Factors Affecting Elementary Teacher Retention And Turnover In Selected Unified School Districts Of Southern California

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 71-16,400
BROWN, Charles Leonard, 1928-
FACTORS AFFECTING ELEMENTARY TEACHER RETENTION
AND TURNOVER IN SELECTED UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1971
Education, administration
University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
© 1971
Charles Leonard Brown
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
FACTORS AFFECTING ELEMENTARY TEACHER RETENTION
AND TURNOVER IN SELECTED UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Charles Leonard Brown
January 1971
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
Date. ./Ill
Dean
Guidance Committee 'ommittee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE ....
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Basic Assumptions
Delimitations of the Study
Definition of Terms
Arrangement of the Chapters
II. THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...............
Turnover in Industry
Reasons for Teacher Turnover
Teacher Role as a Factor in Turnover
Orientation and Induction as a Factor
in Teacher Turnover
In-Service Training and Curriculum
Planning as Related to Turnover
Morale as a Factor in Turnover
Community and Social Class as a
Factor in Turnover
Administration and Supervision as
Factors in Turnover
Economic Factors as Related to Turnover
Working Conditions and Other Dissatis
factions as Factors in Teacher
Turnover
The Problem of Teacher Turnover
Chapter Page
III. METHOD AND PROCEDURE........................ 65
Development of the Instrument
Selection of the Respondents
Distribution of the Instrument
Examination and Treatment of the Data
Chapter Summary
IV. RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY .... 77
Administration and Organizational Factors
Teacher-Administrator Communication
Appropriateness of Assignment
Supervision Teachers Receive
Administrative Leadership
Availability of Textbooks and Resource
Materials
Fairness in Assignment of Responsibil
ities
Orientation to Assigned School
Administrative Backing in Disciplinary
Problems
Appropriateness of Grade Level Assignment
Supplies and Equipment
Working Conditions
Curriculum Planning and Educational
Objectives
Teacher-Board of Education Relationships
Help of School Administration in
Achieving Objectives
Teacher-Teacher Relationships
Challenge of Curriculum to Students
Freedom to Experiment
Results of Personal Efforts to Achieve
Objectives
Teacher Participation in Selection of
Material and Supplies
Potential of District to Become One of
Top Ten in State Educationally
iii
Chapter Page
Encouragement of Creativity
Compatibility of District Objectives
and Personal Objectives
Teacher Role in Curriculum Development
Personnel Practices
Adequacy of Information Given in
Initial Interview
Grievance Procedure
Security in Position
District Promotional Practices
Orientation to the District
District Transfer Policies
Leave Policy
Knowledge of Assigned Building Before
Signing Contract
Opportunity to Interview with
Principal
Academic Ability Level of Students
Students Assigned to Me in My Last
Assignment
Average Ability of Students Taught
Salary
Salary Schedule
Chapter Summary
V. RESULTS OF FOUR OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS . . .160
Main Reason for Leaving This District
A Secondary Reason for Leaving This
District
Teachers Leaving Education
When Expecting to Return to Teaching
Chapter Summary
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 171
Summary of the Investigation
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
iv
I
Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 185
APPENDICES....................................... 196
A. Letter to Personnel Directors . . . 197
B. Letters of Transmittal to Respondents 200
C. Questionnaire........................203
D. Tabulation of Teacher Responses
1-Personal Information ............. 206
2-Building Level Considerations . . 210
3-District Level Considerations . 217
LIST OF TABLES
| Table Page
j 1. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Teacher-Administrator
Communication ........................ 80
2. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Appropriateness of
Assignment....................... 82
3. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Supervision that
Teachers Receive ..................... 84
4. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Administrative
Leadership....................... 86
5. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Textbooks and
Resource Materials .................. 88
6. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Fairness in Assign
ment of Responsibilities by Principal . 90
7. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Orientation to
Assigned Building .................. 92
8. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Administrative
Backing in Disciplinary Problems . . 95
9. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Appropriateness of
Grade-Level Assignment ............... 97
vi
Table Page
10. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Supplies and
Equipment................................. 99
11. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses-Regarding Working Conditions . 101
12. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Teacher-Board of
Education Relationships ............... 103
13. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Help of School
Administrator in Achieving Objectives. . 105
14. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Teacher-Teacher
Relationships ........................ 108
15. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding the Challenge of
the Curriculum to Students.......... 110
16. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Freedom to Experiment 112
17. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Results of Personal
Efforts to Achieve District Objectives . 114
18. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Teacher Participation
in Selection of Materials and Supplies . 116
19. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Potential of the
District to Become Educationally One of
Top Ten in the State.................... 118
20. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Encouragement of
Creativity............................. 120
vii
Table Page
21. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Compatibility of
District Objectives and Personal
Objectives............................... 122
22. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Teacher Role in
Curriculum Development .................. 124
23. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Adequacy of Informa
tion Given in the Initial Interview . . 127
24. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Grievance
Procedures............................... 129
25. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Security in
Position............................... 131
26. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding District Promotional
Practices............................... 133
27. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Orientation to
the Community............................ 135
28. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Orientation to
the District............................ 137
29. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding District Transfer
Policies............................... 139
30. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Leave Policy . . .141
viii
Table Page
31. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Knowledge of
Assigned Building Before Signing
Contract................................. 143
32. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Opportunity to
Interview with Principal for Employment 145
33. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Ability Grouping
of Students in My Last Assignment . . 147
34. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Average Ability of
Students Taught..... .................. 149
35. Number and Per Cent of Questionnaire
Responses Regarding Salary Schedule . . 151
36. Number and Per Cent of Teachers Resigning
in the Order of Most Frequent to Least
Frequent Reason ..................... 163
37. Number and Per Cent of Teachers Giving as
a Secondary Reason for Resigning the
Following Reason ..................... 165
38. Number and Per Cent of Teachers Resigning
Leaving Education ..................... 166
39. Number and Per Cent of Teachers Leaving
Education Planning to Return to Teaching
at Some Later T i m e ..................... 168
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE
Introduction
; For many years in California an acute problem
existed in the staffing of elementary school classrooms.
The magnitude of the problem varied according to the geo
graphic location and the economic level of the various
counties in the State. Teacher supply and demand varied
also according to the level of education and subject
i
matter fields. This problem of staffing schools became a
! larger problem as thousands of people entered California
i
| each day of the year, and remained here to make their
i
homes. The problem was of such immensity that each year
I
representatives from school districts within the State,
left the State in great numbers to recruit teachers from
< college and university campuses throughout the United
i
States. Recruitment in other states became necessary as
the teacher training institutions within California only
provided approximately one-half of the additional teachers
1
| needed each year.
i
Recent experience indicates that approximately
; 15.8 per cent of the teachers employed during any school
I
i
| year will not be available for employment in the same
| school district the next fall. Of this group, 8.3 per cent
i
j will not be available for employment in California schools
at all. The remaining 7.5 per cent will make interdistrict
transfers in California. On the basis of the information
cited, the 8.3 per cent replacement factor consists of
resignations, leaves of absence, retirement, dismissals,
| death, and changes to nonteaching assignments (45:16).
i
| Between 1962 and 1972, California has a need to
I
i recruit approximately 230,000 new teachers to maintain
|
i existing pupil-teacher ratios at the elementary and second-
i
i ary levels (70:2). Having knowledge of the number of
’ teachers that teacher training institutions train each
year, and having some knowledge of the number of teachers
| that leave teaching for various reasons each year, it can
be determined that the problem of staffing elementary
classrooms with well-prepared teachers will continue to be
acute.
Another facet of the need for additional teachers
has been the nature of the changing occupational force.
; There has been a change since 1900 in occupational groups
from 17.6 per cent white collar workers and 37.5 per cent
farm workers to 46.6 per cent white collar workers and
; 5.3 per cent farm workers in the year 1970 (17:14). This
change in the occupational status has tremendous implica-
I
j tions for the education of the larger percentage of white
collar workers, as well as blue collar, and service
workers. As this trend has taken place, more and more
teachers have been lured from the elementary field to
teach at the secondary and college level.
A competent staff in any district is difficult to
develop where a condition of high yearly turnover exists.
; Since the key to good education is good teaching, it is
i
: imperative that school districts attract outstanding
i
teachers, and retain them in the service of the district
I
for as long as possible. It is an expensive venture to
recruit, orient and train, and then lose a teacher because
]
the teacher is disenchanted with teaching, or alienated
j by personnel practices employed by a district.
j Personnel turnover is not unique to the field of
1
education. In industry and public service, personnel
turnover has received much concentrated attention. The
field of education can profit by devoting more time to
research in the area of personnel turnover.
Frequently conditions beyond the control of a
| school district cause teachers to resign. Common in this
category are marriage, pregnancy, home responsibilities,
child care, and transfer of spouse. Teachers resigning
! in this category are frequently referred to as personal
drop-outs.
Many teachers resign or leave teaching because of
dissatisfaction with personnel practices utilized by the
school district. Not to be separated entirely from the
area of personnel practices is the compatibility of the
> teacher with the objectives of the district, and the
environment in which the teacher has to work. Lohman
i
(52:8) writing regarding teacher termination agreed with
numerous other researchers who have indicated salary alone
does not hold teachers. The major reasons for turnover
still appear to be dissatisfaction with the present school
system. If this is correct, then a primary responsibility
| of those in charge of personnel is to identify, improve,
| or control certain factors to decrease the number of quali-
j
fied teachers leaving the profession each year, or trans-
I
| ferring to other school districts.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to determine factors
that affect elementary teacher turnover in selected unified
school districts in Southern California. This study also
i attempted to identify factors associated with long-term
retention of elementary teachers in the same districts.
Answers to the following questions were sought:
1. How important were administration and organiza
tion as factors in teacher retention and turnover?
2. How important was salary as an influence in
teacher turnover?
3. Did teachers leaving a district after one or
two years, consider more areas of teaching problematic
than teachers remaining with a district for five or more
i years?
4. Did teachers that report a high level of
i satisfaction in their work relate to and accept the edu-
! cational objectives of a school district?
I
|
5. Did teachers that report a low level of
satisfaction in their work accept the educational objec-
i
tives of the school district?
6. Did teachers remaining in school districts for
; five years or longer react differently to personnel prac
tices than teachers resigning to take positions in other
districts or to leave education?
7. Was there a relationship between teacher turn
over and the average academic ability level of students
I in a school district?
I
Basic Assumptions
1. It was assumed that the kinds of information
suggested by this study could be secured by a well-designed
questionnaire.
2. It was assumed that the kind of managerial
philosophy practiced by school districts would influence
teacher retention, teacher transfer, or teacher drop-out.
3. It was assumed that the information obtained
was given in good faith by the individuals that completed
and returned the questionnaire, and that their responses
i were limited only by the nature of the research instrument.
Delimitations of the Study
j This study was concerned with factors affecting
elementary teacher retention and drop-out in selected
unified school districts in the ten southern-most counties
of California. Only those unified school districts in j
the ten southern counties of California with average daily ,
attendance between 10,000 and 25,000 were included.
The number of participating districts is small,
but not so small in number that generalizations cannot be
I made that can be applied to other areas of the state of
California, or perhaps to other areas of the nation.
Definitions of Terms
Unified districts.— The term unified districts as
used in this study refers to school districts which have
a common administration and board of education for both
elementary and secondary schools.
Elementary teacher.— The term describes a certifi
cated employee teaching at the kindergarten-eighth grade
level. This excludes supervisory and administrative
personnel.
Probationary teacher.— A teacher who has a regular
credential, either a partial fulfillment or a life creden-
j
| tial, but has not completed three consecutive years of
| teaching in a district.
Permanent teacher.— A teacher who has completed
his or her probationary period in a district.
Organizational factors.— Factors that can be con
trolled by a district, such as assignment to a particular
school, assignment to a particular grade level, or assign
ment to a team-teaching situation.
Teachers terminating.— Teachers leaving a school
district for any reason. A reason could be dissatisfac
tion with personnel practices in the district.
Teachers remaining.— Teachers having permanent
status in a district who are planning to remain with that
district.
Arrangement of the Chapters
Chapter II contains a review of the literature
as related to the problem under investigation. Few books
have been written which treat the topic of teacher reten
tion and turnover specifically, but articles in periodicals,
| journals, pamphlets, research bulletins, related studies,
| and doctoral dissertations provided a good background for
i
I
j this investigation.
j
!
The procedures followed in this investigation
are discussed in Chapter III. The instrument used in
obtaining the information is outlined and the methods of
treatment and analysis of the data are described.
Two chapters are devoted to a presentation of
; data obtained from the questionnaire. In Chapter IV, the
data relative to teachers that have been teaching in
districts five or more years and teachers resigning at
the end of the school year are reported. In Chapter V,
the data regarding reasons teachers leave their respective
districts and education are reported. Chapter VI contains
a summary of the findings, presents conclusions, and offers
i recommendations.
CHAPTER II
THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
: |
i i
This chapter reviews the general background of
j literature related to the study of teacher turnover. In
order to place teacher turnover in its proper perspective,
it is necessary to present information in such a way that
various causes of teacher turnover are explored. Reference
will be made to turnover in the areas of business and j
industry.
Inasmuch as there is little printed in the
’ literature of educational administration that treats the
; problem of teacher turnover, the most productive sources
of information are periodicals and unpublished disserta-
j
tions.
Turnover in Industry
Numerous studies have been devoted to the problem
I
| of turnover in the fields of business and industry. With
| the results of such studies, management has been able to
reduce the turnover rate among employees, and, at the same
10
11
time, lower the transfer requests within the organization.
Gaudet in discussing labor turnover stated:
Just as the high reading on a clinical
thermometer is a sign to the physician that
something is seriously wrong with the human
organism, so is a high index of labor turnover
a warning to management that something is wrong
with the health of the organization. But just
as the clinical thermometer merely indicates that
something is wrong— not what is wrong— so does
the turnover rate merely warn, not diagnose.
A high temperature may mean pneumonia, measles,
or mumps. A high turnover rate may mean poor
personnel practices, poor supervisory practices,
or poor company policies. Nor should we forget
that too low a rate of turnover, like a below-
normal reading on the thermometer, can also be
a danger signal. (37:12)
To reduce the amount of labor turnover, management
needs to assess those internal conditions that it can
improve through employees' cooperation. Separations can
provide the personnel administrator and executives of an
! organization the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness
of their relations with personnel.
Mobility within an organization may produce
leads that can be utilized for sharpening the personnel
! operations. The number of voluntary separations and the
i
j number of requests for transfer should not be taken as a
l
j
completely reliable index of the amount of instability
existing in a company in the form of employee dissatis-
faction. According to Pigors and Meyers (17:308), when
jobs are plentiful in a community, turnover may be more
evident, but when positions are scarce, employees are
| more than likely to nurse dissatisfaction on the job.
Few studies have related turnover to aspects of
; the formal organizational structure. Guest (1:79) studied
eighteen assembly line production workers with twelve to
fifteen years of service with the organization. The wages
of these workers were as high or higher than wages in
the general industrial area. Most of these workers had
held positions which were mechanically paced and repetitive
and which required a minimum of skill. Methods of per-
! formance were completely predetermined. When interviewed,
\ the employees had all left the assembly line job and were
' now working full or at least part-time outdoors. The
i
majority were getting less pay in their new jobs.
Mann and Baumgartel (1:80) report male workers
are absent less if their jobs permit them to use skills
| they consider important and if they have a great deal to
say in the solution to their job problems. Metzner and
Mann (1:80) report the absentee rate is directly related
to the attitudes employees hold regarding their freedom
to discuss problems, the amount of responsibility given to
13
! them, and the degree to which they are able to utilize
the skills they possess.
Herzberg (44:53) believes the only way to motivate
an employee is to give him challenging work in which
responsibility can be assumed.
Segerstedt and Lundguist (1:81) indicate that
male workers leaving their jobs do so because they feel
their abilities are not properly utilized. Transfers
within companies are greater among those employees doing
less skilled work than among those doing work requiring a
higher degree of skill.
The most frequently mentioned reasons for leaving
jobs given by Argyris (1:79) were pressure from machine
pacing, lack of variety, the requirement of minimum skill,
and lack of challenge on the job. These factors are all
a part of the organizational structure as defined by task
specialization.
Drucker summarized cogently the ideas that have
i
j been expressed when he stated:
l
| What the business enterprise needs is a principle
i of management that will give full scope to indi-
| vidual strength and responsibility, and at the
same time give common direction of vision and
effort, establish team work and harmonize the
goals of the individual with the common weal.
I (7:135-136)
Reasons for Teacher Turnover
I
Just as the human factor plays an important role
j
in employer-employee relations in industry, those involved i
! J
in the. administration of education need to understand the j
relationship between human needs and work satisfaction, '
i i
while making continuous efforts to improve working condi
tions and to provide a climate conducive to physical and
I
i
psychological satisfactions of school personnel. "This j
, understanding is especially important in school adminis
tration since satisfaction of secondary needs of profes
sional workers is assumed to be of a greater relative
importance than it is for the nonprofessional," Castetter
(
states (3:59) .
Systematic attention needs to be given by an
1
administrative staff to the human problems in a school and
j
to the means for solution. Opportunity for improving the
skills of administrators in diagnosing and dealing with
i human problems depends to a large extent upon the under-
i
! standing administrators have of human behavior and its
j motivation.
In the Jaycox and Tallman study (85:181) it was
i
j determined that the same aspects of the job which motivate
teachers also act as dissatisfiers. It was concluded that
a school administrator who works to eliminate a dissatis- i
fier is at the same time providing conditions of motiva
tion. This is a main difference between motivational
factors operating in education and in industry. Dis-
; satisfiers were identified in the industrial research as
maintenance factors, since their satisfaction served
merely to avoid dissatisfaction rather than to stimulate
motivation.
Teacher Role as a Factor in Turnover
American teachers in the 1960's found themselves
playing a different role from that of their counterparts
!
of thirty years before. Lee (15:25) lists three central
characteristics of teachers that are gaining in promi
nence. The first is specialization, followed by intellec-
tualization, and continuity— the recognition of true educa
tion as continuous, self-generating and interdependent.
Biddle, Twyman, and Rankin (38:382) in 1962
compared role expectations of teachers, education
1 students, and noneducation students. Role distortions,
I
they found, accounted for a substantial proportion of the
high drop-out rate during the first year of teaching.
| 16
Hagstrom (38:383), In a study completed in 1962,
found that elementary teachers spend a major part of their
working day performing subprofessional tasks. Some
teachers perceive their instructional role quite differ
ently than their students perceive the role of the
i teacher.
Bossone (24:273) in 1963, related the blurred
quality of the definition of the teacher's role and image
to the problems of teacher effectiveness and turnover.
Failure of at least the teacher training institutions and
I
the administrators, if not the public, to agree on the
teacher's role and image appears to affect seriously the
beginning teacher's commitment to education.
Lee (15:31) commenting on the role of the teacher,
feels that the establishment of less ambiguous priorities
|
for both school and teacher for the latter third of the
twentieth century could prove to be the most important
legacy from the field of education since World War II.
I
i
I
Orientation and Induction as a
, Factor in Teacher Turnover
!
Administrative concern with the problems of
j teachers has not been given adequate attention in the
j
past, although the importance of getting teachers new to
a school district off to a running start is receiving
more attention today than previously. By developing an
effective induction program for new teachers, school
districts can bring about a feeling of satisfaction and
personal security for the teachers involved. At a time
when the number of first-year teachers leaving the pro
fession each year is higher than desirable, it behooves
school administrators to do all in their power to retain
good teachers in the profession.
A plan for recruitment decidedly different than
the one in practice thirty years ago is now being used.
After visiting a college campus where interviews with
prospective teacher candidates are held, the most qualified
candidates for specific positions are invited to visit the
school district. Interviews are arranged for candidates
to meet the principals of schools where they most likely
will be assigned. Candidates are able to ask questions
about many things of interest to them regarding the
!
curriculum, the philosophy of individual principals, and
about the specifics of the position. At the same time,
applicants are afforded the opportunity to see the school
i
j plant, as well as the community in which they will
j
j possibly teach.
18
It is not uncommon today for principals to bring
teachers from their staff into the screening process
realizing that a group is better qualified to select a
staff member than one individual. At the same time, the
candidate has the opportunity to meet staff members with
i whom he will be working. If it appears that there may be
a problem in relating to the principal, or staff members,
the candidate would be wise not to join the staff even if
offered employment.
There have been a limited number of studies about
the amount of information candidates possess regarding a
i
position before accepting such a position. The candidate
should bring together all the relevant information that
; will assist him in reaching a wise decision on a prospec-
! tive offer of employment. "An enlightened decision by a
i
teacher to accept a position serves the interests of the
teacher, the profession, the children, and the school
| community" (48:24).
[
I
| Beginning teachers, as a whole, were not selective
| in choosing their positions, and did so, without knowing
! very much about them. A small percentage of teachers had
l
j some information about factors related to supervision and
administration, the instructional program, community, and
! 19 I
1 I
, 1
I personnel policies. An interview in order to be valuable j
to the candidate needs to be a sharing of information as j
well as a gathering of data.
The period of induction begins at the time a
decision is made by the employing agent and the employed
! teacher to enter into a contractual relationship. The
■ i
period of induction continues until the new employee
becomes adjusted to the new situation to the extent that
his or her capabilities are satisfactorily realized and
until the regular in-service developmental program pro
vides adequate stimulation for continued growth on the
I
' part of the teacher (9:69).
Spears (18:257) believes that the orientation of
| new teachers to a school system is, in essence, the intro-
| duction to later in-service study. Adjustment to the
I
I
j community and the school system is a prerequisite to the
more methodical study of the curriculum and the program
of instruction.
i
Orientation implies that teachers are unfamiliar
with the community and the school system. As such, they
! deserve help from those who have traveled the same road.
This is a personal service and involves personal contacts,
but it also includes information supplied in printed form.
i Spears (18:271) sees a second part of orientation as
professional help which is provided by a good supervisory i
program.
Pre-school induction or orientation programs can
be the most helpful single aid to new teachers before j
| meeting their classes. In the time devoted to such a
program, principals, supervisors, and other experienced
members of the staff come together to discuss the philos
ophy, policies, and practices of the district. This
program, if handled well, can play a major role in helping
the new teacher to be successful and to want to remain
with the district, primarily because of the successful
experience he has enjoyed.
Chandler and Petty (5:167) see induction pri
marily as a matter of human relationships. Many teacher
failures are related to this factor. An induction program
then must recognize the importance of promoting the estab-
i
lishment of good relationships between the teacher and the
i
! new school-community environment.
j In a study completed at the University of Wisconsin
I
by Lane (88) dealing with induction of beginning teachers
i
| into Wisconsin schools, it was found that: (1) teachers
with a high college grade point average wanted more
21
information about the school and community than teachers
with a lower grade point average; (2) there is a signifi
cant correlational relationship between the teachers'
satisfaction with the school and community and the amount
of adequate information that they acknowledge having
received; (3) teachers who received more information con
cerning their school and community gave a higher rating
of the school and community as a place to work than did
the teachers who received little or no information; and
(4) there is a significant correlational relationship
between a teacher's satisfaction with his school and his
success.
Recent investigations emphasize the fact that the
greatest amount of teacher turnover takes place among
teachers with fewer than five years' tenure in a particu
lar school district. The teacher that remains in a
district more than five years is likely to stay indefi
nitely. It can be said that satisfactory induction prac
tices help to reduce teacher turnover (5:167).
! Educators may take a lesson from business in the
I
area of orientation practices. A research project com-
I
pleted at Ohio State University (53:799) revealed that
orientation of new employees may be a greater factor in
| employee satisfaction and turnover than is commonly
recognized. Fifteen supermarkets representing two Ohio
food chains participated in the study. The study examined
; eight dimensions of employee job satisfaction and five
dimensions of the employee's work group. Data were
j gathered on the "work group" leader behavior, the
employee's job orientation, and specific personal charac
teristics such as age, education, intelligence test
scores, years with the company, and degree of employee
participation in management training programs.
This study isolated job orientation as a new
important variable and demonstrated its effort on work
i group dimensions and measures of employee satisfaction.
I
The results of the study suggest that attitudes
| and impressions developed during the first days on a job
j
have a lasting effect on employee performance, satisfac
tion, and turnover. Well conceived efforts to orient
i
employees effectively, yield significant benefits to the
i
I human resources of the firm.
In-service Training and Curriculum
Planning as Related to Turnover
As pointed out earlier, orientation of teachers
is an introduction to in-service training. The super
23
i
intendent and designated members of the administrative !
staff at the district level have a responsibility to help
new teachers understand the philosophy and policies which
guide the operation of the district.
i
The principal is responsible for the in-service
program for a particular school and, in order to convince
teachers, must take the initiative in the area of self-
improvement and professional growth. As a result of
cooperative planning by teachers and principal, each
teacher is able to contribute to his or her own profes
sional growth and to the growth of other members of the
staff. Through the principal's efforts to help new
teachers make a rapid adjustment to the classroom, the
attitude of a new teacher will remain wholesome and con
fident regarding the school district.
The building principal must find the time needed
to work with teachers and if necessary, may need to
designate some other member of the faculty or an assistant
to work with teachers who have specific classroom problems
or who have questions regarding methodology. A good
principal will not let a staff member fail, as such a
failure would be considered a failure on his part, too.
Opportunities need to be provided for new teachers i
to visit other teachers' classrooms in a school system
I
or to visit teachers in other school districts as an in- j
I
service training technique. Special demonstrations by j
i
supervisors, superior teachers, or college instructors
are sometimes planned as in-service training. Teachers
who have been a part of a staff for several years can
also profit from such experiences.
New staff members often bring the latest in cur
rent research and thinking to a school staff. Building
principals need to capitalize on the contribution that j
new staff members can make for the benefit of the entire
staff (40:12).
, "For education of teachers in service to be
excellent, it must contribute to their development as
excellent teachers" (46:23). In addition the program
must be continuous and provide for continuous evaluation
i
in relation to its purpose.
Staff development programs, according to Steffer-
i
| son (74:35), are of three types: (1) the program that
i aims at familiarizing the staff with a new activity
within the district or school plant; (2) the developmental
program which is individualized to a particular staff
| 25
i
member based upon an appraisal of his performance at a
particular time; and (3) the program designed as a result
of new changes and knowledge in instructional methods and
content in learning theory, in materials and equipment,
and other developments that have significance to the entire
staff.
A questionnaire follow-up study conducted by
Taylor (75:221-223) investigated the in-service needs of
teachers who had secured their credentials through the
secondary education department of San Francisco State
College in 1957-1958.
The problem areas, ranked according to their
; frequency of mention, were: (1) classroom control,
(2) insufficient time for the job, (3) lack of student
i interest in school work, (4) heavy clerical responsibili
ties, (5) overloaded classes, (6) student motivation,
(7) lack of skills on the part of students in the funda
mentals, (8) insufficient knowledge of methodology, and
i
| (9) heavy extra-curricular load. Areas in which these
i
teachers felt they needed help were in (1) subject matter
in their teaching field; (2) counseling and guidance;
(3) educational psychology; (4) methods and techniques;
(5) experience; and (6) testing and evaluation.
! 26
Another study reported by McCreary (56:20-24)
was designed to develop a method for diagnosing individual
strengths and weaknesses in candidates for elementary
teaching positions. The assumption was that an adminis
trator could give more immediate and more effective
| assistance to the beginning teacher if information were
available regarding individual strengths and weaknesses.
The information was obtained during the initial interview
and used in planning a highly individualized orientation
program leading to a more rapid adjustment for the begin
ning teacher.
Until quite recently, the greatest number of
j
i decisions affecting school programs were made without much
teacher involvement. The conviction that little real
progress could be made in curriculum revision without
i
teacher involvement came during the depression years, and
this was after several attempts at curriculum revision
i
had failed (16:39).
When teachers are not involved or sympathetic to
| proposed curriculum changes, feel threatened by the dif-
i
; ferent ways in which they are supposed to behave, or are
j
I required to expend energy and effort to acquire addi-
i
| tional knowledge and skills, they tend to resist or are
uninterested in carrying out the details that have been
established by another individual (16:40-41).
"Teacher participation in curriculum planning
| today is to be regarded not as a pleasant gesture to
j
teachers, but rather as an indispensable part of the
I
| process," Krug maintains (14:13). Practical action leading
| to curriculum revision depends upon the administration,
I
i
which has the responsibility for providing practical
leadership from the standpoint of making adjustments to
make in-service possible.
Educators must realize that the future success of
| the educational operation will depend upon how much atten-
| tion is given to the development and improvement of the
j personnel already employed in the organization. The best
conceived pre-service preparations cannot provide teachers
with all the experiences necessary for thirty or even five
: years of acceptable performance in any field of special-
i
i ized work (21:10). Teachers new to the educational field
j
| need the help and direction of those that are qualified
i
i to give them this assistance. The professional team
I approach contributes to the development of co-ordinated
|
activities utilizing the intelligent and creative capaci
ties of the entire staff.
! 28
j
Morale as a Factor in Turnover
Kufeld states, "Teacher morale is a complicated
concept. Every phase of school living enters into the
picture" (49:23). This quotation effectively expresses
I
!
: the part that morale plays in the day-to-day life of the
j
j teacher as the teacher works with students, parents, other
j
; teachers, and administrators.
|
To discover and correct the living and working
conditions that irritate teachers would be valuable, in
that it would remove obstacles that keep teachers from
doing their best work, would reduce teacher turnover, and
E would reduce the number of teachers leaving the teaching
i
|profession each year.
| A study completed in New York State in 1948
(41:40-42) assessed the reactions of teachers to 75 living
and working conditions. As part of the project, question-
i
naires were mailed to the home addresses of 3,000 teachers
I
; in 117 representative schools, excluding New York City,
with findings based on 1,067 usable responses returned to
the Division of Research in the New York State Department
of Education.
A total of 89 per cent of the teachers replying
enjoyed teaching in their positions at that time. Seventy-
; 29
i nine per cent expected to make teaching a career. Only
44 percent of those surveyed said they would select teach-
; ing again if they were to start over, or that they would
i
recommend teaching to a young person seeking advice as to
i
i a choice of a profession. Three out of five teachers
j indicated they did not have enough time away from students
i
during the day. One-third of the teachers reported that
|
their classes were too large, numbering from 31 to 45
students. One-half of the teachers said teaching is so
tiring they cannot enjoy themselves socially after school
hours. One-third of the teachers indicated working condi
tions do not encourage them to produce their best work.
Twenty-nine per cent reported a feeling of insecurity in
their position.
Redefer (71:63), a professor in the School of
Education at New York University, believes that personnel
policies and practices, rather than salary levels, are the
key to high or low morale among teachers. Salary is
important, but is not the determinant of good or poor
teacher-administrator-school board relations. In the
Redefer study, teachers with high morale believed that
there was effective communication with administrators and
that the teachers were influential in the operation of
the school.
The Connecticut Education Association study (33:5)
reaffirmed the need for better working conditions and
improved personnel management relationships.
Strickland (35:264) received a 78 per cent return
! of questionnaires distributed to white teachers in
selected administrative units in North Carolina and found
that the ten most significant factors important in raising
morale of teachers consisted of items related to the
quality of the school. Salary was ranked seventh among
the ten most important factors leading to lower teacher
morale.
I
In the Leipold and Yarbrough study (50:29-30),
i
an attempt was made to determine what factors contributed
to high morale as viewed by approximately 1,600 elementary
and secondary rural and urban teachers, supervisors, and
administrators. The conclusions indicated that morale is
i
not determined by one major factor, but by many influences.
j Whether high or low, morale is present among all members
j
| of the profession. The strongest factors were common to
I both the teacher and the administrator. A high degree of
i
! negative variation from commonly accepted, approved
practice caused the most significant demoralizing effects.
! 31
!
: Experienced teachers were most interested in security,
while inexperienced teachers were concerned with the
improvement of their immediate environment. Relative
importance from highest to lowest factors affecting morale
as listed in this study were: (1) firm administrative
I support to the teacher in discipline problems; (2) the
teacher's deep-seated belief in, and personal enjoyment of,
teaching; (3) establishment of a just and adequate salary
plan; (4) student demonstration of proper respect and
courtesy for the teacher; and (5) establishment of a
worthy retirement plan.
In an attempt to discover conditions productive
of a high level of satisfaction with teaching, Chase
! (25:285-288) investigated the effect of a number of impor-
i
tant aspects of the teaching situation upon feelings of
satisfaction. One of the most important aspects is a
feeling of professional status, responsibility, and freedom
■ to plan one's work. Others are: (1) the chance to par
ticipate in formulating policies concerning salaries,
working conditions, and the educational program;
j (2) opportunities to share in establishing salary sched-
i
ules; and (3) the chance to participate in curriculum
construction.
| 32
A study completed by the Division of Surveys and
Field Services of George Peabody College (39:55-56)
revealed that teachers1 most frequent suggestions for
improvement of morale were a good salary schedule and
i
i reasonably small classes. Large classes, poor buildings,
| and a lack of rest periods in the elementary schools were
i causes of great discontent.
| The importance that teachers attached to good
j
administration was the most significant fact revealed in
i
the tabulation of strengths of a school system. Adminis-
i
trators, on the other hand, overestimated the degree of
i
| morale among the teachers on their staffs.
I At the University of Illinois, Schultz (73:53-56),
| in a systematic follow-up conducted by the University on
graduates going into teaching, investigated teacher
reactions to 39 statements pertaining to a job satisfac-
i
tion. Replies were received from 776 graduates. From the
returns, the 48 most satisfied and the 48 least satisfied
teachers were selected. Two groups were compared to iden
tify factors differentiating very satisfied teachers from
very dissatisfied teachers. Two factors were found to be
related to teacher morale: (1) sex and (2) marital status.
More dissatisfied teachers were men. More of the very
dissatisfied teachers were married than were single,
leading to the theory that the financial obligations
involved with having a family affected morale. Ninety-two
per cent of the most satisfied teachers reported their
school progress was not hindered by unpleasant staff
| relationships, while but 25 per cent of the least satis
fied teachers were of this opinion.
Salaries that teachers receive are related to
their morale in that the most dissatisfied teachers
i
generally receive the lowest salaries.
Administrators were identified frequently as the
t
cause of a teacher's dissatisfaction or satisfaction.
| The evidence reported in the Schultz study supports the
hypothesis that administrative practices and procedures
are of primary importance to a high or low level of teacher
j
morale.
In a national survey taken in 1944 by the National
Education Association (68) through local associations,
classroom teachers were asked to react in one part of the
questionnaire to responses related to attitudes toward
j teaching and job satisfaction. Teachers with a high
degree of morale thought their efficiency ratings were
I above average, and reported excellent health. Married
34
women were in the high-morale group in larger numbers
than in the low-morale group. Teachers with high morale
reported more administrative help and fewer hindrances
i than teachers with low morale.
Morale appeared to be a general function of a
i
| multitude of interrelated variables, rather than a func-
| tion of one or more isolated variables in a study con
ducted in ten suburban schools in the northwest Chicago
area (29:107-110); The type of salary plan, single salary
i
or merit, in use by a school district was not a signifi
cant variable in isolation relative to the determination
of a morale level in a school system,
i The demands upon teachers' time is becoming
i
| greater as educational problems grow. An increase in the
I
number of after-school activities for children and more
i
professional meetings have been listed frequently as
unreasonable demands upon teacher time (6:40).
I
Teachers have been vocal about salaries, tenure,
i
i
| and sick leave. They need to find pleasure in their
|
j experiences both at school and out of school, or morale
! will be low no matter how high the salary schedule.
School administrators must be cognizant of the fact that
high morale is directly related to well-defined personnel
! 35
policies and practices. Boards of education need clearly
defined policies relative to transfer requests, or many
unnecessary problems will arise.
Many morale problems can be prevented by laying
the groundwork for sound morale during the employment
j interview according to Hearn (42:150-157). Careful atten
tion should be given to matching the candidate to the job.
! The candidate should have an opportunity to gain first
hand information about the community, the school plant,
and the educational philosophy of the district. In the
case of a married candidate, every attempt should be made
i
i to assess the attitude of the candidate's wife and family
i toward the position.
Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of the
|
position should be discussed very frankly and the candidate
|
' given an opportunity to make an unpressured decision, if
offered the position. In selecting a district in which
| to teach and a community in which to live, it is important
!
that teachers are acquainted with the intellectual, social,
and recreational outlets for themselves as well as for
their families. The administration at Pekin Community
High School District in Illinois (60:192) prefers to have
teachers visit the district before an offer of employment
is made. The administration then makes its services
available to help new teachers find housing.
The Community and Social Class
as a Factor in Turnover
Lack of ability to adjust to the community ranks
high on the list as a cause of failure of first-year
teachers (2:152). This historically has been true in
small communities, but is also a cause for concern in
urban areas.
i
In a study completed by Pepper (90) in 1954, 210
| representative rural and urban teachers in Michigan who
i
left teaching after five years or less determined that
j communities do not accept teachers as permanent members
j
j of the community, communities generally show only a mild
! interest in the housing problems of teachers, and most
|
teachers felt they are more restricted socially than
employees in other leading professions.
In a National Education Association study in 1967
(64:118-126) related to employment status and professional
I
i characteristics, concerns about community conditions were
{ reported as the major reason for transferring from one
district to another by one teacher in twenty.
' Educational research has revealed that adminis
trators are more conservative than teachers in their
| social attitudes. The teacher with liberal views is often
a cause of concern to the conservative administrator, and
; frequently reaches the realization he or she cannot adjust
to the community.
| White (79:177) contends that teachers should be
placed in schools so there is a minimum of conflict between
| the students and the teacher. The more nearly a prospec
tive candidate can match himself to his work environment,
the greater will be his satisfaction and his persistence.
|
! The socioeconomic background of both the teacher and
i
| students in the school where he is placed are relevant
I
i
| variables in teacher mobility. Turnover among teachers
| can be reduced by differentially placing beginning teachers
' in schools whose students match the teacher's socio-
i
economic background, or in a school whose clientele is
I
i above the teacher's socioeconomic background (79:217).
Hedlund and Brown (41:40-42) found the quality of
students to be highly significant in determining teacher
morale.
The culture-gap hypothesis proposes that teachers
| are middle class in origin, and completely middle class in
I 3 8 i
i occupational status and values. In contrast, students are
from all social classes (10:7). Discussions of the j
i
culture-gap hypothesis have concentrated on the difficulty
1
of the teacher, with middle-class status, to understand
' and respect the values of working class children and their
j parents.
The inequality hypothesis asserts that school
I
districts do not distribute their resources equitably,
but favor middle-class schools in assignment of staff,
maintenance of plant, allocation of materials, and special
resources (10:7).
i
I
The horizontal mobility hypothesis resulted from
studies conducted at the University of Chicago in the
|
j early 1950's. Becker and Winget (10:9) found that teachers
| transferred from the lower-class schools because of
! discipline problems, unacceptable morals of students, and
teaching problems in general. The majority of teachers,
i
i because of horizontal mobility, reduced the gap between
their own social class and that of their pupils.
Administration and Supervision
as Factors in Turnover
There has been a decided trend to involve more
staff members in the selection of teacher candidates.
Elsbree and Reutter (8:71) recommend that the personnel
director, the principal, a teacher from the subject or
grade level, and a specialist in the subject area or level
| of education, should comprise the team for the inter
viewing process.
i The process of using a group or committee appears
1 administratively sound as committee members cite the
following advantages: (1) it is democratic in that the
teachers have a role in staff selection; (2) wider ques
tioning takes place; (3) the candidate reacts to a group
rather than an individual and has a chance to form an
opinion regarding the staff with whom he will be working;
i (4) group opinions on a candidate are more sound than that
; of one person; and (5) the process of interviewing with a
| group can be much more informal than the individual inter-
!
! view (28).
Ford and Allen (35:268), in 1966, described the
i
misassignment of teachers as a serious problem resulting
in a teacher shortage. One of the most serious mistakes
in assigning new teachers is to give them classes that
are exceedingly large in number and where disciplinary
problems are known to exist.
Typically, teachers who have been at a school for
a year or two may request a transfer to another class or
to another school because of general dissatisfaction with
; the instructional climate. A new teacher will then be
| assigned to the position, immediately creating an impossi-
; ble situation for the new teacher.
I
| In far too many instances the beginning teacher
| finds himself the victim of the seniority system that has
i
been allowed. Administrators should ask themselves the
following questions: (1) Does the new teacher have his
assignment at the grade level for which he has prepared?
(2) Are conditions, materials, and equipment adequate?
(3) Is he welcomed by staff members for the junior member
i of the team that he is? (4) Are staff members ready to
!
| give him the help that he needs? (5) Does he have time to
{ participate in conferences, training sessions, and work-
I
: shops during the school year and during the summer to fill
in his training? (6) Can he look forward to leaves of
i
absence with pay so that he can keep updated?
Among positive factors which tend to limit mis-
assignment of a teacher are the following: (1) the use
of helping-teachers to work with teachers beginning a
career; (2) the use of multiple-interview techniques in
hiring both experienced and beginning teachers; (3) in-
( service educational programs for beginning and experienced
teachers; and (4) the gradual introduction of the beginning
I teacher to his role through a team-teaching arrangement
!
! (65:16).
i
If it is a fact that over half of all first-year
I
I
| teachers do not intend to be teaching five years later
l
(34:241), first-year teachers should not be isolated from
other teachers. They must be able to ask the questions
i
they have and to receive the supervision that they need,
and in most cases, want.
If the new teacher is left to fend entirely for
| himself, the path he chooses may be one that leads out of
| the classroom and out of education.
i
| Problems that new teachers have need to be iden-
I
; tified, and help needs to be given by the principal if the
I teacher is to be persuaded to continue in education.
Principals must accept the fact that the new teacher is
i
a learner. The beginning teacher should be paired or
matched with an experienced teacher who can share proven
techniques and ideas.
Team teaching may be one way of keeping good
teachers in the field of education. Team teaching creates
a teacher hierarchy, and the prestigious position of the
42
' team-leader becomes a goal for aspiration rather than a
means of encouraging excellent teachers to leave the class-
| room to go into administration. Teaming means an increase
; in the number of positions calling for higher salaries.
Dean Keppel (58:1044) of Harvard, stated that three high-
i
i
i salaried positions should exist for one out of every five
I
| teachers. This would lengthen today's five-year average
i
! for teachers in the classroom to thirty years. Then only
one new teacher would be needed to fill a vacancy, whereas
!
i
six are needed today.
Martindale (54:173) investigated the relationship
between placement satisfaction and teaching success by
| attempting to identify situational factors critical to
I
placement. Seventy-two beginning teachers who graduated
from the University of Wisconsin School of Education in
! 1948 were used in the investigation.
Considerable success in placement of teachers was
i
; found if satisfaction with their situation is accepted as
a criterion of placement accuracy. Contrary to popular
belief, these teachers found such factors as living con
ditions, community obligations, salary, and administrative
relations satisfactory. Beginning teachers were found to
be more satisfied than dissatisfied with their placement.
If supervision can be accomplished so that teachers
perceive it as "challenge without threat," an approach can j
be taken that directs attention to the act of teaching
i rather than to the teacher (23:58). The small group
: l
process of an administrator working with teachers has
j these effects: (1) communication is opened; (2) cohesive
ness is encouraged; (3) group norms are clarified for
general understanding; and (4) group goals are clarified.
An interesting study done in the realm of teacher
turnover is that of Crane and Erviti (6:14, 21, 26). The
| study, completed in New York State, bears out the fact
i
that most teachers leave teaching during the first few
j years of their experience. Reasons given by men and women
| follow: (1) not retained by the school for the following
! year— 3.6 per cent of the women and 7.47 per cent of the
i
I men; (2) dissatisfaction with the administration— 3.4 per
cent of the women and 8 per cent of the men; (3) dis-
: satisfaction with the teaching situation— 14 per cent of
the women and 10 per cent of the men.
Teachers dissatisfied with the administration
showed they wanted more help of a practical nature. It
follows that many of these teachers could have been
retained in the teaching profession if the amount of
44
irritation they felt had been reduced.
Proper support from administrators and supervisors
was lacking in the minds of many teachers. Next to
salaries, this item showed the highest frequency of men
tion. One-third of the teachers that felt support and
i
| help were lacking marked this a deciding factor in their
decision to leave teaching, while another third felt that
it was an important factor in their decision to leave.
In a study completed by Booth (26:245-246) in
Georgia, many teachers new to teaching were disappointed
by the lack of professional ethics and professional pride
I among experienced educators. At all levels, drop-out
I teachers indicated that the principals of their schools
j
j played a decisive part in their satisfaction with their
I teaching experience. Principals and others in positions
! of leadership roles do not always reflect the highest level
I
of professionalism particularly in terms of competency.
In a study utilizing Arizona schools (78:12) to
i
| identify teacher attitudes toward evaluation, teachers were
i
categorized in six ways: (1) those who rated themselves
j as average compared to those who believed themselves better
| than or below average; (2) tenured compared to nontenured
j
| teachers; (3) men compared to women; (4) female elementary
[ 45
I
compared to secondary female teachers; (5) female second-
| ary compared to male secondary; and (6) those in merit
pay compared to nonmerit pay school districts.
The better than average and nontenured teachers
showed significantly more positive attitudes toward
evaluation. The findings show that "those who can see a
possible reward from evaluation of their teaching and who
| wish to compete for this reward," favor evaluation. Atti-
| tudes toward evaluation are predictable, and a feeling of
I
| threat is not necessarily a consequence of evaluation.
! According to Heald and Moore (11:193), the rejec
tion of a teacher under tenure laws has two consequences:
(1) the superintendent and the principal in a local school
system have been forced to increase concern over super
visory and appraisal activities, and the procedures under
which a teacher can be justifiably dismissed have been
regularized, and (2) principals and superintendents have
i
been forced into showing more concern for the career
aspects of a teacher's professional life.
Teacher Turnover as Related
to Economic Factors
In 1965, Blaser (80), at the University of Idaho,
attempted to determine reasons why men teachers left the
teaching profession. The respondents in the study placed
economic reasons for withdrawal above professional reasons,
i In 1966, in Kentucky, Alexander (22) identified economic
reasons as the primary reason for teacher turnover in that
j state. In the previously mentioned Pepper study that was
l
| conducted in Michigan (90), male respondents pointed to
I lack of economic opportunities as the most important
reason for leaving teaching, and in the National Education
; Association Research Division study conducted in 1967
i
(64:118-126), approximately one in five teachers trans
ferring to another school listed higher salary as a major
| reason for resigning.
I
Reyhner, writing in 1951, stated:
For the past fifty years, a number of important
movements have tended to increase the need for
i dependency differentials for teachers. Yet,
j the family allowance is still almost unknown,
in spite of the fact that the family wage is
now a major social institution in western
civilization. (72:23)
i
j At this late date Reyhner favored dependency differentials
for teachers in principle, but felt that such a differen
tial would form only a minor part of most salary schedules.
Not only did the dependency differential for
salary schedules not play an important part, but salary
differentials based on sex have declined. In 1941, nearly
47
j
J half of the school systems provided for salary differen
tials based on sex (5:231). By 1960, equal pay laws had
caused most salary schedules to drop the differential for
males (13:27).
Over the years, the supply of teachers has tended
!
I
to parallel the general economic situation at a particular
time. In 1876 over 40 per cent of the teachers were
i males, but this percentage fell in 1930 to the point where
i only 17 per cent were males. There was an increase in the
: number of male teachers during the depression years, until
in 1956 the number of male teachers was back to 27 per
i cent (13:27). During the inflationary period after World
| War II, the available teaching positions exceeded the
number of qualified persons to take the positions.
In a report completed by the National Education
Association (66:49-55) relevant to the economic status of
i
teachers in 1959-1960, a few losses and some gains were
i
| reported in relation to earnings in other areas of the
economy. During the 1939-1959 period, average annual
earnings of all salaried workers increased more than the
average annual salaries of teachers. Gains in the average
salaries of teachers exceeded increases in the cost of
living each year since 1951.
j Between 1950-1951 and 1962-1963, the average
I
salaries for all teachers increased about 90 per cent.
I
The average salary for elementary teachers increased 98
i
! per cent during that same period of time (62:45).
Increases in salaries for beginning teachers have
i
j gone up at a rate far exceeding that for experienced
i
teachers. This provides a distinct recruitment advantage,
|
but causes the economic status of teachers to be lower in
j
relation to other professions.
' Peterson (91:266), in 1966, concluded from a study
! that there are two main reasons why men do not enter
' elementary education: (1) poor financial remuneration,
I and (2) the lack of male associates in their school
i
l
j building. Patterson suggested, as a result of his study,
I that the situation could be remedied by increasing
salaries for men, and by increasing publicity regarding
the role of the male in the elementary classroom.
| Blaser (80) found in the Idaho study that respond-
i
i
i ents gave such reason for leaving teaching as working
conditions, the lack of helpful supervision, discipline
problems, and the attitude of parents and pupils toward
learning.
49
i
| In the Crane and Erviti study (6:23), 29.8 per
cent of the men sampled gave inadequate salary as a reason
j for leaving the teaching profession. The "breaking point"
i was frequently the arrival of a second child in the
family. Another reason men expressed for leaving teaching
i
| is that greater opportunities presented themselves in other
areas of work. When asked if they were reasonably satis
fied with their salaries, men gave many negative answers,
i One-tenth of the women indicated salary was a deciding
factor in their leaving teaching, while one-quarter felt
salary was an important factor in their decision to leave.
|
Kleinert (47:297-299) contends there are seemingly
i
| two evident reasons for the high rate of turnover that
exists in the North Chicago suburban areas. The first is
| that a high cost of living is encountered by teachers
I
' wherever the best financed suburban public schools are
located, and the second is the need that the young profes-
i
sional has for greater recognition and challenge than the
traditional role allows him.
Metz (89), in 1963, attempted to ascertain factors
influencing the withdrawal of 4,000 teachers from the
Ohio public schools. It was recommended as a result of
the study that salaries be increased and that a flexible
I
j salary schedule be adopted to allow school districts to j
i j
compete with business and industry in areas where critical
: teacher shortages exist.
! When personnel in ten suburban school districts
were given an attitude inventory designed to measure level
i
| of morale existing between schools using a merit system
i
salary schedule and schools using a nonmerit type salary
schedule (55:279), no significant difference was found
between schools grouped on the basis of type of salary
j
I
schedule.
In a poll taken in 1955 by Gallup (36:19), the
! public felt there were five things that could be done to
i interest more people in going into teaching as a profes-
I
| sion. Heading the list was the raising of teachers'
salaries.
i
j
Booth (26:245-246) found in the Georgia study that
low salaries were not the deciding factor why Georgia
i teachers left teaching, and Lindenfeld (51) in a study
completed in 1963 for the United States Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, found there was little
relationship between the average salaries paid and the
separation rate in 1959-1960, but school district size is
most closely related to separation rates.
I Teachers have many demands placed upon their time
with extra-curricular activities on top of the daily
demands of the classroom. Teachers must abolish previously
i
I accepted concepts and accept new concepts. This may
j involve workshop attendance, self-study, or university
j attendance. These are points relative to the economic
i status of teachers that cannot be measured statistically.
Working Conditions and Other Dissatisfactions
as Factors in Teacher Turnover
i
Individuals in other occupations tend to share
job-related interests, and seek the same kinds of condi-
; tions that give them satisfaction. Teachers, as groups
j of individuals, do not have as many common interests, but
j
j often rally around a special interest rather than around
teaching as a whole (61:6).
Age, sex, and teaching level all have an influence
on how a teacher views his position. Consideration of
i
j
these factors is necessary in establishing and maintaining
desirable working conditions.
Thomas (92) completed a study related to teacher
retention in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, in 1965, and found
that males left teaching because of their dissatisfactions,
i while females left for unavoidable reasons such as
marriage, pregnancy, and moving because of the transfer of
their husband.
In a statewide survey completed in 1968 in Oregon
j (30), it was discovered that Oregon administrators employ
those teachers that have the poorest experience of sur-
I viving in a school district. Short life expectancies are
: found in the age bracket of 20-24 for females, followed
by females between 25-29. Males in the 20-24 age group
are also considered poor survival risks. Over 40 per cent
of all newly appointed teachers fell into these three
categories.
! To identify specific conditions causing teacher
j dissatisfaction in California, McLaughlin and Shea (57:216)
I
interviewed in-service teachers during the spring of 1956.
I
Teachers were asked to list all dissatisfactions which
I were felt to be a hindrance in performing their daily
tasks. Elementary teachers mentioned the following dis-
i
satisfactions: excessive clerical work, supervisory
i
duties at school, extra functions after school, inadequate
administrator relationships, ineffective school discipli
nary policies, overenrollment of classes, too many class
interruptions, negative student attitude toward learning,
i
i and inadequate in-service training programs.
| 53
| Secondary teachers had many of the same concerns,
!
but not necessarily in the same order, or with equal
intensity. Secondary teachers seemed more concerned about
| teacher-pupil relationships, while elementary teachers
expressed greater dissatisfaction in the area of overload.
The Hansen and Stanley study found that discipline
j was most frequently mentioned in the incidents that made
teachers at the secondary level resent teaching. Discip
line appeared as a factor in 34 per cent of the unfavorable
incidents. The incidents categorized under discipline
often contained the factors interpersonal relations—
pupils (84:93) .
i
j Stinnett and Huggett (12:104) believe that no
: factor is more important in teacher success than the
j
teaching load. This includes the size of class or classes,
length of the school day, and the number of extra
curricular assignments. Teaching candidates should have
i
: answers to the above-mentioned concerns before signing
| employment contracts. The careers of beginning teachers
|
have been placed in jeopardy as a result of the assignment
the teacher received.
Principals can work to bring about an equitable
distribution of assignments. Routine duties should be
54
assigned without favoritism, and top priority should be
i
given to solving the problem of teacher load. Principals
i can also be helpful in protecting teachers from undue
community commitments, as well as unfair public criticism
j (63:11).
| A study was conducted in selected schools in
j
j Indiana (82) to determine reasons teachers gave for satis-
i
! faction or dissatisfaction on the job. From the reasons
listed, criteria were developed to aid administrators in
i
I
i
| improving satisfactions that teachers receive in their
I positions. Areas selected to study were administration,
I
I
I physical conditions, community, faculty, students and
i
parents, salary and security. The following conclusions
were reached: (1) Causes for job dissatisfaction were
| found in all of the areas of administration, physical
( conditions, relationships with the community, within the
faculty, and with students and parents. (2) Two-fifths of
the teachers sampled would not become teachers if the
choice was to be made again. (3) Financial return was not
the chief cause of job satisfaction. (4) Over half of the
faculty functions were dominated by the principal.
(5) Faculty meetings were not interesting. (6) Type of
supervision was not desirable. (7) Teachers remaining
I 55
]
| with the school systems surveyed felt a greater attachment
!
to the community.
i
The problems and difficulties of teachers were
j investigated in Southern California by Brown (81). Brown's
| investigation concerned itself with three levels of
I
| instruction in selected schools of Southern California:
; kindergarten-primary, intermediate or middle grades, and
|
upper grades or junior high. As a result, many of the
I
areas of concern teachers expressed were recommended for
incorporation into teacher training programs. It was
i intended that many of the difficult areas would not be
t
problematic for teachers who had been exposed to such a
program in their teacher training.
i
j In a somewhat related study, questionnaires were
I
sent to 282 beginning teachers in June, 1964, all of whom
! were graduates of the State University College, Brockport,
; New York (27). The questionnaire was designed to deter
mine teacher's perceptions of their own problems. The
replies fell into six major categories as follows:
(1) methods, (2) evaluation of students, (3) discipline,
(4) parent relations, (5) routines and materials, and
(6) personal (mostly lack of self-confidence).
I
i Results of the study were used to plan specific
service experiences for students yet in teacher training
programs in order to determine if exposure would alter
the kinds of problems beginning teachers experience.
An assessment of the attitudes of teachers in
their third year of teaching in Georgia, and the explora-
i
j tion of the relationships of these attitudes to their
biographical characteristics was completed in 1967 by
Trull (93) . A secondary function of the study was to
investigate employment patterns of Georgia teachers who
entered teaching in 1964-1965. The source of information
utilized in the study was secured from the Georgia State
i
Department of Education. Elementary teachers who planned
I to teach from six to ten years had the most favorable
| attitudes toward the school systems in which they worked.
!
A factor analysis revealed that relations with the
i
' principal were the most significant determiner of satis
faction in teaching.
Why do teachers leave the profession before and
after they have taught only one year when four to five
years have been devoted to their preparation? Answers
j to this question were sought by Nelson and Thompson
(69:467-469). It was the intention of the investigators
to present only those problems exhibiting the intensity
i and duration to bring about a final resignation on the
part of a teacher. Their list is as follows: (1) salary,
' present economic problems and financial difficulties caused
j most frequently anxiety? (2) teaching load; (3) assign-
| ments beyond regular classroom teaching; (4) inadequate
j supervision; (5) discipline problems; (6) pressure groups;
(7) poor mental hygiene; (8) marriage; (9) inability to
handle classes; (10) unfair teacher evaluations; (11) in
adequate facilities; (12) poor faculty relationships;
(13) no opportunity to develop new ideas; (14) routine
clerical duties; and (15) health.
Kaplan (87) found that elementary male teachers
| indicated there are factors other than financial concerns
j that must be corrected if males are to be content teaching
i
| at the elementary level. First of all, male teachers must
! be given the recognition for contributions that they make.
Secondly, the hostility that often exists between male
i
: teachers and women principals is something that cannot be
ignored. Third, the physical welfare of the male teacher
must be taken into consideration by the administration,
with the result that male teachers should not end up doing
all the things that female teachers do not want to do.
Fourth, men should be assigned to positions for which they
58
I have been prepared, not to classes at a level below their
i
I
specific area of preparation.
| The profession loses the greatest number of males
i
| in the first four years of teaching although a small
j
| percentage of this group enters professions closely
j related to teaching. Tenure does not appear to exert a
l
strong influence on the retention of men in the teaching
i
profession according to Graetz (83).
In the summer session, 1952, at the State Univer
sity of New York at Oswego (59:279-288), two groups of
teachers were asked to designate on a check-list of 51
| problems— those that they felt to be serious, those that
I
they felt to be of some concern, and those that they felt
to be of practically no importance. Their responses were
' applicable to their positions at that time. One group
I
1 included 148 teachers, 38 men and 110 women, attending the
summer session at Oswego; and 23 teachers, 12 men and 11
I '
women, attending the summer session at Appalachian State
Teachers College, at Boone, North Carolina.
Leading all other problems in rank order for the
total group was that of teaching dull children. Teaching
bright children ranked fourteenth. Ranking second in
importance was working with maladjusted children. Grading
59
and marking ranked third in seriousness. Overload was a
major area of concern, while discipline was given a
| ranking of seventeenth.
The degree of teacher concern about principals
and supervisors was less than usually believed but princi-
| pals were a source of concern for over one-fifth of the
j teachers, and supervisors to over one-fourth of the
teachers.
The Problem of Teacher Turnover
The annual rate of teacher turnover varies widely
! from state to state, ranging from 5 to 30 per cent. The
i Bureau of Educational Research at the University of
j Illinois made studies of turnover in staffs of Illinois
I
schools which showed that the largest schools have a
i stabilized turnover of approximately 8 per cent annually
(32:294). In schools with fewer than ten teachers, the
rate of turnover was nearly 30 per cent. A study of
1
professional staff turnover in the Catskill area of New
York State completed in 1968 is reported by Heldman (43).
I The total turnover for the year was 14.8 per cent of the
| total professional staff. In June, 1963, the Institute
i
of Administrative Research conducted a survey of the school
; 60
, districts of the Metropolitan School Study Council,
Associated Public School Systems, and the Central School
i
I Study on teacher turnover (52). Turnover varied within
j school districts from no turnover to a high of 38.9 per
cent.
| Economic reasons and a group of factors generally
referred to as family reasons constitute the greatest
causal factors in teacher turnover (12:64).
Although the rate of departure has been declining
each year, especially as the concept of teaching as a
! career is growing, from 100,000 to 150,000 teachers leave
]
i teaching each year for various reasons. The average time
| that teachers remain in the profession is from ten to
| fifteen years (12:65).
|
California's average for teacher turnover in 1949
i
| was 26 per cent at the elementary level, and 19 per cent
; at the high school level. This was a drop from 32 per
cent at the elementary level in 1946, and 28 per cent at
the high school level in that same year (76:11).
Johnson's (86) study in 1950, indicated that the
incidence of elementary teacher turnover was approximately
one in every seven teachers among districts studied in
I
Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and San Bernardino
r -------------------------------------------------------------------
I 61
i counties, and one in five when the Los Angeles City School
i
District was eliminated from the statistical treatment.
| Since one-third of the teachers resigning from a district
! also resigned from the profession, about one in every
|
; fifteen teachers, or 7 per cent of the total teaching
staffs, leave the profession each year in Southern Cali-
i fornia.
The annual loss of teachers in 1968 in California
from resignations and transfers to other areas of work
t
was predicted to be 7,400 (77:i). Many of these were
teachers who had talents that enabled them to obtain posi-
l
I
| tions in fields where the pay is more attractive and where
i
| working conditions are much more satisfactory.
Age and sex are strongly related to patterns of
teacher mobility. Males leave rapidly and permanently,
I
| until by age 50, few males are left in teaching. At the
! same time, females leave rapidly in their twenties and
| thirties, probably to raise a family. Large numbers of
i
i
females return to teaching later, and prove to be immobile
until retirement (31:163-173).
Van Zwoll (20:311) considers a high rate of
teacher turnover undesirable because of the following:
1. Continuity in service is regarded as facilitative
of instruction.
Turnover is thought of as both disruptive of
instruction and costly because of vacancies
that must be filled.
The teacher is handicapped in effectiveness
until he has became oriented to the school
and the community, as well as fully aware of
the resources available.
Unwarranted and, on occasion, the warranted
turnover of personnel is believed to be
demoralizing to employees remaining with the
school.
Unnecessary turnover of personnel carries with
it the danger of resentment on the part of the
affected employee— a matter of concern as long
as he remains in the community and to the
extent the public has become involved.
A high rate of turnover is often feared to
call attention to the causes for the turnover,
with the consequence that other candidates
will be discouraged from making application to
the particular district.
63
| There is the danger that personnel administrators
l
may be lulled into feeling that the four "M's" of turn-
j over— marriage, maternity, money, and moving— are so
| unavoidable that other causes of turnover are overlooked.
; Recognizing that the reason teachers give for leaving a
j
l position is too often a superficial one, Van Zwoll recom-
i
| mends the exit interview as a technique for remediation
i
i of this personnel function.
Elsbree and Reutter summarized conclusions drawn
from research on teacher turnover as follows:
The chief causes of teacher turnover are
acceptance of a better position and marriage.
The rate of turnover bears little relation to
prevailing conditions regarding termination of
employment. The rate of turnover does not seem
to be closely related to the salary maximums pro
vided by local school systems, despite the fact
that "leaving to accept a better position" is
one of the leading causes of turnover. The rate
of turnover varies widely from school system to
school system. The rate of turnover in large
city school systems is consistently less than
! in small school systems. Interstate teacher
| migration figures show a wide divergence among
states in regard to per cents of teachers enter
ing and leaving. The practice of employing local
residents as teachers apparently tends to keep
turnover relatively low, although certain other
effects of "in-breeding" are less favorable.
Teachers with better professional backgrounds
tend to migrate more than those less well-
prepared. (8:216-217)
Chamberlain (4:241-242) believes that those
64
changing from one teaching position to another are moti-
l
j vated by (1) opportunities for promotion and higher
j salary, lower cost of living, a reduced teaching load,
!
j better chances for professional improvement, more desir-
!
I
| able living conditions, and school facilities that con-
I
j tribute to instructional efficiency; (2) desire to teach
( near home, dislike or disagreement with administrative
j
i
| policies and personnel, desire for new social contacts,
! desire to be near members of the family, dissatisfaction
J
with the social and political customs of the community;
and (3) dismissal because of inefficiency, insubordina-
!
tion, misconduct, a reduction in staff personnel, and
unfair personal and political practices.
CHAPTER III
I
METHOD AND PROCEDURE
I
; In the development of the Instrument used to con-
! duct the survey, a checklist questionnaire was used. This
I
j chapter describes the development of the instrument, the
procedure for distribution of the questionnaire, the
gathering of data, and the examination and treatment of
i
the data.
j Development of the Instrument
i
i
t
| The Setting of the Problem
This study was designed to determine factors
: affecting the retention and turnover of elementary teachers
in selected unified school districts of Southern Califor
nia. The investigation sought answers to the following
I
questions:
j
1. How important were administration and organi
zation as factors in teacher retention and turnover?
2. How important was salary as an influence in
teacher turnover?
65
66
I 3. Did teachers leaving a district after one or
two years, consider more areas of teaching problematic
than teachers remaining with a district for five or more
| years?
i
4. Did teachers that report a high level of
i
i satisfaction in their work relate to and accept the educa
tional objectives of their school districts?
5. Did teachers that report a low level of satis
faction in their work accept the educational objectives
of the school district?
6. Did teachers remaining in school districts for
five years or longer, react differently to personnel prac-
I
! tices than teachers resigning to take positions in other
i
I districts or to leave education?
7. Was there a relationship between teacher turn
over and the average academic ability level of students
I in a school district?
| Formulation of Questionnaire Items
|
A review of the literature was helpful in formu
lating specific items used in the questionnaire. Particu
larly helpful were teacher satisfaction scales, question
naires, interviews with elementary principals, directors
I of elementary education, directors of personnel, assistant
I
superintendents, personnel consultants, and superintend-
i ents. Suggestions made by teachers that participated in
I
I the piloting of the questionnaire were also incorporated
I
!
j into the final questionnaire.
I
A survey of the literature was made by selecting
articles in periodicals, yearbooks, pamphlets, research
i
i bulletins, related studies, dissertations, and the card
i catalogue at the University of Southern California and
. ■
| the University of California at Los Angeles.
i
J Items for the questionnaire were listed, revised,
and then placed on a checklist questionnaire which could
i
be answered by the respondent checking the appropriate
column. A first draft of the questionnaire was placed in
|
the hands of three personnel directors, one director of
elementary education, one supervisor of elementary educa-
i tion, one superintendent, and one professor of educational
administration. Based upon helpful suggestions made by
the above-mentioned personnel, a number of items were
added and some were deleted.
A revised draft of the questionnaire was made, and
permission was secured to pilot the questionnaire in two
elementary schools in neighboring districts. One school
; 68
| in a unified district was chosen because of a relatively
large staff of thirty teachers. The other school was
I
chosen because it represented a smaller staff that experi-
i ences little turnover from year to year. As a result of
' the piloting of the questionnaire in the two schools,
| several modifications to the questionnaire were made.
j
j Before distribution of the questionnaire, it was
i
! again reviewed by a professor of educational administra-
| tion, and by the doctoral study chairman. This review
was for the purpose of making the questionnaire compatible
with the computer for the purpose of analysis of responses.
I
I
! It was decided that the instrument to be used in the
collecting of data was ready for distribution (see Appendix
!
C) .
The instrument was organized into four major parts:
(1) the first part of the instrument contained eleven
; items of personal information, (2) the second part con
tained items affecting teachers at the building level,
(3) the third part contained items affecting teachers at
the district level, and (4) the final part of the question
naire consisted of four questions designed to ascertain
specific information regarding teacher turnover from one
district to another, and information relative to why
teachers leave the field of education.
Responses were arranged on a scale of "highly
satisfactory," "satisfactory," "no opinion," "unsatisfac-
| tory," and "highly unsatisfactory." Opposite each item,
I
! space was provided for respondents to indicate their
j reaction by placing checkmarks under the appropriate
I headings.
Selection of the Respondents
To provide adequate coverage for the analysis of
factors affecting elementary teacher retention and turn-
| over in selected school districts of Southern California,
it was decided in consultation with the doctoral study
chairman to send questionnaires to teachers that were
| leaving schools in eighteen unified school districts in
I the ten counties of Southern California. Districts having
an enrollment between 10,000 and 25,000 students were
i selected for the study. It was decided that if smaller
|
and larger districts were eliminated from the study,
problems unique to small and large districts would not
become variables in this study. It was further decided
that eighteen unified districts out of a total of thirty-
two unified districts in the 10,000-25,000 enrollment
70 ;
I j
j bracket would be an adequate smpling. Distribution was madej
to unified school districts meeting the 10,000-25,000 en- !
rollment criteria in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
{Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and Ventura.
I j
Since the names of teachers remaining in classrooms
five or more years in the selected districts were available
only to the district personnel director, a random sampling
procedure under the control of the investigator could not
be readily effected. Recognizing that a sampling problem
could exist, it was decided that a fortuitous sampling pro
cedure would supply more reliable information than that
collected by a random sampling procedure because of the
possibility of a low percentage of questionnaire returns
and the well-established selection bias of respondents to
anonymous questionnaires.
| i
District personnel directors in the eighteen unifiedj
school districts were contacted by letter and requested to j
distribute the questionnaire to a representative group of I
!
I
teachers in their respective districts who met the criteria 1
i
(see Appendix A). An estimated number of teachers at the
kindergarten through eighth grade level terminating at the
end of the school year was also requested.
j
!
j
Distribution of the Instrument
I
In April of 1970, ten copies of the questionnaire
jtfere mailed to eighteen personnel directors in unified
| school districts in Southern California. Personnel direc
tors were requested to distribute the ten questionnaires
I
I to teachers at the kindergarten-eighth grade level in
| their districts who had been in the district for five or
more years and who did not intend to leave. A cover letter
i accompanied the questionnaire and asked the teachers to
I
| complete and return the questionnaire by May 1, 1970.
i
Prior to June 1, 1970, another inquiry was made
in each of the participating districts to determine a more
exact number of teachers at the kindergarten-eight grade
level terminating at the end of the school year. Based
i
I upon this information, a specific number of questionnaires
I were mailed to each personnel director cooperating in the
i
| study. Instructions accompanying the questionnaire asked
I
personnel directors to distribute the questionnaires to
| teachers at the end of the school year who terminated their
; services with the district. A cover letter requested
i
; teacher respondents to complete and return the question-
i
l
naire by July 1, 1970.
It was suggested that questionnaires be given to
terminating teachers as teachers cleared the personnel
office in the final check-out procedure, or in another
manner that could be conveniently effected.
! The Letter of Transmittal
A letter of transmittal accompanied each question**
j naire. The letter set forth the purpose of the study,
! indicated the study was in process at the University of
i
! Southern California, and solicited the help of the
i
j respondents. Copies of the transmittal letters are found
I
I
j in Appendix B.
j
| Participating teachers remaining in districts
j were asked to return their completed questionnaires by
I
May 1, 1970. Teachers terminating districts were asked
to return their completed questionnaires by July 1, 1970.
I
i
j
j Extent of Response
Of 180 questionnaires distributed to ten teachers
in each of eighteen unified school districts, 146 com-
| pleted questionnaires were returned for an 81 per cent
I
return. All of the 146 questionnaires were usable.
| In order to ascertain the exact number of ques
tionnaires distributed in the second phase of the study,
it was necessary to make telephone calls to the partici
pating personnel directors after the close of the school
year. In this manner, it was determined that 430 ques
tionnaires had actually been distributed to teachers
73
terminating at the kindergarten-eighth grade level. Of
i
that number, 275 usable questionnaires were received for
a return of 64 per cent. Since respondents had been
instructed not to sign their name or to name their dis
trict, there was no manageable way that a follow-up could
be conducted.
The fact that there was no manageable way a follow-
i up could be successfully conducted had been given serious
consideration. It was decided that to make the format of
i
the questionnaire attractive and easy to complete, and
| to make the return of the completed questionnaire simple
would compensate for the lack of a manageable follow-up
I
procedure.
Examination and Treatment of the Data
I
i
I All information from the returned questionnaires
i
was transferred to IBM score sheets so that a tabulation
of information could be effected by a computer.
The returned questionnaires were divided into two
groups, one group for teachers that had been teaching in
selected unified school districts for five years or
longer, and one group for teachers resigning at the end
of the school year regardless of the length of service in
74
I the same districts.
For the two groups, a separate tabulation of data
I was completed for each of the items of personal informa-
] tion, for each of the sixty-two items, and in the case of
the four open-ended questions that appeared at the end of
j the questionnaire, a tabulation was done only for resign-
I ing teachers.
In addition to a tabulation for each response, the
! information was converted into percentages for each of the
i
two groups. A chi square analysis was performed to deter-
! mine if significant relationships existed between the
I
| responses of teachers remaining with unified school dis-
i
j tricts and those teachers terminating in the same dis-
| tricts at the end of the school year.
Results of the chi square analysis for each of
j
! the sixty-two items on the questionnaire were tabulated.
! The items showing significance were grouped into the
following five categories for reporting purposes: admin
istration and organization, curriculum and educational
objectives, personnel practices, academic ability level of
students, and salary. In each category items were reported
numerically from the highest chi square value to the lowest
if the value showed significance at the .05, .01, or the
: .001 level. For this reason certain items were not
reported in Chapter IV, but appear in the Appendix (see
Appendix D). In two instances items were reported that
: fell below the .05 level. The data supporting each item
were arranged in tables.
i
l
| In this manner comparisons were made between
i
: responses made by teachers remaining with districts and
teachers terminating school districts at the end of the
school year, noting similarities and differences in
responses to items pertaining to teacher retention and
turnover.
Responses to the four open-ended questions are
I reported in a separate chapter. Tables are used for the
| arrangement of data. Only teachers resigning from unified
; school districts were asked to answer the four questions.
i
Chapter Summary
i
This investigation used the questionnaire as the
method for gathering, analyzing, and reporting the data
regarding factors affecting elementary teacher retention
and turnover in selected unified school districts in
j Southern California. A questionnaire was sent to ten
j teachers at the kindergarten-eighth grade level in each
76
of eighteen selected unified school districts and to all
teachers at the same grade levels in the same school
districts who were terminating at the end of the school
| year.
! The questionnaire was developed through a review
| of related literature, interviews with elementary princi
pals, directors of education, personnel officers, assist-
!
ant superintendents, superintendents, classroom teachers,
and in consultation with the chairman of the doctoral
i
t
committee.
; Questionnaires were sent to eighteen unified
school districts in six counties in Southern California.
| The responses from the two phases of the survey represented
an 81 per cent and a 64 per cent return.
Responses were divided into two categories:
i
! teachers remaining with districts and teachers resigning
; from districts. Survey data were tabulated and compared
i
for likenesses and differences according to the category.
An analysis of the data obtained from the ques
tionnaire is presented in the next two chapters.
CHAPTER IV
S RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
I This chapter presents the results of two surveys
conducted in eighteen selected Southern California unified
school districts dealing with elementary teacher retention
and turnover. The purpose of the surveys was to investi-
| gate, to compare, and to report factors affecting elemen
tary teacher retention and turnover in these districts.
The study was conducted in two parts:
1. An inquiry into the opinions of ten respondents
I
in each district concerning the degree to which
they were very satisfied or very dissatisfied
with sixty-two items at the building and dis
trict level.
2. An inquiry into the opinion of all teachers
terminating in each participating district at
the end of the 1969-1970 school year concerning
the degree to which they were very satisfied
or very dissatisfied with sixty-two items at
the building and district level.
77
i 78
j
; These unified districts were within the average
daily attendance classification of 10,000 to 25,000.
For reporting purposes, the questionnaire items
| were grouped into five categories and were reported in the
order of greatest significance as determined by a chi
j square analysis of the results. The following categories
! were used for reporting purposes: Administration and
I
Organization, Curriculum and Educational Objectives,
Personnel Practices, Academic Ability Level of Students,
i
; and Salary. These particular categories were chosen be-
: cause they frequently appear in the literature as causes
| of teacher dissatisfaction, turnover, and teacher dropout.
i
i
j Administration and Organizational Factors
|
j Teacher-Administrator Communication
i
! The first item pertaining to administration was
designed to determine the degree to which respondents
felt a two-way flow of communication existed between
building administrators and themselves. The literature
indicated the need for an exchange of ideas, the need for
answering questions that teachers have, and the need for
a mutual understanding of goals to be accomplished.
79
I
Findings.— Of the 275 teachers leaving districts, I
86 (31.3 per cent) indicated this item was "highly satis- j
I
factory," 117 (42.5 per cent) indicated "satisfactory,"
12 (4.4 per cent) had "no opinion," 38 (13.8 per cent)
indicated "unsatisfactory," and 22 (8 per cent) marked
this item as "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the 146 respondents remaining in districts,
; 67 (45.9 per cent) indicated this item was "highly satis
factory," 65 (44.5 per cent) indicated "satisfactory,"
! 6 (4.1 per cent) had "no opinion," 6 (4.1 per cent) marked
"unsatisfactory," and 5 (1.4 per cent) indicated "highly
! unsatisfactory."
i A tabulation of the above findings appears in
! Table 1.
|
i
i
^ Appropriateness of Assignment
The purpose of this item was to elicit reactions
| from respondents as to the appropriateness of assignment
as determined by training and background of experience.
The literature clearly states this to be a factor in
causing teacher dissatisfaction and eventually teacher
transfer.
Findings.— Of the 275 teachers leaving districts,
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
TEACHER-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 67 45.9 86 31.3
Satisfactory 65 44.5 117 42.5
No Opinion 6 4.1 12 4.4
Unsatisfactory 6 4.1 38 13.8
Highly Unsatisfactory 2 1.4 22 8.0
Chi Square 21.6625
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .001 level
00
o
134 (48.7 per cent) responded in the "highly satisfactory" i
column, 119 (43.3 per cent) indicated "satisfactory,"
!
6 (2.2 per cent) had "no opinion," 12 (4.4 per cent)
j responded in the "unsatisfactory" column, and 4 (1.5 per
| cent) indicated "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the 146 teachers remaining with districts, 96
(65.8 per cent) responded in the "highly satisfactory"
i
column, 48 (32.9 per cent) marked "satisfactory," one
i (0.7 per cent) had "no opinion," and one (0.7 per cent)
i
indicated "unsatisfactory"; no respondent indicated
"highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
|
j Table 2.
i
Supervision Teacher Received
The literature refers frequently to the area of
supervision as a source of discontent among teachers, with
l
discontent ranging from no supervision at all to lack of
adequate supervision, or too much supervision. To deter
mine how teacher respondents in this study would react to
the area of supervision, an item to this effect was
included in the questionnaire.
Findings.— Of the teachers leaving districts, 56
TABLE 2
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
APPROPRIATENESS OF ASSIGNMENT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N-275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 96 65.8 134 48.7
Satisfactory 48 32.9 119 43.3
No Opinion 1 0.7 6 2.2
Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 12 4.4
Highly Unsatisfactory 0 0.0 4 1.5
Chi Square 15.0127
Degrees of Freedom 2
Significant at .001 level
00
to
83
j (21.4 per cent) indicated that supervision was "highly
!
satisfactory," 160 (58.2 per cent) indicated "satisfac-
| tory," 15 (5.5 per cent) had "no opinion," 30 (10.9 per
| cent) felt supervision was "unsatisfactory," and 14 (5.1
per cent) labeled supervision "highly unsatisfactory."
j Of the teachers remaining with districts, 42
i
i
| (28.8 per cent) felt supervision was "highly satisfac-
j
tory," 91 (62.3 per cent) indicated supervision was
"satisfactory," 5 (3.4 per cent) had "no opinion" relative
j
i
to supervision, 7 (4.8 per cent) felt supervision was
i
"unsatisfactory," and one (0.7 per cent) indicated super
vision was "highly unsatisfactory."
| A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 3.
Administrative Leadership
An inquiry was made so respondents would react to
the administrative leadership they believed to prevail at
assigned schools. The literature indicates administra
tion at both the building and the district level to be a
general area of intense concern to teachers.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 88 (32.0
per cent) felt administrative leadership was "highly
TABLE 3
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
SUPERVISION THAT TEACHERS RECEIVE
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 42 28.8 56 20.4
Satisfactory 91 62.3 160 58.2
No Opinion 5 3.4 15 5.5
Unsatisfactory 7 4.8 30 10.9
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 .7 14 5.1
Chi Square 13.2486
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .01 level 0 0
I satisfactory," 123 (44.7 per cent) indicated administra-
i
tive leadership was "satisfactory," 10 (3.6 per cent) had
i "no opinion," 42 (15.3 per cent) felt administrative
leadership "unsatisfactory," 12 (4.4 per cent) indicated
"highly unsatisfactory."
Of the teachers remaining with school districts,
i 67 (45.9 per cent) marked this factor "highly satisfac-
j
I
tory," 63 (43.2 per cent) marked "satisfactory," 4 (2.7
! per cent) had "no opinion," 8 (5.5 per cent) indicated
»
| administrative leadership was "unsatisfactory," while 4
! (2.7 per cent) answered "highly unsatisfactory."
I
j
j A tabulation of the above findings appears in
! Table 4.
i
Availability of Textbooks and Resource Materials
Teacher satisfaction scales indicate that lack of
sufficient textbooks and resource materials is a concern
| of teachers. Rather than thinking in terms of the overall
l
financial ability of the district to supply such materials,
teachers sometimes attribute a lack of adequate textbooks
and resource materials to be the fault of the administrator
at the building level.
Findings. — Among the teachers termination, 43
TABLE 4
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 67 45.9 88 32.0
Satisfactory 63 43.2 123 44.7
No Opinion 4 2.7 10 3.6
Unsatisfactory 8 5.5 42 15.3
Highly Unsatisfactory 4 2.7 12 4.4
Chi Square 12.8821
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .01 level 00
j 87
(15.6 per cent) said the number of textbooks and resource
materials were "highly satisfactory," 172 (62.5 per cent)
felt this item was "satisfactory," 7 (2.5 per cent) had
i
I
j "no opinion," 46 (16.7 per cent) contended textbooks and
resource material were "unsatisfactory," and 7 (2.5 per
I
| cent) believed this item to be "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the teachers remaining with districts, 41 (28.1
i per cent) felt this item was "highly satisfactory," 87
(59.6 per cent) believed that textbooks and resource
t
i
materials were "satisfactory," 7 (4.8 per cent) had "no
I
opinion," 10 (6.8 per cent) said the number of textbooks
I
i and resource materials was "unsatisfactory," and one (0.7
i
! per cent) labeled this item to be "highly unsatisfactory."
j
| A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 5.
Fairness in Assignment of Responsibilities
Another item in the questionnaire was included to
determine how respondents felt relative to the fairness
with which administrators assigned responsibilities. The
literature indicates that administrators often tend to
assign new teachers too many responsibilities, while
veteran teachers because of their seniority, were fre-
TABLE 5
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
TEXTBOOKS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N-146
Number
N-275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 41 28.1 43 15.6
Satisfactory 87 59.6 172 62.5
No Opinion 7 4.8 7 2.5
Unsatisfactory 10 6.8 46 16.7
High Unsatisfactory 1 .7 7 2.5
Chi Square 12.1744
Degrees of Freedom 2
Significant at .01 level
00
00
quently given preferential treatment.
89
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating districts,
! 85 (30.9 per cent) felt that this item was "highly satis-
i
I
| factory," 171 (62.2 per cent) said the item was "satisfac-
i tory," 3 (1.1 per cent) had "no opinion," 10 (3.6 per cent)
i
I
believed this item was "unsatisfactory," and 6 (2.2 per
i
; cent) contend this item was "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the respondents remaining in their districts,
I
: 67 (45.9 per cent) felt administrative assignment of
responsibilities was "highly satisfactory," 75 (51.4 per
I cent) said this item was "satisfactory," one (0.7 per cent)
i
had "no opinion," and 3 (2.1 per cent) believed this item
was "unsatisfactory," and no respondent felt this item
i was "highly unsatisfactory."
i
| A tabulation of the above findings appears in
i
Table 6.
i
i Orientation to Assigned Schools
This item was incorporated into the questionnaire
to determine the extent respondents felt they had received
adequate orientation to the building to which they were
assigned. The literature notes that lack of orientation
to a building has been a source of problems for beginning
TABLE 6
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
FAIRNESS IN ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES BY PRINCIPAL
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
N=146 N=275
Highly Satisfactory 67 45.9 85 30.9
Satisfactory 75 51.4 171 62.2
No Opinion 1 .7 3 1.1
Unsatisfactory 3 2.1 10 3.6
Highly Unsatisfactory 0 .0 6 2.2
Chi Square 10.8709
Degrees of Freedom 2
Significant at .01 level
o
91
teachers as well as teachers transferring from one school
to another school in a given district.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 77 (28 per
cent) felt orientation to the assigned school was "highly
satisfactory," 145 (52.7 per cent) believed such orienta-
! tion was "satisfactory," 11 (4 per cent) had "no opinion,"
i 29 (10.5 per cent) said orientation to the assigned school
l
i was "unsatisfactory," 13 (4.7 per cent) concluded that
j orientation to the assigned building was "highly unsatis
factory."
i Among the respondents remaining with their dis-
i
j
I tricts, 49 (33.6 per cent) felt orientation to the assigned
building was "highly satisfactory," 82 (56.2 per cent)
I
1 indicated this item was "satisfactory," 8 (5.5 per cent)
I
had "no opinion," 6 (4.1 per cent) believed orientation to
1 the assigned building was "unsatisfactory," and one (0.7
j
per cent) said orientation to the assigned building was
"highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 7,
TABLE 7
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
ORIENTATION TO ASSIGNED BUILDING
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 49 33.6 77 28
Satisfactory 82 56.2 145 52.7
No Opinion 8 5.5 11 4.0
Unsatisfactory 6 4.1 29 10.5
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 13 4.7
Chi Square 10.6543
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .02 level
VO
to
i Administrative Backing in Disciplinary Problems
Administrative backing received on disciplinary
' problems, one of the major factors affecting morale among
t
! teachers, was the subject of another item in the question
naire. This factor has been a reason for teachers leaving
; districts, transferring from one school to another school,
i
| or leaving the field of education completely.
j
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 98 (35.6
per cent) felt this item was "highly satisfactory," 110
(40 per cent) believed this item was "satisfactory," 16
I
; (5.8 per cent) had "no opinion," 36 (13.1 per cent) said
i administrative backing in disciplinary problems was "un-
!
; satisfactory," and 15 (5.5 per cent) concluded this area
was "highly unsatisfactory."
i Among teachers remaining with districts, 73 (50
per cent) felt administrative backing with disciplinary
i problems was "highly satisfactory," 51 (34.9 per cent)
j believed this item to be "satisfactory," 5 (3.4 per cent)
i had "no opinion," 14 (9.6 per cent) felt administrative
backing was "unsatisfactory," and 3 (2.1 per cent) con
cluded that this area was "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
I Table 8.
94
Appropriateness of Grade Level Assignment
Inquiry was made to determine how satisfactory
| grade level assignment had been for the respondents in
i relation to their training and their experiential back-
!
ground. The literature indicates that for males this is
i
frequently a matter of great concern. For females, it is
also a cause of concern, frequently resulting in a request
| for a transfer to another school or a move to another
district to obtain the desired grade level.
| Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 109 (39.6
I per cent) answered this item "highly satisfactory," 147
j
j (53.5 per cent) indicated their grade level assignment had
I
i
been "satisfactory," 9 (3.3 per cent) had "no opinion,"
5 (1.8 per cent) felt this item was "unsatisfactory," and
i
5 (1.8 per cent) believed that grade level assignment was
!
j "highly unsatisfactory."
Among teachers remaining with districts, 78 (53.4
per cent) felt grade level assignment "highly satisfac
tory," 63 (43.2 per cent) marked the item "satisfactory,"
one (0.7 per cent) had "no opinion," 4 (2.7 per cent)
answered the item "unsatisfactory," and no respondent
TABLE 8
NUMBER AND PER CENT
ADMINISTRATIVE
OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
BACKING IN DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 73 50 98 35.6
Satisfactory 51 34.9 110 40
No Opinion 5 3.4 16 5.8
Unsatisfactory 14 9.6 36 13.1
Highly Unsatisfactory 3 2.1 15 5.5
Chi Square 10.1429
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .05 level
cn
j answered "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 9.
j
|
i
| Supplies and Equipment
| One item in the questionnaire sought to discover
how important adequate supplies and equipment are in
I teacher satisfaction inasmuch as the literature points to
this area as a contributing, although not a primary, cause
j of teacher turnover.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 65 (23.6
| per cent) felt supplies and equipment were "highly satis
factory," 143 (52 per cent) concluded that supplies and
equipment were "satisfactory," 4 (1.5 per cent) had "no
| opinion," 51 (18.5 per cent) believed supplies and equip-
| ment were "unsatisfactory," and 12 (4.4 per cent) responded
"highly unsatisfactory" in the area of supplies and equip-
| ment.
Within the teachers remaining with districts, 45
(30.8 per cent) said supplies and equipment were "highly
satisfactory," 80 (54.8 per cent) indicated "satisfactory"
for this item, one (0.7 per cent) had "no opinion," 19
(13 per cent) felt supplies and equipment were "unsatis-
TABLE 9
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
APPROPRIATENESS OF GRADE-LEVEL ASSIGNMENT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=27 5
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 78 53.4 109 39.6
Satisfactory 63 43.2 147 53.5
No Opinion 1 0.7 9 3.3
Unsatisfactory 4 2.7 5 1.8
Highly Unsatisfactory 0 0 5 1.8
Chi Square 8.1429
Degrees of Freedom 2
Significant at .02 level VO
■vl
98
factory," and one (0.7 per cent) believed supplies and
i
equipment were "highly unsatisfactory."
|
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
|
j Table 10.
i
j Working Conditions
| Age, sex, and teaching level all have an influence
i
I
s on how a teacher views his or her position and play essen-
, tial roles in the establishment and maintenance of desir-
| able working conditions. This item was included in the
j questionnaire to ascertain how teachers leaving districts
| and teachers remaining in districts reacted to their
j
j working conditions.
Findings.— Among the teachers leaving districts,
| 79 (28.7 per cent) indicated working conditions were
! "highly satisfactory," 168 (61.1 per cent) said working
: conditions were "satisfactory," 7 (2.5 per cent) had "no
opinion," 16 (5.8 per cent) felt working conditions were
"unsatisfactory," and 5 (1.8 per cent) asserted that
working conditions were "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the teachers remaining with districts, 53 (36.3
per cent) believed that working conditions were "highly
satisfactory," 87 (59.6 per cent) indicated that working
TABLE 10
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 45 30.8 65 23.6
Satisfactory 80 54.8 143 52
No Opinion 1 0.7 4 1.5
Unsatisfactory 19 13 51 18.5
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 12 4.4
Chi Square 6.5659
Degrees of Freedom 2
Significant at .05 level
VO
vo
I 100
| conditions were "satisfactory," 2 (1.4 per cent) had "no
opinion," 3 (2.1 per cent) indicated "unsatisfactory,"
I
I while one (0.7 per cent) answered "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
! Table 11.
] The items in the questionnaire pertaining to
| administration and organization were the most significant
as indicated by the responses of the teachers. This group
I of items accounted for 24 per cent of the total variability
I in the factor analysis.
Curriculum Planning and Educational Objectives
j Teacher-Board of Education Relationships
I One item in the questionnaire constituted an
attempt to determine how respondents viewed the relation-
| ship between teachers in districts and boards of education.
Teacher reaction to the apparent power struggle between
I
i
I teacher groups and boards of education makes this item
particularly significant.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 20 (7.3
per cent) responded that teacher-board relationships were
"highly satisfactory," 94 (34.2 per cent) indicated
TABLE 11
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
WORKING CONDITIONS
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
N=146 N=275
Highly Satisfactory 53 36.3 79 28.7
Satisfactory 87 59.6 168 61.1
No Opinion 2 1.4 7 2.5
Unsatisfactory 3 2.1 16 5.8
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 5 1.8
Chi Square 6.1345
Degrees of Freedom 2
Significant at .05 level
101
1 102
teacher-board relationships were "satisfactory," 105 (38.2
i
per cent) had "no opinion," 42 (15.3 per cent) believed
the relationships were "unsatisfactory," and 14 (5.1 per
| cent) responded that teacher-board relationships were
"highly unsatisfactory."
| On this item, of the permanent teachers remaining
with districts, 15 (10.3 per cent) felt "highly satisfac
tory," 80 (54.8 per cent) felt the relationship to be
"satisfactory," 25 (17.1 per cent) had "no opinion," 21
i
(14.4 per cent) indicated that the relationship was "un-
; satisfactory," and 5 (3.4 per cent) concluded that the
relationships were "highly unsatisfactory."
i A tabulation of the above findings appears in
i
i Table 12.
t
i
I
j Help of School Administrator in Achieving Objectives
The literature is specific in stating that the
| principal must find the time needed to work with teachers.
If necessary, he may need to designate some other member
of the faculty or an assistant to work with specific prob
lems regarding methodology and the attainment of educa
tional objectives. The degree to which respondents felt
their administrator was helpful in attainment of educa-
TABLE 12
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
TEACHER BOARD OF EDUCATION RELATIONSHIPS
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
N=146 N=275
Highly Satisfactory 15 10.3 20 7.3
Satisfactory 80 54.8 94 34.2
No Opinion 25 17.1 105 38.2
Unsatisfactory 21 14.4 42 15.3
Highly Unsatisfactory 5 3.4 14 5.1
Chi Square 25.1705
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .001 level
I 104
i
j tional objectives was measured by another item in the
questionnaire.
]
i
J Findings.— Of the teachers leaving school dis-
I
| tricts, 48 (17.5 per cent) felt administrator help was
"highly satisfactory," 141 (51.3 per cent) believed
administrative help in achieving objectives was "satisfac
tory," 41 (14.9 per cent) had "no opinion," 31 (11.3 per
cent) claimed that administrative help in achieving objec-
| tives was "unsatisfactory," and 14 (5.1 per cent) indicated
l that administrative help was "highly unsatisfactory."
i
Among the teachers remaining with districts, 30
i (20.5 per cent) felt administrative help in achieving
objectives was "highly satisfactory," 94 (64.4 per cent)
i
responded that administrative help was "satisfactory," 14
(9.6 per cent) indicated "no opinion," 31 (11.3 per cent)
believed administrative help was "unsatisfactory," and 14
(5.1 per cent) indicated administrative help was "highly
i
unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 13.
TABLE 13
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
HELP OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IN ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 30 20.5 48 17.5
Satisfactory 94 64.4 141 51.3
No Opinion 14 9.6 41 14.9
Unsatisfactory 7 4.8 31 11.3
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 14 5.1
Chi Square 15.1257
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .01 level
I .
j 106
j
i Teacher-Teacher Relationships
l
How the respondents felt relative to teacher-
, teacher relationships within their staff was determined
i
j
j by another item in the questionnaire. As the literature
!
; states, a professional-team approach contributes to the
j
| development of coordinated activities utilizing the
intelligent and creative capacities of the entire staff.
Findings.— Among the teachers terminating, 80
I
(29.1 per cent) felt teacher-teacher relationships were
"highly satisfactory," 151 (54.9 per cent) indicated such
relationships were "satisfactory," 16 (5.8 per cent) had
i "no opinion," 21 (7.6 per cent) believed such relation
ships "unsatisfactory," and 7 (2.5 per cent) indicated
| teacher-teacher relationships were "highly unsatisfactory."
| Of the teachers remaining with districts, 58
(39.7 per cent) believed teacher-teacher relationships
| were "highly satisfactory," 80 (54.8 per cent) indicated
j
such relationships were "satisfactory," 4 (2.7 per cent)
had no opinion, 3 (2.1 per cent) felt such relationships
"unsatisfactory," and one (0.7 per cent) respondent thought
teacher-teacher relationships "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
107
Table 14.
* Challenge of Curriculum to Students
i
| New staff members often bring the latest in cur-
i
j rent research and thinking to a school to which they are
assigned. If staff members feel that the curriculum needs
revision in order for it to be relevant to students,
building principals need to capitalize on the contribution
that any staff member can make for the benefit of the
l
! entire staff and the educational program. For this
j reason, an item was inserted in the questionnaire to deter
mine how respondents viewed the curriculum at their
respective schools.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating districts,
47 (17.1 per cent) believed that the curriculum was
"highly satisfactory," 183 (66.5 per cent) indicated that
: the curriculum was "satisfactory," 19 (6.9 per cent) had
"no opinion," 20 (7.3 per cent) felt this area was "un
satisfactory," and 6 (2.2 per cent) concluded that the
curriculum was "highly unsatisfactory."
Among the permanent teachers remaining with dis
tricts, 43 (29.5 per cent) indicated the curriculum was
"highly satisfactory," 89 (61 per cent) felt that the
TABLE 14
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
TEACHER-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 58 39.7 80 29.1
Satisfactory 80 54.8 151 54.9
No Opinion 4 2.7 16 5.8
Unsatisfactory 3 2.1 21 7.6
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 7 2.5
Chi Square 12.1424
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .01 level
108
109
!
! curriculum was "satisfactory," 6 (4.1 per cent) had "no
opinion," 7 (4.8 per cent) indicated that the curriculum
! was "unsatisfactory," and one (0.7 per cent) responded
that the curriculum was "highly unsatisfactory."
t
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
l
| Table 15.
|
i
I
| Freedom to Experiment
Another item in the questionnaire gave respondents
! an opportunity to assess the degree of freedom to experi-
i
i
; ment with new ideas and methodological approaches in their
assignment.
Findings.— Among the terminating teachers, 110
(40 per cent) felt that freedom to experiment was "highly
i
I
satisfactory," 138 (50.2 per cent) believed this area was
; "satisfactory," 5 (1.8 per cent) had "no opinion," 15
i
I (5.5 per cent) indicated freedom to experiment was "un
satisfactory," and 7 (2.5 per cent) responded that freedom
to experiment was "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
82 (56.2 per cent) answered that freedom to experiment
was "highly satisfactory," 55 (37.7 per cent) indicated
freedom to experiment was "satisfactory," 3 (2.1 per cent)
TABLE 15
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
THE CHALLENGE OF THE CURRICULUM TO STUDENTS
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 43 29.5 47 17.1
Satisfactory 89 61.0 183 66.5
No Opinion 6 4.1 19 6.9
Unsatisfactory 7 4.8 20 7.3
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 6 2.2
Chi Square 10.4017
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .02 level
| had "no opinion," 6 (4.1 per cent) believed freedom to
[
I
experiment to be "unsatisfactory"; no respondent felt that
this item was "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 16.
I
i
| Results of Personal Efforts to
; Achieve District Objectives
As the literature states, the superintendent and
| designated members of the administrative staff at the
I
; district level have a responsibility to help teachers
| understand the philosophy and policies that guide the
| operation of a district. Within this framework, there
i
| should be a mutual establishment of district objectives
I
|
i on the part of teachers, building administrators, district-
I
i
level administrators, and citizens from the community. An
inquiry was made to determine how respondents felt regard
ing their efforts to achieve district objectives.
Findings.— Among the terminating teachers, 28
(10.2 per cent) believed their efforts had been "highly
satisfactory," 148 (53.8 per cent) indicated their efforts
had been "satisfactory," 75 (27.3 per cent) had "no
opinion," 16 (5.8 per cent) said their efforts had been
TABLE 16
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
N=146 N=275
Highly Satisfactory 82 56.2 110 40
Satisfactory 55 37.7 138 50.2
No Opinion 3 2.1 5 1.8
Unsatisfactory 6 4.1 15 5.5
Highly Unsatisfactory 0 0 7 2.5
Chi Square 10.2088
Degrees of Freedom 2
Significant at .01 level
| 113
I "unsatisfactory," and 8 (2.9 per cent) believed their
efforts had been "highly unsatisfactory." i
i i
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
| 18 (12.3 per cent) believed their efforts had been "highly
i
satisfactory," 88 (60.3 per cent) concluded that their
I
j efforts had been "satisfactory," 21 (14.4 per cent) had
| "no opinion," 15 (10.3 per cent) indicated their efforts
I
[
; were "unsatisfactory," and 4 (2.7 per cent) felt their
; efforts had been "highly unsatisfactory."
i
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 17.
1
i
1
|
i Teacher Participation in Selection
| of Materials and Supplies
It was the purpose of this questionnaire item to
j elicit the reaction of respondents relative to the degree
j of teacher participation in the selection of materials
; and supplies at the school.
Findings.— Of the teachers leaving districts, 48
(17.5 per cent) believed this item to be "highly satisfac-
I
I tory," 132 (48 per cent) felt this item was "satisfactory,"
33 (12 per cent) had "no opinion," 49 (17.8 per cent)
responded that this item was "unsatisfactory," and 13
TABLE 17
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING RESULTS
OF PERSONAL EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE DISTRICT OBJECTIVES
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 18 12.3 28 10.2
Satisfactory 88 60.3 148 53.8
No Opinion 21 14.4 75 27.3
Unsatisfactory 15 10.3 16 5.8
Highly Unsatisfactory 4 2.7 8 2.9
Chi Square 9.7750
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .05 level
(4.7 per cent) concluded that teacher participation in
selection of materials and supplies was "highly unsatis-
j factory."
| Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
34 (23.3 per cent) responded that this item was "highly
| satisfactory," 82 (56.2 per cent) believed this item was
"satisfactory," 12 (8.2 per cent) had "no opinion," 17
(11.6 per cent) said that this item was "unsatisfactory,"
and one (0.7 per cent) replied that teacher participation
i
in the selection of materials and supplies was "highly
' unsatisfactory."
i A tabulation of the above findings appears in
| Table 18.
!
!
| Potential of District to Become Educationally
| One of Top Ten in the State
An item in the questionnaire constituted an attempt
i
i to determine how respondents felt regarding the potential
of the district in which they were teaching to become one
of the top ten in the State educationally.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 33 (12 per
cent) responded that their districts had a "highly satis
factory" chance of becoming one of the top ten districts
TABLE 18
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING TEACHER
PARTICIPATION IN SELECTION OF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 34 23.3 48 17.5
Satisfactory 82 56.2 132 48
No Opinion 12 8.2 33 12
Unsatisfactory 17 11.6 49 17.8
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 13 4.7
Chi Square 9.4306
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .05 level
117 |
in the State, 62 (22.5 per cent) responded that their
districts had a "satisfactory" chance of becoming one of
the top ten districts in the State, 95 (34.5 per cent)
had "no opinion," 58 (21.1 per cent) said that their
districts had an "unsatisfactory" chance to become one
of the top ten districts in the State, and 27 (9.8 per
cent) rated the potential of their districts to become
one of the top ten educationally within the State as
"highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,;
21 (14.4 per cent) responded "highly satisfactory" to
this item, 49 (33.6 per cent) answered "satisfactory,"
47 (32.2 per cent) had "no opinion," 20 (13.7 per cent)
indicated "unsatisfactory," and 9 (6.2 per cent) replied
"highly unsatisfactory."
i
: A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 19.
i
Encouragement of Creativity j
i i
The degree to which respondents felt creativity j
i in teaching was encouraged in their respective schools
! i
j was dealt with in another questionnaire item.
i
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating districts,
TABLE 19
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING POTENTIAL OF THE
DISTRICT TO BECOME EDUCATIONALLY ONE OF TOP TEN IN THE STATE
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
N=146 N=27 5
Highly Satisfactory 21 14.4 33 12
Satisfactory 49 33.6 62 22.5
No Opinion 47 32.2 95 34.5
Unsatisfactory 20 13.7 58 21.1
Highly Unsatisfactory 9 6.2 27 9.8
Chi Square 9.2704
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .05 level 118
| 87 (31.6 per cent) indicated that this item was "highly
satisfactory," 140 (50.9 per cent) claimed this item to be
; "satisfactory," 15 (5.5 per cent) had "no opinion," 22
| (8 per cent) concluded that this item was "unsatisfactory,"
> and 11 (4 per cent) believed encouragement of creativity
i
| was "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with dis
tricts, 63 (43.2 per cent) indicated this item was "highly
( satisfactory," 71 (48.6 per cent) responded "satisfactory,"
j
| 4 (2.7 per cent) had "no opinion," and 8 (5.5 per cent)
answered "unsatisfactory"; no respondent felt encourage-
i
! ment of creativity was "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 20.
Compatibility of District Objectives
and Personal Objectives
| One item in the questionnaire was designed to
discover whether respondents believed that their personal
objectives in teaching were compatible with the objectives
of the district in which they had been teaching. The
literature reveals that a teacher candidate should have
the opportunity to gain information about the educational
philosophy of the district and, in the process, familiarize
NUMBER AND PER
TABLE 20
CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
ENCOURAGEMENT OF CREATIVITY
REGARDING
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 63 43.2 87 31.6
Satisfactory 71 48.6 140 50.9
No Opinion 4 2.7 15 5.5
Unsatisfactory 8 5.5 22 8.0
Highly Unsatisfactory 0 0 11 4.0
Chi Square 9.3685
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .05 level
121
I
! himself with the district's educational objectives.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 43 (15.6
per cent) rated the compatibility of personal objectives
and district objectives as "highly satisfactory," while
154 (56 per cent) answered "satisfactory," 42 (15.3 per
cent) had "no opinion," 27 (9.8 per cent) replied "un
satisfactory," and 9 (3.3 per cent) responded "highly
unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with dis
tricts, 25 (17.1 per cent) indicated this to be "highly
satisfactory," 98 (67.1 per cent) believed this item was
; "satisfactory," 10 (6.8 per cent) had "no opinion," 10
| (6.8 per cent) replied "unsatisfactory," and 3 (2.1 per
cent) believed the compatibility of district and personal j
! objectives to be "highly unsatisfactory." !
! |
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 21.
i
Teacher Role in Curriculum Development
I !
The literature is specific in stating that today
I !
i teacher participation in curriculum planning is to be
regarded not as a pleasant gesture to teachers, but rather
as an indispensable part of the educational process. One
TABLE 21
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING COMPATIBILITY
OF DISTRICT OBJECTIVES AND PERSONAL OBJECTIVES
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 25 17.1 43 15.6
Satisfactory 98 67.1 154 56
No Opinion 10 6.8 42 15.3
Unsatisfactory 10 6.8 27 9.8
Highly Unsatisfactory 3 2.1 9 3.3
Chi Square 9.0165
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .05 level
! 123
I
: item in the questionnaire was for the express purpose of
assessing the role of the teacher in curriculum develop
ment.
I
i
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 29 (10.5
; per cent) indicated this area to be "highly satisfactory,"
137 (49.8 per cent) believed this to be "satisfactory,"
49 (17.8 per cent) had "no opinion," 50 (18.2 per cent)
indicated "unsatisfactory," and 10 (3.6 per cent) responded
"highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
18 (12.3 per cent) rated this area "highly satisfactory,"
90 (61.6 per cent) felt it to be "satisfactory," 16 (11
per cent) had "no opinion," 20 (13.7 per cent) answered
"unsatisfactory," and 2 (1.4 per cent) responded that
teacher role in curriculum development was "highly un
satisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 22.
NUMBER AND PER CENT
TEACHER ROLE
TABLE 22
OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING
Responses
Teachers
Number
N=146
Staying
Per Cent
Teachers Leaving
Number Per Cent
N=275
Highly Satisfactory 18 12.3 29 10.5
Satisfactory 90 61.6 137 49.8
No Opinion 16 11 49 17.8
Unsatisfactory 20 13.7 50 18.2
Highly Unsatisfactory 2 1.4 10 3.6
Chi Square 7.8820
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .05 level
125
j Personnel Practices
i Adequacy of Information Given
in Initial Interview
According to the literature, there have been a
limited number of studies treating the amount of informa
tion candidates possess regarding a position before accept
ing it. It appears clear that a candidate should assimi-
i late all the relevant information that will assist him in
i
I reaching a wise decision prior to accepting an offer of
j
| employment. With one item, the questionnaire polled the
I respondents on how they felt regarding the information
! given to them in the initial interview.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 41 (14.9
per cent) responded that this item was "highly satisfac
tory," 168 (61.1 per cent) believed this item was "satis-
I
factory," 18 (6.5 per cent) had "no opinion," 33 (12 per
cent) felt this item was "unsatisfactory," and 15 (5.5
per cent) indicated adequacy of information given in the
initial interview was "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining in districts,
21 (14.4 per cent) indicated that the item was "highly
satisfactory," 92 (63 per cent) responded that the item
| 126
! was "satisfactory," 25 (17.1 per cent) had "no opinion,"
7 (4.8 per cent) said that the item was "unsatisfactory,"
|
j and one (0.7 per cent) responded that the information
| given in the initial interview was "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 23.
j
j Grievance Procedures
!
An inquiry was also made to determine respondents'
j reaction to the adopted grievance procedure in their dis-
I
; tricts. The literature states that the presence of a
l
i
workable grievance procedure more and more appears to give
I
teachers a feeling of greater security in their work.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating districts,
17 (6.2 per cent) indicated grievance procedures were
"highly satiafactory," 105 (38.2 per cent) felt them to be
t
; "satisfactory," 107 (38.9 per cent) indicated "no opinion,"
35 (12.7 per cent) responded that they were "unsatisfac
tory," and 11 (4 per cent) believed them to be "highly
unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
14 (9.6 per cent) indicated grievance procedures were
"highly satisfactory," 79 (54.1 per cent) responded that
TABLE 23
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING ADEQUACY OF
INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE INITIAL INTERVIEW
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 21 14.4 41 14.9
Satisfactory 92 63 168 61.1
No Opinion 25 17.1 18 6.5
Unsatisfactory 7 4.8 33 12
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 15 5.5
Chi Square 21.4424
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .001 level
128
i the procedures were "satisfactory," 32 (21.9 per cent)
i
had "no opinion," 17 (11.6 per cent) believed them to be
I "unsatisfactory," and 4 (2.7 per cent) indicated grievance
| procedures were "highly unsatisfactory."
t
I
; A tabulation of the above findings appears in
j
j Table 24.
| Security in Position
The literature concludes that experienced teachers
: were most interested in security, while inexperienced
teachers are more concerned with the improvement of their
immediate environment. An item was placed in the question-
! naire to determine the reaction to the degree of security
| teachers felt in their positions.
i
1
| Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 110 (40
! per cent) responded that this item was "highly satisfac-
i
: tory," 127 (46.2 per cent) indicated that this item was
i
i
"satisfactory," 13 (4.7 per cent) had "no opinion," 13
(4.7 per cent) believed this item was "unsatisfactory,"
and 12 (4.4 per cent) said that security in their position
was "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
82 (56.2 per cent) responded that this item was "highly
TABLE 24
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 14 9.6 17 6.2
Satisfactory 79 54.1 105 38.2
No Opinion 32 21.9 107 38.9
Unsatisfactory 17 11.6 35 12.7
Highly Unsatisfactory 4 2.7 11 4
Chi Square 15.8943
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .01 level
j satisfactory," 57 (39 per cent) indicated that this item
1 was "satisfactory," 12 (3.4 per cent) had "no opinion,"
j
; and one (0.7 per cent) felt that security in position was
| "highly unsatisfactory."
I
j A tabulation of the above findings appears in
| Table 25.
i
| District Promotional Practices
An inquiry was made to determine the reaction of
i respondents to the prevailing practices utilized by their
districts in promoting staff members from within their
| systems.
i
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 15 (5.5
per cent) responded that district promotional practices
i
j were "highly satisfactory," 128 (46.5 per cent) indicated
that district promotional practices were "satisfactory,"
i
109 (39.6 per cent) had "no opinion," 20 (7.3 per cent)
i
rated district promotional practices "unsatisfactory," and
3 (1.1 per cent) felt that district promotional practices
were "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
10 (6.8 per cent) responded "highly satisfactory," 77
(52.7 per cent) responded "satisfactory," 34 (23.3 per cent)
TABLE 25
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
SECURITY IN POSITION
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=27 5
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 82 56.2 110 40
Satisfactory 57 39 127 46.2
No Opinion 5 3.4 13 4.7
Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 13 4.7
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 12 4.4
Chi Square 15.8198
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .01 level
! 132
I
had "no opinion," 21 (14.4 per cent) answered "unsatis
factory," and 4 (2.7 per cent) concluded that district
promotional practices were "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 26.
I
Orientation to the Community
As repeatedly pointed out in the literature, lack
of ability to adjust to the community ranks high on the
! list as a cause of failure of first-year teachers. This
historically has been true in small communities, but is
l
also a cause of concern in urban areas.
I
! Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 34 (12.4
i
I
| per cent) responded that orientation to the community was
"highly satisfactory," 154 (56 per cent) labeled orienta-
! tion to the community "satisfactory," 39 (14.2 per cent)
had "no opinion," 42 (15.3 per cent) responded that
! orientation to the community was "unsatisfactory," and
6 (2.2 per cent) responded that orientation to the commu
nity was "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
32 (21.9 per cent) felt orientation to the community was
"highly satisfactory," 86 (60.3 per cent) believed
TABLE 26
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
DISTRICT PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N-146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 10 6.8 15 5.5
Satisfactory 77 52.7 128 46.5
No Opinion 34 23.3 109 39.6
Unsatisfactory 21 14.4 20 7.3
Highly Unsatisfactory 4 2.7 3 1.1
Chi Square 14.9865
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .01 level 133
| orientation to the community to be "satisfactory," 15
(10.3 per cent) had "no opinion," and 11 (7.5 per cent)
!
| responded that orientation to the community was "unsatis-
!
| factory"; no respondent indicated that orientation to the
i
| community was "highly unsatisfactory."
| A tabulation of the above findings appears in
| Table 27.
Orientation to the District
The superintendent and other designated members
| of the district administrative staff have a responsibility
|
i to help new teachers understand the philosophy and policies
l
which guide the operation of the district. Respondents
I
| were asked to rate the effectiveness of these procedures
I
| in one questionnaire item.
|
i
i
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 43 (15.6
i
per cent) responded "highly satisfactory," 181 (65.8 per
j
; cent) answered "satisfactory," 13 (4.7 per cent) had "no
i
opinion," 32 (11.6 per cent) replied "unsatisfactory,"
and 6 (2.2 per cent) felt orientation to the district
j "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining in districts,
33 (22.6 per cent) answered "highly satisfactory," 95
TABLE 27
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
ORIENTATION TO THE COMMUNITY
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 32 21.9 34 12.4
Satisfactory 88 60.3 154 56
No Opinion 15 10.3 39 14.2
Unsatisfactory 11 7.5 42 15.3
Highly Unsatisfactory 0 0 6 2.2
Chi Square 13.6885
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .01 level
I 136
| (65.1 per cent) responded "satisfactory," 12 (8.2 per
cent) had "no opinion," 5 (3.4 per cent) felt the area to
be "unsatisfactory," and one (0.7 per cent) responded that
J orientation to the district was "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
I
| Table 28.
i
i
| District Transfer Policies
As the literature concludes, boards of education
j need clearly defined policies relative to transfer requests
i
I to eliminate many unnecessary problems from arising. This
j area was assessed in Item 54 of the questionnaire.
i
i
i
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 19 (6.9
per cent) felt that transfer policies were "highly satis
factory," 122 (44.4 per cent) responded that transfer
| policies were "satisfactory," 99 (36 per cent) had "no
i opinion," 25 (9.1 per cent) believed that district transfer
i
j
policies were "unsatisfactory," and 10 (3.6 per cent)
indicated district transfer policies were "highly unsatis-
i
factory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining in districts,
15 (10.3 per cent) classified district transfer policies
as "highly satisfactory," 79 (54.1 per cent) responded
TABLE 28
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
ORIENTATION TO THE DISTRICT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 33 22.6 43 15.6
Satisfactory 95 65.1 181 65.8
No Opinion 12 8.2 13 4.7
Unsatisfactory 5 3.4 32 11.6
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 6 2.2
Chi Square 13.1311
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .01 level
I j J
■*J
138
! that transfer policies were "satisfactory," 29 (19.9 per
cent) had "no opinion," 17 (11.6 per cent) believed that
transfer policies were "unsatisfactory, 6 (4.1 per cent)
j of the respondents indicated that district transfer poli-
| cies were "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 29.
j
I
Leave Policy
j It was the purpose of one item in the question
naire to elicit reactions from respondents to the estab-
l
lished leave policy in their respective districts.
i
| Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 24 (8.7
per cent) responded that the leave policy was "highly
■ satisfactory," 135 (49.1 per cent) felt the leave policy
to be "satisfactory," 76 (27.6 per cent) had "no opinion,"
25 (9.1 per cent) rated the leave policy "unsatisfactory,"
and 15 (5.5 per cent) rated the leave policy "highly un
satisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining in districts,
24 (9.6 per cent) responded that the leave policy was
"highly satisfactory," 93 (63.7 per cent) believed the
leave policy to be "satisfactory," 23 (15.8 per cent) had
TABLE 29
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
DISTRICT TRANSFER POLICIES
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 15 10.3 19 6.9
Satisfactory 79 54.1 122 44.4
No Opinion 29 19.9 99 36.0
Uns ati s f actory 17 11.6 25 9.1
Highly Unsatisfactory 6 4.1 10 3.6
Chi Square 15.8943
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .01 level
| 140
I
i "no opinion," 12 (8.2 per cent) concluded that the leave
policy was "unsatisfactory," and 4 (2.7 per cent) felt
; that the leave policy was "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 30.
i
j
! Knowledge of Assigned Building
J Before Signing Contract
j
Item number 50 was placed in the questionnaire to
^ determine whether respondents were aware of the building
t
j to which they had been assigned prior to signing their
! contract. As one would expect, the literature supports
i
the theory that teachers need to have as much information
I
as possible relative to the community, the district philos
ophy, and the particular staff and building where they
will be assigned.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 51 (18.5
per cent) responded "highly satisfactory," 132 (48 per
cent) answered "satisfactory," 20 (7.3 per cent) had "no
opinion," 52 (18.9 per cent) replied "unsatisfactory,"
and 20 (7.3 per cent) rated this item "highly unsatisfac
tory ."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with school
TABLE 30
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
LEAVE POLICY
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 14 9.6 24 8.7
Satisfactory 93 63.7 135 49.1
No Opinion 23 15.8 76 27.6
Unsatisfactory 12 8.2 25 9.1
Highly Unsatisfactory 4 2.7 15 5.5
Chi Square 11.2026
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .05 level
| 142
districts, 27 (18.5 per cent) responded "highly satisfac
tory," 132 (58.2 per cent) replied "satisfactory," 14
(9.6 per cent) had "no opinion," 17 (11.6 per cent)
; answered "unsatisfactory," and 3 (2.1 per cent) labeled
j
this item "highly unsatisfactory."
| A tabulation of the above findings appears in
| Table 31.
i
i
I Opportunity to Interview with
| Principal for Employment
i
!
The literature indicated that there is a decided
l
trend to have teacher candidates interview with principals
I of schools where they most likely will be assigned— a
j practice which was assessed in Item 26 of the question-
i naire.
i
! Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 75 (27.3
I
per cent) responded "highly satisfactory" to this item,
j 126 (45.8 per cent) answered "satisfactory," 41 (14.9 per
i
cent) had "no opinion," 23 (8.4 per cent) said "unsatis
factory," and 10 (3.6 per cent) felt this item was "highly
unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
38 (26 per cent) responded "highly satisfactory," 66 (45.2
TABLE 31
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
KNOWLEDGE OF ASSIGNED BUILDING BEFORE SIGNING CONTRACT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 27 18.5 51 18.5
Satisfactory 85 58.2 132 48
No Opinion 14 9.6 20 7.3
Unsatisfactory 17 11.6 52 18.9
Highly Unsatisfactory 3 2.1 20 7.3
Chi Square 10.3901
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .05 level
144
| per cent) answered "satisfactory/1 34 (23.3 per cent) had
"no opinion," 6 (4.1 per cent) replied "unsatisfactory,"
I
I and 2 (1.4 per cent) concluded that the item was "highly
| unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 32.
Academic Ability Level of Students
| Students Assigned to Me in Last Assignment
I Inasmuch as the literature states that the quality
i
of students is highly significant in determining teacher
I
morale, an item was placed in the questionnaire to deter
mine the prevailing student ability level in the respond
ents' last assignment. Each respondent was asked to
indicate whether students in their last assignment were
of average ability, of low ability, of high ability, or
heterogeneously grouped.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 59 (21.5
per cent) indicated students in their last assignment were
of average academic ability, 52 (18.9 per cent) said
students in their last assignment were of low academic
ability, 16 (5.8 per cent) believed students in their last
TABLE 32
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING OPPORTUNITY
TO INTERVIEW WITH PRINCIPAL FOR EMPLOYMENT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 38 26 75 27.3
Satisfactory 66 45.2 126 45.8
No Opinion 34 23.3 41 14.9
Unsatisfactory 6 4.1 23 8.4
Highly Unsatisfactory 2 1.4 10 3.6
Chi Square 8.0452
Degrees of Freedom 4
Significant at .05 level
| 146
I
j assignment were of high academic ability, and 148 (53.8
per cent) felt that students in their last assignment were
■ heterogeneously grouped.
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
! 36 (24.7 per cent) indicated students in their last assign-
j
i
ment were of average ability, 26 (17.8 per cent) indicated
' students in their last assignment were of low ability, 19
l
! (13 per cent) indicated students in their last assignment
i
were of high ability, and 65 (44.5 per cent) indicated
| students in their last assignment were heterogeneously
! grouped.
| A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 33.
| Average Ability of Students Taught
An item was placed in the questionnaire to deter
mine how respondents felt about the average ability of
j students taught in their last assignment.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 41 (14.9
per cent) indicated average ability of students taught
was "highly satisfactory," 169 (61.5 per cent) indicated
average ability of students taught to be "satisfactory,"
14 (5.1 per cent) had "no opinion," 45 (16.4 per cent)
TABLE 33
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING ABILITY
GROUPING OF STUDENTS IN MY LAST ASSIGNMENT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent
N=146
Number
N=27 5
Per Cent
Average Ability 36 24.7 59 21.5
Low Ability 26 17.8 52 18.9
High Ability 19 13 16 5.8
Heterogeneously Grouped 65 44.5 148 53.8
Chi Square 8.0648
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .05 level
■ 148
I believed that average ability of students taught was
"unsatisfactory," and 6 (2.2 per cent) said average ability
I of students taught was "highly unsatisfactory."
Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
29 (19.9 per cent) indicated average ability of students
i taught was "highly satisfactory," 92 (63 per cent) rated
the average ability of students taught as "satisfactory,"
11 (7.5 per cent) had "no opinion," 13 (8.9 per cent)
answered "unsatisfactory," and one (0.7 per cent) felt
that the average ability of students taught was "highly
unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
| Table 34.
j
| Salary
i
I
Salary Schedule
The literature concludes that the rate of teacher
j
; turnover does not seem to be closely related to salary
maximums provided by local school districts, despite the
fact that "leaving to accept a better position" is one of
the leading causes of turnover.
An item was placed in the questionnaire to give
respondents an opportunity to indicate their degree of
TABLE 34
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
AVERAGE ABILITY OF STUDENTS TAUGHT
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
N=146 N=275
Highly Satisfactory 29 19.9 41 14.9
Satisfactory 92 63 169 61.5
No Opinion 11 7.5 14 5.1
Unsatisfactory 13 8.9 45 16.4
Highly Unsatisfactory 1 0.7 6 2.2
Chi Square 7.3587
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .10 level
! 150
i
; satisfaction with the salary schedule in their districts.
Findings.— Of the teachers terminating, 30 (10.9
I
| per cent) indicated that the salary schedule was "highly
I
I
i satisfactory," 187 (68 per cent) said that the salary
! schedule was "satisfactory," 14 (5.1 per cent) had "no
I
opinion," 37 (13.5 per cent) believed that the salary
|
! schedule was "unsatisfactory," 7 (2.5 per cent) felt that
the salary schedule was "highly unsatisfactory."
j Of the permanent teachers remaining with districts,
12 (8.2 per cent) indicated that the salary schedule was
| "highly satisfactory," 96 (65.8 per cent) said that the
, salary schedule was "satisfactory," 7 (4.8 per cent) had
j
| "no opinion," and 31 (21.2 per cent) rated the salary
! schedule "unsatisfactory"; no respondent indicated that
I
| the salary schedule was "highly unsatisfactory."
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
j Table 35.
Chapter Summary
The major findings pertaining to factors affecting
elementary teacher retention and turnover in the eighteen
unified school districts surveyed are summarized in the
following statements:
TABLE 35
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING
SALARY SCHEDULE
Teachers Staying Teachers Leaving
Responses Number
N=146
Per Cent Number
N=275
Per Cent
Highly Satisfactory 12 8.2 30 10.9
Satisfactory 96 65.8 187 68
No Opinion 7 4.8 14 5.1
Unsatisfactory 31 21.2 37 13.5
Highly Unsatisfactory 0 0 7 2.5
Chi Square 2.2460
Degrees of Freedom 3
Significant at .50 level
j 152
i 1. Of the permanent teachers remaining with
districts, over 90 per cent responded that teacher-
! administrator communication was "satisfactory" or "highly
| satisfactory."
j
2. Nearly 92 per cent of the teachers remaining
| with districts believed assignment was appropriate, while
i
! 8 per cent of the teachers terminating felt assignments
were not appropriate.
3. Of the permanent teachers remaining with
districts, 5-1/2 per cent felt supervision was "unsatis-
i
factory," while 16 per cent of the resigning teachers felt
l
l
j supervision to be "satisfactory."
!
i
i 4. Teachers staying with districts believe admin-
i
| istrative leadership is stronger than do teachers resigning
! from districts.
i
j 5. Of teachers remaining with districts, 87.7
per cent believe textbooks and resource materials to be
adequate, while only 78 per cent of teachers resigning
from districts believe textbooks and resource materials
to be adequate.
6. There was little discrepancy between teachers
remaining with districts and teachers terminating regarding
the building administrator and his fairness in assignment
j of responsibilities (97 per cent versus 93 per cent).
7. Teachers resigning, as contrasted to the views
j of teachers remaining, tended to feel more strongly that
orientation to assigned buildings could have been improved.
Fifteen per cent felt orientation was "unsatisfactory" or
"highly unsatisfactory," while only 5 per cent of the
teachers remaining with districts believed orientation to
| their assigned building was "unsatisfactory."
i
8. Of the teachers remaining with districts, 85
!
I
j per cent believed administrative backing in disciplinary
| problems had been "satisfactory" or "highly satisfactory."
| Of the teachers terminating, 75.6 per cent believed
administrative backing was "satisfactory" or "highly satis
factory. "
9. Neither teachers remaining with districts nor
those resigning were concerned in great numbers that the
!
| grade-level assignment was not appropriate.
10. Teachers terminating felt that supplies and
equipment were inadequate in greater numbers than teachers
remaining with districts. Twenty-three per cent of
teachers terminating, as contrasted to 14 per cent of the
teachers remaining in districts, believed supplies and
equipment to be "unsatisfactory."
154
11. Three per cent of teachers remaining in
districts felt working conditions were "unsatisfactory,"
while 7 per cent of those teachers who were terminating
felt working conditions were "unsatisfactory."
12. Forty-one per cent of teachers terminating
felt teacher-board of education relationships were "satis
factory," while 65 per cent of teachers remaining in
districts believed teacher-board of education relationships
were "satisfactory."
13. A differential of 16 per cent existed between
teachers remaining in districts and teachers resigning
from districts on the subject of help received from
administrators in achieving objectives (85 per cent of
teachers remaining versus 69 per cent of teachers termi
nating) .
14. Of teachers remaining with districts, 2.8 per
cent believed teacher-teacher relationships to be "un
satisfactory," while over 10 per cent of the resigning
teachers felt teacher-teacher relationships to be "un
satisfactory ."
15. Of the teachers remaining with school dis
tricts, over 90 per cent indicated that the curriculum
was challenging to students, while a slightly lower number
I
I
! (84 per cent) of the teachers terminating felt that the
curriculum was challenging to students.
i
I 16. Four per cent of the teachers remaining with
| districts indicated that freedom to experiment was "un-
j
! satisfactory," while 8 per cent of the teachers terminating
i
felt freedom to experiment was "unsatisfactory."
| 17. Thirteen per cent of teachers remaining with
i
I
districts felt results of their personal efforts to achieve
district objectives had been "unsatisfactory," while only
9 per cent of teachers terminating reacted the same way.
However, 27 per cent of teachers terminating indicated "no
I
I
: opinion” on this subject.
i
18. Of teachers remaining with school districts,
80 per cent felt teacher participation in the selection
! of materials and supplies was "satisfactory” or "highly
i
■ satisfactory," but only 66 per cent of the teachers termi-
: nating agreed that teacher participation in the selection
of materials and supplies was "satisfactory."
19. Forty-eight per cent of the teachers remaining
with districts believed that their districts had the poten
tial to become one of the top ten districts in the State
educationally. Only 34 per cent of teachers terminating
felt this way about their districts.
| 156
i
20. Twelve per cent of the teachers terminating
believed encouragement of creativity was "unsatisfactory,"
| while only 5.5 per cent of the teachers remaining in
i
j
i districts reacted in a like manner.
i
j 21. Over 84 per cent of the teachers remaining
j with districts felt that personal objectives were compati-
i
! ble with district objectives. The percentage dipped to
I
71 per cent among teachers terminating.
{ 22. Sixty per cent of the teachers resigning
believed that the teacher's role in curriculum development
i was "satisfactory," while 74 per cent of teachers remaining
I
j with districts felt that teacher role in curriculum
development was "satisfactory."
23. Of the teachers resigning, 17.5 per cent felt
that the information given to them in their initial inter
view was inadequate. Among teachers remaining in dis-
I
i tricts, 5.5 per cent felt information given to them in
j
I their initial interview was inadequate; 17 per cent of the
latter group had "no opinion."
24. Only 63.7 per cent of teachers remaining with
districts believed the grievance procedure was "satisfac
tory" or "highly satisfactory." Of the teachers terminat
ing, 44.4 per cent believed that the grievance procedure
I 157
I
i
j was "satisfactory" or "highly satisfactory."
I
25. Of teachers remaining in districts, 1.4 per
j cent felt security in their position was "unsatisfactory"
i or "highly unsatisfactory," while 9.1 per cent of teachers
s
! terminating felt security in their position was "unsatis
factory" or "highly unsatisfactory."
26. Sixty per cent of teachers remaining in
I
; districts believed district promotional practices were
j "satisfactory" or "highly satisfactory." Fifty-two per
j
| cent of the teachers resigning felt district promotional
I practices were "satisfactory" or "highly satisfactory."
i
Approximately 40 per cent of the teachers terminating
!
expressed "no opinion" on this item.
27. Of the teachers remaining in districts, 82
per cent believed orientation to the community was "satis-
i
! factory" or "highly satisfactory,” as compared to 68 per
i
cent of teachers terminating.
| 28. Four per cent of teachers remaining with
districts believed that orientation to the district had
been "unsatisfactory" or "highly unsatisfactory," while
14 per cent of the teachers terminating felt orientation
to districts had been "unsatisfactory" or "highly unsatis
factory. "
I 158
i
; 29. Sixty-four per cent of teachers remaining
with districts believed district transfer policies were
j "satisfactory" or "highly satisfactory," as contrasted to
i
| 51 per cent of teachers terminating.
| 30. Eleven per cent of the teachers remaining in
districts felt that the leave policy was "unsatisfactory"
or "highly unsatisfactory." Nearly 15 per cent of the
j
I teachers terminating believed the leave policy was "un-
I
satisfactory" or "highly unsatisfactory," while 27 per
cent of the teachers terminating indicated "no opinion."
31. Twenty-five per cent of the teachers termi-
i
nating indicated that knowledge of the building where they
i
' would be assigned was inadequate prior to signing con-
i
I
j tracts, while 13.7 per cent of the teachers remaining in
J
; districts responded in the same manner.
I
32. Seventy-three per cent of teachers terminating
: believed that the opportunity to interview with principals
was "satisfactory" or "highly satisfactory," while 71 per
cent of the teachers remaining with districts reflected
the same feeling.
| 33. Thirteen per cent of teachers remaining with
!
j districts had students in high ability groupings in their
I
I last assignment, while 5.8 per cent of teachers terminating
159
i
I had students in high ability groupings in their last
i
assignment.
| 34. Of the teachers terminating, 18.6 per cent
! felt the average academic ability level was "unsatisfac-
I
i
| tory" or "highly unsatisfactory," while 9.6 per cent of
| the teachers remaining with districts felt the same way
!
I about the students they taught.
35. Twenty-one per cent of the teachers remaining
with districts felt the salary schedule was "unsatisfac-
i
I tory," as opposed to 16 per cent of the teachers terminat-
! ing.
CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF FOUR OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
I
i
I
In addition to the sixty-two items on the question-
i
i
j naire, four other inquiries were made of teachers termi-
I
j nating at the end of the 1969-1970 school year. The first
of the four questions was for the purpose of ascertaining
i
l the main reason that the respondent resigned at the end of
I
the school year. A second question asked each respondent
to state a secondary reason for leaving their district,
t
while a third question dealt with the respondent's primary
i
| reason for leaving education at this time, if applicable.
i
I The fourth question asked the respondents to indicate at
I
j what time they planned to return to teaching if they were
|
j currently planning on such.
The results of the four open-ended questions will
be reported in this chapter. The reasons, as stated by
the respondents, have been categorized into ten classifi
cations for reporting purposes.
160
Main Reason for Leaving This District
One question, as previously indicated, was posed
j for the purpose of determining the main reason resigning
!
j teachers left districts at the end of the 1969-1970 school
i year.
I
Findings.— Of the 275 teachers terminating at the
end of the school year, 10 (3.6 per cent) indicated that
i salary or economic consideration was a main reason for
leaving the district at this time. Ten (3.6 per cent)
j
i attributed the main reason for leaving to teaching load
i
| and extra-curricular load. Twenty-six (9.5 per cent) said
administration/supervision was the main reason for leaving
the district. Thirty-four (12.4 per cent) claimed marriage
j
and family responsibilities had caused them to leave the
| district, while 35 (12.7 per cent) pinpointed maternity
as the cause of their resignation from the district.
Seventy-one (25.8 per cent) indicated moving was the main
reason for leaving the district, while another 21 (7.6 per
cent) answered that a main reason for resigning was pro
fessional growth by study or by travel. Twenty-seven
(9.8 per cent) reported retirement or health reasons
prompted their resignation, and 36 (13.1 per cent)
162
| indicated that geographic location was behind their resig
nation. The reason stated by 5 (1.8 per cent) did not
j fall under any of the previous categories.
| A tabulation of the above findings appears in
i
| Table 36.
I
!
i
| A Secondary Reason for Leaving This District
j
| Although not all respondents answered the question,
: an inquiry was made to determine a secondary reason for
j
respondents leaving the last district where they taught.
i
i
Findings.— Of the 165 teachers terminating who
answered this question, 12 (4.4 per cent) indicated
teaching load and extra-curricular load, 37 (13.5 per
cent) indicated administration and supervision, 17 (6.2
per cent) indicated marriage and family responsibilities,
12 (4.4 per cent) indicated maternity, 29 (10.5 per cent)
I indicated moving, 13 (4.7 per cent) indicated professional
I
I
growth through study or travel, 17 (6.2 per cent) indicated
retirement and health, 24 (8.7 per cent) indicated geo
graphic location and climate, and 4 (1.5 per cent) indi
cated "other" reasons. Forty per cent, or 110 teachers,
did not answer this question.
TABLE 36
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF TEACHERS RESIGNING IN THE ORDER OF
MOST FREQUENT TO LEAST FREQUENT REASON
Reasons for Resignation
Teachers
Number
N=275
Leaving
Per Cent
Moving from Area 71 25.8
Geographic Location and Climate 36 13.1
Maternity 35 12.7
Marriage 34 12.4
Retirement and Health 27 9.8
Administration and Supervision 26 9.5
Professional Growth, by Study or Travel 21 7.6
Teaching Load and Extra-Curricular Load 10 3.6
Salary 10 3.6
"Other" 5 1.8
163
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 37.
Teachers Leaving Education
I
i
i An inquiry was made of respondents to ascertain
if they were leaving the field of education at this time,
and if so, what the primary reason was. The literature
states that many forces work to cause teachers to leave
I
the profession, either temporarily or permanently.
Findings.— Of the 275 teachers terminating, 197
| (71.6 per cent) did not answer the question. Of those who
I did, 3 (1.1 per cent) responded teaching load and extra
curricular load, 2 (0.7 per cent) indicated administration
and supervision, 16 (5.8 per cent) indicated marriage and
I
family responsibilities, 15 (5.5 per cent) indicated
i maternity, 2 (0.7 per cent) indicated moving, 11 (4 per
cent) indicated discipline and related causes, 17 (6.2 per
cent) indicated retirement and health, and 12 (4.2 per
cent) indicated they were entering another line of work.
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 38.
TABLE 37
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF TEACHERS GIVING AS A SECONDARY REASON
FOR RESIGNING THE FOLLOWING REASONS
A Secondary Reason for Resigning
Teachers
Number
N=275
Leaving
Per Cent
Administration and Supervision 37 13.5
Moving 29 10.5
Geographic Location 24 8.7
Marriage 17 6.2
Retirement and Health 17 6.2
Professional Growth by Study or Travel 13 4.7
Teaching Load and Curricular Load 12 4.4
Maternity 12 4.4
"Other" 4 1.5
Did Not Answer Question 110 40
TABLE 38
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF TEACHERS RESIGNING LEAVING EDUCATION
Reasons for Leaving Education
Teachers Leaving
Number Per Cent
N=78
Retirement and Health 17 21.7
Marriage and Family Responsibilities 16 20.5
Maternity 15 19.6
Going into Other Line of Work 12 15.6
Discipline and Other Related Causes 11 14
Teaching Load and Extra-Curricular Load 3 3.8
Administration and Supervision 2 2.5
Moving
• 2
i A
2.5
When Do You Expect to Return to Teaching?
The inquiry to determine if and when respondents
expected to return to teaching if they were leaving the
field of education at this time is especially significant.
j The literature indicates that a prime source of classroom
teachers is the individual that has left teaching at an
earlier date, was fully credentialled when leaving the
I classroom, and decides to return to the classroom for an
i
| additional period of time, or until retirement.
i
! Findings.— Of the 57 teachers indicating they
planned to return to teaching, 24 (42.1 per cent) said
they planned to return in one to two years; 21 (36.8 per
cent) indicated they planned to return in three to four
years; 4 (7 per cent) indicated they planned to return in
five to six years; 3 (5.2 per cent) indicated they planned
to return in seven to eight years; 2 (3.5 per cent) indi
cated they planned to return in thirteen to fourteen
years; 2 (3.5 per cent) indicated they planned to return
in fifteen to sixteen years; and one (1.7 per cent)
planned to return in seventeen to eighteen years.
A tabulation of the above findings appears in
Table 39.
TABLE 39
NUMBER AND PER CENT OF TEACHERS LEAVING EDUCATION PLANNING
TO RETURN TO TEACHING AT SOME LATER TIME
When Returning to Education
Teachers
Number
N=57
Leaving
Per Cent
One-two years 24 42.1
Three-four years 21 36.8
Five-six years 4 7
Seven-eight years 3 5.2
Nine-ten years 0 0
Eleven-twelve years 0 0
Thirteen-fourteen years 2 3.5
Fifteen-Sixteen years 2 3.5
Seventeen-eighteen years 1 1.7
Chapter Summary
The following statements summarize the major
reasons teachers resigned from districts at the end of the
i
| 1969-1970 school year as well as the conclusions regarding
teachers leaving the field of education at this particular
I
! time.
1. The largest group of teachers (25.8 per cent)
terminated because they were moving out of the area.
Geographic location and climate was the reason for the
next largest group (comprising 13.1 per cent). Maternity
| and marriage represented 12.7 per cent and 12.4 per cent,
: in that order. Salary was mentioned by only 3.6 per cent
| of the resigning teachers.
S 2. Of those teachers terminating who mentioned
i
| a secondary reason for leaving districts, administration/
supervision headed the list with 13.5 per cent, although
J the same reason ranked only sixth as a primary reason for
I
teachers leaving districts. Moving from the area and
geographic location were also high on the list as secondary
reasons for teachers leaving districts.
3. Of the 275 teachers terminating, 78 indicated
they were leaving education at this time. The main reasons
| 170
| given were retirement and health, 21.7 per cent; marriage
and family responsibilities, 20.5 per cent; maternity,
19.6 per cent; and going into another line of work, 15.6
per cent.
4. Of the 78 teachers terminating leaving educa-
I
tion at this time, 57 per cent indicated they planned to
return to education within four years.
CHAPTER VI
I
I
j
! SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
| Since World War II, educators in California and
particularly in Southern California, have been faced with
an acute problem of staffing elementary school classrooms
to meet the demands of an increasing school population.
| The staffing of schools became such a problem that
i
I
| it became necessary for school districts to send represen-
| tatives out of state to recruit teacher candidates on
l
college and university campuses throughout the nation.
At one point, teacher-training institutions in California
were providing only approximately one-half of the class
room teachers needed each year.
The problem of supply and demand has changed
i
I greatly in the past year, but the problem of teacher turn
over is still very much with us. When 16 per cent of the
teachers employed during any school year will not be avail
able for employment in the same district the following
year, it is important that measures be taken to alleviate
the high rate of teacher turnover and its impact on the
171
172
instructional program.
The major reason for turnover, after the three
"M's"--marriage, maternity, and moving—-appears to be
dissatisfaction with the school system. Personnel admin
istrators should identify, improve, and control the
factors which decrease the number of outstanding teachers
leaving the profession each year.
The present chapter contains a summary of the
problem, the procedure, and the findings. The implica
tions of the major findings were considered as the basis
for the conclusions and the recommendations.
Summary of the Investigation
The purpose of this study was to determine factors
that affect elementary teacher turnover in selected uni
fied school districts in Southern California. It was a
further purpose of the study to identify factors asso
ciated with long-term retention of elementary teachers.
A questionnaire was used to gather data. It con
sisted of (1) items of personal information, (2) items
affecting teachers at the building level, (3) items
affecting teachers at the district level, and (4) questions
pertaining to why teachers resigned and what was in their
| future plans.
The questionnaire was sent to personnel directors
I
i in eighteen unified school districts in Southern Califor
nia, each of which had an average daily attendance between
: 10,000 and 25,000 students. Personnel directors, in turn,
i
j distributed the questionnaire to ten permanent kinder-
! garten-eighth grade teachers, all of whom had taught in
the district for five or more years as well as to all
teachers at the kindergarten-eighth grade level who were
i
| terminating at the end of the school year.
The completed questionnaires were then tabulated
l
1 according to teachers remaining with and teachers termi
nating from unified school districts. Data were tabulated
for all sixty-two items on the questionnaire for each of
the two groups and for the four open-ended questions. A
chi square and factor analyses were performed to identify
!
significant items of information.
I
!
Findings
The major findings are summarized in the following
sections: (1) administration and organization, (2) curric
ulum and educational objectives, (3) personnel practices,
(4) academic ability level of students, (5) salary, and
j 174
I
i (6) stated reasons for resignations.
j
Administration and organization.— The major find-
| ings pertaining to administration and organization factors,
I
as reported by respondents in the eighteen unified school
districts, are as follows:
1. Items in the questionnaire pertaining to
administration and organization were the most significant
|
as indicated by the responses of the teachers. This group
| of items accounted for 24 per cent of the total variability
i
|
I in the factor analysis.
2. The item conderned with teacher-administrator
communication had a chi square value of 21 which is highly
significant. Twenty-one per cent of the teachers resigning
believed teacher-administrator communication to be un
satisfactory, while 5 per cent of the teachers remaining
i with districts believed teacher-administrator communica
tion was unsatisfactory.
3. Of the permanent teachers remaining with
districts, 6 per cent felt supervision was unsatisfactory,
but 16 per cent of the resigning teachers believed super
vision was unsatisfactory.
4. Twenty per cent of the resigning teachers
175
considered administrative leadership to be unsatisfactory,
as opposed to 8 per cent of teachers remaining with dis
tricts. |
5. Both groups of teachers believed that adminis- j
trative backing in disciplinary problems could be improved.;
Eighteen per cent of the teachers terminating felt admin- j
istrative backing in disciplinary problems was unsatisfac- j
tory, as compared to 11 per cent of teachers remaining !
i
with districts. j
i
i
6. Teachers terminating felt orientation to j
assigned buildings could have been improved. Fifteen per j
I
1
cent considered orientation unsatisfactory, while 5 per
cent of the teachers remaining with districts believed
orientation to assigned buildings was unsatisfactory.
Curriculum and educational objectives.— The major
findings pertaining to curriculum and educational objec
tives, as reported by respondents in the eighteen unified
school districts, are as follows:
1. The area of curriculum and educational objec
tives accounted for 3 per cent of the total variability
in the factor analysis. This is approximately one-eighth
the interest focused on the administration-organization
176
I
factor. I
I
j
2. Forty-one per cent of the resigning teachers
t
believed that teacher-board of education relationships
i
I
were satisfactory, while 38 per cent of the teachers |
terminating indicated no opinion. Sixty-five per cent of
the teachers remaining with districts believed teacher- ;
board of education relationships were satisfactory. i
3. Administrative help in achieving objectives j
i
indicated some significance. Sixty-nine per cent of the
teachers terminating from districts believed administra- j
i
tive help in achieving objectives was satisfactory, while
i
I
85 per cent of the teachers remaining with districts |
!
believed administrative help in achieving objectives to
be satisfactory.
4. Of the teachers remaining with districts,
3 per cent believed teacher-teacher relationships to be
unsatisfactory, while over 10 per cent of the teachers
terminating felt teacher-teacher relationships were un
satisfactory.
5. Ninety per cent of the teachers remaining with
school districts believed the curriculum was a challenge
to students, compared to 84 per cent of the teachers
terminating.
177
6. Of the teachers remaining with school dis-
I
i tricts, 80 per cent believed teacher participation in the j
selection of materials and supplies was satisfactory.
Sixty-six per cent of the teachers terminating indicated
that teacher participation in the selection of materials j
!
and supplies was satisfactory. j
7. Forty-eight per cent of the teachers remaining j
with districts believed that their district had the poten- j
tial educationally to become one of the top ten districts
in the state. Thirty-four per cent of the teachers
. ■
terminating felt the same way about their districts.
8. Sixty per cent of the teachers terminating i
believed that the teacher's role in curriculum development
was satisfactory, while 74 per cent of teachers remaining
with districts felt teacher role in curriculum development
was satisfactory.
Personnel practices.— The major findings pertaining
to personnel practices, as reported by respondents in the
eighteen unified school districts, are as follows:
1. Of the teachers terminating, 18 per cent
believed that the information given to them in the initial
interview was inadequate. Among teachers remaining in
their districts, 6 per cent indicated that information
given to them in the initial interview was inadequate.
2. Sixty-three per cent of teachers remaining
with districts believed the grievance procedure was satis
factory, with the percentage dropping to 44 per cent among
the teachers terminating.
3. Nine per cent of the teachers terminating
believed they were not secure in their positions. Of the
teachers remaining in districts, only 1 per cent indicated
a feeling of insecurity.
4. Sixty per cent of the teachers remaining in
districts reported district promotional practices satis
factory. Fifty-two per cent of the teachers terminating
felt district promotional practices were satisfactory.
5. Of the teachers remaining in districts, 82
per cent believed orientation to the community satisfac
tory. Sixty-eight per cent of the terminating teachers
indicated orientation to the community was satisfactory.
6. Sixty-four per cent of the teachers remaining
with districts indicated district transfer policies were
satisfactory. Fifty-one per cent of the teachers resigning
indicated the district's transfer policy was unsatisfac-
179
7. Twenty-five per cent of the teachers terminat
ing indicated that knowledge of the building where they
would be assigned was inadequate prior to signing a con
tract of employment. Fourteen per cent of the teachers
remaining with districts were in agreement with this
finding.
8. Twelve per cent of the teachers terminating
felt that the opportunity to interview with principals
was unsatisfactory compared to 6 per cent of the teachers
remaining with districts.
Academic ability level of students.— The major
findings pertaining to academic ability level of students,
as reported by respondents in the eighteen unified school
districts, are as follows:
1. Thirteen per cent of teachers remaining with
districts had high ability groups for their last assign
ment, as compared to 6 per cent of the terminating
teachers.
2. Nineteen per cent of the teachers terminating
believed the average academic ability of students taught
was unsatisfactory. Of the teachers remaining with dis
tricts, 10 per cent indicated the average academic ability
of students taught was unsatisfactory.
Salary.— The major finding in this area was that !
21 per cent of the teachers remaining with districts felt j
I
the salary schedule was unsatisfactory, as compared to |
16 per cent of the resigning teachers. i
i
I
Stated reasons for resignations.— Among the major j
i
findings for teachers resigning from districts or leaving
education are the following:
i
1. The largest group of teachers resigning, some
l
26 per cent, did so because of a move out of the area. !
Geographic location/climate was the stated reason for the (
second largest group. Maternity was specified by 13 per
cent, and matrimony was the next major reason, accounting
for 13 per cent. Retirement and health reasons were the
specified causes for 10 per cent of the resignations.
Administration/supervision accounted for 10 per cent;
professional growth by study or travel accounted for 8
per cent; teaching load and extra-curricular load accounted
for 4 per cent; salary accounted for 4 per cent; and other
reasons accounted for 2 per cent.
2. Secondary reasons listed by teachers terminat
ing were administration and supervision, moving, geo-
181
graphic location, marriage, retirement and health, pro
fessional growth, teaching load, maternity, and "other."
3. Seventy-eight of the 275 teachers terminating
indicated they were leaving education at this time. In
order of importance, the reasons given were retirement
and health, marriage and family responsibilities, mater
nity, other line of work, discipline and related causes,
teaching load, administration and supervision, and moving.
4. Fifty-seven of the 78 teachers terminating
leaving education indicated they planned to return to
education within four years.
Conclusions
These conclusions appear to be warranted from this
investigation:
1. After the personal reasons of moving, mater
nity, and marriage have been considered, administration
and organizational factors are by far the most important
in teacher retention and turnover. Administrative leader
ship and supervision are major areas of concern to both
groups of teachers. Lack of administrative leadership,
supervisory help, and administrative backing with discip
linary problems, especially in light of the fact that
182
teachers expect help, is a cause of much dissatisfaction
I
among both groups. Teachers indicating the greatest j
i
degree of satisfaction in their work tend to have good
I
rapport with the administration.
i
'
2. Salary has been considered an important factor
in teacher turnover; however, this consideration was not
j
substantiated as a unique determiner causing teachers to j
seek employment in another district, or to leave educa- j
i
I
tion. |
i
3. Teachers leaving districts after one or two
years considered more areas of teaching problematic than i
i
did teachers remaining in districts five or more years.
There is reason to believe that many resigning teachers
felt that assigning a low rating on the questionnaire
was a way of "getting back" at the district.
4. Teachers who report a high level of satisfac
tion in their work generally accept the educational
objectives of the school district. This is corroborated
by the fact that approximately 90 per cent of the satis
fied teachers indicated their acceptance of district
educational objectives.
5. Teachers who reported a low level of satis
faction in their work, as a rule, did not accept the
183
educational objectives of their school districts.
6. Teachers remaining in school districts for
five years or longer were more satisfied with personnel
practices than were the teachers resigning.
7. There was no conclusive evidence from this
investigation to point to a relationship between teacher
turnover and the average academic ability level of
students in a school district.
Recommendations
This study suggests these avenues for further
exploration:
1. It is recommended that administrators at the
building level intensify their efforts to improve a two-
way flow of communications between teachers and adminis
trators .
2. It is suggested that personnel directors be
aware of the administrative characteristics that are of
concern to teacher candidates— honest, frank, supportive,
helpful, flexible, concerned, interested, enthusiastic,
creative, informed, personable and communicative. An
attempt to match a teacher with an administrator should
then be effected.
3. Every effort should be made to have teacher j
j
candidates meet with the administrator with whom they will j
be working, to visit and tour the school plant, and to
spend some time becoming acquainted with the community
during the interview process.
4. Teachers should have the opportunity to be
involved in the formulation of district educational goals
and objectives; along this same line, teachers and the
building administrator should have mutual involvement in
i
i
determining educational objectives at the school building, j
5. A periodic review of personnel policies and |
practices should be conducted jointly by faculty repre- !
i
sentatives and administrators in a district. A recommen
dation to the board of education to delete obsolete
policies and the adoption of new policies should result
from such a review. In addition, every attempt should be
made to keep teachers apprised of existing policies.
6. A further investigation of salary as a factor
in teacher retention and turnover should be conducted.
The development of a more sensitive instrument is recom
mended for such a study.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
185
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1. Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.
2. Bush, Robert Nelson. The Teacher-Pupil Relationship.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1954.
3. Castetter, William B. Administering the School Per
sonnel Program. New York: The Macmillan Company,
1962.
4. Chamberlain, Leo Martin. The Teacher and School
Organization. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall Inc., 1958.
5. Chandler, B. J., and Petty, Paul V. Personnel Manage
ment in School Administration. Yonkers-on-Hudson,
N.Y.: World Book Company, 1955.
6. Crane, Edmund H., and Erviti, James R.D. Reasons
Why Some Teachers Leave Public School Teaching.
Albany, N.Y.: New York State University, 1955.
7. Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management.
New York: Harper and Row, 1954.
8. Elsbree, Willard S., and Reutter, Edmund E., Jr.
Staff-Personnel in the Public Schools. New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.
9. Eye, Glen G., and Lane, Willard R. The New Teacher
Comes to School. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1956.
186
187
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Herriott, Robert E., and St. John, Nancy Hoyt. ;
Social Class and the Urban School: Impact of
Pupil Background on Teachers and Principals. j
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
i
Heald, James E., and Moore, Samuel A. The Teacher I
and Administrative Relationships in School Systems.j
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968. ;
i
Huggett, Albert J., and Stinnett, T. M. Professional j
Problems of Teachers. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1956.
Kershaw, Joseph A., and McKean, Roland N. Teacher
Shortage and Salary Schedules. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1962.
Krug, Edward. Administering Curriculum Planning.
New York: Harper Brothers, 1957.
Lee, Gordon C. "The Changing Role of the Teacher." !
The Changing American School. Sixty-fifth Yearbook)
of the National Society for the Study of Educa- !
tion, Part II. Chicago, 111.: University of j
Chicago Press, 1966.
Leese, Joseph; Frasure, Kenneth; and Johnson, Maurice,
Jr. The Teacher in Curriculum Making. New York:
Harper Brothers, 1961.
Pigors, Paul, and Myers, Charles A. Personnel
Administration A Point of View and A Method.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Spears, Harold. Curriculum Planning Through In-
Service Programs. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957.
Stinnett, T. M., ed. The Teacher Dropout. Itasca,
111.: F. E. Peacock Publishing, Inc., 1970.
Van Zwoll, James A. School Personnel Administration.
New York: Appleton-Crofts, 1964.
188
21. Wagoner, William H. Staff Development, An Emerging
Function for Schools. Department of Rural Educa
tion, National Education Association, Washington,
D.C., 1964.
Articles, Periodicals, Surveys, and Pamphlets
22. Alexander, S. Kern. Teacher Turnover Study.
Kentucky State Department of Education, Frankfort,
Ky., 1966, ED 012709, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Office of Education,
Washington, D.C.
23. Amidon, Edmund J.; Kies, Kathleen M.; and Palasi,
Anthony F. "Group Supervision: A Technique for
Improving Teaching Behavior." National Elementary
Principals. XLV (April, 1966), 54-58.
24. Benson, Charles S., and Dunn, Lester A. "Employment
Practices and Working Conditions.” Review of
Educational Research, XXXVII (June, 1967), 273.
25. Bidwell, Charles E. "Administration and Teacher
Satisfaction." Phi Delta Kappan, XXXVII (April,
1956), 285-288.
26. Booth, Frusana. "Why Do Teachers Drop Out?"
Childhood Education, XLIV (December, 1967), 245-
246.
27. Broadbent, Frank W.; and Cruickshank, Donald R. "The
Identification and Analysis of Problems of First
Year Teachers." U.S. Department of Health, Educa
tion, and Welfare, ED 013786, Office of Education,
Washington, D.C., 1965.
28. California School Boards Association and California
Teachers' Association. "Sample Personnel Poli
cies." Third Progress Report Joint Committee on
Personnel Procedures, San Francisco, Calif.,
October, 1954.
189
29. Chandler, B. J. "Salary Policies and Teacher
Morale." Educational Administration and Super
vision, XLV (March, 1959), 107-110.
|
30. Charters, W. W., Jr. Teacher Survival in Oregon j
School Districts: First Results of a Statewide
Study. Eugene, Ore.j University of Oregon,
CASEA, October, 1968.
j 31. Charters, W. W. Jr. "The Relation of Morale to
Turnover Among Teachers." American Educational |
Research Journal, II (May, 1965), 163-173.
i
32. Charters, W. W., Jr. "What Causes Teacher Turnover?" j
School Review, LXIV (October, 1956), 294-299.
33. Connecticut Education Association. Why Teachers
Leave, An Inquiry on Teacher "Drop-Outs" in j
Connecticut. Hartford, Connecticut, 1956.
34. Drummond, A. H., Jr. "Must They Be Expendable."
School Science and Mathematics, LXIX (March, 1969) , j
241-246. i
35. Foster, Clifford D. "Teacher Supply and Demand."
Review of Educational Research, XXXVII (June,
1967), 264-268.
36. Gallup, George H. "Higher Pay Key Factor in Obtaining
More Teachers." American Teacher, IV (December,
1955), 19.
37. Gaudet, Frederick J. Labor Turnover: Calculation
and Cost. American Management Association,
Research Study 39, New York, 1960.
38. Gordon, Garford C. "Conditions of Employment and
Service in Elementary and Secondary Schools."
Review of Educational Research, XXXIII (October,
1963), 382.
39. Harap, Henry. "Many Factors Affect Morale."
Nation's Schools, L (October, 1952), 53-56.
190
40. Hass, Margaret Walters. Helping the New Teacher. j
Northwest Association for Supervision and Curricu- I
lum Development, Washington, D.C., 1956.
41. Headlund, Paul A., and Brown, Foster S. "Conditions |
That Lower Teacher Morale." Nations Schools, |
XLVIII (September, 1951), 40-42.
42. Hearn, A. C. "Staff Morale." Bulletin of the
National Association of Secondary School Princi
pals, XXXIV (December, 1950), 150-157.
43. Heldman, Lawrence J. A Study of Professional Staff
Turnover in Catskill Area Schools for the Year
Ending June 1968. Catskill Area School Study
Council, Oneonta, New York: State University
College, ED 027122, December, 1968. U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S.
Office of Education, Washington, D.C.
44. Herzberg, Frederick. "One More Time: How Do You !
Motivate Employees?" Harvard Business Review,
January-February, 1968, p. 53.
45. Hurd, Blair. California's Need for Teachers 1965-75.
Sacramento, Calif.: State Department of Educa
tion, 1965.
46. In-Service Education of Elementary Teachers. Report
of the Teacher Education Workshop, Nashville,
Tennessee, George Peabody College for Teachers,
1945.
47. Kleinert, Jack. "Teacher Turnover in the Affluent
School District." Clearing House, XLII (January,
1968), 297-299.
48. Kleinman, Lou. "A New Dimension in Teacher Selec
tion." Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXIV
(September, 1960), 24-33.
49. Kufeld, Fredia. "Teacher Morale Revisited." High
Points, XXXIII (September, 1951), 19-24.
191
50. Lelpold, L. E., and Yarbrough, Joseph W. "What
1600 School People Think About Teacher Morale."
American School Board Journal, CXIX (December,
1949) , 29-30.
|
51. Lindenfeld, Frank. "Teacher Turnover in the Public
I Elementary and Secondary Schools 1959-1960." |
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
i Office of Education Circular No. 678, Washington,
D.C., 1963.
52. Lohman, Maurice A. "An Investigation of Teacher
j Turnover." Research Bulletin, IV, No. 1, Insti-
! tute of Administrative Research, Teachers College,
Columbia University, November, 1963.
j 53. Marion, B. W., and Trieb, S. E. "Job Orientation—
A Factor in Employee Performance and Turnover."
Personnel Journal, XL (October, 1969), 799-804.
!
54. Martindale, F. E. "Situational Factors in Teacher
Placement and Success." Journal of Experimental j
Education, XX (December, 1951), 121-177. !
55. Mathis, Claude. "The Relationship Between Salary
Policies and Teacher Morale." Journal Educational
Psychology, L (December, 1959), 275-279.
56. McCreary, Anne Phillips. "Determining Individual
Needs of Elementary Teachers as a Basis for an
Orientation Program." Journal of Educational
; Research, LIV (September, 1960), 20-24.
57. McLaughlin, Jack, and Shea, John T. "California
Teachers' Job Dissatisfaction." California Journal
of Educational Research, XI (November, 1960),
216-224.
58. Meryman, Richard. "How We Drive Teachers to Quit."
Life, LIII (November 16, 1962), 1044.
59. Mills, Queenie, and Rogers, John. "Personal and
Professional Problems of Elementary School
Teachers." Journal of Educational Research, XLVII
(December, 1954), 279-288.
192
60. Morelli, R. L. "Teacher Recruitment and Retention."
Illinois Education, LVII (January, 1969), 192-193.
61. National Education Association. "Are Teachers
Satisfied with Their Working Conditions?"
Research Division of the National Education Asso
ciation, Washington, D.C., XL (March, 1969), 6-7.
62. National Education Association. "Economic Rewards
of Teaching." Research Division of the National
Education Association, Washington, D.C., XLI (May,
1963), 45-49.
63. National Education Association. Teacher Load,
Teacher Lift. Department of Classroom Teachers,
Washington, D.C., November, 1953.
64. National Education Association. "Teacher Mobility
and Loss." Research Division of the National
Education Association, Washington, D.C., December,
1968, 118-126.
65. National Education Association. The Assignment and
Misassignment of Teachers. National Commission
on Teacher and Professional Standards, Washington,
D.C., 1965.
66. National Education Association. "The Financial
Rewards of Teaching." Research Division of the
National Education Association, Washington, D.C.,
XXXVIII, No. 1 (February, 1960), 49-55.
67. National Educational Association, National Commission
of Teacher Education and Professional Standards.
The Real World of the Beginning Teacher. Report
of the 1965 National TEPS Conference, Washington,
D.C., 1966.
68. National Educational Association. The Teacher Looks
at Personnel Administration. Research Bulletin,
Research Division of the National Education Asso
ciation, XXIII, No. 4 (December, 1945).
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Nelson, Robert H., and Thompson, Michael L. "Why
Teachers Quit: Factors Influencing Teachers to j
Leave Their Classrooms After the First Year." j
Clearing House, XXXVII (April, 1963), 467-472. j
I
Pangburn, Gerald. Fact Sheet for Teacher Recruitment
Speakers. Sacramento, Calif.: State Department
of Education, Revised September, 1968.
Redefer, Frederick L. "Studies of Teacher Morale."
School and Society, XCII (February 22, 1964),
63-64. !
!
Reyhner, Theodore O. "Family Differentials for |
Teachers." American School Board Journal, CXXIII '
(August, 1951), 23-24.
Schultz, R. E. "Keeping Up Teacher Morale." i
Nation's Schools, L (October, 1953), 53-56. j
Steffensen, James P. Staff Personnel Administration, j
Selected Practices and Issues. U.S. Department j
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of
Education Bulletin, 1963, No. 6, Washington, D.C.,
1963. j
!
Taylor, Bob L. "The In-Service Education Needs of j
New Teachers." California Journal of Educational
Research, XXII (November, 1961), 221-223.
"Teacher Turnover: Survey of Teacher Turnover in
California School Districts of Under 850 ADA.”
California Teacher Association Journal, XLVI (May,
1950), 11.
Southern California Coordinating Committee on Selec
tive Teacher Recruitment. Improving Teacher
Retention. Sacramento, Calif.: State Department
of Education, 1968.
Wagoner, Roderic L., and O'Hanlon, James P. "Teacher
Attitude Toward Evaluation." Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, ED 013236. U.S. Office of
Education, Washington, D.C.
194
79. White, Kinnard. "Socioeconomic Factors and the
Mobility of Beginning Elementary Teachers."
Teachers College Journal, XXXVII (March, 1966),
177-178, 217.
Unpublished Materials
80. Blaser, John Walter. “Factors Contributing to the
Problem of Men Graduates from the University of
Idaho (1955-60) Leaving Teaching Profession."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 1955.
81. Brown, Richard. "The Problems and Difficulties of
Teachers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California, 1952.
82. Byrnes, Arthur. "A Study of Job Satisfactions and
Dissatisfactions of Teachers in Selected Schools
of Indiana." Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
New York University, 1951.
83. Graetz, Ralph Clarence. "Factors Affecting the
Retention of Men in the Teaching Profession: A
Study of Milwaukee State Teachers College Male
Graduates from 1932-1946." Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State College, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1952.
84. Hansen, Oden, and Stanley, Gerald Merlin. "A Study
of the Motivation of High School Teachers."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1969.
85. Jaycox, Warren Irvin, and Tallman, Lillian Albert.
"A Study of the Motivation of Elementary School
Teachers.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
June 1967.
195
86. Johnson, Donald W. "A Critical Study of Elementary
Teacher Turnover in Southern California." Unpub
lished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles, 1950.
87. Kaplan, Louis. "The Status and Functions of Men
Teachers in Urban Elementary Schools." Unpub
lished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1947.
88. Lane, William R. "The Induction of Beginning
Teachers in Wisconsin Public Schools." Unpub
lished doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, 1951.
89. Metz, Earl Clarence. "A Study of Factors Influencing
the Withdrawal of Four Thousand Teachers from the
Ohio Public Schools and the Possibility of Their
Return." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University, Columbus, 1962.
90. Pepper, James N. "Factors Involved in the Recruit
ment and Retention of Teachers in Michigan."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne Univer
sity, Detroit, Michigan, 1954.
91. Peterson, Walter J. "A Study of the Male Teacher in
the Elementary Schools of Class II, III, IV, and
V School Districts in the State of Nebraska."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
South Dakota, Vermillion, 1966.
92. Thomas, Warren Felty. "A Study of Factors Associated
with the Retention of Teachers in Selected Public
School Systems in Cuyahoga County, Ohio."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, 1964.
93. Trull, Joe Raymond. "Factors Related to Retention
of Beginning Teachers in Georgia." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia,
1967.
APPENDICES
196
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO PERSONNEL DIRECTORS
197
SOUTHERN CALBFORiNlTA A SSO C IA T IO N
O f
SCKOOiL fE S S G K N E L ADMINISTKATOBS
March 9, VT/O
Fellow Personnel Administrator:
At the September meeting of the California Association of School Personnel
Administrators, the membership agreed to sponsor the doctoral dissertation
of Charles L. Brown, a member of SCASPA, who is doing his study at the
University of Southern California.
Mr. Brown's study, concerning elementary teacher retention and turnover,
has real interest to all of us. I know that he will appreciate your co
operation in securing the kinds of information that he is seeking. I am sure
that in return for your cooperation, he will inform you of his findings. He
will explain in detail in a separate letter how you canv be helpful.
/ 7 _
Fellow Personnel Administrator:
At the September meeting of the California Association of School Personnel
Administrators, the membership agreed to sponsor the doctoral dissertation
of Charles L. Brown, a member of SCASPA, who is doing his study at the
University of Southern California.
Mr. Brown's study, concerning elementary teacher retention and turnover,
has real interest to all of us. I know that he will appreciate your co
operation in securing the kinds of information that he is seeking. I am sure
that in return for your cooperation, he will inform you of his findings. He
will explain in detail in a separate letter how you can.be helpful.
Sincere!
ler, President Kevin R.
KRW/mw
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
Ad m in i s t r a t io n c e n t e r
38 C r e s t R o a d w e s t • r o l l i n g H i l l s . C a l i f o r n i a 90274
( 213) 377-1511
B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n A d m in i s t r a t i o n
Ed m u n d J . R e a , p r e s id e n t
E l e a n o r G . C u r r y , v i c e p r e s i d e n t M c U T C h 2 4 r 1 9 7 0
J o h n J . H a n s o n , c l i n k
C . H . G r a h a m , m e m o ir
R ic h a r d C . Ka i h l e r . m e m b e r
Dear Personnel Director:
Your district has been selected as a potential participant in this study
because you have a Unified School District and because of your average
daily attendance.
Would you be willing to distribute to all teachers at the K-8 level, who
are leaving your district at the end of this present school year, a copy of
the questionnaire I have prepared? A copy is enclosed for your perusal.
Sometime in April, would you be responsible for distributing ten copies of
the questionnaire to teachers who have been in your district more than five
years, and who you know will not be leaving at the end of the school year.
Their responses will be mailed directly back to me or a post office box
number.
If you agree to participate, I will send the necessary materials to your
office in April and again in June.
Please indicate on the tear-off portion of this letter if you will co
operate in this study. Would you also indicate the contact in your office
with whom I should correspond.
T h o m a s e. W o o d s
S U PE R IN T E N D E N T
J a m e s E . C r o c k e t t
B U S IN E S S M ANAGER
F r a n k E . W i l l i a m s o n
A S SIST A N T S U PE R IN T E N D E N T
IN ST R U C T IO N A L SE R V IC E S
D a v i d H . M i l l e r
A S SIST A N T SU PE R IN T E N D E N T
PE R S O N N E L S E R V IC E S
Your district has been selected as a potential participant in this study
because you have a Unified School District and because of your average
daily attendance.
Would you be willing to distribute to all teachers at the K-8 level, who
sure leaving your district at the end of this present school year, a copy of
the questionnaire I have prepared? A copy is enclosed for your perusal.
Sometime in April, would you be responsible for distributing ten copies of
the questionnaire to teachers who have been in your district more than five
years, and who you know will not be leaving at the end of the school year.
Their responses will be mailed directly back to me or a post office box
number.
If you agree to participate, I will send the necessary materials to your
office in April and again in June.
Please indicate on the tear-off portion of this letter if you will co
operate in this study. Would you also indicate the contact in your office
with whom I should correspond.
The figure given for the number of teachers you expect to leave the class
room at the end of the school year should include only terminations.
Thank you for your cooperation in this study. I will be pleased to furnish
your district with results of the study when it is completed.
Sincerely yours.
Charles L. Brown
NAME OP DISTRICT________________________
Person to contact in your office___________________________
Our district will cooperate in the study. Yes No___
Estimated number of teachers that will leave district ____________
Will you provide me with the total number of teachers that cleared the
personnel office at the end of the school year?
199
APPENDIX B
LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL
200
April 15, 1970
Dear Fellow Educator:
The problem of teacher retention and teacher turnover
has been a mutual concern of teachers and administrators
for years. Many well qualified teachers leave the field
of education each year for various reasons.
As a personnel director, at the dissertation stage of a
doctoral program, I believe the topic of teacher turnover
is important enough to warrant such a study. I am inter
ested in determining reasons teachers leave one district
to take employment in another, why some teachers leave
teaching completely after devoting many years to prepara
tion, but also why teachers find a particular school
district attractive and stimulating.
As a teacher in your present district for at least five
years, I am interested in why you find teaching in your
district a pleasant experience as my study concerns
itself with teacher retention as well as teacher turnover.
I am asking that you take a few minutes from your very
busy schedule to complete the attached questionnaire.
Your responses will be helpful in bringing about an aware
ness of reasons teachers find their teaching situation
pleasant, as well as situations that may need remediation.
The Southern California Association of School Personnel
Administrators, and the Southern Coordinating Committee
on Selective Teacher Recruitment and Retention have agreed
to sponsor this study. Your responses will be used to
compare and contrast with the responses of teachers leaving
districts at the end of this school year.
Would you please complete the questionnaire prior to
May 1, 1970, and return it in the self-addressed, stamped
envelope provided for that purpose. You need not complete
the last four questions dealing with reasons for leaving
your district, as those questions are not applicable to
your situation.
You need not identify yourself or your present district.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours, Approved by
Mr. Kevin Wheeler
President,
Southern California
Assn. of School Personnel
Administrators
Charles L. Brown
May 1, 1970
Dear Fellow Educator:
The problem of teacher retention and teacher turnover has been
a mutual concern of teachers and administrators for years.
Many well qualified teachers leave the field of education each
year for various reasons.
As a personnel directort at the dissertation stage of a doctoral
program* I believe the topic of teacher turnover is important
enough to warrant this type of study* I am particularly inter
ested in determining reasons teachers leave one district to
take employment in another* and why some teachers leave teaching
completely after devoting many years to preparation.
I am asking that you take a few minutes from your very busy
schedule to complete the attached questionnaire. Your responses
will be helpful in bringing about awareness of situations that
cause teacher dissatisfaction* and in remediation of many of the
problem areas.
The Southern California Association of School Personnel Adminis
trators and the Southern Coordinating Committee on Selective
Teacher Becruitment and Betention have agreed to sponsor this
study. Your concerns will be shared with those who have a vital
interest in your welfare and the welfare of other teachers.
Would you please complete the questionnaire prior to July 1* and
return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided for
that purpose. If you need additional space for your answers to
the last four questions* please use the back of the form.
You need not identify yourself or your last school district.
Your individual responses will be compiled with the responses of
other teachers leaving districts, or leaving education at the end
of this school year.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Approved by
QJvlJ
Mr. Kevin Wheeler
President,
Southern California
Assn. of School Personnel
Administrators
Charles L. Brown
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE
Yellow Form: Teachers Remaining
Blue Form: Teachers Terminating
203
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E
A. PERSONAL INFORMATION B. BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS C. DISTRICT LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Pie is a indicate the most ap
propriate response to each of
the following items with a check
< * / ) :
1. SEX:
Kale
Female
2. AGS:
26 or under
27 or over
J J. MARITAL STATUS:
Married
Single
Divorced
Widowed
4. LEV.- OF ASSIGNMENT:
Grade* K-3
Grade* 4-6
Grades 7-8
5. LEVEL OF TRAINING
B.A.
B.A.+15 sem. units
B.A.+ 30 sem. units
— «.A.
M.A.tlS seal, units
M.A.+30 seai. units
M.A.+45 sem. units
NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
None
1-2
3-4
5-7
8 or more
TOTAL LENGTH OF DISTRICT
SERVICE:
Less than one year
One year
Two years
Three years
Four years
Five years or more
TYPE OF CREDENTIAL(S):
Standard Elementary
Partial Elementary
General Elementary
Provisional Elementary
Standard Secondary
Partial Secondary
General Secondary
MAIN TEACHER-TRAINING
INSTITUTION:
California college or
university
Out-of-state college or
university
=- 10. DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE
% TO SCHOOL:
§ 0-5 miles
t ____6-10 miles
£ 11-15 miles
%_________15-20 miles
% Over 20 miles
»
I 11. NUMBER OF TEACHERS ON STAFF
* WHERE TAUGHT:
S Less than 11
» 11-20
» 21-30
Please react to each of the following by
placing a check ( ' * ' ) in the appropriate colurm.
Your reaction should assess the degree of your
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the par
ticular item.
Highly Satisfactory
e*
2
•
• « *
a
1 H o Opinion
Unsatisfactory
1 .
! Highly Unsatisfactory
1. Administrative leadership
2. Amount ot record-keeping
3. Number of classroom In
terruptions
4. Custodial services
$. Appropriateness of as
signment
6. Supervision received
7. Administrative backing in
disciplinary problems
8. Supplies, equipment
i. Extra assignments
10. Working conditions
11. Faculty age-level
12. Male-female staff balance
13. Teacher-teacher relation
ships
14. Classroom facilities
15. Encouragement of creativ-
. 17
16. Textbooks, resource mate
rials
17. Clerical load
l6. Freedom to experiment
19. Challenge of curriculum
to students
20. Teacher participation in
selection of materials,
supplies
21. Availability of teaching
aides
22. Compatibility of district
and personal objectives
23. Probability that personal
objectives are realis
tic
24. Help of school administra
tors in achieving ob
jectives
25. Staff effort to achieve
objectives
16. Opportunity to interview
with principal for em
ployment
27. Appropriateness of grade-
level assignment
28. Orientation to assigned
school
29. Teacher-administrator
commun icat ion
30. Fairness in assignment
of responsibilities
31. Security in position
32. Average ability of
students taught
33. Self-motivation of
students
34. An assignment with
average achievers
would be
SB. Parental cooperation
36. Workable class size
TT.
Please react to each of the following by
placing a check f *' ' ) in the appropriate column.
Your reaction should assess the degree of your
eatisfaotion or dissatisfaction with the par
ticular item.
I
• f *
a
<2
1 Satisfactory
H g Opinion
F
\
• f *
41
0
1
1
1
«
*
«
£
a
a
38. Advancement opportuni
ties
59. Salary schedule
40. teacher role in curric
ulum development
4l. District supervision
42. Availability of special
consultants
k5. Realistic district edu
cational objectives
44. Citizen participation
in defining objec
tives
ns. Potential 0t district to
become one of top ten
in state educationally
46. Results of personal ef
forts to achieve dis
trict objectives
47.- Adequacy of information
given in initial in
terview
48. In-service training
49. Rate of curriculum
change
50. Knowledge of building
assignment before
signing contract
51. Orientation to district
52. Orientation to commu
nity
S3. District promotional
practices
54. District transfer
policies
55. Grievance procedure
56. Leave policy
S7. Availability of district
personnel for confer
encing
58. Average ability of dis
trict students
$9. Grading standards
60. Lowering of grading
standards would be
61. Raising of grading
standards would be
62. Teacher-Board relation-
■?hlPs . ,
ment were:
of average ability
of low ability
of high ability
63. My main reason for leaving this district
64. A secondary reason for leaving this disti
was:
65. If leaving the teaching profession, what
your primary reason?
66. If you are planning to return to teachin
a later date, when do you expect to re
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E
A PERSONAL information
Please indicate the most ap
propriate response to tack of
the 'allowing iters with a ohedk
' r l - f :
1. SEX:
Mai*
, Female
з. AGE:
26 or under
27 or over ■
J. MARITAL STATUS:
Married
Single
Divorced
Widowed
и. LEVEu OF ASSIGNMENT:
Grades K-3
Grades “-6
Grades 7-8
5. LEVEL OF TRAINING
B.A.
B.A.+15 sen. units
B.A.+30 sen. units
M.A.
M.A.+1S sem. units
M.A.♦30 sem. units
M.A.+U5 sem. units
6. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
• lone
1-2
3-k
5-7
8 or more
■ 7. total Length of district
SERVICE:
Less than one year
One year
Two years
Three years
Four years
Five years or more
'8. TYPE OF CREOENTIAL(S):
Standard Elementary
Partial Elementary
General Elementary
Provisional Elementary
Standard Secondary
Partial Secondary
General Secondary
0. MAIN TEACHER-TRAINING
INSTITUTION:
California college or
university
Out-of-state college or
university
10. DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE
TO SCHOOL:
0-5 miles
6-10 miles
11-15 miles
15-20 miles
Over 20 miles
11. NUMBER OF TEACHERS ON STAFF
WHERE TAUGHT:
Less than 11
11-20
21-30
B. BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Please rsaot to each of the following by
plaoing a oheak (y~) in the appropriate column.
Jour reaction should assess the degree of your
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the par
ticular item.
!
1
s
e
t
a H o Opinion
r
%
§
* • »
4 *
0
1
e
a
!
%
i
a»
M
£
1. Administrative leadership
2. Amount of record-keeping
3. Number of classroom in
terruptions
k. Custodial services
$. Appropriateness of as
signment
6. Supervision received
7. Administrative backing in
disciplinary problems
8. Supplies, equipment
9. txtra assignments
10. Working conditions
11. Faculty age-level
12. Male-Female staff balance
13. Teacher-teacher relation
ships
lk. Classroom facilities
IS. Encouragement of creativ-
i l. lxr l
16. Textbooks, resource mate
rials
i7. Clerical load
l i . Freedom to experiment
19. Challenge of curriculum
to students
io. Teacher participation in
selection of materials,
supplies
21. Availability of teaching
aides
22. Compatibility of district
and personal objectives
23. Probability that personal
objectives are realis
tic
2k. Help of school administra
tors in achieving ob
jectives
25. Staff effort to achieve
objectives
26. Opportunity to interview
with principal for em
ployment
27. Appropriateness of grade-
level assignment
28. Orientation to assigned
school
29. Teacher-administrator
communication
30. Fairness in assignment
of responsibilities
31. Security in position
32. Average ability of
students taught
33. Self-motivation of
students
3k. An assignment with
average achievers
would be
35. Parental cooperation
36. Workable class size
C. DISTRICT LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Please react to each of the following by
placing a check ( \s*l in the appropriate column.
Jour reaction should assess the degree of your
eatisfaction or dissatisfaction with the par
ticular item.
Highly Satisfactory
Satisfactory
- 5
i
*
r
i
4 1
q
1
r
41
4
• * *
4 1
0
I
»
%
5
38. Advancement opportuni
ties
39, Salary schedule
•*0. Teacher role in curric
ulum development
kl. District supervision
k2. Availability of special
consultants
k3, Realistic district edu
cational objectives
kk. Citizen participation
in defining objec
tives
h!>. Potential of district to
become one of top ten
in state educationally
k6. Results of personal ef
forts to achieve dis
trict objectives
k7.-Adequacy of information
given, in initial in
terview
k8. In-service training
k9. Rate of curriculum
change
50. Knowledge of building
assignment before
signing contract
51. Orientation to district
52. Orientation to commu
nity
53. District promotional
practices
5k. District transfer
policies
55. Grievance procedure
56. Leave policy
57. Availability of district
personnel for confer
encing
58. Average ability of dis
trict students
49. Grading standards
60. Lowering of grading
standards would be
61. Raising of grading
standards would be
62. Teacher-Board relation
ships
ment were:
of average ability
of low ability
of high ability
63. My main reason for leaving this district w
6k. A secondary reason for leaving this distri
was:
65. If leaving the teaching profession, what i
your primary reason?
66. If you are planning to return to teaching
a later date, when do you expect to rett
APPENDIX D-l
TABULATION OF TEACHER RESPONSES
Personal Information
206
Teachers Remaining N=146
Number Per Cent
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Teachers Terminating Districts N=275
Number Per Cent
1. Sex 1. Sex
34 23.3 Male 47 17.1 Male
112 76.6 Female 228 82.9 Female
2. Age 2. Age
7 4.8 26 or under 112 40.7 26 or under
139 95.2 27 or over 163 59.3 27 or over
3. Marital Status 3. Marital Status
115 78.8 Married 204 74.2 Married
14 9.6 Single 58 21.1 Single
4 2.7 Divorced 7 2.5 Divorced
13 8.9 Widowed 6 2.2 Widowed
4. Level of Assignment 4. Level of Assignment
64 44.1 Grades K-3 144 52.4 Grades K-3
56 38.6 Grades 4-6 85 30.9 Grades 4-6
25 17.2 Grades 7-8 46 16.7 Grades 7-8
5. Level of Training 5. Level of Training
12 8.2 B.A. 94 34.2 B.A.
20 13.7 B.A.+15 Sem. units 57 20.7 B.A.+15 Sem. units
74 50.7 B.A.+30 Sem. units 93 33.8 B.A.+30 Sem. units
3 2.1 M.A. 12 4.4 M.A.
7 4.8 M.A.+15 Sem. units 6 2.2 M.A.+15 Sem. units
8 5.5 M.A.+30 Sem. units 6 2.2 M.A.+30 Sem. units
22 15.1 M.A. +45 Sem* units 7 2.5 M.A.+45 Sem. units
to
o
-o
Teachers Remaining N=146
Number Per Cent
6. Number of Dependents
65 44.5 None
51 34.9 1-2
25 17.1 3-4
5 3.4 5-7
0 .0 8 or more
7. Total Length of District Service
0 .0 Less than one year
0 .0 One year
0 .0 Two years
0 .0 Three years
0 .0 Four years
146 100 Five years or more
8. Type of Credential
18 12.3 Standard Elementary
2 1.4 Partial Elementary
116 79.5 General Elementary
0 .0 Provisional Elementary
1 .7 Standard Secondary
1 .7 Partial Secondary
8 5.5 General Secondary
9. Main Teacher-Training Institution
87 60 California college or
university
58 40 Out-of-state college
or university
Teachers Terminating Districts N=275
Number Per Cent
6. Number of Dependents
169 61.5 None
85 30.9 1-2
18 6.5 3-4
2 .7 5-7
1 .4 8 or more
Total Length of District Service
11 4.0 Less than one year
77 28 One year
73 26.5 Two years
35 12.7 Three years
20 7.3 Four years
59 21.5 Five years or more
Type of Credential
75 27.3 Standard Elementary
49 17.8 Partial Elementary
108 39.3 General Elementary
18 6.5 Provisional Elemeni
10 3.6 Standard Secondary
5 1.8 Partial Secondary
10 3.7 General Secondary
9. Main Teacher-Training Institution
159 58 California college or
university
115 42 Out-of-state college
or university
208
Teachers Remaining N=146
Number Per Cent
10. Distance from Residence to School
64 43.8 0-5 miles
41 28.1 6-10 miles
20 13.7 11-15 miles
13 8.9 16-20 miles
8 5.5 Over 20 miles
11. Number of Teachers on Staff Where
Taught
14 9.6 Less
42 28.8 11-12
71 48.6 21-30
19 13.0 31-50
Teachers Terminating Districts N=275
Number Per Cent
10. Distance from Residence to School
119 43.3 0-5 miles
53 19.3 6-10 miles
42 15.3 11-15 miles
29 10.5 16-20 miles
32 11.6 Over 20 miles
11. Number of Teachers on Staff Where
Taught
17 6.2 Less than 11
74 27.1 11-12
141 51.6 21-30
41 15.0 31-50
209
APPENDIX D-2
TABULATION OF TEACHER RESPONSES
Building Level Considerations
210
211
BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers Remaining N=146
NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
of teachers responding
in each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
&
>1 o
u •p
0 o
■p id
o
id
&
CO
•H
(0
fr
o ■P
•H
■p id
+• o c o CO
id ■p 0 id c
CO O •H p
id c CO
>i
m •H •H >i
H (0 a •p r(
A •H o id A
O' •P CO O'
•rH id 0 ti •H
a CO z o
Administrative leadership 57 63 4 8 4
45.9 43.2 2.7 5.5 2.7
Amount of record-keeping 19 99 9 17 2
13 67.8 6.2 11.6 1.4
Number of classroom inter 31 83 11 18 3
ruptions 21.5 56.8 7.5 12.3 2.1
Custodial services 29 75 6 28 8
19.9 51.4 4.1 19.2 5.5
Appropriateness of assignment 96 48 1 1 0
65.8 32.9 .7 .7 .0
Supervision received 42 91 5 7 1
28.8 62.3 3.4 4.8 .7
Administrative backing in 73 51 5 14 3
disciplinary problems 50 34.9 3.4 9.6 2.1
Supplies, equipment 45 80 1 19 1
30.8 54.8 .7 13 .7
Extra assignments 37 95 9 4 1
25.3 65.1 6.2 2.7 .7
Working conditions 53 87 2 3 1
36.3 59.6 1.4 2.1 .7
Faculty age-level 43 87 12 4 0
29.5 59.6 8.2 2.7 .0
Male-female staff balance 26 72 21 23 4
17.8 49.3 14.4 15.8 2.7
Teacher-teacher relation 58 80 4 3 1
ships 39.7 54.8 2.7 2.1 .7
Classroom facilities 32 95 2 16 1
21.9 65.1 1.4 11 .7
Encouragement of creativity 63 71 4 8 0
43.2 48.6 2.7 5.5 .0
BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers Remaining N»146
NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
of teachers responding
in each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
>1 0
p P
0 U
p id
o 4-1
id >i CO
m P •H
0)
&
0 p
•H P id
■P 0 c O CO
•d p o id e
CO o •rl 4-1 D
id e CO
>i M-l •H •rl >1
rH CO
5*
P r —1
X! •rl id £ ,
O' P CO O'
•rl id o c •rl
« CO Z D
Textbooks, resource materials 41 87 7 10 1
28.1 59.6 4.8 6.8 .7
Clerical load 22 86 11 25 2
15.1 58.9 7.5 17.1 1.4
Freedom to experiment 82 55 3 6 0
56.2 37.7 2.1 4.1 .0
Challenge of curriculum to 43 89 6 7 1
students 29.5 61 4.1 4.8 .7
Teacher participation in 34 82 12 17 1
selection of materials, 23.3 56.2 8.2 11.6 .7
supplies
Availability of teaching 17 64 21 35 9
aides 11.6 43.8 14.4 24 6.2
Compatability of district 25 98 10 10 3
and personal objectives 17.1 67.1 6.8 6.8 2.1
Probability that personal 25 100 15 5 1
objectives are realistic 17.1 68.5 10.3 3.4 .7
Help of school administrator 30 94 14 7 1
in achieving objectives 20.5 64.4 9.6 4.8 .7
Staff effort to achieve 31 96 10 8 1
objectives 21.2 65.8 6.8 5.5 .7
Opportunity to interview with 38 66 34 6 2
principal for employment 26 45.2 23.3 4.1 1.4
Appropriateness of grade 78 63 1 4 0
level assignment 53.4 43.2 .7 2.7 .0
Orientation to assigned 49 82 8 6 1
school 33.6 56.2 5.5 4.1 .7
Teacher-administrator 67 65 6 6 2
communication 45.9 41.5 4.1 4.1 1.4
Fairness in assignment of 67 75 1 3 0
responsibilities 45.9 51.4 .7 2.1 .0
BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers Remaining N=146
NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
of teachers responding
in each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
P
>1 O
u P
o O
p n)
o 4-1
<0 >1 CO
4-1 p •p
CO >1 0 P
•H P p <0
P 0 c o (0
(0 P o «J C!
CO O •H 4-* D
<0 c CO
>i 4-1 •H •<-l >i
rH CO cu P iH
X I •H o (0 J3
O' P CO O'
•H <0 0 Ci •H
« CO z D S
Security in position 82 57 5 1 1
56.2 39 3.4 .7 .7
Average ability of students 29 92 11 13 1
taught 19.9 63 7.5 8.9 .7
Self-motivation of students 19 78 11 34 4
13 53.4 7.5 23.3 2.7
An assignment with average 26 100 14 6 0
achievers would be 17.8 68.5 9.6 4.1 .0
Parental cooperation 27 95 8 14 2
18.5 65.1 5.5 9.6 1.4
Workable class size 28 69 4 34 11
19.2 47.3 2.7 23.3 7.5
Students assigned to me in
my last assignment were:
36 24.7% of average ability
26 17.8% of low ability
19 13.0% of high ability
65 44.5% heterogeneously grouped
BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
j
Teachers Terminating N=275
|
i NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
| of teachers responding
j in each column. Second
line represents the
I percentage.
Administrative leadership
Amount of record-keeping
Number of classroom inter
ruptions
Custodial service
Appropriateness of assign
ment
Supervision received
i Administrative backing in
j disciplinary problems
| Supplies, equipment
Extra assignments
Working conditions
Faculty age-level
i
j Male-female staff balance
Teacher-teacher relation
ships
Classroom facilities
Encouragement of creativity
214 i
I
&
&
o
•p
o o
•P ( 0
O >4 - 4
< 0
> 4-1
&
0 1
•H
0 1
>i 0 •P
•H U +J < 0
4 J O C o 0 1
( 0 •P 0 ( 0 c
IA O •H > 4-1 D
< o C 0 1
>i > 4 - 1 •H • i - 4 >i
H
A
0 )
•H a*
«P
( 0
H
A
t J > ■P 0 1 t 7 >
•H ( 0 0 c •H
8 (A z D 8
88 123 10 42 12
32 44.7 3.6 15.3 4.4
35 193 13 30 4
12.7 70.2 4.7 10.9 1.5 .
~57 153 To 47 8 r
20.7 55.6 3.6 17.1 2.9
69 142 6 44 14
25.1 51.6 2.2 16 5.1
134 119 6 12 4
48.7 42.3 2.2 4.4 1.5
56 160 15 30 14
20.4 58.2 5.5 10.9 5.1 I
98 110 16 36 15 i
35.6 40 5.8 13.1 5.5
65 143 4 51 12
23.6 52 1.5 18.5 4.4
44 193 24 9 5
16 70.2 8.7 3.3 1.8 j
79 168 7 16 5 !
28.7 61.1 2.5 5.8 1.8
67 176 14 14 4
24.4 64 5.1 5.1 1.5 j
28 136 35 58 18
10.2 49.5 12.7 21.1 6.5
80 151 16 21 7
29.1 54.9 5.8 7.6 2.5 I
55 165 7 41 7
20 60 2.5 14.9 2.5
87 140 15 22 11
31.6 50.9 5.5 8 4
j BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers Terminating N=275
| NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
of teachers responding
in each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
Textbooks, resource materials 43 172 7 46 7
15.6 62.5 2.5 16.7 2.5
Clerical load 36 183 15 35 6
13.1 66.5 5.5 12.7 2.2
Freedom to experiment 110 138 5 15 7
40 50.2 1.8 5.5 2.5
Challenge of curriculum to 47 183 19 20 6
students 17.1 66.5 6.9 7.3 2.2
Teacher participation in 48 132 33 49 13
selection of materials, 17.5 48 12 17.8 4.7
supplies
Availability of teaching 35 115 28 68 29
aides 12.7 41.8 10.2 24.7 10.5
Compatability of district 43 154 42 27 9
and personal objectives 15.6 56 15.3 9.8 3.3 j
Probability that personal 49 178 31 13 4
objectives are realistic 17.8 64.7 11.3 4.7 1.5 :
Help of school administrator 48 141 41 31 14 ;
in achieving objectives 17.5 51.3 14.9 11.3 5.1
Staff effort to achieve 51 157 32 31 4
objectives 18.5 57.1 11.6 11.3 1.5
Opportunity to interview with 75 126 41 23 10
principal for employment 27.3 45.8 14.9 8.4 3.6
Appropriateness of grade level 109 147 9 5 5
assignment 39.6 53.5 3.3 1.8 1.8
Orientation to assigned 77 145 11 29 13
school 28 52.7 4 10.5 4.7
Teacher-administrator com 86 117 12 38 22
munication 31.3 42.5 4.4 13.8 8
Fairness in assignment of 85 171 3 10 6
responsibilities 30.9 62.2 1.1 3.6 2.2
215
>i O
u P
0 O
■ p ft)
o 4 - 1
< 0 >1 U )
4-t p •H
1 0 >i o ■P
•H U •p ft)
•p o c o ( 0
< 0 ■P o ( 0 C
(A o ■H 4 - 1 O
ft) c ( 0
>i 4 - 1 •rl •H >i
i — t to C U •P i - H
J5 •H O ft) J3
O' •P to O'
•H <0 0 C ■H
SG CO z D K
I BUILDING LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers Terminating N=275
NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
of teachers responding
in each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
Security in position 110 127 13 13 12
40 46.2 4.7 4.7 4.4
Average ability of students 41 169 14 45 6
taught 14.9 61.5 5.1 16.4 2.2
Self-motivation of students 35 137 13 76 14
12.7 49.8 4.7 27.6 5.1
An assignment with average
achievers would be
43
15.6
195
70.9
30
10.9
4
1.5
3
1.1
Parental cooperation 51 156 18 41 9
18.5 56.7 6.5 14.9 3.3
Workable class size 42 132 11 66 24
15.3 48 4 24 8.7
| Students assigned to me in
my last assignment were:
59 21.5% of average ability
50 18.9% of low ability
16 5.8% of high ability
148 53.8% heterogeneously grouped
APPENDIX D-3
TABULATION OF TEACHER RESPONSES
District Level Considerations
i
I
217
218
DISTRICT LEVEL CONSIDERATION
Teachers Remaining N=146
NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
of teachers responding
in each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
>1 o
P
-p
0
o
■P ( 0
O
( 0 >i C O
•w P ■p
( 0 > 1 o ■p
•H u ■p ( 0
■P o c o t o
( 0 ■ P 0
( 0 c
cn u •P D
< 0 c t o
•p •p >i
ip t o 0< ■p
A •H o < 0 A
O' •P ( 0
•H < 0 0 c •P
3 5 CO 2 X a
Advancement opportunities 21 80 26 16 3
14.4 54.8 17.8 11 2.1
Salary schedule 12 96 7 31 0
8.2 65.8 4.8 21.2 .0
Teacher role in curriculum 18 90 16 20 2
development 12.3 61.6 11 13.7 1.4
District supervision 10 86 25 19 6 '
6.8 58.9 17.1 13 4.1
Availability of special 7 63 19 47 10
consultants 4.8 43.2 13 32.2 6.8
Realistic district educa 10 102 16 15 3
tional objectives 6.8 69.9 11 10.3 2.1
Citizen participation in 8 59 62 16 1 !
defining objectives 5.5 40.4 42.5 11 .7 !
Potential of district to 21 49 47 20
9 i
become one of top ten in 14.4 33.6 32.2 13.7 6.2 !
state educationally
t
Results of personal efforts 18 88 21 15 4
to achieve district objec 12.3 60.3 14.4 10.3 2.7 :
tives
Adequacy of information 21 92 25 7 1
given in initial interview 14.4 63 17.1 4.8 .7
In-service training 18 78 19 26 5
12.3 53.4 13 17.8 3.4
Rate of curriculum change 8 102 19 15
2
5.5 69.9 13 10.3 1.4
Knowledge of building assign 27 85 14 17 3
ment before signing con 18.5 58.2 9.6 11.6 2.1
tract
Orientation to district 33 95 12 5 1
22.6 65.1 8.2 3.4 .7
219
DISTRICT LEVEL CONSIDERATION
Teachers Remaining N=146 J?
o
! 4 3
| NOTE: First line for each a
j entry represents number ^
| of teachers responding £ g
in each column. Second £
I line represents the m
percentage. «h m
•H <0
X C O
Orientation to community 32 88 15 11 0
21.9 60.3 10.3 7.5 .0
District promotional 10 77 34 21 4
practices 6.8 52.7 23.3 14.4 2.7
District transfer policies 15 79 29 17 6
10.3 54.1 19.9 11.6 4.1
Grievance procedure 14 79 32 17 4
9.6 54.1 21.9 11.6 2.7
Leave policy 14 93 23 12 4
9.6 63.7 15.8 8.2 2.7
Availability of district 18 82 32 12 2
personnel for conferencing 12.3 56.2 21.9 8.2 1.4
Average ability of district 13 101 21 11 0
students 8.9 69.2 14.4 7.5 .0
Grading standards 9 85 18 28 6
6.2 58.2 12.3 19.2 4.1
Lowering of grading standards 7 11 30 74 24
would be 4.8 7.5 20.5 50.7 16.4
Raising of grading standards 13 44 40 42 7
would be 8.9 30.1 27.4 28.8 4.8
Teacher-board relationships 15 80 25 21 5
10.3 54.8 17.1 14.4 3.4
> 1
>1
n
o
• p
o
m
( 0
u •H
0 + >
+ * < 0
a u 1 0
0 ( 0 c
•H 3
c 1 0
•H •H >1
0 4 - o iH
o ( 0 X !
1 0 O '
0 c •H
z 3 3 5
i
220
DISTRICT LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers Terminating N=275
NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number of
teachers responding in
each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
>i
P
>1 O
p ■P
0 o
•p
1 0
o ip
( 0
>1 ( 0
p •rl
( 0 >i 0 •P
•H P •p ( 0
■P 0 C o 0 )
< 0 •P 0 1 0 c
CO O • i H «p D
n3
C ( 0
>1 •H •H
t —1 m ■p rH
jC •p o 1 0
O' •P ( 0 O'
•H < 0 0 c •P
35 w z D 3 3
Advancement opportunities 35 169 42 25 4
12.7 61.5 15.3 9.1 1.5
Salary schedule 30 187 14 37 7
10.9 68 5.1 13.5 2.5
Teacher role in curriculum 29 137 49 50 10
development 10.5 49.8 17.8 18.2 3.6
District supervision 26 137 64 36 12
9.5 49.8 23.3 13.1 4.4
Availability of special 18 107 42 84 24
consultants 6.5 38.9 15.3 30.5 8.7
Realistic district educational 26 160 50 30 9
objectives 9.5 58.2 18.2 10.9 3.3
Citizens participation in 16 91 122 39
7
defining objectives 5.8 33.1 44.4 14.2 2.5
Potential of district to 33 62 95 58 27
become one of top ten in 12 22.5 34.5 21.1 9.8
state educationally
Results of personal efforts 28 148 75 16 8
to achieve district objec 10.2 53.8 27.3 5.8 2.9
tives
Adequacy of information given 41 168 18 33 15
in initial interview 14.9 61.1 6.5 12 5.5
In-service training 25 125 39 68 18
9.1 45.5 14.2 24.7 6.5
Rate of curriculum change 22 155 50 37 11
8 56.4 18.2 13.5 4
Knowledge of building assign 51 132 20 52 20
ment before signing con- 18.5 48 7.3 18.9 7.3
tract
221
DISTRICT LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers Terminating N=275
NOTE: First line for each
entry represents number
of teachers responding
in each column. Second
line represents the
percentage.
>1 0
M ■ P
0 O
■ P n >
O 44
« J >1 C O
4 - 1 u •H
C O >1 o P
•H U P (0
■ P o C u C O
1 0 •P 0 m c
to O •H 44 D
(0 c C O
>1 4 - 1 •l-t •H >i
iH m 04 P H
si •H o nt si
■ P C O 0*
•H n > 0 a • H
8 W z D »
Orientation to district 43 181 13 32 6
15.6 65.8 4.7 11.6 2.2
Orientation to community 34 154 39 42 6
12.4 56 14.2 15.3 2.2
District promotional 15 128 109 20 3
practices 5.5 46.5 39.6 7.3 1.1
District transfer policies 19 122 99 25 10
6.9 44.4 36 9.1 3.6
Grievance procedure 17 105 107 35 11
6.2 38.2 38.9 12.7 4
Leave policy 24 135 76 25 15
8.7 49.1 27.6 9.1 5.5
Availability of district 32 136 85 18 4
personnel for conferencing 11.6 49.5 30.9 6.5 1.5
Average ability of district 34 174 31 34 2
students 12.4 63.3 11.3 12.4 .7
Grading standards 14 145 26 71 19
5.1 52.7 9.5 25.8 6.9
Lowering of grading stand 26 23 68 123 35
ards would be 9.5 8.4 24.7 44.7 12.7
Raising of grading stand 34 69 82 77 13
ards would be 12.4 25.1 29.8 28 4.7
Teacher-board relationships 20 94 105 42 14
7.3 34.2 38.2 15.3 5.1

Asset Metadata

Creator Brown, Charles Leonard (author)

Core Title Factors Affecting Elementary Teacher Retention And Turnover In Selected Unified School Districts Of Southern California

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Dawson, Dan T. (committee chair), Georgiades, William (committee member), Ofman, William V. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-466845

Unique identifier UC11362224

Identifier 7116400.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-466845 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7116400.pdf

Dmrecord 466845

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Brown, Charles Leonard

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA