Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Attracting and retaining teachers can be an important ingredient in improving low-performing schools. In this study, we estimate the expressed preferences for teachers who have worked in low-performing schools in Tennessee. Using adaptive conjoint analysis survey design, we examine three types of school attributes that may influence teachers’ employment decisions: fixed school characteristics, structural features of employment, and malleable school processes. We find that teachers express a strong preference for two malleable school processes, administrative support and discipline enforcement, along with a higher salary, a structural feature. Estimates indicate these attributes are 2 to 3 times more important to teachers than fixed school characteristics like prior achievement. We validate our results using administrative data on teachers’ revealed preferences.

Keywords

low-performing schools survey methods teacher preferences turnaround schools working conditions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achinstein

Ogawa

R. T.

Sexton

Freitas

(2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 71–107. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309355994

Aragon

Workman

(2015). Emerging state turnaround strategies. Education Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/12139.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455

Boyd

Lankford

Loeb

Ronfeldt

Wyckoff

(2011). The effect of school neighborhoods on teachers’ career decisions. In Duncan

G. J.

Murnane

R. J.

(Eds.), Whither opportunity (pp. 377–396). Russell Sage Foundation.

Carlson

Lavertu

(2018). School Improvement Grants in Ohio: Effects on student achievement and school administration. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718760218

Chetty

Friedman

J. N.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633

Clotfelter

C. T.

Glennie

Ladd

Vigdor

(2008). Would higher salaries keep teachers in high-poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North Carolina. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1352–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.07.003

Dee

(2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (Working Paper No. 17990). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17990

Dee

Wyckoff

(2013). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT (Working Paper No. 19529). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19529

10.

Dragoset

Thomas

Herrmann

Deke

James-Burdumy

Graczewski

Boyle

Upton

Tanenbaum

Giffin

(2017). School Improvement Grants: Implementation and effectiveness (NCEE 2017-4013). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174013/pdf/20174013.pdf

11.

Engel

Jacob

B. A.

Curran

F. C.

(2014). New evidence on teacher labor supply. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 36–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213503031

12.

Glazer

J. L.

Massell

Malone

(2019). Charter schools in turnaround: Competing institutional logics in the Tennessee Achievement School District. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718795051

13.

Green

P. E.

Krieger

A. M.

Agarwal

M. K.

(1991). Adaptive conjoint analysis: Some caveats and suggestions. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800208

14.

Grissom

J. 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.

15.

Grissom

J. A.

Viano

Selin

J. L.

(2016). Understanding employee turnover in the public sector: Insights from research on teacher mobility. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12435

16.

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002173

17.

Hanushek

E. A.

Kain

J. F.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/3559017

18.

Hanushek

E. A.

Rivkin

S. G.

Schiman

J. C.

(2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on the quality of instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55, 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.08.004

19.

Hendricks

M. D.

(2014). Does it pay to pay teachers more? Evidence from Texas. Journal of Public Economics, 109, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.11.001

20.

Henry

G. T.

Pham

L. D.

Kho

Zimmer

(2020). Peeking into the black box of school turnaround: A formal test of mediators and suppressors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720908600

21.

Henry

G. T.

Redding

(2020). The consequences of leaving school early: The effects of within-year and end-of-year teacher turnover. Education Finance and Policy, 15(2), 332–356. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00274

22.

Henry

G. T.

Zimmer

Attridge

Kho

Viano

(2014). Teacher and student migration in and out of Tennessee’s Achievement School District. Tennessee Consortium on Research, Evaluation, & Development. https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/TERA/files/ASD_Teacher_Student_Migration.pdf

23.

Horng

E. L.

(2009). Teacher tradeoffs: Disentangling teachers’ preferences for working conditions and student demographics. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 690–717. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329599

24.

Hughes

G. D.

(2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics, organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 105(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.584922

25.

Jackson

C. K.

(2012). Non-cognitive ability, test scores, and teacher quality: Evidence from 9th grade teachers in North Carolina (Working Paper No. w18624). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18624

26.

Jackson

C. K.

Rockoff

J. E.

Staiger

D. O.

(2014). Teacher effects and teacher-related policies. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 801–825. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-040845

27.

Jochim

(2016). Measures of last resort: Assessing strategies for state-initiated turnarounds. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/crpe-measures-last-resort.pdf

28.

Jochim

Opalka

(2017). The “City of Firsts” charts a new path on turnaround. Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/crpe-city-firsts.pdf

29.

Johnson

S. M.

Birkeland

S. E.

(2003). The schools that teachers choose. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 20–24.

30.

Johnson

S. M.

Heal

J. R.

(2017). Investing in teachers: The Lawrence public schools respond to state receivership. In Cases in education leadership. Harvard Education.

31.

Johnson

S. M.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

J. 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.

32.

Johnson

S. M.

, & Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. (2006). Why new teachers stay. American Educator, 30(2), 8–21.

33.

Johnson

S. M.

Reinhorn

S. K.

Simon

N. S.

(2016). Ending isolation: The payoff of teacher teams in successful high-poverty urban schools. Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/gse-projectngt/files/johnson_et_al_teams_revised_062916.pdf

34.

Koedel

Betts

J. R.

(2007). Re-examining the role of teacher quality in the educational production function (Working Paper No. 2007-03). National Center on Performance Incentives, Vanderbilt, Peabody College. https://my.vanderbilt.edu/performanceincentives/files/2012/10/200703_KoedelBetts_ReExamTeacherQual1.pdf

35.

Ladd

H. F.

(2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711398128

36.

Loeb

Darling-Hammond

Luczak

(2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4

37.

Mason

Reckhow . (2016). Who governs now? Takeover, portfolios, and school district governance (Working Paper No. 52). Education Policy Center, Michigan State University.

38.

Orme

(Ed.). (2014, December 16). SSI Web v8.3: Software for web interviewing and conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software.

39.

Papay

J. P.

Hannon

(2018). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts. Brown University.

40.

Player

Katz

(2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1086/686467

41.

Podgursky

Monroe

Watson

(2004). The academic quality of public school teachers: An analysis of entry and exit behavior. Economics of Education Review, 23(5), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.01.005

42.

Redding

Henry

G. T.

(2018). New evidence on the frequency of teacher turnover: Accounting for within-year turnover. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 577–593. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18814450

43.

Rivkin

S. G.

Hanushek

E. A.

Kain

J. F.

(2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x

44.

Robinson

N. R.

(2012). Preservice music teachers’ employment preferences consideration factors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(3), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412454723

45.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244

46.

Ronfeldt

Loeb

Wyckoff

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

47.

Rothstein

(2014). Teacher quality policy when supply matters. American Economic Review, 105(1), 100–130. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20121242

48.

Schueler

Goodman

J. S.

Deming

D. J.

(2017). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716685824

49.

Simon

N. S.

Johnson

S. M.

Reinhorn

S. K.

(2015). A quest for “the very best”: Teacher recruitment in six successful, high-poverty, urban schools. The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

50.

Simon

N. S.

Johnson

S. M.

Reinhorn

S. K.

(2019). Making a match: How successful high-poverty schools hire teachers. The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

51.

Springer

M. G.

Swain

W. A.

Rodriguez

L. A.

(2016). Effective teacher retention bonuses: Evidence from Tennessee. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715609687

52.

Strunk

K. O.

Barrett

Lincove

J. A.

(2017). When tenure ends: The short-run effects of the elimination of Louisiana’s teacher employment protections on teacher exit and retirement. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.

53.

Strunk

K. O.

Marsh

J. A.

Hashim

A. K.

Bush-Mecenas

Weinstein

(2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 251–282. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00188

54.

Sun

Penner

E. K.

Loeb

(2017). Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of School Improvement Grants. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 607–643. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217695790

55.

Swain

W. A.

Rodriguez

L. A.

Springer

M. G.

(2019). Selective retention bonuses for highly effective teachers in high poverty schools: Evidence from Tennessee. Economics of Education Review, 68, 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.12.008

56.

Tumbusch

J. J.

(1991). Validation of adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) versus standard concept testing. In Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings (pp. 177–184). https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/validaca.pdf

57.

UNC Educator Quality Dashboard. (n.d.). Job placement rates. http://eqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/job-placement/

58.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibility: Request. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/tn.pdf

59.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). School Improvement Grants. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html

60.

Vergara v. State of California, No. B258589 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4249835/vergara-v-state-of-california/

61.

Zimmer

Henry

G. T.

Kho

(2017). The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s achievement school district and innovation zones. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 670–696. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717705729

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.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB

What Teachers Want: School Factors Predicting Teachers’ Decisions to Work in Low-Performing Schools

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material