The Magnitude, Destinations, and Determinants of Mathematics and Science Teacher Turnover

Abstract

This study examines the magnitude, destinations, and determinants of the departures of mathematics and science teachers from public schools. The data are from the National Center for Education Statistics' nationally representative Schools and Staffing Survey and its longitudinal supplement, the Teacher Follow-up Survey. Our analyses show that rates of mathematics and science teacher turnover, both those moving between schools and those leaving teaching altogether, have increased over the past two decades, but have not been consistently different than those of non-mathematics/science teachers. Mathematics and science teachers who left teaching were also no more likely than other teachers to take non-education jobs, such as in technological fields, or to be working for private business or industry.The data also show that, like other teachers, there are large school-to-school differences in mathematics and science turnover. High poverty, high minority, and urban public schools have among the highest mathematics and science turnover levels. In the case of cross-school migration, the data show there is an annual asymmetric reshuffling of a significant portion of the mathematics and science teaching force from poor to not poor schools, from high-minority to low-minority schools, and from urban to suburban schools. However, our multivariate analyses showed that a number of key organizational characteristics and conditions of schools accounted for these school differences in turnover. The strongest factors for mathematics teachers were the degree of individual classroom autonomy held by teachers, the provision of useful professional development , and the degree of student discipline problems. For science teachers, the strongest factors were the maximum potential salary offered by school districts, the degree of student discipline problems in schools, and useful professional development. Disciplines About the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE)Established in 1985, CPRE unites researchers from seven of the nation's leading research institutions in efforts to improve elementary and secondary education through practical research on policy, finance, school reform, and school governance. CPRE studies alternative approaches to education reform to determine how state and local policies can promote student learning. The Consortium's member institutions are the University of Pennsylvania, Teachers College-Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Northwestern University.Most recently, CPRE has opened two major centers-the Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement, a center engaged in research and development on tools, processes, and policies intended to promote the continuous improvement of instructional practice; and the Strategic Management of Human Capital in Public Education, a center focused on improving the quality of classroom instruction and student outcomes in K-12 classrooms by radically improving the strate...

Reflective Pathways: Analysis of an Urban Science Teaching Field Experience on Noyce Scholar‐Science Education Awardees' Decisions to Teach Science in a High‐Need New York City School

“…However, even though science teachers' understanding and appreciation of the culture of students is important, Ingersoll and May () report science teachers often migrate from urban to suburban districts because of greater salaries and fewer discipline problems. This is important because we need to recognize that even though this project is effective in helping our Noyce Scholars make an experience‐based decision about becoming a high‐need NYC science teacher, we have to be concerned that they too will migrate back to suburban non‐high‐need districts after completing their four years of required high‐need teaching.…”

Examining the relationship of teacher perception of accountability and assessment policies on teacher turnover during NCLB

“…Foremost, across the teacher retention literature, teachers who perceive that they have more autonomy over their work and higher levels of administrative support are less likely to move to another school or leave the profession (Borman & Dowling, 2008;Guarino et al, 2006;Podolsky et al, 2016Urick, 2016. For example, when organizational characteristics such as principal leadership and teacher autonomy were included in models of mathematics and science teacher turnover, many of the demographic variables, such as poverty rate and locale, that previously predicted turnover, were no longer significant (Ingersoll & May, 2012).…”

Analyzing Relationship between Four Teacher Competence Areas and Commitment to Teaching

“…Commitment to teaching is vital to reducing teacher turnover, implementing curricular innovations, enacting change within a discipline, maintaining program continuity, sustained success, and enhancing the depth of student development (Firestone & Pennell, 1993;Hausman & Goldring, 2001;Ingersoll & May, 2010;Robinson & Edwards, 2012). Research has identified a noteworthy range of variables which influence commitment to teaching (e.g., classroom management, curriculum delivery competence, work-life balance, and classroom organization issues), highlighting the need for research exploring the relationship between multiple competence areas and commitment to teaching (McKim & Velez, 2016;Mee & Haverback, 2014;.…”