilience							−.04	.01	−.19**
R²		.04			.28			.32
F		1.53			12.21**			11.74**
ΔR²					.25			.03
ΔF					52.81**			7.01**

Should I stay or should I go? Resilience as a protective factor for teachers’ intention to leave the teaching profession

Abstract

Keywords

Intention to leave teaching

Job satisfaction

Resilience

The present study

Method

Participants and procedure

Measures

Intention to leave teaching and future years teaching

Job satisfaction

Resilience

Results

Intention to leave teaching

Predicting intention to leave teaching

High versus low intention to leave

Discussion

Intention to leave teaching

Job satisfaction and intention to leave teaching

Resilience and intention to leave teaching

Limitations and directions for further study

Implications for practice

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References