Teacher turnover continues to be a chronic problem for low-income schools and is especially high in urban charter schools. New evidence shows that teachers’ perceptions of school leadership and trust are two of the most powerful predictors of turnover. Using interviews with former No Excuses charter school (NECS) teachers, this study seeks to better explain the mechanisms influencing teacher turnover by analyzing teachers’ perceptions of what principals do to influence relational trust and describing how this influences teachers’ decisions to leave. Findings show how high and often-implicit expectations principals have for teachers affect teacher-principal trust relationships in ways that lead to turnover.
AbleidingerJ., SteinerL., SpongA., & HasselB. C. (2012). Fulfilling the compact: Building a breakthrough, results-driven public charter school sector.Washington, DC: NAPCS. Retrieved from http://publiccharters.org/publication/?id=789.
2.
AllensworthE., PonisciakS., & MazzeoC. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago public schools.Consortium on Chicago school research at the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute.Chicago: University of Chicago.
3.
AngristJ. D., PathakP. A., & WaltersC. R. (2011). Explaining charter school effectiveness. NBER Working Paper No. 17332.
4.
BormanG. D., & DowlingN. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research.Review of Educational Research,78(3), 367–409.
5.
BoydD., GrossmanP., IngM., LankfordH., LoebS., & WyckoffJ. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions.American Educational Research Journal,48(2), 303.
6.
BrillS. (2011). Class warfare: Inside the fight to fix America's schools.New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
7.
BrykA. S., & SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
8.
BrykA., SebringP., AllensworthE., EastonJ., & LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago.Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CarrS. (2013). Hope against hope: Three schools, one city, and the struggle to educate America's children.New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
10.
ChadwickC., & KowalJ. (2011). Preparing for growth: Human capital innovations in charter public schools.Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
11.
CorbinJ., & StraussA. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
DonaldsonM. L., & JohnsonS. M. (2010). The price of misassignment: The role of teaching assignments in Teach For America teachers’ exit from low income schools and the teaching profession.Educational evaluation and policy analysis,32(2), 299–323.
HanushekE. A., KainJ. F., & RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers.The Journal of Human Resources,39(2), 326–354.
19.
HeiligJ., & JezS. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence.Boulder, CO: National Educational Policy Center.
20.
HoyW. K., TarterC. J., & WitkoskieL. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: Linking the principal with school effectiveness.Journal of Research and Development in Education,26(1), 38–45.
21.
HoyW. K., & Tschannen-MoranM. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools.Journal of School Leadership,9, 184–208.
22.
IngersollR. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.American Educational Research Journal,38(3), 499–534.
23.
IngersollR., & MerrillL. (2012). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force, Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, Vancouver.
24.
JohnsonS. M., & the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. (2004). Finders and keepers: helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools.San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
25.
JohnsonS. M. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention and effectiveness:National Education AssociationWashington, DC.
JohnsonS. M., KraftM. A., & PapayJ. 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), 1–39.
28.
KeigherA. (2010). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008–09 Teacher follow-up Survey (NCES 2010–353).National Center for Education Statistics.
KochanekJ. R. (2005). Building trust for better schools: Research-based practices.Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
32.
KretchmarK., SondelB., & FerrareJ. J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach for America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship.Journal of Education Policy, doi: 10.1080/02680939.2014.880812.
33.
LaddH. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,33(2), 235–261.
34.
LakeR., BowenM., DemerittA., McCulloughM., HaimsonJ., & GillB. (2012). Learning from charter school management organizations: Strategies for student behavior and teacher coaching.CRPE and Mathematica Policy Research.
35.
LakeR., DusseaultB., BowenM., DemerittA., & HillP. (2010). The National Study of Charter Management Organization (CMO) Effectiveness: Report on Interim Findings: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
36.
LeithwoodK. A., & MontgomeryD. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement.Review of Educational Research,52(3), 309–339.
37.
MarinellW. H., & CocaV. M. (2013). Who stays and who leaves? Findings from a three-part study of teacher turnover in NYC middle schools.New York: The Research Alliance for New York City Schools.
38.
MersethK. K. (2009). Inside urban charter schools: Promising practices and strategies in five high-performing schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
PodgurskyM. (2006). Teams vs. Bureaucracies: Personnel policy, wage-setting, and teacher quality in traditional public, charter, and private schools. Paper presented at the National Conference on Charter School Research, Nashville, TN.
RinkeC. R. (2008). Understanding teachers’ careers: Linking professional life to professional path.Educational Research Review,3(1), 1–13.
44.
RonfeldtM., LoebS., & WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement.American Educational Research Journal,50(1), 4–36.
45.
SaldanaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers.Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
46.
ScottJ., & DimartinoC. C. (2011). Hybridized, franchised, duplicated, and replicated: Charter schools and management organizations. In LubienskiC. A., & WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The Charter School Experiment: Expectations, Evidence, and Implications.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
47.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences.New York, NY: Teachers college press.
48.
StoneN., & TierneyT. (2010). “Donors must include attention to accountability with their gifts.”The Chronicle of Philanthropy, November 1.
49.
StuitD. A., & SmithT. M. (2012). Explaining the gap in charter and traditional public school teacher turnover rates.Economics of Education Review,31(2), 268–279. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.09.007.
50.
TorresA. Chris (2014a). Is this work sustainable? Teacher turnover and perceptions of workload in charter management organizations.Urban Education, 1–24. doi: 10.1177/0042085914549367
51.
TorresA. Chris (2014b). “Are we architects or construction workers?” Re-examining teacher autonomy and turnover in charter schools.Education Policy Analysis Archives,22(124). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22.1614
TuttleC. C., GillB., GleasonP., KnechtelV., Nichols-BarrerI., & ReschA. (2013). KIPP middle schools: Impacts on achievement and other outcomes.Mathematica Policy Research.
54.
VasudevaA., & GrutzikC. (2002). California's charter school teachers: The embedded context of professionalism. In WellsA. S. (Ed.), Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity.New York: Teachers College Press.
55.
WeinerJ. M., & TorresA. C. (2016). Different location or different map? Investigating charter school teachers’ professional identities.Teaching and Teacher Education,53, 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.006
56.
WhitmanD. (2008). Sweating the small stuff: Inner-city schools and the new paternalism.Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute
WoodworthJ. L., & RaymondM. E. (2013). Charter school growth and replication: Volume H.Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). Retrieved from: http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CGAR Growth Volume II.pdf
59.
WoodworthK. R., DavidJ. L., GuhaR., WangH., & Lopez TorkosA. (2008). San Francisco bay area KIPP schools: A study of early implementation and achievement, final report.Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
