Ingersoll was not alone in his focus on working conditions: Other researchers, working in the 1990s and 2000s, examined the influence of working conditions on job satisfaction and on teacher retention decisions alongside other factors such as salary, student enrollment trends, and personal factors such as maternity leave (Theobald, 1990; Billingsley, 1993; Kim & Loadman, 1994; Gonzalez, 1995; some 2000 citations needed). Ingersoll was by no means the only voice advocating that more attention be paid to factors within the control of administrators, yet his work, as indicated by the extensive references in the literature, has had lasting influence. Dunn (2015) explained that Ingersoll’s influence is due to his continuous work of “disproving myths” (p. 86) about the prevalence of teacher shortages. “Teacher migration” as a keyword by the decade. Push and pull factors. Push/pull factors either create or mitigate demand for teachers. Push and pull factors are usually studied within the discipline of geography, specifically in migration studies. Since teacher retention is concerned with preventing migration, they provide an apt framework for approaching the demand-side of the teacher turnover problem. Push and pull factors are workplace conditions that contribute to attrition and retention. Push and pull factors may be environmental, political, economic, cultural, or any combination thereof (National Geographic) as well as demographic and social (Yaro). Push factors cause teachers to decide to migrate from a building or corporation or leave the teaching profession. They are negative factors which contribute to teachers’ “dissatisfaction” (Ingersol, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2013; Moore, 2012) with their current teaching positions. In contrast, pull factors are positive factors that influence teachers to remain in their current position, building, or school corporation. Supply-side approaches offer macro-level policies; for example, states that legislate scholarship and loan-forgiveness programs are enacting supply-side, macro-level policies.
…show more content…
In contrast, demand-side approaches reflect micro-level needs, offering policy solutions enacted at a building or district level. Both push and pull factors are policy amenable at the local level. Unlike teacher compensation, teacher qualities, and student Socioeconomic Status, building-level leadership have control over push and pull factors. Decisions, policy, and actions by school administrators, therefore, contribute to teachers staying, migrating, or leaving. Dunn (2015) explained these factors have “not been fully explored in the literature because of their relative newness” (p. 85). From her small qualitative study of three highly-effective urban high school teachers, Dunn (2015) concluded pull factors are often able to overpower push factors for teachers who contemplate whether to remain in teaching. Dunn admits her sampling is too small to make any generalizations but her study serves to highlight the emerging importance of a push and pull approach to examine teachers’ decisions to remain in or leave their buildings. Grissom (2011) affirmed Dunn’s work when he declared that policy-amenable factors correlated with teacher retention deserve more empirical research. What the Data Tell Us Costs Costs to replace teachers who leave for family reasons or retirement are expected by district administrators. (Note: Discuss Natural attrition rate/voluntary turnover/separations – Inevitable. Not higher in education than many other industries. So what’s the problem? What is the actual cost to recruit, hire, train? Problem may not be the financial cost but the cost to students). Costs to recruit, hire, and train a “replacement teacher” (Caroll, 2007, p. 3) can range from about $4,000 in the most rural schools to nearly $18,000 in Chicago (Caroll, 2007). In addition to financial costs incurred to replace teachers, there are costs to students and the school. An alarming number of teachers leave after the first year, (cite give data for each year up to five) resulting in the constant need to …show more content…
Balu et al. (2010) noted that “not all teacher turnover is bad for schools” (201, p. 2); the goal is to retain high quality teachers, not just ensure the physical presence of a teacher in the classroom (Boyd et al., 2010; others). This means some early migration and early exit from the profession is desirable. Effective principals are committed to “strategically retaining quality teachers,” removing ineffective teachers, and developing veteran teachers (Loeb, Kalogrides, & Béteille, 2012). Ingersoll et al. (2014) noted the problems resulting from too little teacher turnover: stagnancy and lack of innovation. Carroll (2007) asserted that “the goal is not to achieve zero turnover” (p.
In contrast, demand-side approaches reflect micro-level needs, offering policy solutions enacted at a building or district level. Both push and pull factors are policy amenable at the local level. Unlike teacher compensation, teacher qualities, and student Socioeconomic Status, building-level leadership have control over push and pull factors. Decisions, policy, and actions by school administrators, therefore, contribute to teachers staying, migrating, or leaving. Dunn (2015) explained these factors have “not been fully explored in the literature because of their relative newness” (p. 85). From her small qualitative study of three highly-effective urban high school teachers, Dunn (2015) concluded pull factors are often able to overpower push factors for teachers who contemplate whether to remain in teaching. Dunn admits her sampling is too small to make any generalizations but her study serves to highlight the emerging importance of a push and pull approach to examine teachers’ decisions to remain in or leave their buildings. Grissom (2011) affirmed Dunn’s work when he declared that policy-amenable factors correlated with teacher retention deserve more empirical research. What the Data Tell Us Costs Costs to replace teachers who leave for family reasons or retirement are expected by district administrators. (Note: Discuss Natural attrition rate/voluntary turnover/separations – Inevitable. Not higher in education than many other industries. So what’s the problem? What is the actual cost to recruit, hire, train? Problem may not be the financial cost but the cost to students). Costs to recruit, hire, and train a “replacement teacher” (Caroll, 2007, p. 3) can range from about $4,000 in the most rural schools to nearly $18,000 in Chicago (Caroll, 2007). In addition to financial costs incurred to replace teachers, there are costs to students and the school. An alarming number of teachers leave after the first year, (cite give data for each year up to five) resulting in the constant need to …show more content…
Balu et al. (2010) noted that “not all teacher turnover is bad for schools” (201, p. 2); the goal is to retain high quality teachers, not just ensure the physical presence of a teacher in the classroom (Boyd et al., 2010; others). This means some early migration and early exit from the profession is desirable. Effective principals are committed to “strategically retaining quality teachers,” removing ineffective teachers, and developing veteran teachers (Loeb, Kalogrides, & Béteille, 2012). Ingersoll et al. (2014) noted the problems resulting from too little teacher turnover: stagnancy and lack of innovation. Carroll (2007) asserted that “the goal is not to achieve zero turnover” (p.