Research on teacher churn has produced conflicting conclusions as to its impact on students and teachers. We bring clarity to this work by combining and expanding on analytical approaches used in earlier research to determine how and when different types of churn (i.e., grade, school) impact teacher effectiveness and attendance. Using data from the Los Angeles Unified School District, our results suggest differences based on analytical approach but ultimately show that changing schools and grades may be less of an issue than previously reported. In addition, in the case of school churn, a beneficial match in their new school sites may matter more for teacher outcomes than potential disruptive effects of churn. We conclude with implications for policy and future research.
AngristJ.PischkeJ. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
2.
AtteberryA.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2016). Teacher churning: Reassignment rates and implications for student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716659929
3.
BeckerG. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9–49.
4.
BlazarD. (2015). Grade assignments and the teacher pipeline: A low-cost lever to improve student achievement?Educational Researcher, 44(4), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15580944
5.
BoyanJ. (1979). Job matching and the theory of turnover. Journal of Political Economy, 87(5), 972–990.
6.
BrykA.CamburnE.LouisK. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 751–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x99355004
7.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
8.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. The American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593–2632.
9.
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(3), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.011
10.
Cohen-VogelL. (2011). “Staffing to the test”: Are today’s school personnel practices evidence based?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711419845
11.
FengL.SassT. R. (2017). Teacher quality and mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 12(3), 396–418. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP
12.
GathmannC.SchönbergU. (2010). How general is human capital? A task-based approach. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/649786
13.
GestwickiC. (2013). Developmentally appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in early education. Cengage Learning.
14.
GibbonsR.WaldmanM. (2003). Task-specific human capital. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 203–207.
15.
GibbonsS.ScrutinioV.TelhajS. (2021). Teacher turnover: Effects, mechanisms, and organisational responses. Labour Economics, 73, Article 102079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102079
16.
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(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20549
17.
GoldhaberD.HansenM. (2010). Assessing the potential of using estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions (No. 31). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509689
18.
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(6), 1079–1116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716301
19.
GrissomJ. A.KeiserL. R. (2011). A supervisor like me: Race, representation, and the satisfaction and turnover decisions of public sector employees. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 1036–1043. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam
20.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS.NakashimaN. A. (2013). Strategic involuntary teacher transfers and teacher performance: Examining equity and efficiency. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2), 296–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G.SchimanJ. 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
23.
HenryG. T.ReddingC. (2018). 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/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
24.
HockH.IsenbergE. (2017). Methods for accounting for co-teaching in value-added models. Statistics and Public Policy, 4(1), 1–11.
25.
JacksonC. K. (2013). Match quality, worker productivity, and worker mobility: Direct evidence from teachers. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1096–1116. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00339
26.
JacksonC. K.BruegmannE. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 85–108.
JamesJ.WyckoffJ. H. (2020). Teacher evaluation and teacher turnover in equilibrium: Evidence from DC Public Schools. AERA Open, 6(2), Article 93223. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932235
29.
JovanovicB. (1979). Firm-specific capital and turnover. Journal of Political Economy, 87(6), 1246–1260. https://doi.org/10.1086/260834
30.
KauffmanD.JohnsonS. M.KardosS. M.LiuE.PeskeH. G. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00163
31.
KnightD. S.StrunkK. O. (2016). Who bears the costs of district funding cuts? Reducing inequality in the distribution of teacher layoffs. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16670899
32.
KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713519496
33.
LockwoodJ. R.McCaffreyD. F. (2014). Correcting for test score measurement error in ANCOVA models for estimating treatment effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(1), 22–52. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998613509405
34.
MortensenD. T. (1978). Specific capital and labor turnover. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 572–586. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003599
35.
NickellsS. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49(6), 1417–1426.
36.
OstB. (2014). How do teachers improve? The relative importance of specific and general human capital. American Economic Review, 6(2), 127–151.
PapayJ. P.Bacher-HicksA.PageL. C.MarinellW. H. (2017). The challenge of teacher retention in urban schools: Evidence of variation from a cross-site analysis. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2607776
39.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12145
40.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
41.
RogersL. K.DoanS. (2019). Late to class: Estimating the relationship between teacher assignment change and student sorting. The Elementary School Journal, 120(2), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1086/705965
42.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813
43.
SimonN. S.JohnsonS. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36.
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.
