Studies link principal effectiveness to lower average rates of teacher turnover. However, principals need not target retention efforts equally to all teachers. Instead, strong principals may seek to strategically influence the composition of their school’s teaching force by retaining high performers and not retaining lower performers. We investigate such strategic retention behaviors with longitudinal data from Tennessee. Using multiple measures of teacher and principal effectiveness, we document that indeed more effective principals see lower rates of teacher turnover, on average. Moreover, this lower turnover is concentrated among high-performing teachers. In contrast, turnover rates of the lowest-performing teachers, as measured by classroom observation scores, increase substantially under higher-rated principals. This pattern is more apparent in advantaged schools and schools with stable leadership.
AdnotM.DeeT.KatzV.WyckoffJ. (2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 1–23.
2.
AllensworthE.PonisciakS.MazzeoC. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BormanG. D.DowlingN. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 367–409.
6.
BoydD.GrossmanP.IngM.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 303–333.
7.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.RockoffJ.WyckoffJ. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 793-818.
8.
BurkhauserS. (2017). How much do school principals matter when it comes to teacher working conditions?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 126–145.
9.
CannataM.RubinM.GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.NeumerskiC. M.DrakeT. A.SchuermannP. (2017). Using teacher effectiveness data for information-rich hiring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53, 180–222.
10.
ChingosM. M.WestM. R. (2011). Promotion and reassignment in public school districts: How do schools respond to differences in teacher effectiveness?Economics of Education Review, 30, 419-433.
11.
Cohen-VogelL. (2011). “Staffing to the test”: Are today’s school personnel practices evidence based?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 483–505.
12.
CoelliM.GreenD. A. (2012). Leadership effects: school principals and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31, 92–109.
13.
DonaldsonM. L. (2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness: Constraints and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 838-882.
14.
DrakeT. A.GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.CannataM. A.NeumerskiC.RubinM.SchuermannP. (2016). Development or dismissal? Exploring principals’ use of teacher effectiveness data. In GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 169–183). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
15.
GoldhaberD.GrossB.PlayerD. (2011). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistence in the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 57-87.
16.
GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.RubinM.NeumerskiC. M.CannataM.DrakeT.SchuermannP. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44, 96–104.
17.
GoldringE.NeumerskiC. M.CannataM.DrakeT. A.GrissomJ. A.RubinM.SchuermannP. (2014). Principals’ use of teacher effectiveness data for talent management decisions. Nashville, TN: Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from http://www.principaldatause.org/
18.
GordonR. J.KaneT. J.StaigerD. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
GriffithJ. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 333–356.
20.
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, 2552–2585.
21.
GrissomJ. A.BlissettR. S. L.MitaniH. (2018). Evaluating school principals: Supervisor ratings of principal practice and principal job performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40, 446–472.
22.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2015). Using student test scores to measure principal performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 3–28.
23.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2017). Strategic staffing? How performance pressures affect the distribution of teachers within schools and resulting student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 1079–1116.
24.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1091–1123.
25.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS. (2017). Assessing principals’ assessments: Subjective evaluations of teacher effectiveness in low- and high-stakes environments. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 369–395.
26.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS.DossC. (2016). The multiple dimensions of teacher quality: Does value-added capture teachers’ nonachievement contributions to their schools? In GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 37–50). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS.NakashimaN. A. (2014). Strategic involuntary teacher transfers and teacher performance: Examining equity and efficiency. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33, 112–140.
28.
GrissomJ. A.RubinM.GoldringE.CannataM.DrakeT.NeumerskiC. M.SchuermannP. (2017). Central office supports for data-driven talent management decisions: Evidence from the implementation of new systems for measuring teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46, 21–32.
29.
GrissomJ. A.VianoS. L.SelinJ. L. (2016). Understanding employee turnover in the public sector: Insights from research on teacher mobility. Public Administration Review, 76, 241–251.
30.
GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.). (2016). Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
GuarinoC. M.SantibañezL.DaleyG. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173–208.
32.
HallingerP. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221–239.
33.
HanushekE. A. (2009). Teacher deselection. In GoldhaberD.HannawayJ. (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 165–180). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
34.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G.SchimanJ. C. (2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on the quality of instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55, 132–148.
35.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2014). Skills, productivity and the evaluation of teacher performance. Economics of Education Review, 40, 183–204.
36.
HarrisonC.Cohen-VogelL. (2012). The politics of teacher reform in Florida: Analyzing causal narratives surrounding state adoption of performance-based evaluations, performance pay, and tenure elimination. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 517–534.
37.
IngersollR. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.
38.
JacobB. A. (2011). Do principals fire the worst teachers?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 403–434.
39.
JacobB. A.LefgrenL. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101–136.
40.
JohnsonS. M.BirkelandS. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 581–617.
41.
JohnsonS. M.KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2012). How context matters in high-needs schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–39.
42.
KalogridesD.LoebS.BéteilleT. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86, 103-123.
43.
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2017). Revisiting The Widget Effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46, 234–249.
44.
KraftM. A.MarinellW. H.YeeD. (2016). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1411–1449.
45.
LaddH. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 235–261.
46.
LoebS.BéteilleT.KalogridesD. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Education Finance and Policy, 7, 269–304.
47.
MasterB. (2014). Staffing for success: Linking teacher evaluation and school personnel management in practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 207–227.
48.
MillerA. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36, 60–72.
49.
NeumerskiC. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 310–347.
PainterS. R. (2000). Principals’ perceptions of barriers to teacher dismissal. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 253–264.
52.
PlayerD. (2010). Nonmonetary compensation in the public teacher labor market. Education Finance and Policy, 5, 82-103.
53.
ReinhornS. K.JohnsonS. M.SimonN. (2017). Investing in development: six high-performing, high-poverty schools implement Massachusetts’ teacher evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 383–406.
54.
RockoffB. J. E.StaigerD. O.KaneT. J.TaylorE. S. (2012). Information and employee evaluation: Evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools. American Economic Review, 102, 3184–3213.
55.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4–36.
56.
SartainL.StoelingaS. R.BrownE. R. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
57.
StaigerD. O.RockoffJ. E. (2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect information. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 97–118.
58.
SteinbergM. P.DonaldsonM. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 340-359.
59.
StockardJ.LehmanM. B. (2004). Influences on the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year teachers: The importance of effective school management. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 742–771.
60.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD.SchunckJ.PalciscoA.MorganK. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New York, NY: The New Teacher Project.
61.
WessonL. (2012). Recent teacher policy changes in Tennessee: Achieving and maintaining tenure (OREA Report). Nashville, TN: Offices of Education Research and Accountability.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
