Previous public management and organizational theory literature focuses primarily on the employee- and organizational-level characteristics that influence employee turnover. However, other potential determinants of employee turnover, such as factors external to the organization, are understudied. the current paper addresses this gap in the literature by examining the effect of the interaction between environmental shocks and budgetary constraints on employee turnover. Using a nationally representative teacher-level dataset, this paper tests the hypothesis that, after the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), teachers in states with binding tax and expenditure limitations (TELs) on school districts become more likely to turnover than their counterparts in other states. This paper finds evidence to support this hypothesis. Following the passage of NCLB, a teacher in a state with a binding TEL is 8.7 percentage points more likely to leave the teaching profession relative to all other teachers. This result is primarily driven by those teachers in states without a prior school accountability policy. Overall, this study adds to prior research on public employee turnover, TELs, and school accountability.
AdnotM., DeeT., KatzV., and WyckoffJ. (2017) “Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1):54–76.
2.
AiC., and NortonE.C. (2003) “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models”, Economic Letters, 80(1):123–129.
3.
Alliance for Excellent Education (2005) “Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the Nation and to the States”.
4.
BergstromT.C., and GoodmanR.P. (1973) “Private Demands for Public Goods”, The American Economic Review, 63(3):280–296.
5.
BlankenauW.F., and SkidmoreM.L. (2004) “School finance Litigation, Tax and Expenditure Limitations, and Education Spending”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(1):127–143.
6.
BlauF.D., and KahnL.M. (1981) “Race and Sex Differences in Quits by Young Workers”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 34(4):563–577.
7.
BorcherdingT.E., and DeaconR.T. (1972) “The Demand for the Services of Non-Federal Governments”, The American Economic Review, 62(5):891–901.
8.
BormanG.D., and DowlingN.M. (2008) “Teacher Attrition and Retention: A Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review of the Research”, Review of Educational Research, 78(3):367–409.
9.
BoydD., LankfordH., LoebS., RonfeldtM., and WyckoffJ. (2010) “The Role of Teacher Quality in Retention and Hiring: Using Applications to Transfer to Uncover Preferences of Teachers and Schools”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1):88–110.
10.
BoydD., LankfordH., LoebS., and WyckoffJ. (2005) “Explaining the Short Careers of High-Achieving Teachers in Schools with Low-Performing Students”, The American Economic Review, 95(2):166–171.
11.
ChoiS (2009) “Diversity in U.S. Federal Government: Diversity Management and Employee Turnover in Federal Agencies”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3):603–630.
12.
DalyA.J., and ChrispeelsJ. (2005) “From Problem to Possibility: Leadership for Implementing and Deepening the Processes of Effective Schools”, Journal of Effective Schools, 4(1):7–25.
13.
DavisM., VedderA., and StoneJ. (2016) “Local Tax Limits, Student Achievement, and School-Finance Equalization”, Journal of Education Finance, 41(3):289–301.
14.
DeeT.S., and JacobB.A. (2011) “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3):418–446.
15.
DeeT.S., JacobB.A.B, and SchwartzN.L. (2013) “The Effects of NCLB on School Resources and Practices”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2):252–279.
16.
DownesT.A., and FiglioD.N. (1999) “Do Tax and Expenditure Limits Provide a Free Lunch? Evidence on the Link between Limits and Public Sector Service Quality”, National Tax Journal, 52(1):113–128.
17.
DyeR.F., and McGuireT.J. (1997) “The Effect of Property Tax Limitation Measures on Local Government Fiscal Behavior”, Journal of Public Economics, 66(3):469–487.
18.
DyeR.F., McGuireT.J., and McMillenD.P. (2005) “Are Property Tax Limitations More Binding Over Time?”, National Tax Journal, 58(2):215–225.
19.
FengL., FiglioD., and SassT. (2018) “School Accountability and Teacher Mobility”, Journal of Urban Economics, 103(1):1–17.
20.
FiglioD.N. (1997) “Did the “tax revolt” Reduce School Performance?”, Journal of Public Economics, 65(3):245–269.
21.
FiglioD.N. (1998) “Short-term Effects of a 1990s-era Property Tax Limit: Panel evidence on Oregon's Measure 5”, National Tax Journal, 51(1):55–70.
22.
FiglioD.N., and LoebS. (2011) “School Accountability”, in: HanushekE.A., MachinS., and WoesmanL. (eds) Handbook of the Economics of Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
23.
FiglioD.N., and RuebenK.S. (2001) “Tax Limitations and the Qualifications of New Teachers”, Journal of Public Economics, 80(1):49–71.
24.
FiglioD.N., and O'SullivanA. (2001) “The Local Response to Tax Limitation Measures: Do Local Governments Manipulate Voters to Increase Revenues?”, Journal of Law and Economics, 41(1):233–257.
25.
FullbeckE.S., and FarleyA.N. (2012) Denver ProComp: Teachers' Attitudes and Behaviors.
26.
GoertzM.E. (2005) “Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the States”, Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2):73–89.
27.
GrissomJ.A. (2011) “Can Good Principals Keep Teachers in Disadvantaged Schools? Linking Principal Effectiveness to Teacher Satisfaction and Turnover in Hard-to-Staff Environments”, Teachers College Record, 113(11):2552–2585.
28.
GrissomJ.A. (2012) “Revisiting the Impact of Participative Decision Making on Public Employee Retention: The Moderating Influence of Effective Managers”, The American Review of Public Administration, 42(4):400–418.
29.
GrissomJ.A., and AndersonS. (2012) “Why Superintendents Turn Over”, American Educational Research Journal, 49(6):1146–1180.
30.
GrissomJ.A., and MitaniH. (2016) “Salary, Performance, and Superintendent Turnover”, Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3):351–391.
31.
GrissomJ.A., Nicholson-CrottyS., and HarringtonJ.R. (2014) “Estimating the Effects of No Child Left Behind on Teachers' Work Environments and Job Attitudes”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4):417–436.
32.
GrissomJ.A., VianoS.L., and SelinJ.L. (2016) “Understanding Employee Turnover in the Public Sector: Insights from Research on Teacher Mobility”, Public Administration Review, 76(2):241–251.
33.
GuarinoC.M., SantibanezL., and DaleyG.A. (2006) “Teacher Recruitment and Retention: A Review of the Recent Empirical Literature”, Review of Educational Research, 76(2):173–208.
34.
HanushekE.A., KainJ.F., and RivkinS.G. (2004) “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers?”, Journal of Human Resources, 39(2):326–354.
35.
HanushekE.A., and RaymondM.E. (2005) “Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Performance?”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2):297–327.
36.
HanushekE.A., and RaymondM.E. (2010) “The Quality and Distribution of Teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3):33–150.
37.
HayesM.S (2015) “The Differential Effect of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on States' Contributions to Education Funding in States with Binding School District Tax and Expenditure Limitations”, Public Budgeting & Finance, 35(1):49–72.
38.
HorngE.L. (2009) “Teacher Tradeoffs: Disentangling Teachers' Preferences for Working Conditions and Student Demographics”, American Educational Research Journal, 46(3):690–717.
39.
IngersollR.M. (2001) “Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis”, American Educational Research Journal, 38(3):499–534.
40.
JoyceP.G., and MullinsD.R. (1991) “The Changing Fiscal Structure of the State and Local Public Sector: The Impact of Tax and Expenditure Limitations”, Public Administration Review, 51(3) 240.
41.
KelloughJ.E., and OsunaW. (1995) “Cross-Agency Comparisons of Quit Rates in the Federal Service: Another Look at the Evidence”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 15(4):58–68.
42.
KimS. (2002) “Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management Leadership”, Public Administration Review, 62(2):231–241.
43.
KimS. (2005) “Factors Affecting State Government Information Technology Employee Turnover Intentions”, American Review of Public Administration, 35(2):137–156.
44.
KiokoS.N. (2011) “Structure of State-level Tax and Expenditure Limitations”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 31(2): 43–78.
45.
KiokoS.N., and MartellC.R. (2012) “Impact of State-level Tax and Expenditure Limits (TELs) on Government Revenues and Aid to Local Governments”, Public Finance Review, 40(6):736–766.
46.
KirbyS.N., BerendsM., and NaftelS. (1999) “Supply and Demand of Minority Teachers in Texas: Problems and Prospects”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1):47–66.
47.
LambertE.G., HoganN.L., and BartonS.M. (2001) “The Impact of Job Satisfaction on Turnover Intent: A Test of a Structural Measurement Model Using a National Sample of Workers”, The Social Science Journal, 38(2):233–250.
48.
LankfordH., LoebS., and WyckoffJ. (2002) “Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1):37–62.
49.
LeeS., and WhitfordA.B. (2008) “Commitment, Voice, and the Intent to Leave: Evidence from the Public Workforce”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18:647–71.
50.
LlorensJ.J., and StazykE.C. (2011) “How Important Are Competitive Wages? Exploring the Impact of Relative Wage Rates on Employee Turnover in State Government”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(2):111–127.
51.
LoebS., Darling-HammondL., and LuczakJ. (2013) “How Teaching Conditions Predict Teacher Turnover in California Schools”, Peabody Journal of Education, 80:44–70.
52.
McGuinnP.J. (2005) “The National Schoolmarm: No Child Left Behind and the New Educational Federalism”, Publius, 35(1):41–68.
53.
MaherC.S., and DellerS.C. (2013) “Measuring the impact of TELs on Municipal Financial Condition”, in: LevineH., JusticeJ.B., and ScorsoneE.A. (eds.) Handbook of Local Government Fiscal Health, Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning, pp. 405–430.
54.
MeierK.J., and HicklinA. (2007) “Employee Turnover and Organizational Performance: Testing a Hypothesis from Classical Public Administration”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4):573–590.
55.
MeierK.J., and O'TooleL.J. (2009) “The Dog that Didn't Bark: How Public Managers Handle Environmental Shocks”, Public Administration, 87(3):485–502.
56.
MintzbergH. (1979) The Structuring of OrganizationsEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
57.
MobleyW.H., GriffethR.W., HandH.H., and MeglinoB.M. (1979) “Review and Conception Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process”, Psychological Bulletin, 86(3):493–522.
58.
MoynihanD.P., and PandeyS.K. (2008) “The Ties that Bind: Social Networks, Person-Organization Value Fit, and Turnover Intention”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2):205–227.
59.
MullinsD.R. (2004) “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and the Fiscal Response of Local Governments: Asymmetric Intra-Local Fiscal Effects”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 24(4):111–147.
60.
MullinsD.R., and JoyceP.G. (1996) “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and State and Local Fiscal Structure: An Empirical Assessment”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 16(1):75–101.
61.
MullinsD.R., and WallinB.A. (2004) “Tax and Expenditure Limitations: Introduction and Overview”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 24(4):2–15.
62.
OlsonL. (2003) “In ESEA Wake, School Data Flowing Forth”, Education Week, December 10, 2003.
63.
O'TooleL.J., and MeierK.J. (1999) “Modeling the Impact of Public Management: Implications of Structural Context”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(4):505–526.
64.
ParkT.Y., and ShawJ.D. (2013) “Turnover Rates and Organizational Performance: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2):268–309.
65.
PittsD.W. (2005) “Leadership, Empowerment, and Public Organizations”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(1):5–28.
66.
PittsD.W., MarvelJ., and FernandezS. (2011) “So Hard to Say Goodbye? Turnover Intention among U.S. Federal Employees”, Public Administration Review, 71(5):751–760.
67.
PuhaniP.A. (2012) “The Treatment Effect, the Cross Difference, and the Interaction Term in Nonlinear ‘Difference-in-Difference’ Models”, Economics Letters, 115(1):85–87.
68.
RebackR., RockoffJ., and SchwartzH.L. (2014) “Under Pressure: Job Security, Resource Allocation, and Productivity in Schools under No Child Left Behind”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3):207–241.
69.
RonfeldtM., LoebS., and WyckoffJ. (2013) “How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, 50(1):4–36.
70.
ShadbegianR.J. (2003) “Did the Property Tax Revolt Affect Local Public Education? Evidence from Panel Data”, Public Finance Review, 31(1):91–121.
71.
ShawJ.D., DeleryJ.E., JenkinsG.D., and GuptaN. (1998) “An Organization-Level Analysis of Voluntary and Involuntary Turnover”, Academy of Management, 41(5):511–525.
72.
ShawJ.D., GuptaN., and DeleryJ.E. (2005) “Alternative Conceptualizations of the Relationship Between Voluntary Turnover and Organizational Performance”, Academy of Management, 48(1):50–68.
73.
SeldenS.C., and MoynihanD.P. (2000) “A Model of Voluntary Turnover in State Government”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20(2): 63–70.
74.
ShellyB. (2008) “Rebels and Their Causes: State Resistance to No Child Left Behind”, The Journal of Federalism, 38(3):444–468.
75.
ShenJ. (1997) “Teacher Retention and Attrition in Public Schools: Evidence from SASS91”, Journal of Educational Research, 91(2):81–88.
76.
SimonN.S., and JohnsonS.M. (2015) “Teacher Turnover in High-Poverty Schools: What We Know and Can Do”, Teachers College Record, 117(3):36.
77.
SkidmoreM. (1999) “Tax and Expenditure Limitations and Fiscal Relationships between State and Local Governments”, Public Choice, 99(1):77–102.
78.
StallmannJ.I., MaherC.S., DellerS.C., and ParkS. (2017) “Research on the Effects of Limitations on Taxes and Expenditures”, Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 3(2):197–222.
79.
SunR. (2014) “Reevaluating the Effect of Tax and Expenditure Limitations: An Instrumental Variable Approach”, Public Finance Review, 42(1):92–116.
80.
SunM., SaultzA., and YeY. (2017) “Federal Policy and the Teacher Labor Market: Exploring the Effects of NCLB School Accountability on Teacher Turnover”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1):102–122.
81.
Texas Center for Educational Research. (2000) “The cost of teacher turnover”.
82.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2003) “Title I: Characteristics of tests will influence expenses; information sharing may help state realize efficiencies”, GAO-03-389. Washington, DC: Author.
83.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
