The attrition of both new and experienced teachers is a challenge for schools and school administrators throughout the United States, particularly in large urban districts. Because of the importance of this issue, there is a large empirical literature that investigates why teachers quit and how they might be induced to stay. Here we build upon this literature by suggesting another important factor in the teacher decision to stay or leave: the quality of school facilities. We investigate the importance of facility quality using data from a survey of K–12 public school teachers in Washington, D.C. We find in our sample that facility quality is an important predictor of the decision of teachers to leave their current position, even after controlling for other contributing factors.
AntosJ. R., and RosenS.. 1975. Discrimination in the market for teachers. Journal of Econometrics, 2 (May): 123—150.
3.
BaughW. H., and StoneJ.A.. 1982. Mobility and wage equilibration in the educator labor market. Economics of Education Review, 2 no. 3 (Summer): 253—274.
CashC. S.1993. A study of the relationship between school building condition and student achievement and behavior. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.
7.
ChambersJ. G.1977. The impact of collective bargaining for teachers on resource allocation in public school districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 4 no.3 (July): 324—339.
8.
ChapmanD. W.1994. Reducing teacher absenteeism and attrition: Cause, consequences, and responses. Paris: Institute for Education Planning, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
9.
CorcoranT. B., WalkerL.J., and WhiteJ.L.. 1988. Working in urban schools. Washington D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED299356).
10.
CrandellC.1991. Classroom acoustics for normal-hearing children: Implications for rehabilitation. Educational Audiology Monographs, 2 no. 1: 18—38.
11.
CrandellC., and BessF.. 1986. Speech recognition of children in a typical classroom setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association, Washington, D.C.
12.
CrandellC., SmaldinoJ., and FlexerC.. 1995. Sound field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications. Los Angeles: Singular Press.
13.
Darling-HammondL., and SykesG.. 2003. Wanted: A national manpower policy for education. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
14.
DoltonP., and van der KlaauwW.. 1995. Leaving teaching in the UK: A duration analysis. Economic Journal, 105, 431—444.
15.
EarthmanG. I., and LemastersL.. 1996. Review of research on the relationship between school buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Educational Facility Planners International, Tarpon Springs, Fla., October. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416666)
16.
EarthmanG. I., and LemastersL.. 1998. Where children learn: A discussion of how a facility affects learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Virginia Educational Facility Planners, Blacksburg, Va., February. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419368)
17.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Indoor air quality and student performance. Report no. EPA 402-F-00-009. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved June 10, 2002, from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/performance.html.
18.
EvansG. W., and MaxwellL.. 1999. Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: The mediating effects of language acquisition. Environment and Behavior, 29 no. 5: 638—656.
19.
FiglioD.2001. What might school accountability do?Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
20.
GaylesA.1989. Effective in-service techniques for promoting teacher retention. In Teacher recruitment and retention, with a special focus on minority teachers, edited by and and GaribaldiA.M., 61—68. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
21.
General Accounting Office. 1995. School facilities: America's schools not designed or equipped for 21st century. Report no. HEHS-95–95. Washington, D.C.: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383056)
22.
GritzR. M., and TheoboldN.D.. 1996. The effects of school district spending priorities on length of stay in teaching. Journal of Human Resources, 31 no. 3: 477—512.
23.
HanushekE. A., KainJ.F., and RivkinS.G.. 2004. Why public schools lose teachers. Forthcoming in Journal of Human Resources. Retrieved April 29, 2004, from http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/20041/76.pdf.
24.
HanushekE. A., and LuqueJ.A.. 2000. Smaller classes, lower salaries? The effects of class size on teacher labor markets. In Using what we know: A review of the research on implementing class-size reduction initiatives for state and local policymakers, edited by LaineSabrina W. M., and WardJames G., 35—51. Oak Brook, Ill.: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
HarrisS. A., CampW.E., and AdkisonJ.. 2003. New structures and approaches for teacher preparation: Do they make a difference in teacher retention? Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, La., January 24–27.
IngersollR.2000. Turnover among mathematics and science teachers in the U.S. Paper prepared for the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (John Glenn, Chair). Retrieved November 18, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/compapers.html.
29.
JagoE., and TannerK.. 1999. Influence of the school facility on student achievement: Lighting; color. Athens, Ga.: Department of Educational Leadership; University of Georgia. Retrieved July 22, 2002, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/researchabstracts/visual.html.
30.
JonesT.2001. An initial exploration into a time of change: Teacher perception of their profession in the new millennium. Paper presented at the 17th National Conference of the Society for the Provision of Education in Rural Australia, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia, July 8–11.
31.
KemmererF.1990. An integrated approach to primary teacher incentives. In Improving educational quality: A global perspective, edited by ChapmanD.W., and CarrierC.A., 136—152. London: Greenwood Press.
32.
KennedyM.2001. Into thin air. American School & University, 73 no. 6: 32.
33.
KingG., TomzM., and WittenbergJ.. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44 no. 2: 347—361.
34.
LackneyJ. A.1999. Assessing school facilities for learning/assessing the impact of the physical environment on the educational process. Mississippi State, Miss.: Educational Design Institute (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED441330).
35.
LeachK.1997. In sync with nature: Designing a building with improved indoor air quality could pay off with improved student health and performance. School Planning and Management, 36 no. 4: 32—37.
36.
LemastersL. K.1997. A synthesis of studies pertaining to facilities, student achievement, and student behavior. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447687).
37.
LiangK. -L., and ZegerS.L.. 1986. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13—22.
38.
LiaoT. F.1994. Interpreting probability models: Logit, probit, and other generalized models. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
39.
LouisK. S., and SmithB.. 1990. Teacher working conditions. In Teachers and their workplace: Commitment, performance, and productivity, edited by and and ReyesP., 23—47. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
LoweJ. M.1990. The interface between educational facilities and learning climate in three elementary schools. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M University, College Station.
41.
LucasJ.1981. Effects of noise on academic achievement and classroom behavior. Sacramento: California Department of Health Services.
42.
MacdonaldD.1995. The role of proletarianization in physical education teacher attrition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 no. 2: 129—141.
43.
MacdonaldD.1999. Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 839—848.
44.
MiechR., and ElderG.H.Jr.. 1996. The service ethic and teaching. Sociology of Education, 69, 237—253.
45.
MurnaneR. J., and OlsenR.. 1989. The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from Michigan. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71 no.2 (May): 347—352.
46.
MurnaneR. J., and OlsenR.. 1990. The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from North Carolina. Journal of Human Resources, 25 no.1 (Winter): 106—124.
47.
NabelekA., and NabelekL.. 1994. Room acoustics and speech perception. In Handbook of clinical audiology (4th ed., edited by and and KatzJ., 624—637. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
48.
National Education Association Research. 1997. Status of the American public school teacher, 1995–1996. Washington, D.C.: Author.
49.
OliveiraJ., and FarrellJ.. 1993. Teacher costs and teacher effectiveness in developing countries. In Teachers in developing countries: Improving effectiveness and managing costs, edited by OliveiraJ., and FarrellJ., 7—24. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
50.
PhillipsR.1997. Educational facility age and the academic achievement of upper elementary school students. Unpublished D.Ed. diss., University of Georgia, Athens.
51.
PlymptonP., ConwayS., and EpsteinK.. 2000. Daylighting in schools: Improving student performance and health at a price schools can afford. Paper presented at the American Solar Energy Society Conference, Madison, Wis., June 16. Retrieved July 22, 2002, from http://www.deptplanetearth.com/nrel_student_performance.htm.
52.
RogersW. H.1993. sg17: Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 53, 32—35.
53.
RosenK. G., and RichardsonG.. 1999. Would removing indoor air particulates in children's environments reduce rate of absenteeism–A hypothesis. Science of the Total Environment, 234 no. 3: 87—93.
54.
RosenhotzS. J., and SimpsonC.. 1990. Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers’ commitment. Sociology of Education, 63, 241—247.
55.
RowanB., CorrentiR., and RichardR.J.. 2002. What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved April 23, 2002, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr51.pdf.
56.
SchneiderM.2002. School facilities and academic outcomes. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved February 1, 2003, from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf.
57.
SchneiderM.2003. Linking school facility conditions to teacher satisfaction and success. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/teachersurvey.pdf.
58.
SmedjeG., and NorbackD.. 1999. The school environment: Is it related to the incidence of asthma in the pupils? In Indoor Air ′99: The Eighth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, vol. 5, 445–450.
59.
Steuteville-BrodinskyM., BurbankR., and HarrisonC.. 1989. Selecting, recruiting and keeping excellent teachers. Arlington, Va.: American Association of School Administrators.
60.
StinebricknerT. R.2001. A dynamic model of teacher labor supply. Journal of Labor Economics, 19 no. 1: 196—230.
61.
TapperD.1995. Swimming upstream: The first-year experience of teachers working in New York City public schools. New York: Educational Priorities Panel.
62.
TomzM., WittenbergJ., and KingG.. 2000. CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences.
63.
TyeB. B., and O'BrienL.. 2002. Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession?Phi Delta Kappan, 84 no. 1: 24—32.
64.
WhiteH.1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817—830.
