University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining within-school secondary teacher course assignment: what, why, and so what?

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining within-school secondary teacher course assignment: what, why, and so what?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Examining Within-School Secondary Teacher Course Assignment:
What, Why, and So What?
by
Michael Fienberg
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
May 2024
Copyright 2024 Michael Fienberg

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Jessica, who supported me in every way possible
to make this work and my doctoral dreams a reality. I also dedicate it to my daughter, Eden, who
inspires me to strive to make the world a better place.
ii

Acknowledgments
I could not have accomplished this dissertation without the help of many people. First,
my eternal gratitude goes to the members of my dissertation committee. My co-advisor, Dr.
Adam Kho was there to support me, guide me, and show me kindness at every step throughout
my doctoral experience, brightening my journey. My co-advisor, Dr. Morgan Polikoff has
inspired me with his relentless drive to get policy-relevant work to the public, was always there
with essential feedback and timely support, and produces a caliber of work I aspire to approach.
Dr. David Quinn built my foundational skills as my quantitative research methods instructor; I
am grateful to him for his incisive comments and continued willingness to share his expertise
with me. Outside of my committee, Dr. Julie Marsh deepened my understanding of the
theoretical framework that girds these works and stoked my interest in policy-relevant work.
I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge some key colleagues that helped make
my work a reality. Isabel Clay was a valued partner, friend, and academic sister throughout my
doctoral experience. Margaret Dawson-Amoah was a relentless source of positivity from the
moment I met her at Rossier’s admitted students day in March 2020 and an exemplar in personal
and professional work ethic. Shelby Smith pushed my thinking from the first public policy class I
took with her and was the first person in over 20 years of formal education that I fully trusted to
hand a group project off to. Dr. Dan Silver was a mentor to me throughout my time at USC.
Lastly, professional achievements are not possible without personal support. My family
and friends kept me sane and joyful throughout this four year adventure. And most importantly,
my wife Jessica was the pillar I leaned on to achieve all of my goals these past four years. Any
accomplishments I have belong to her. Lastly, my daughter Eden’s impending February 2024
arrival pushed me to finish this work on time. She is my greatest motivation to succeed.
iii

Table of Contents
Dedication........................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. ix
Abstract............................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
Within-School Teacher Assignment.......................................................................................... 1
Why Does Within-School Teacher Assignment Matter?.....................................................3
Student Equity and Outcome Concerns......................................................................... 4
Teacher Mobility Concerns............................................................................................6
The Current Secondary Teacher Assignment Studies: What, Why, and So What?.............8
Study 1: The Process of Secondary Assignment......................................................... 10
Study 2: Teacher Assignment, Experience, and Mobility............................................11
Study 3: Teacher Assignment’s Association with Mobility.........................................13
Chapter Two: Literature Review....................................................................................................16
The Process of Teacher Assignment........................................................................................ 16
Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Processes........................................................................... 16
Top-Down.................................................................................................................... 16
Bottom-Up................................................................................................................... 17
Distribution of Teachers...........................................................................................................18
Elementary Versus Secondary............................................................................................18
Academic Tracking............................................................................................................21
Subject Differences............................................................................................................22
Impact on Students...................................................................................................................24
Teacher Assignment as a Function of Student Characteristics.......................................... 24
Teacher Assignment’s Impact on Student Achievement................................................... 25
Teacher Turnover..................................................................................................................... 28
The Effects of Turnover.....................................................................................................28
Predictors of Mobility........................................................................................................30
Gaps and Limitations in the Literature.................................................................................... 30
Limitations......................................................................................................................... 31
iv

Gaps to be Filled................................................................................................................ 33
Micropolitics: An Organization Theory...................................................................................35
Micropolitics of Secondary Schools.................................................................................. 38
Types of Capital........................................................................................................... 39
Social Capital.........................................................................................................39
Informational Capital.............................................................................................40
Organizational Capital........................................................................................... 40
Use in the Literature Surrounding Teacher Assignment....................................................41
Strengths and Limitations of Micropolitics....................................................................... 42
Strengths...................................................................................................................... 42
Limitations................................................................................................................... 43
Applying Micropolitics to the Current Work.....................................................................44
Diverse Goals...............................................................................................................45
Conflict and Strategic Considerations......................................................................... 46
Use of Capital to Exert Influence.................................................................................47
Methodology Review of the Literature....................................................................................48
Descriptives........................................................................................................................49
Multiple Regression Models Without Fixed Effects..........................................................49
Fixed-Effects Models.........................................................................................................50
Value-Added Models......................................................................................................... 51
Discrete-Time Survival Analyses...................................................................................... 51
Qualitative Studies.............................................................................................................52
The Three Studies.................................................................................................................... 52
Chapter Three: Study 1: Enacted Micropolitics in Secondary Teacher Course Assignment........ 54
Methodology............................................................................................................................55
Data Source and Method....................................................................................................55
Variables of Interest........................................................................................................... 57
Findings................................................................................................................................... 59
A Teacher-Centered Process.............................................................................................. 59
The Greatest Source of Capital: Seniority......................................................................... 63
Explicit Valuing of Seniority........................................................................................64
Passive Enactment of Micropolitics: Implicit Seniority.............................................. 66
Teacher Attributes Beyond Seniority.................................................................................69
Uneven Teacher Satisfaction..............................................................................................71
Student Success and Equity............................................................................................... 72
v

Discussion................................................................................................................................75
Issues of Seniority..............................................................................................................75
Teacher Preferences vs. Student Equity.............................................................................78
Chapter Four: Study 2: Who Teaches Lower-Level Courses: Examining Teacher
Characteristics, Course Assignments, and Teacher Turnover........................................................83
Methodology............................................................................................................................84
Data Source, Variables, and Sample Characteristics......................................................... 84
Analytical Strategy.............................................................................................................93
Results......................................................................................................................................96
Research Question 1.......................................................................................................... 96
Research Question 2........................................................................................................ 101
Discussion..............................................................................................................................105
Topline Findings.............................................................................................................. 105
Teacher Experience and Assignment......................................................................... 105
Teacher Assignment and Mobility............................................................................. 107
Lack of Subject Differences.......................................................................................109
Limitations and Future Work........................................................................................... 109
Potential Solutions to Inequitable Assignments...............................................................110
Chapter Five: Study 3: Investigating Secondary Teacher Assignment’s Association with
Teacher Mobility in North Carolina: A Survival Analysis.......................................................... 114
Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 115
Data Source......................................................................................................................115
Variables of Interest......................................................................................................... 115
Analytical Strategies........................................................................................................ 120
Multiple Linear Regression with Fixed Effects......................................................... 120
Discrete-Time Survival Analyses.............................................................................. 121
Sample Characteristics.....................................................................................................124
Experience and Assignment Analyses.......................................................................124
Mobility Analyses......................................................................................................126
Data Limitations.........................................................................................................128
Results....................................................................................................................................129
Multiple Regression Model Results.................................................................................129
Assignment to Courses of Interest as a Function of Experience............................... 129
Mobility Outcomes as a Function of Course Assignments........................................132
Survival Analysis Results................................................................................................ 135
vi

High School Findings................................................................................................ 136
Middle School Findings.............................................................................................139
School Results............................................................................................................141
Discussion..............................................................................................................................142
The Role of Seniority in Assignment...............................................................................142
Assignment as a Potential Influence in Teacher Retention..............................................143
High School Considerations...................................................................................... 144
Middle School Considerations...................................................................................147
Who Wants to Teach 14-Year-Olds?..........................................................................150
Chapter Six: Implications............................................................................................................ 152
School Assignment Processes Center Teachers and Reward Seniority................................. 152
Seniority’s Connection to Desirable and Undesirable Course Assignments......................... 154
Course Assignment as a Predictor of Teacher Mobility........................................................ 155
Recommendations for School Leaders.................................................................................. 157
Future Work........................................................................................................................... 160
Conclusions............................................................................................................................161
Contributions to This Paper......................................................................................................... 163
References....................................................................................................................................164
Appendix......................................................................................................................................173
Instruments.............................................................................................................................173
Instrument 1: Interview Protocol for Qualitative Study.................................................. 173
Instrument 2. Codebook...................................................................................................175
Tables and Figures................................................................................................................. 177
Table 1: Respondent Characteristics for Study 1.............................................................177
Table 2: Variables of Interest for Study 2........................................................................ 178
Table 3. Weighted Descriptives Statistics of the High School Teachers for Study 2.......180
Table 4. Weighted Descriptives Statistics of the Middle School Teachers for Study 2...181
Table 5. Weighted Descriptive Statistics of High School Math Teachers for Study 2.....182
Table 6. Probability of 9th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience............ 184
Table 7. Probability of Algebra I Assignments based on Teaching Experience.............185
Table 8. Probability of 6th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience............ 185
Table 9: Predicting Assignment to 9th grade by Experience in the 4 Core Subjects.......186
Table 10. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience
and Teaching 9th Grade................................................................................................... 187
vii

Table 11. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience
and Teaching Algebra I....................................................................................................187
Table 12. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience
and Teaching 6th Grade................................................................................................... 188
Table 13. Variables of Interest for Study 3..................................................................... 189
Table 14. Respondent Characteristics for Multiple Regression Experience Analyses.... 191
Table 15. Respondent Characteristics for Mobility Analyses..........................................192
Table 16. Linear Probability of High School Assignments based on Teaching
Experience........................................................................................................................193
Table 17. Linear Probability of Middle School Assignments based on Teaching
Experience........................................................................................................................194
Table 18. Summary of Multiple Regression Assignment Significant Associations........ 195
Table 19. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting High School based on Course
Assignment...................................................................................................................... 195
Table 20. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting Middle School based on Course
Assignment...................................................................................................................... 196
Table 21. 9th Grade Survival Analyses Associations...................................................... 196
Table 22. 12th Grade Survival Analyses Associations.................................................... 196
Table 23. AP Course Survival Analyses Associations.....................................................197
Table 24. Summary of High School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated
with Mobility Outcomes.................................................................................................. 197
Table 25. 6th Grade Survival Analyses Associations...................................................... 198
Table 26. 8th Grade Survival Analyses Associations...................................................... 198
Table 27. Summary of Middle School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated
with Mobility Outcomes.................................................................................................. 198
viii

List of Tables
Table 1: Respondent Characteristics for Study 1.............................................................177
Table 2: Variables of Interest for Study 2........................................................................ 178
Table 3. Weighted Descriptives Statistics of the High School Teachers for Study 2.......180
Table 4. Weighted Descriptives Statistics of the Middle School Teachers for Study 2...181
Table 5. Weighted Descriptive Statistics of High School Math Teachers for Study 2.....182
Table 6. Probability of 9th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience............ 184
Table 7. Probability of Algebra I Assignments based on Teaching Experience.............185
Table 8. Probability of 6th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience............ 185
Table 9: Predicting Assignment to 9th grade by Experience in the 4 Core Subjects.......186
Table 10. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience
and Teaching 9th Grade................................................................................................... 187
Table 11. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience
and Teaching Algebra I....................................................................................................187
Table 12. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience
and Teaching 6th Grade................................................................................................... 188
Table 13. Variables of Interest for Study 3..................................................................... 189
Table 14. Respondent Characteristics for Multiple Regression Experience Analyses.... 191
Table 15. Respondent Characteristics for Mobility Analyses..........................................192
Table 16. Linear Probability of High School Assignments based on Teaching
Experience........................................................................................................................193
Table 17. Linear Probability of Middle School Assignments based on Teaching
Experience........................................................................................................................194
Table 18. Summary of Multiple Regression Assignment Significant Associations........ 195
Table 19. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting High School based on Course
Assignment...................................................................................................................... 195
Table 20. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting Middle School based on Course
Assignment...................................................................................................................... 196
Table 21. 9th Grade Survival Analyses Associations...................................................... 196
Table 22. 12th Grade Survival Analyses Associations.................................................... 196
Table 23. AP Course Survival Analyses Associations.....................................................197
Table 24. Summary of High School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated
with Mobility Outcomes.................................................................................................. 197
Table 25. 6th Grade Survival Analyses Associations...................................................... 198
Table 26. 8th Grade Survival Analyses Associations...................................................... 198
Table 27. Summary of Middle School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated
with Mobility Outcomes.................................................................................................. 198
ix

Abstract
Secondary course assignment substantially determines a teacher’s day-to-day work life,
incentivizing them to realize their personal desires, which prior work shows tend to be working
with more advanced students. Teachers have varying abilities to enact these desires, potentially
due to their political capital, which is largely influenced by school-specific experience. Teachers
with more challenging assignments may be more likely to be dissatisfied and exit their jobs,
making course assignment an important issue within the current nationwide teacher shortage.
The current work includes three interconnected studies that explore the process of
within-school secondary teacher assignment, how teacher experience associates with course
assignment, and how course assignment associates with teacher mobility outcomes. The first
work is a qualitative interview study with 17 Southern California secondary school leaders,
revealing that teacher seniority was explicitly and implicitly important in driving course
assignment decisions, with more seasoned teachers generally realizing their preferences. The
second study utilizes nationally representative teacher data for a multiple regression analysis,
finding that more senior teachers are less likely to teach potentially undesirable courses, such as
Algebra I and 9th grade, and that such assignments correlate with increased teacher mobility. The
third study makes use of longitudinal data from North Carolina teachers over a 15-year period
with a survival analysis, uncovering that teachers assigned to potentially desirable courses, such
as 6th grade, 12th grade, and AP, were less likely to exit their schools, while those assigned to
8th grade were significantly more likely to leave. The combined undesirability of 8th and 9th
grades implies a plausible teacher preference to avoid teaching 14-year-olds, who tend to have
greater behavioral issues. I conclude with recommendations for combatting potential inequities
in assignment that may pay dividends for teacher retention, student success, and student equity.
x

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Within-School Teacher Assignment
Within-school teacher assignment is the process of determining which grade level or
courses a teacher will teach each school year. At the elementary level, this process assigns each
teacher to a particular grade. This process gets more complicated at the secondary level, as it
sorts the school’s teachers into the various individual courses they will teach within their subject
expertise, such as Algebra I, AP European History, or Honors Chemistry. A large portion of
teacher sorting occurs within schools through assignments rather than between schools or
between districts (Hanushek et al., 2005; Jeong & Luschei, 2019; Kalogrides et al., 2012;
Lankford et al., 2002; Thiemann, 2018). Jeong and Luschei (2019) found that most variation in
teacher quality, as measured using value-added models, occurs within schools rather than
between them.
How does this process typically work, particularly at the secondary level, where hundreds
of assignments must be made? Merenbloom and Kalina (2017) outline a standard process in their
handbook for building a master schedule. First, a school spends the winter and spring gathering
student course registrations and figuring out section counts for the school’s courses. Next,
teachers are assigned to courses using these counts, ensuring that all logistical needs regarding
teacher contract hours, teacher prep periods, and potential student conflicts between courses are
met. Within this part of the process, administrators must consider the courses their teachers are
legally allowed to teach depending on their credentialing, somewhat constraining their decisions.
For example, a teacher with only a secondary math credential must be assigned to a math course,
and a teacher with a K-6 multiple subjects credential cannot be assigned to teach 8th-grade
science (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2023). After all these considerations,
1

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
administrators adjust this master schedule in the summer and fall as needed to ensure a
successful course distribution.
In this section, I introduce the mechanics and unique processes of within-school teacher
assignment before elaborating on why this topic matters for student equity, student outcomes,
and teacher mobility. This chapter closes with a brief introduction to three interconnected studies
that seek to expand the field’s understanding of within-school teacher assignment. These studies
specifically focus on how and why teachers are assigned to their courses, the connection between
teacher characteristics and assignment to courses, and the association of course assignment to
teacher mobility outcomes. In the following chapter, I will review the literature surrounding
teacher assignment, synthesizing findings related to assignment processes, teacher characteristics
associated with within-school sorting, and its impact on students, as well as laying out a
theoretical framework, micropolitics, which meaningfully explains trends in teacher assignment
and will yield a more precise understanding of this topic. Within the second chapter, I also
discuss teacher mobility literature before summarizing the gaps and limitations of the current
teacher assignment research and how my work begins to fill these gaps. I conclude that chapter
by cataloging and reviewing the common methodologies utilized in this area of research,
ascertaining their strengths and weaknesses in applications to various topics surrounding teacher
assignment and thus providing a foundation for my own methodological choices for the three
studies that comprise this paper. In the next three chapters, I will describe the three studies that I
have conducted, which include the guiding research questions, explanations of the data sources
and variables of interest, detailed descriptions of the methodologies, thorough results, and
discussions of why these findings are meaningful and how they connect back to the literature.
Lastly, I conclude in the final chapter by examining the implication of these three studies’
2

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
interconnected findings, exploring how their combined revelations further the field’s
understanding of within-school teacher assignment. Finally, I make recommendations for how to
change teacher assignment practices to promote improved teacher satisfaction, teacher retention,
student success, and student equity.
Why Does Within-School Teacher Assignment Matter?
Teachers are central in influencing student outcomes. In fact, the literature indicates that
teachers are one of the most important determinants of student achievement (Hattie, 2023;
Opper, 2019). Two characteristics, teacher quality and teacher overall years of experience, are
powerful predictors of student achievement, with students assigned to higher quality and more
experienced teachers tending to outperform similar peers (Bolyard & Moyer-Packenham, 2008;
Goe, 2007; Harris & Sass, 2011; Jackson, 2014; Peske & Haycock, 2006). The distribution of
teacher quality and experience varies greatly, not just from district to district but within schools
as well. Within-school teacher variation is often more pronounced than between-school variation
(Hanushek et al., 2005; Jeong & Luschei, 2019; Thiemann, 2018). Most importantly, from an
equity standpoint, at-risk students are the most sensitive to variations in teacher quality (Phillips,
2010). Thus, it is essential to ensure that lower-achieving students are assigned to classrooms
with the highest-quality teachers possible.
There are myriad variations within teacher assignment processes, which may impact the
equitable assignment of effective teachers to students through course assignments. This process
is not a lottery where teachers are randomly assigned to their annual course load (Grissom et al.,
2015; Grissom et al., 2017; Kalogrides et al., 2012). Instead, assignment may depend on any of a
plethora factors, including teacher quality, teacher demographic characteristics, teacher
experience, teacher social or political capital, teacher licensure laws, administrative desires,
3

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
student quality, student characteristics, and external factors such as state testing and
accountability (Barrett & Toma, 2013; Bastian & Janda, 2018; Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Feng, 2010;
Goldhaber et al., 2015; Grissom et al., 2013; Grissom et al., 2015; Grissom et al., 2017; Jeong &
Luschei, 2019; Kalogrides et al., 2012). To the extent that within-school assignment of teachers
to course loads, and therefore to students, is correlated with teacher effectiveness, this
nonrandom distribution can create inequities in student experience and academic success, with
particularly negative consequences for vulnerable student populations, such as low-income
students, students of color, and academically at-risk students (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Feng, 2010;
Goldhaber et al., 2015; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Additionally, this
process has an impact on whether teachers remain in the profession at all: misassigned and
frequently reassigned teachers have higher rates of exiting the profession entirely (Atteberry et
al., 2017; Feng, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2017; Ost & Schiman, 2015).
Student Equity and Outcome Concerns.
A primary concern of differential teacher assignment is a disproportionately negative
impact on vulnerable student groups, particularly students who are low-income, minoritized, and
academically at-risk. These groups are already more likely to be in schools and districts with less
experienced and less credentialed teachers, putting them at a disadvantage (Feng & Sass, 2017).
However, even within schools, these groups are more likely to be assigned to teachers with less
experience, less credentialing, lower exam scores, lower quality as rated by value-added models,
and who are teaching “out of field” (in a subject other than the one they are credentialed in)
(Clotfelter et al., 2004; Feng, 2010; Flores, 2007; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Jeong & Luschei, 2019;
Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013; Kalogrides et al., 2012; Peske & Haycock, 2006). As these teacher
characteristics are negatively associated with student achievement (Bolyard &
4

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Goe, 2007; Hanushek et al., 2005; Peske & Haycock, 2006), it is
reasonable to think that differential teacher assignment could be associated with decreased
outcomes for these student groups in comparison to their peers, widening achievement gaps.
Another way that teacher assignment may be impacting student outcomes and equity is in
the specific courses that less experienced, less credentialed, and lower quality teachers are
assigned at higher rates. One of these critical courses where strategic teacher assignment is
crucial is Algebra I. Compared to higher-level mathematics courses in high school, Algebra I
includes a disproportionately high number of academically at-risk students. Furthermore,
students of color, low-income students, and low-achieving students are more likely to be tracked
into lower-level classes (e.g., Algebra I) than their peers (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007).
Importantly, Algebra I is a key course in determining whether students graduate from high
school. Silver and colleagues (2008) report that of students who complete Algebra I by 9th
grade, 30% fail to graduate on time. This rate compares to the 65% of those students who did not
complete Algebra I by 9th grade, more than doubling their risk of failing to graduate high school
on time. A student’s Algebra I experience is therefore exceptionally important, potentially
shaping both the remainder of and beyond their high school career. These courses are
disproportionately made up of students who already face opportunity gaps in their education,
heightening the importance of Algebra I. Given the literature that students in courses with more
experienced teachers experience better outcomes (Bolyard & Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Goe,
2007), it is important to understand the distribution of teacher experience and its potential effects
on student success in these critical introductory courses.
Lastly, current teacher assignment practices likely prevent students from reaching their
full academic potential. While improving a school’s overall teacher experience and quality levels
5

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
through hiring is costly and time-consuming (Podolsky et al., 2016), properly allocating the
teachers that a school already employs could positively impact student outcomes with no explicit
cost. An innovative recent study exploited the random assignment of teachers to classrooms
through an instrumental variable approach, finding that schools were not assigning teachers to
classrooms in a way that maximized student test scores (Graham et al., 2022). The authors found
that nearly half of students in math and ELA classrooms would optimally be reassigned, which
they calculated would lead to an average test score improvement of 3.6% of a standard deviation.
While mathematically optimizing assignments, as the authors of this study did, may not be
feasible considering real-life concerns of teacher preferences, credentialing requirements, and
other logistic concerns, it does show that altering teacher assignment practices could be a
low-cost policy intervention that would meaningfully increase student outcomes.
Teacher Mobility Concerns.
Attracting, hiring, and retaining qualified teachers is currently an American crisis, leading
to significant teacher shortages nationwide (Aragon, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2022; Podolsky et al.,
2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Hiring good teachers is vital for schools facing open positions, as
failure to fill these roles leads to currently employed teachers being forced to pick up additional
classes or teach out-of-field (Peske & Haycock, 2006). However, what is even more essential for
student outcomes is retaining teachers, especially high-quality teachers, due to the negative
impacts of teacher turnover. When a teacher leaves their job at a school, it is damaging to the
school and its students (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry & Redding, 2018; Kho
et al., 2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). This harm comes from two primary avenues: the disruption to
the school that occurs from schools needing to recruit, hire, and train new teachers, as well as
from the loss of a potentially experienced and highly qualified instructor for a less capable
6

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
replacement (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry & Redding, 2018; Kho et al., 2023;
Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
These problems are compounded within both of these avenues for schools with high
teacher turnover. High-turnover schools must spend a disproportionate amount of time, effort,
and money frequently hiring new teachers, limiting their resources for current teachers and
students. High-quality and highly experienced instructors are also less likely to remain at such
schools, leaving students with less experienced and effective teachers (Boyd et al., 2008).
As I argue above, retaining teachers is essential for schools that must combat rampant teacher
shortages. Attracting highly experienced and high-quality teachers to open positions is
challenging, especially for schools with high proportions of lower-achieving, minoritized, and
low-income students (Aragon, 2016; Feng, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2017; Peske & Haycock, 2006;
Podolosky et al., 2016). Teachers tend to improve in their practice as they gain experience,
particularly within the first five years of their career (Bolyard & Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Goe,
2007; Hanushek et al., 2005; Harris & Sass, 2011). Retaining novice teachers into the latter
stages of their careers thus means a school is implicitly getting a higher-quality instructor. School
administrators explicitly targeting the retention of early-career teachers thus ought to aim to
maximize teacher satisfaction.
As course assignments determine much of a teacher’s day-to-day work life, the strategic
consideration of teacher experience with regard to course assignment is not only paramount to
student success but may also be an important determinant of teacher retention. Research suggests
that 40 to 50% of novice teachers leave the profession within the first five years of teaching
(Ingersoll, 2003). In a 2013 survey of teachers leaving the profession, 12% of teachers cited
dissatisfaction with their job assignment as an extremely or very important factor in their
7

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
decision to leave (Podolsky et al., 2016). Numerous studies have found that novice teachers, in
particular, are more likely to be assigned to more challenging, lower-track courses and classes
with younger, lower achieving, low-income, and minoritized students (Clotfelter et al., 2004;
Feng, 2010; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013; Peske & Haycock, 2006). In
contrast, studies have noted that advanced courses are often highly desired and are seen as a
reward given to more experienced teachers in honor of their dedicating years of service to a
school or department (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). This practice of
assigning courses may unintentionally push novice teachers out of the profession. As retaining
teachers is more important than ever, establishing a robust link between teacher course
assignment and teacher turnover is essential. Such a connection would guide schools and
administrators on how to potentially adjust their course assignment processes to best support
teachers and ensure that they do not exit their current jobs or the profession as a whole.
The Current Secondary Teacher Assignment Studies: What, Why, and So What?
Within-school teacher assignment, particularly at the secondary level, is an understudied
area, both in terms of its processes and in its implications for teachers and students alike.
Secondary teacher assignment could be meaningfully connected to teacher retention, student
equity, and student achievement issues. Moreover, teacher assignment may differentially
associate with these outcomes depending on the course subject, school context, and teacher
characteristics. From these areas of concern, I probe three general areas of inquiry that will be
explored within three distinct although interconnected studies:
1. What are the processes of secondary teacher assignment? What factors drive course
assignment decisions?
8

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
2. What is the association between teacher characteristics and course assignments,
particularly to the lowest-level courses at a school, such as instructing 6th graders, 9th
graders, or Algebra I students?
3. What is the association between teacher course assignments and teacher mobility?
From these areas of inquiry, I have undertaken three separate studies in order to expand
and deepen the field’s understanding of secondary teacher assignment. The first is a qualitative
study that interviews 17 Southern California secondary administrators and department chairs to
better understand the teacher assignment process, specifically focusing on what teacher and
student characteristics drive school leaders’ decision-making. The second study utilizes a
multiple regression analytical approach from an extensive, nationally representative teacher data
set to build an associative connection between teacher characteristics, assignment to lower-level
courses, and teacher mobility. The third study utilizes discrete-time survival analyses using a
longitudinal data set of North Carolina schools and teachers to more deeply connect course
assignment to teacher mobility outcomes while further corroborating the findings from the
second study.
In concert, these three studies will answer three significant questions currently unclear in
the study of secondary teacher assignment: what, why, and so what? What teachers are
differentially assigned to teach lower-level courses? Why are such differential assignments
happening? And so what: what are the implications of differential assignment for teacher
retention? By the end of this dissertation, the answers to these questions will be clearer,
expanding the field’s understanding of within-school teacher sorting and its connection to teacher
mobility and illuminating meaningful policy paths to reduce such mobility.
9

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Study 1: The Process of Secondary Assignment.
This first study explores the processes through which secondary teachers are assigned to
courses within their subject areas. The literature describes two main types of within-school
teacher assignment processes: top-down and bottom-up (Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Grissom et al.,
2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2017; Merenbloom & Kalina, 2017; Monk, 1987). While a
top-down teacher assignment process is driven from the administrative level and can lead to a
lack of teacher involvement (Monk, 1987), the bottom-up approach directly positions teachers
and department chairs in a more prominent role in decision-making (Merenbloom & Kalina,
2017; Monk, 1987; Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014). Many authors in this area draw from a
theoretical framework, micropolitics, that hypothesizes how individuals can influence their
organizations using various forms of political capital (Bjork & Blase, 2009; Flessa, 2009;
Grissom et al., 2013; Lochmiller, 2017; Marsh, 2012; Singer et al., 2023; Struyve et al., 2014).
Such studies have shown that more politically or socially connected teachers may have more
sway over their assigned classes than their less-connected colleagues, giving them the power to
teach more desirable courses (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018).
This first study expands on this knowledge by exploring how the micropolitical
environments of schools shape secondary teacher assignment processes and the interactions
within these processes. Specifically, this research asked 17 Los Angeles area secondary school
administrators and department chairs about their school’s course assignment processes, how
teacher and student characteristics impacted assignments, and what changes leaders would make
to their school’s processes to maximize teacher satisfaction, student success, and student equity.
To build this knowledge, this study explored the following research questions:
10

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
1. How do influential forms of political capital shape the way school leaders assign
secondary teachers to their courses?
2. How effective do school leaders perceive their course assignment process is at
maximizing teacher satisfaction, student success, and equity? Are there trade-offs
between priorities, and if so, how do leaders navigate these trade-offs?
Based on these inquiries, the study describes the function of teacher seniority and
preference in top-down teacher assignment processes that favor teacher satisfaction with
trade-offs for student equity and success. This study provides greater insight into the mechanics
and drivers of secondary teacher assignment, adding descriptive explanations to complement the
two quantitative studies below. As most prior studies have focused on elementary school teacher
assignment processes, this work yields important insights into how course assignment dynamics
work at the secondary level. Most importantly, this exploration illuminates how micropolitical
forces actually operate within secondary schools as organizations. School leaders
comprehensively described who guides their course assignment processes and thoughtfully
discussed what kind of political capital matters in their school context. These responses link
micropolitical theory to on-the-ground practice, greatly expanding the field’s understanding of
how micropolitics functions in secondary schools, corroborating numerous hypotheses, and
uncovering new ways actors exercise power that were not commonly discussed in the
micropolitics literature.
Study 2: Teacher Assignment, Experience, and Mobility.
This second study establishes the link between teacher experience and teacher assignment
to lower-level courses and examines whether assignment to lower-level courses predicts teacher
turnover. Lower-level courses, such as Algebra I, 6th grade social science, or 9th grade English I,
11

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
are often seen as less desirable for teachers to instruct, as they include the youngest students at a
school, who are typically the most challenging to manage behaviorally (Gopalan & Nelson,
2019; Grissom et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2012). Such courses, as long as they are not designated
Honors or Advanced Placement, also contain disproportionate numbers of low-income,
minoritized, and academically at-risk students compared to higher-level classes (Clotfelter et al.,
2004; Feng, 2010; Flores, 2007; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013). Considering the concerns of
disproportionately assigning less experienced teachers to teach these student groups, this study
uses nationally representative survey data of over 100,000 teachers from five administrations of
the School and Staffing Survey and the National Teacher and Principal Survey from 2008 to
2021 to ask:
1. What is the association between teacher experience and the likelihood of teaching the
lowest grade at a school? What is the association between teacher experience and the
likelihood of teaching Algebra I at the high school level?
2. To what extent are teachers teaching lower-level courses or Algebra I more likely to
move schools or leave the profession? Does this relationship differ for teachers of
different subjects?
This study contributes substantially to the literature by bridging the research between
secondary teacher assignment and the importance of foundational lower-level courses, such as
Algebra I, for student secondary school success. There is limited research connecting teacher
experience specifically to lower-level course assignments, particularly in mathematics and
English, where students progressively gain knowledge from year to year. Most research focuses
on the student populations that teachers are assigned to instruct rather than the specific courses.
Thus, this paper fills a few considerable gaps in the literature that can materially improve student
12

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
achievement at the high school level. First, no research has explicitly linked teacher
characteristics, such as experience and quality, or teacher turnover to the likelihood of teaching
foundational courses that are highly predictive of future student success. Second, micropolitical
theory argues that a teacher’s time spent at a particular school likely has extensive implications
for their course assignments, as it takes time for teachers to accumulate capital resources at a
new school (Grissom et al., 2015). Despite this, the literature overwhelmingly focuses on overall
experience when studying teacher assignment rather than school-specific experience. This study
will close these gaps by explicitly linking teachers’ overall experience and school-specific
experience to the probability of teaching lower-level courses compared to other courses.
Additionally, this study examines whether teaching such courses predicts the likelihood of higher
teacher turnover.
The results of this study have important implications for best practices in secondary
teacher assignment. Improving assignment practices could reduce the turnover of novice teachers
while also ensuring greater equity of teacher-student assignments such that the students needing
the most help would be assigned to instructors who can best provide that help.
Study 3: Teacher Assignment’s Association with Mobility.
This third study aims to further the research into within-school secondary teacher course
assignment, both by further exploring the link between teacher experience and course assignment
and by building a stronger connection between teacher assignment and teacher mobility
outcomes. Studies robustly linking teacher assignment to teacher mobility have overwhelmingly
focused on the elementary level (Feng, 2009; Feng, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2017) or specific
subpopulations as teachers, such as charter teachers (Gulosino et al., 2019) or Teach for America
instructors (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010). I found no study in the recent literature that explicitly
13

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
explored the role of specific secondary course and grade assignments to teacher mobility
outcomes. Thus, this study is the first at the secondary level to link teacher course assignment to
mobility decisions, focusing on two grades that may be seen as less desirable to teach, 6th and
9th grade, as well as higher-level grades, 8th and 12th, and AP courses that may be seen as more
desirable to teach. This study will also further corroborate the second study’s findings by again
connecting teacher experience to teacher assignments.
In order to accomplish these goals, I utilize a variety of teacher and school-level variables
from the North Carolina Educational Research Data Center’s longitudinal teacher and school
data set from 2007-2021 to conduct a series of discrete-time survival analyses. This longitudinal
data allows me to track teacher course assignments and mobility outcomes over time, allowing
us to connect such assignments to mobility as concretely as possible. Further, this data set allows
me to go a step beyond the work in the second study, as I can track cumulative assignments over
time, as well as changes in assignments from year to year. These variables allow me to plausibly
connect such multi-year trends to mobility, which would be a novel contribution to the literature.
With all of that in mind, I ask:
1. Are teachers differentially assigned to lower-grade, upper-grade, and Advanced
Placement courses on the basis of school experience?
2. Is teacher assignment to lower-grade, upper-grade, and Advanced Placement courses
associated with teacher mobility? Does the recurrence of these assignments over time
associate with teacher mobility? Does the change in these assignments associate with
teacher mobility?
This study is the most important of the three, especially due to the pressing need for
schools to retain high-quality teachers (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry &
14

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Redding, 2018; Kho et al., 2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013) within the current American teacher
shortage (Aragon, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2022; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). This
study can reveal which course assignments are associated with increased and decreased risks of
teacher mobility, allowing for recommendations for school leaders looking to improve the
retention of teachers at their schools.
15

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Chapter Two: Literature Review
In the literature surrounding teacher assignment, scholars have described the mechanics
of assignment, examined how teachers are distributed in various levels, tracks, and subjects,
studied the effects of teacher mobility on schools, explored how assignments impact teacher
mobility and student outcomes, and used micropolitical theory to hypothesize why certain trends
are found in secondary school teacher assignment. Throughout this chapter, I thoroughly review
the literature in these disparate areas and synthesize the findings to situate my work.
Additionally, I examine the methods utilized in this research domain, establishing the rationale
for the analytical strategies employed in the three studies that comprise this paper. Through this
exercise, I also identified meaningful gaps and limitations in the existing scholarship, inspiring
this paper’s current inquiry that strives to expand the field’s understanding of issues regarding
teacher assignment.
The Process of Teacher Assignment
Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Processes
Within the literature, authors studying within-school teacher assignment described two
main types of processes, top-down and bottom-up (Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Grissom et al., 2015;
Lieberman & Clayton, 2017; Merenbloom & Kalina, 2017; Monk, 1987).
Top-Down.
A top-down teacher assignment process is driven from the administrative level.
Describing this process as high administrative involvement from a series of interviews with
elementary school principals, Monk (1987) noted that highly involved administrators leading this
process tended to impose their will unilaterally. A school using a top-down approach will have
minimal teacher involvement in its process. Highly involved principals can use teacher course
16

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
and grade assignments in various ways. Some administrators treat this power as a way to control
teacher behavior, using it as a means to punish and reward teachers. For principals looking to
chastise, some gave teachers more difficult assignments as a demotion for perceived low quality
or disobedience (Chingos & West, 2007; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). For those looking to
benefit teachers, some assigned higher-track courses or perceived better behaved students as a
reward for perceived higher teacher quality (Lieberman & Clayton, 2018; Player, 2009). This
practice has potential equity implications, as ineffective teachers are thus assigned to the students
with the greatest need of high-quality instruction.
Other leaders controlling the process may use it to redistribute teachers to courses based
on their perceived quality. Some principals assigned higher-performing teachers easier
assignments (Lieberman & Clayton, 2018; Monk, 1987; Player, 2009). Conversely, some
principals gave perceived higher quality teachers more challenging students, more preps, or
larger classes, believing they could successfully handle the additional challenge (Barrett &
Toma, 2013; Bastian & Janda, 2018; Monk, 1987). Leaders following that same logic gave
“burned-out” teachers more manageable courses knowing they would not be willing to put in the
effort for the more difficult courses or student groups (Monk, 1987). In contrast to the findings
above, these decisions would lead to a more equitable distribution of effective teachers, with the
students most in need of help being assigned the highest quality teachers. In extreme cases,
low-quality teachers were forcibly transferred out of the school entirely to another school in the
district (Grissom et al., 2017).
Bottom-Up.
Contrasting the top-down teacher assignment model is the bottom-up approach, where
teachers and department chairs have a more prominent role to play (Merenbloom & Kalina,
17

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
2017; Monk, 1987; Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014). In this version of course and grade
assignment, teachers often submit their preferences of courses or grades to teach, which are then
passed on to the administration and generally honored (Lieberman & Clayton, 2018;
Merenbloom & Kalina, 2017). Still, more politically or socially connected teachers may have
more sway over their assigned courses (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018).
Parents may have their opinions heard as well, but this is more common at the elementary level
than in secondary schools (Monk, 1987; Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014). The essential
characteristic of the bottom-up approach is that non-administrators have a meaningful say in the
process, with administrators tending to review and approve requests rather than proactively
making decisions.
Distribution of Teachers
Contrasting teacher assignment processes yield distributions of teachers that vary across
grades, tracks, and subjects.
Elementary Versus Secondary
There are fundamental differences in the nature of teacher assignment between
elementary and secondary schools, as elementary schools typically assign teachers to one grade,
while secondary schools assign teachers to several courses. How do these differences impact the
distribution of teachers at the elementary versus secondary level?
Elementary teacher assignment is more specific-student focused due to the ability to more
easily control the exact roster each teacher gets (Monk, 1987). Care can be taken to give teachers
perceived “easier” or “harder” students depending on their quality or ability to advocate for
themselves (Hwang & Fitzpatrick, 2021; Grissom et al., 2015; Monk, 1987). Other studies found
that many elementary principals considered whether the teacher would teach a state-tested
18

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
subject or grade when determining how to best distribute their teachers. State test scores largely
determine school accountability ratings and perception of overall school quality, directly
impacting the principal’s job security. Therefore, principals are incentivized to assign their best
teachers to grades and subjects with state testing. State testing typically happens in grades three
through five at the elementary level. Studies have confirmed this supposition, finding strong
evidence that principals reassign lower-quality teachers out of tested elementary grades and into
untested ones in order to maximize student success on state tests, although with limited success
(Chingos & West, 2007; Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Grissom et al., 2017).
Unlike the elementary process, secondary course assignment is teacher-focused due to
differences in subjects taught and the relatively large number of courses each teacher needs to be
assigned. Much like with elementary, secondary teachers tend to strive to be assigned perceived
easier students to work with, which was typically determined based on the course level that the
students were participating in, but also could be connected to students’ ages (Grissom et al.,
2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). In general, this meant that higher-track courses, such as AP
and Honors classes, were sensed as containing less demanding students than general education
and remedial track classes. More connected and higher quality teachers were often assigned such
higher-track classes either as a reward for those employees or on the belief that the best students
ought to be paired with the best teachers (Chingos & West, 2011; Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Lieberman
& Clayton, 2018). This is a potential equity concern, as this viewpoint conversely argues that the
lowest-ability students ought to be paired with the lowest-quality teachers, perpetuating
opportunity gaps.
Additionally, experience is a major factor in the distribution of teachers to various
courses. Numerous studies found that novice teachers were more likely to be assigned to
19

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
lower-track classes and courses with younger, lower achieving, low-income, and minoritized
students (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Feng, 2010; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013;
Peske & Haycock, 2006). Using a robust student-level longitudinal data set and a multilevel
modeling approach, Clotfelter et al. (2004) specifically found that Black North Carolina 7th
graders were 54% and 38% more likely to be exposed to novice (less than two years of
experience) math and English teachers compared to their white peers. Goldhaber et al. (2015)
corroborated these findings, revealing through a multiple regression analysis that students of
color in Washington state were 41% more likely to be exposed to novice teachers and 29% more
likely to be teachers with low value-added ratings. Further, assigning teachers to lower-track
classes often had the impact of implicitly assigning them to teach more vulnerable student
populations. Flores (2007) reported that lower-income and minoritized students were
disproportionately likely to be tracked into less rigorous courses that did not result in
college-level knowledge. Some studies noted that advanced courses were often seen as a reward
to a teacher for dedicating years of service to a school or department, with more experienced
teachers bestowed favored status for these highly desired class assignments (Grissom et al.,
2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018).
Other considerations for secondary teacher course assignment were more logistical, such
as the number of different courses or “preps” that a teacher teaches, as well as the average class
size for a teacher. These factors impact a teacher’s day-to-day experience within a school year.
The number of preps is quite relevant, as a teacher who instructs four or five different courses
has a much more difficult planning burden than someone who teaches only one subject. Barrett
and Toma (2013) found that better credentialed and more experienced teachers had more preps,
which they attributed to these teachers’ greater perceived efficacy to successfully navigate
20

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
multiple preps at once in comparison to their more novice counterparts. A teacher’s average class
size may also have a role in secondary course and roster assignments, with more effective and
experienced teachers found to be given larger class sizes, potentially in an effort to improve
student success and concentrate as many students in high-quality classrooms as possible (Bastian
& Janda, 2018). This hypothesis fits well with Monk’s (1987) finding that principals may put
additional burdens on teachers that they think are high quality enough to handle more
challenging teaching situations.
Academic Tracking
Tracking is typically a secondary school practice where courses are divided into levels
based on ability, such as AP Chemistry, Honors Chemistry, and General Education Chemistry
(Clotfelter et al., 2004; Jackson, 2014). Generally, teachers see these higher-level courses as
more desirable, with AP and Honors courses seen as preferable to General Education courses
which are seen as preferable to Remedial courses (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton,
2018). This belief is partially due to the perception that higher-ability students are easier to work
with and have fewer behavioral issues (Lieberman & Clayton, 2018; Monk, 1987). As
higher-ability students are disproportionately concentrated in AP and Honors-level courses, it
follows that such courses would be particularly desirable for teachers looking to have an
abundance of “easy” students on their class rosters. As expected, numerous authors have found
that more experienced and perceived higher-quality teachers are more likely to be assigned to
these AP and Honors-level classes (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson, 2014;
Kalogrides et al., 2012). Similarly, teachers with more credentials and leadership roles were
more likely to be assigned to classes with higher-achieving students (Kalogrides et al., 2012;
Grissom et al., 2015).
21

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
The studies in this area typically utilized multiple regression or multilevel model
approaches, with a minority opting for simple descriptive statistics (Clotfelter et al., 2004;
Flores, 2007; Grissom et al., 2015; Jackson, 2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012). Because most of
these studies used data or opted for methods that were not set up to support causal conclusions, it
is plausible that mechanisms other than teacher preference drive this sorting of teachers, such as
principal preference. However, Grissom et al. (2015) found that teacher preference was the most
significant contributing factor, as teachers with more experience or influential roles at the school
were more able to choose which courses they taught. With this greater level of choice, such
teachers opted for the more advanced courses, further girding the hypothesis that teachers prefer
to teach higher-track classes that contain the lion’s share of high-achieving students.
Subject Differences
While there has been extensive research into how teachers are sorted within schools
based on their level and track, differences among various subjects at the secondary level have not
been well-studied. While not explicitly researched, inherent differences in the assigning process
divide courses into two categories, specialized credential subjects and non-specialized credential
subjects. In the first category, science, electives, and world language teachers must be assigned
courses primarily based on their credentials (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
2023). For example, in California, a secondary science teacher will have a specific credential in
one or more of biology, chemistry, geosciences, or physics, while a secondary world language
teacher will have a credential in Spanish, French, or Chinese. While administrators in some
states can technically assign these teachers outside their specific subject but within their general
field, that decision has negative consequences. Science teachers who teach outside their
credential area tend to have greater difficulty explaining concepts, building lesson plans, and
22

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
improving their instructional practice, regardless of their years of experience (Napier et al., 2020;
Ogusola-Bandele, 1999).
Non-specialized credential teachers, instructors of subjects such as math, English, and
social science, are generally free to teach any course that falls under their topic’s general
umbrella, with a few exceptions (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2023). An
English teacher is not explicitly restricted to teach American Literature or Freshman English I,
nor is a social science teacher constrained to specifically instruct Economics or World History.
Some states, such as California, do divide math teachers into “Foundational” and “General”
credentials that limit the former’s ability to teach classes above Algebra II (California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2023). This somewhat restricts high school math teacher
course assignments depending on the number of “Foundational” credential holders at a school.
Overall, teachers in one of these non-specialized subjects can be assigned to most courses, giving
them greater latitude in course-requesting preferences and administrators more flexibility to
match teachers to courses as they see fit.
Most studies in the literature that examined teacher course assignment either did not find
subject-specific differences or chose to specifically focus on math and English teachers within
their work. Across all subjects, Jeong and Luschei (2019) found that less experienced and
lower-quality teachers are more likely to be assigned to lower-level courses. Feng (2010) and
Kalogrides and Loeb (2013) similarly found that novice teachers were more likely to be assigned
to classrooms that contained higher proportions of students that were lower achieving, lower
income, and Black and Hispanic, regardless of their subject matter. Thiemann (2018) found
similar trends at the elementary level, indicating that these phenomena may apply to teachers
with both single and multi-subject credentials.
23

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
In theory, there may be differences between a subject like math, which has a clear
progression from course to course, and subjects like social science and science that do not have
an established hierarchy of classes within the department. However, examinations of different
subjects yielded comparable, if not identical, results. Looking at math specifically, Kalogrides et
al. (2012) found that less experienced, minoritized, and female teachers are assigned courses
with lower achieving students. Lastly, while contrasting teachers across subjects was rare,
teachers assigned to courses “out of field” were mentioned in multiple studies. However, this
occurrence did not usually correlate with teacher quality or experience but rather with
school-specific needs (Feng, 2010; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Overall, specific subject
differences in within-school teacher assignment is an understudied area, ripe for new research
that could uncover meaningful distinctions in assignment patterns across domains at the
secondary level.
Impact on Students
After analyzing the teacher assignment literature, it is apparent that teachers are typically
unevenly distributed within the schools they teach. Most studies primarily uncovered splits based
on teacher quality and experience, although Kalogrides et al. (2012) found differences on teacher
gender and race as well. How might these assignment contrasts correlate with student
characteristics and student achievement?
Teacher Assignment as a Function of Student Characteristics
A multitude of studies examined student race, gender, socioeconomic status, and
achievement as potential factors that correlate with the characteristics of their assigned teachers.
Black, Hispanic, low-income, and low-achieving students are more likely to be assigned to
novice teachers, teachers with less credentialing, and teachers who scored lower on licensing
24

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
exams (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Feng, 2010; Flores, 2007; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Jeong &
Luschei, 2019; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013; Kalogrides et al., 2012; Peske & Haycock, 2006;
Rogers & Doan, 2019). Additionally, minoritized, low-income, and female students are more
likely to be assigned to “churned” teachers, those who recently changed schools, grades, or
course assignments (Atteberry et al., 2017); researchers found that churning tends to have a
negative impact on teacher quality (Blazar, 2015; Cook & Mansfield, 2016; Ost, 2014).
What mechanisms are driving these differential assignments? Some of this impact may
relate to the tracking issues described in the section above. Students of color, low-income
students, and low-achieving students are more likely to be tracked into lower-level classes than
their peers (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007). Moreover, as novice teachers are more likely to
be assigned to these lower-track classes, it could partially explain the relationship between
teacher experience and student characteristics (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson,
2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012). However, Clotfelter et al. (2004) found that even within tracks,
Black students were more likely to be assigned to novice teachers than their peers were. This
would indicate potential differential effects of student characteristics driving teacher assignment
even beyond the connection to tracking already outlined.
Teacher Assignment’s Impact on Student Achievement
The literature has clearly established a link between teacher characteristics, primarily
quality and experience, and the types of courses and students that such teachers are assigned to
instruct. But what impact do these teachers have on student achievement, and how can it be
connected back to within-school teacher assignment? There were two broad categories of studies
on this element. The first set explicitly examined the connection between teacher assignments
and corresponding student achievement, while the second set focused on linking student
25

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
achievement to teacher characteristics. As I have already established the correlation between
teacher characteristics and teacher assignments, these studies can implicitly connect student
achievement to teacher assignment, using teacher characteristics as mediators of any effects.
Explicit studies connecting teacher assignment to student achievement were rare,
although a few authors have tackled the topic. Thiemann (2018) uncovered that teacher sorting
within schools was a major source of variance in student test scores in North Carolina, with the
author attributing approximately 5-7% of the within-school variation of student achievement just
to the impact of teacher classroom assignment. Other studies focused on the student
consequences of changing teachers’ assignments between years, which include a teacher being
given a new grade to teach at the elementary level or a new subject to teach at the secondary
level. These investigations found that students who had teachers who were new to a grade or
who had switched subjects had much worse outcomes than those who had taught a grade before
(Blazar, 2015; Ost., 2014). Ost (2014) and Blazar (2015) noted that teachers typically improve
their quality through an increased year of experience. However, teachers who switch grades see
that prior year’s quality increase wiped out by the negative impact of switching, leaving their
students worse off than they would be with a teacher who had identical experience but had not
switched grades. Ost (2014) explains that a high proportion of elementary students are taught by
such teachers, meaning that these assignments may be substantially impacting elementary
student achievement. Cook and Mansfield (2016) echoed these findings at the secondary level,
finding that while much of teacher quality is “portable” from course to course, about 25% of
what makes up teacher quality is course-dependent. This non-portable portion improves with
repeated teachings of a course, meaning that frequently reassigning teachers likely lessens their
teaching quality over time. And again, as researchers found that vulnerable student populations
26

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
are more likely to be taught by these frequently reassigned teachers (Atteberry et al., 2017;
Blazar, 2015), it is very plausible that such assignment practices are associated with increased
equity gaps for secondary low-income students and students of color.
Now I turn to the implicit studies, which connect student outcomes to teacher
characteristics, effectively connecting them to teacher assignment as well. The literature reported
that students in courses with less experienced teachers had worse math outcomes (Bolyard &
Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Goe, 2007). As discussed above, less experienced teachers are also
more likely to be assigned to lower-track classes (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson,
2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012), making it reasonable to infer that such assignments may be
driving these impaired student outcomes. Other studies found that students with teachers with
stronger teaching credentials had superior outcomes, with a focus on matching a teacher’s
subject taught to their undergraduate degree (Bolyard & Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Hanushek et
al., 2005). This effect did not extend to post-graduate credentials, with advanced degrees not
significantly associated with student outcomes (Hanushek et al., 2005). Again, this aligns well
with prior studies that found that less credentialed teachers are more likely to be assigned to
minoritized students, implying a connection between teacher assignment and student outcomes
(Peske & Haycock, 2006).
Lastly, as expected, numerous studies reported that students with higher quality teachers
on a range of measures, including qualifications, classroom management efficacy, pedagogical
skills, and value added, had higher achievement than their peers (Goe, 2007; Harris & Sass,
2011; Jackson, 2014; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Phillips, 2010). Phillips (2010) reported a
particularly meaningful finding, discovering that students considered at risk for low achievement
were especially sensitive to variations in teacher quality. As Hanushek et al. (2005) note large
27

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
variations in teacher quality within schools, how these teachers are sorted will thus greatly
impact student achievement.
Teacher Turnover
The Effects of Turnover
Teacher shortages are currently a major problem for American education (Aragon, 2016;
Nguyen et al., 2022; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016), but not all student groups and
subject areas are equally impacted. Special education and mathematics are by far the most likely
subjects to face vacancies (Aragon, 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016), with Sutcher and colleagues
(2016) finding that 42 states and Washington D.C. were experiencing mathematics teacher
shortages. Further, students in high-poverty and high-minority areas are more likely to face
teacher shortages (Aragon, 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Sutcher and peers (2016) reported that
high-minority population schools were four times more likely to face teacher shortages than
schools with low proportions of minority students.
The literature is in broad agreement that teacher turnover is generally harmful to schools
and students (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry & Redding, 2018; Kho et al.,
2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). This occurs primarily through two pathways. Schools experience
“disruptional effects” when teachers leave. The school must focus time, money, and effort on
hiring replacement teachers, onboarding these new teachers to school policies and curriculum,
building new relationships, and providing these teachers additional support. Beyond the time
cost, replacing teachers is financially expensive, with Podolsky et al. (2016) estimating a national
annual cost of $8.5 billion to find and replace departing teachers, money that cannot be spent on
other school and district needs. Further, schools with leaving teachers who held other
responsibilities within the school (e.g., department chair, student extracurricular activity coach,
28

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
class advisor) have to find replacements for these other roles as well. These efforts disrupt the
structures, programs, and dynamics among those remaining in the school, resulting in a slowing
of institutional progress with time reallocated to activities that would not have occurred without
the turnover (Kho et al., 2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). For example, Boyd et al. (2008) describe
that high teacher turnover yields less coherent instruction, as new teachers must be trained to
align with the school’s current practices.
Teacher turnover can also impact students through “compositional effects” when the
quality of the replacement teacher is different from the quality of the leaving teacher. When a
higher-quality teacher is replaced with a lower-quality teacher, students may experience a
negative compositional effect. Similarly, when low-quality teachers are replaced with
higher-quality teachers, students may experience a positive compositional effect, as in
Washington DC’s IMPACT Program. In 2009, the district implemented a high-stakes teacher
evaluation system in which low-performing teachers were dismissed from the district. Evidence
from the first year of dismissals indicated significant increases in student achievement (Adnot et
al., 2016), suggesting that a program that induces involuntary turnover can improve outcomes for
students. However, outside of such intentional policies, it is less clear that compositional effects
are positive, or at least that disruptive effects outweigh any positive compositional effects, as
studies of general teacher turnover (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry & Redding,
2018; Ronfeldt et al., 2013) point to lower student achievement. Boyd et al. (2008) found that in
schools with high teacher turnover, students are more likely to end up with less experienced, less
effective teachers, as more experienced and higher quality instructors are more likely to exit
schools for other assignments.
29

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Predictors of Mobility
Just as not all student groups are equally impacted by teacher mobility, not all teachers
are equally likely to transfer to another school or to exit the profession entirely. New teachers are
at the highest risk of mobility (Feng, 2010; Ingersoll, 2003), with Ingersoll (2003) estimating that
40 to 50% of novice teachers leave the profession within the first five years of teaching. The
assignment a teacher receives may play an important role as well. Gulosino et al. (2019) found
that schools retained a higher proportion of Advanced Placement teachers, while they lost a
higher proportion of STEM teachers. Similarly, teachers in more difficult classrooms, such as
those with more student behavioral incidents, were more likely to exit their school and the
profession (Feng, 2009; Feng, 2010). At the secondary level, Donaldson and Johnson (2010)
found that Teach for America instructors assigned to teach multiple subjects or out of field were
more likely to leave their assignment early and less likely to be retained once their 2-year
contract expired. Additionally, school characteristics were an important predictor of mobility,
with teachers at schools with higher proportions of low-income and minoritized students being
more likely to exit their school and the profession (Feng, 2010; Gulosino, 2019). In particular,
high-quality and highly experienced instructors are less likely to remain at such schools. (Boyd
et al., 2008).
Gaps and Limitations in the Literature
The literature reviewed for this paper was drawn from authors using various
methodologies, sample frames, and data sets to reach conclusions that were largely in alignment
with one another. However, gaps in the literature surrounding within-school teacher assignment
open up compelling areas for study that I strive to fill with my own work in this dissertation.
30

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Limitations
Regarding methodological limitations, a few of the correlational studies opted for simple
descriptive analyses rather than attempting to control for multiple factors through regression
analysis (Flores, 2007; Lankford et al., 2002; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Silver et al., 2008). While
these studies did make efforts to disaggregate data on factors such as school poverty levels,
spending levels, and student demographics, their findings cannot be used to definitively associate
teacher characteristics to assignment. A conclusion that associates teacher assignment to school
student demographics using descriptive statistics may, in reality, be capturing other factors that
drive a more considerable variation of teacher sorting, such as teacher experience, student
achievement, or even substantial factors such as school quality.
Fortunately, a vast majority of the research included in the review took the step further by
running multiple regression analyses, often including school-level fixed effects, in an attempt to
isolate the associations the authors hoped to learn more about (Atteberry et al., 2021; Blazar,
2015; Chingos & West, 2011; Feng, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2017; Grissom et al., 2013; Grissom et
al., 2015; Grissom et al., 2017; Hwang & Fitzpatrick, 2021; Kalogrides et al., 2015; Ost &
Schiman, 2015; Phillips, 2011; Player, 2009; Rogers & Doan, 2019; Thiemann, 2018). More
specifically, Atteberry et al. (2021), Grissom et al. (2013), Grissom et al. (2015), Grissom et al.
(2017), Hwang and Fitzpatrick (2021), Kalogrides et al. (2015), and Thiemann (2018) all used
linear, logistic, or linear probability multiple regression models to explore differential assignment
of teachers to various student groups on the basis of experience and quality. Blazar (2015), Feng
(2010), Feng and Sass (2017), Ost and Schiman (2015), Phillips (2011), Player (2009), and
Rogers and Doan (2019) utilized fixed effects regression models, typically exploring teacher
assignment’s impact on a specific outcome variable, such as student achievement and teacher
31

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
mobility. Further discussion of these authors’ topics and research approaches will occur in the
methodological review section later in this chapter.
The other potential limitation within many of these studies is the scope of their data sets.
While this difference does not meaningfully impact the quality of the evidence, this contrast does
impact the generalizability of the studies’ findings. Many of the works in this review focused
their analysis on single cities or states. The most common study locations were Florida (Chingos
& West, 2011; Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Feng, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2017; Grissom et al., 2013;
Grissom et al., 2015; Grissom et al., 2017; Harris & Sass, 2011; Kalogrides et al., 2012) and
North Carolina (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Jackson, 2014; Ost & Schiman, 2015; Player, 2009;
Rothstein, 2009; Thiemann, 2018). However, there were also a diverse set of studies undertaken
across the United States, with other single-state or city studies being conducted in Los Angeles
(Blazar, 2015; Silver et al., 2008), New York City (Atteberry et al., 2017), Washington state,
(Goldhaber et al., 2015), Texas (Hanushek et al., 2005), Indiana (Hwang & Fitzpatrick, 2021),
Arizona (Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014), and Tennessee (Rogers & Doan, 2019). These
single location studies were the norm, which makes intuitive sense due to the relative difficulty
in obtaining high-quality, nationally representative data sets compared to procuring comparable
state, city, or district-level data sets. While these particular works should not be individually
generalized outside of their particular locales, there is no obvious theoretical reason to think that
differing state or city contexts would yield significantly different teacher assignment results,
other than perhaps variations in tenure policies and course offerings across states. It is reassuring
to see that such an extensive collection of works reached similar conclusions in a variety of
individual locations, providing evidence that their findings are likely replicable across the United
States. This meshes well with the findings of several studies in the review that did manage to
32

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
utilize nationally representative data sets or synthesize multiple local studies (Bolyard &
Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Flores, 2007; Goe, 2007; Jeong & Luschei, 2019; Kalogrides & Loeb,
2013; Lankford et al., 2002; Ost, 2014; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Phillips, 2010). Such national
studies should receive added weight when considering the evidence and applying findings
outside the local studies’ cities and states. However, the consistency of results across regions
shows that the local studies have vital contributions to make to this analysis.
Gaps to be Filled
Focusing more specifically on the gaps to be filled, four areas are lacking in the current
research. The first gap in the research concerns the distinction between the number of years
teaching overall and the number of years at a teacher’s current school. Many studies in this
review examined the former (Barrett & Toma, 2013; Feng, 2010; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Harris
& Sass, 2011; Kalogrides et al., 2012; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Rogers & Doan, 2019), but
relatively few looked at the importance of the latter (Grissom et al., 2015; Jeong & Luschei,
2019). While school-specific experience may not be as correlated with a teacher’s quality as
overall experience is, it may matter significantly in explaining teacher assignment and in issues
of mobility. Grissom et al. (2015) posit that teachers with greater school-specific experience have
a greater ability to shape their course assignments, an argument I will engage with deeply in the
succeeding theory section within this chapter.
The second gap in the research concerns teacher assignment’s impact on teacher mobility.
The impact of teacher working conditions on attrition and turnover has been studied (Aragon,
2016; Feng, 2009; Feng, 2010; Podolsky et al., 2016), and some work has further explored the
role of elementary classroom assignments in teacher mobility (Chingos & West, Feng, 2010;
Hwang & Fitzpatrick, 2021; Ost & Schiman, 2015). However, no research has specifically been
33

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
conducted on the role within-field secondary teacher course assignment plays in teacher
decisions to exit their jobs. Teacher course assignment could end up being an important
consideration in teacher mobility. Podolsky et al. (2016) listed approximately 20 reasons that
teachers reported to the 2013 Schools and Staffing Survey for leaving their jobs from the prior
year. While course assignment was not specifically asked about, several reasons could
reasonably be somewhat or completely attributed to dissatisfaction with their course load or the
course assignment process (percentage of teachers who chose this reason in parentheses):
dissatisfied with job assignment (12%), lack of influence over school policies and practices
(13%), dissatisfied with administration (21%), and pursue a different position (28%). Other
studies corroborated the potential of classroom-level factors impacting teacher job decisions, but
again focused on student characteristics rather than the course assigned (Feng, 2009; Feng,
2010). Considering the harmful effects of turnover and the current nationwide teacher shortages,
especially in mathematics (Aragon, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2022; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher, et
al., 2016), establishing a link between teacher course assignment and teacher mobility would
require school leaders to more carefully consider assignment of courses to teachers.
The next literature gap regards which courses secondary teachers are assigned. While
there is elementary research revealing that teachers are intentionally sorted into grade
assignments based on their experience and quality (Grissom et al., 2017), secondary research
describes teacher assignment on the basis of track level rather than specific course assignment
(Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). As certain courses, such as
Algebra I, tend to have higher leverage in determining student success (Silver et al., 2008), this is
a notable gap that I will fill in this paper.
34

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
The final gap in this literature relates to the lack of study of differences between subject
areas in the teacher assignment processes. I found no studies that explicitly studied this topic,
despite the possibility that there are significant differences across domains. For example, there
may be specific variation in preferences between math teachers and social science teachers.
While math progresses fairly linearly from course to course, social science is topic-based. The
scenario that a social science teacher specializes in World History regardless of the age or ability
of the students seems more plausible than a math teacher who happens to have an affinity for
Algebra II. However, this is speculative due to the lack of research on this topic. A research
study that explicitly and systematically examines how teacher assignments compare and contrast
across secondary subjects would fill this gap and provide important information about how
teachers’ preferences relate to middle and high school assignments. Certain subjects, such as
math, are higher leverage for future student success, with Adelman (1999) finding that
completing high-level mathematics courses in high school is the single strongest predictor of
student success in college. Thus, differences in teacher assignment patterns across secondary
subjects may have important consequences for student outcomes. Further, such subject
differences are plausible correlated with teacher mobility, with there being more vacancies in
STEM classrooms (Sutcher et al., 2016), and with STEM teachers being more likely to exit their
school (Gulosino et al., 2019).
Micropolitics: An Organization Theory
There is ample evidence in the literature associating teacher experience and teacher
quality with within-school teacher sorting. The secondary school literature does not propose a
causal mechanism for within-school teacher sorting, instead attempting to establish an
35

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
association between teacher experience, teacher quality, and the types of courses teachers are
assigned to instruct.
The theoretical framework most consistently drawn on in the literature as a potential
explanation for the uncovered trends was micropolitics, a sub-field of organization theory.
Researchers hypothesized that school employees are political actors within the education system,
attempting to impact the course assignment process to lead to their desired outcomes (Ball, 2012;
Grissom et al., 2015; Johnson, 2001; Malen & Cochran, 2008).
Micropolitics is a branch of organization theory that conceptualizes organizations as
small political systems where various actors work competitively to gain power and influence
outcomes (Ball, 2012; Malen & Cochran, 2008). Blase (1991) defines micropolitics as “the use
of formal and informal power by individuals and groups to achieve their goals in organizations.
In large part political action results from perceived differences between individuals and groups,
coupled with the motivation to use power to influence and/or protect. Although such actions are
consciously motivated, any action, consciously motivated, may have ‘political significance’ in a
given situation.” (P. 265)
While the power to be gained and the outcomes to be influenced are ostensibly lower
than in macro-political settings, where the fate of nations can hang in the balance, there are still
many similarities between these micropolitical systems and their macro counterparts. The actors
within an organization have diverse goals and often unclear areas of influence, meaning they
must act strategically to achieve their aims (Ball, 2012). Individuals within this system will
accumulate resources over time in the form of various types of capital. Types of capital include
social (relationships), cultural, organizational (positions), informational (understanding
36

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
organizational processes), normative (values), and material (Blase, 1991; Bourdieu, 1986;
Grissom et al., 2015).
Micropolitics holds that structures do not drive organizational change but rather
interactions and relationships between actors (Ball, 2012; Johnson, 2001). This theory argues
that actors exercise their power through the numerous resources at their disposal in the form of
the aforementioned types of capital. These resources do not exist in a vacuum but must be
specifically mobilized in interactions to become powerful (Ball, 2012; Johnson, 2001; Malen &
Cochran, 2008). This means an asset like informational capital has no inherent value; it takes
value when an actor applies it to achieve some aim. Similarly, power depends on relationships
and cannot be used in isolation (Ball, 2012; Johnson, 2001). This means that power must be
exercised with and through other actors by calling upon one’s capital resources. Even a person
with an explicitly influential role must have their policies implemented by positional
subordinates, which necessitates social connections with at least some of those people.
Additionally, power is employed at both the top and bottom of the hierarchy (Johnson, 2001).
While organizational capital gives people overt authority at the top of the ladder, actors at the
bottom can exercise power by calling upon other forms of capital, such as social capital, to
realize their wants by affecting the actions of the explicit power wielders.
Next, organizational actors use numerous distinct strategies to marshal their resources or
prevent other actors from marshaling theirs (Ball, 2012; Johnson, 2001). Even two individuals
with identical capital supplies and desires may utilize these caches quite differently to fulfill their
aspirations. Further, interactions among actors can be conflictual and competitive. Some people
will get what they want at the expense of others seeing their preferences enacted (Iannoccone,
1991). This is an inevitable consequence of any system that requires the distribution of scarce
37

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
resources. As long as there are not enough resources to meet every person’s wants, people will be
forced into conflict with one another and must compete to have their desires enacted. However,
that is not to say that cooperation within such systems is impossible, as Blase and Blase (2002)
argue that individuals within micropolitical systems can and do work cooperatively to achieve
their goals.
Micropolitics of Secondary Schools
Administrators, teachers, and even parents and students can be considered political actors
within a school system, attempting to leverage their knowledge, relationships, and power to
shape school decisions to their liking (Ball, 2012; Grissom et al., 2015; Johnson, 2001; Malen &
Cochran, 2008). Each of these groups has unique preferences, capital resources, and strategies
they can implement in order to bring about their desired outcomes. As such, they must compete
with one another to make these wants into reality. This makes micropolitics a strong fit for
understanding the power dynamics of decision-making within school environments.
Schools must make frequent organizational decisions: What curriculum should be
adopted? How should students’ course requests be accommodated? Which teachers should teach
which courses? These decisions are typically made by school and district administrators.
However, as administrators have myriad responsibilities and limited time, they can be and are
influenced by the other stakeholders mentioned: teachers, parents, and students (Grissom et al.,
2015). What determines which of these stakeholders hold influence, and to what degree? In
short, political capital. Political capital represents an individual stakeholder’s power to influence
decision-making (Malen & Cochran, 2008). This capital takes time to build and takes a number
of different forms, as outlined earlier. In the next section, I will discuss the various types of
38

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
political capital that come into play for school-level stakeholders attempting to influence school
decision processes, particularly as it relates to within-school teacher course assignment.
Types of Capital.
Bourdieu (1986) proposed additional forms of capital beyond the traditional economic
definition of the term to include other resources that people possess, such as social relationships
and cultural dispositions. Over time, capital has expanded to include numerous internal and
external assets that people possess, such as information, values, and material (Grissom et al.,
2015). For this study’s focus on within-school teacher course assignment processes, three types
of capital are particularly relevant: social, organizational, and informational. How does each of
these operate in the school setting?
Social Capital.
Social capital is a way to describe the power that comes from building and maintaining
relationships with others (Bourdieu, 1986). In the context of course assignment in a secondary
school, there are a few primary ways that an employee looking to impact that process can
accumulate social capital. One route would be developing personal friendships with the school
leaders involved in decision-making (Grissom et al., 2015). For example, a teacher who is close
friends with the assistant principal with the final say on course assignments may ask that person
not to assign them to a course they do not wish to teach. A second route could be cultivating
positive working relationships with as many colleagues as possible. While this may not elicit as
much explicit capital as friendship, it could still be a valuable tool for someone hoping to exert
their will in a school setting. For example, a teacher who goes out of their way to professionally
support their colleagues by covering their classes would likely build enough social capital to
merit reciprocity if they ask their colleagues for a favor.
39

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Informational Capital.
Informational capital is the knowledge gained about how power is exercised within a
school (Blase & Blase, 2002; Grissom et al., 2015; Malen & Cochran, 2008). This capital is most
directly tied to an employee’s experience within a specific school. The longer a person works at a
school, the more information they have about how decisions at that school are made and how
they may influence that process using their unique capital resources (Grissom et al., 2015). For
example, a teacher who knows that their school operates in a bottom-up environment where
course assignments requested by department chairs are typically honored by the administration at
their school may leverage that capital to ensure that the department chair gives them the courses
they prefer to teach. In contrast, imagine a teacher new to that same school who came from a
previous top-down assignment setting where courses were assigned by the administration
regardless of teacher preference. Such a teacher would plausibly not attempt to make their course
preferences known, believing such a request would be futile. This gap in informational capital
would translate to these two teachers having widely differing abilities to realize their desires.
Organizational Capital.
Organizational capital describes the formal positional authority that actors take within a
school (Grissom et al., 2015). For example, a school principal has a large amount of
organizational capital, as their role comes with inherent power. Similarly, a teacher promoted to
department chair has accumulated additional organizational capital. This capital gives an actor
direct power to exercise within various decision-making processes. Returning to the example of
the teacher promoted to the department chair; they shift from having power in the form of their
ability to use their capital to influence the explicitly powerful people to being the explicitly
powerful person themselves. While they would retain the other forms of capital they needed in
the past, such resources would be secondary to their new direct ability to utilize authority.
40

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Use in the Literature Surrounding Teacher Assignment
Micropolitics and the various forms of capital were the primary theoretical basis for most
of the studies in the literature surrounding how teachers are assigned to the courses they teach.
Grissom et al. (2015) focused on the various forms of capital teachers can exercise in the course
assignment process. They noted that more experienced teachers had superior informational
capital through a deeper understanding of the process, greater positional capital due to leadership
roles, and more substantial social capital through relationships with parents, community
members, and administrators. Lieberman and Clayton (2018) focused on teacher social capital,
finding that teachers reported utilizing their friendship with influential administrators to drive the
assignment process.
Iannoccone (1991) and Struyve et al. (2014) focused their studies on the competitive and
conflictual nature of the assignment processes. Iannoccone (1991) emphasized the importance of
considering the conflictual desires of teachers and administrators, who have different ways to
expend capital to realize these wants. Administrators have strong organizational capital as they
can make direct decisions, while teachers must use social and informational capital to exert their
will through those with authority. Struyve et al. (2014) discussed the particular struggle of
department chairs, who must exert organizational capital over their fellow faculty members
without draining their social capital. As their position requires them to make choices that will
distribute preferential assignments to specific teachers and unwanted courses to others, they must
intentionally cultivate social relationships to ensure they can successfully enact their agenda.
This challenge can also necessitate the more cooperative element of political maneuvering, as a
department chair may try to work with their department to ensure that as many teachers are as
satisfied as possible.
41

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Strengths and Limitations of Micropolitics
Strengths.
Micropolitics is a robust theoretical framework to apply as a potential mechanism for the
teacher course assignment process. Micropolitics’ major upsides in its application to the current
studies are its focus on intra-organizational conflict, recognition of implicit kinds of power in the
form of various types of capital, and usefulness in situations with distributed power.
Micropolitics crucially acknowledges both the conflictual and the cooperative nature of
organizational processes (Blase & Blase, 2002; Iannoccone, 1991). In a secondary school, there
can be well over one hundred teachers and administrators with varying desires about the outcome
of teacher course assignments. With a limited amount of the perceived most desirable courses,
teachers will, by definition, come into conflict with one another and with administrators.
However, teachers can also cooperate to reach such decisions, forming alliances, trading favors,
and working together to maximize their group’s happiness with the decisions made. For example,
a science department may come together to advocate for discretionary funds to be used for new
lab equipment for their teachers at the expense of math teachers getting calculators.
Micropolitics provides a way to understand these potential conflict and cooperation points and
why they are an inherent part of a school environment that must allocate scarce resources.
Micropolitics provides clear categories for different types of resources that actors can
utilize in the form of “capital.” These types of capital can be conceivably accessed by people at
all levels of the course assignment process, from administrators to teachers to parents to students.
This concept provides mechanisms for how those without formal organizational power can still
meaningfully impact course assignments. Non-administrators have important assets and abilities
42

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
that are utilized to exercise power indirectly, and micropolitics provides a framework that clearly
delineates and situates these capital resources.
Similarly, micropolitics emphasizes the distributed nature of power. Course assignment is
not a process governed by the will of a single actor with utter authority, but rather a negotiated
process where dozens of players with conflicting wants attempt to materialize their desires using
whatever resources they have available. While an administrator must approve a final master
schedule of course assignments, power is very rarely exercised exclusively top-down (Monk,
1987; Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014). Nor is course assignment something that is the
exclusive provenance of teachers or department chairs. It is a diffuse process, with stakeholders
at the top, middle, and lowest levels of the hierarchy attempting to enact their wills (Monk, 1987;
Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014) .
Limitations.
While micropolitics does have numerous positives, it does have some drawbacks in its
application to this topic. Firstly, it does not fully account for meaningful differences in school
structures and environments that almost certainly impact the course assignment process. For
example, an extremely large high school with two hundred teachers will have a more formalized
assignment process than a tiny middle school with a dozen. A school in a district with a powerful
central office may have very little agency in its site-level decisions compared to a school in a
district that encourages site-level leadership. These differences would not be accounted for by
the differing desires, conflicts, strategies, and capital resources that micropolitics focuses on but
by the structures and environments within which these individual actors operate. The potential
impact of such differences is beyond the scope of this theory, but will be examined in greater
43

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
depth within the results of the qualitative interview study, as school leaders frequently noted how
school size and district involvement impacted their course assignment processes.
Additionally, micropolitics does not account for non-capital, logistical concerns inherent
in the course assignment process. Some teachers cannot legally teach certain courses due to
credentialing differences, regardless of how appealing those courses would be to teach. Some
teachers are guaranteed a desirable afternoon preparation period due to commitments to coach
sports. Some teachers may desire to teach two courses only offered during the same period of the
school day, necessitating that they forgo one, no matter how well they shape their assignments.
No amount of capital accumulation, conflict, or strategic maneuvering will change these process
limitations. For a school with a substantial amount of such limitations, micropolitics may have
little impact on the teacher assignment process, as logistical concerns outweigh individual
teacher desires. Again, how such logistical concerns impact teacher course assignment will be
explored within the qualitative interview study, as such concerns were frequently brought up
when administrators and department chairs described their considerations when building master
schedules.
Applying Micropolitics to the Current Work
As micropolitics focuses on explaining the role of individual actors within a school
organization, it is a solid framework for applying the within-school, typically bottom-up
mechanisms that likely drive the secondary teacher course assignment process. Specifically,
three essential elements of micropolitics can be applied to this study. The first is the
acknowledgment that various players at the teacher and administrative level have diverse goals
that require them to act politically to attain their desires. This sets up the second, inherent
conflict within the assignment process, necessitating these workers to act strategically. This then
44

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
leads to a final focus on various forms of capital that can be mustered to accomplish these
strategic aims and mold the assignment process to their wants.
Diverse Goals.
Within the course assignment process, three primary levels of school employees have
substantial influence: teachers, who have preferences about what they teach; department chairs,
who are typically responsible for converting these preferences into initial assignments; and
administrators, who have the final say on these assignments, making adjustments as they see fit
(Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014).
I hypothesize that these three distinct employee categories have diverse goals. A teacher’s
day-to-day work life throughout a 10-month school year is determined substantially by the
courses they teach. Thus, it is logical that teachers will want to teach courses they personally
enjoy teaching. If that is not possible, they would likely prefer to avoid courses that they perceive
as particularly challenging, such as those that contain students that may be more difficult to
manage (Grissom et al., 2015).
Department chairs are in a first-among-equals arrangement with their teacher colleagues,
tasked with leading the department but often provided with minimal actual authority. They must
struggle to balance appeasing the administration’s wants while keeping their peers satisfied and
attempting to realize their wants (Struyve et al., 2014). Thus, it seems likely that chairs have
three distinct goals: 1. To follow administrative directives and avoid conflict with the
administrators in charge of the course scheduling process; 2. To satisfy the teachers’ requests
within their departments as much as possible and keep them contented; 3. To assign themselves
classes that they would personally prefer to teach.
45

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Administrators have the most explicit power in the course assignment process but the
least to personally gain from it. They likely have two primary considerations, one regarding
student success and the other regarding teacher happiness. The first goal would be to assign
teachers to their courses in a way that maximizes student outcomes. The second goal would be to
assign teachers to their courses to accommodate as many teacher preferences as possible to
maximize teacher satisfaction.
Conflict and Strategic Considerations.
Teachers, department chairs, and administrators have diverse goals in the context of
course assignment. These goals will thus often bring them into conflict with one another, forcing
them to act strategically and politically to realize their desires. What might various conflicts and
the resulting strategies look like in this setting?
At the teacher level, teachers will likely come into conflict with their departmental
colleagues, who are generally eligible to teach the same set of courses. While teachers within a
department may have distinct preferences regarding which subjects they enjoy teaching the most,
providing space for cooperative decision making, there will almost certainly still be overlapping
wants amongst department members. Certain classes, such as AP and Honors courses, are
typically seen as more desirable assignments (Grissom et al., 2015). However, as these courses
are reserved for the highest achieving fraction of students, the supply of these assignments is
almost certainly lower than their demand. This will bring conflict as teachers struggle to secure
one of these desirable courses. To do so, teachers must act strategically, using their various
capital resources, which I will discuss in more depth in the following section.
Department chairs inherently cannot honor overlapping teacher course assignment
requests, necessitating conflict between the chair and those they must assign. A chair must grant
46

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
some preferences while denying others, obliging them to act strategically to keep their
department happy. Again, different chairs may have widely variant strategies. For example, some
may reward certain favored peers with schedules that include only desirable classes while
allocating the less desirable courses to the remainder of the department, while others may strive
for a balanced schedule that shares difficult courses as equitably as possible across department
members. Additionally, chairs must assign themselves classes, potentially setting up a situation
where they must choose between realizing their personal desires and trying to maximize the
happiness of the department.
Administrators would ideally avoid conflict with their chairs and teachers by honoring
their preferences as much as possible, working cooperatively to ensure teacher satisfaction.
However, suppose the requested course assignments were likely to harm student outcomes, cause
parent complaints, or lead to conflict among teachers. In those cases, an administrator may have
to work in opposition to the chair or individual teachers. An ideal schedule would maximize
student success while also keeping all teachers satisfied.
Use of Capital to Exert Influence.
Now that I have discussed various players’ goals, potential conflicts, and likely strategies,
I conclude by discussing the forms of capital they can call upon to enact their strategies and
maximize their chances of realizing their goals.
Teachers, department chairs, and administrators all can use social capital to enact their
goals. However, as teachers lack official power to influence this process, social capital would be
a vital resource for an instructor hoping to impact their course assignments. A teacher developing
social capital would start by building relationships with administrators or their department chair.
47

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
They could then leverage these relationships by calling upon this capital to get favored status for
their course requests over their peers.
Informational capital can be used by all players in the course assignment process but is
again of more use to teachers due to their lack of direct power. Informational is the most subtle
capital to expend, as it represents a person’s knowledge of their school’s specific process. It is
unlikely to be overly valuable on its own but could be used in concert with other capital to give
someone an edge. For example, someone with informational capital may know which
administrator actually has the final say on assignments and which one simply rubber stamps
requests. This resource may require being paired with social capital to ensure that this knowledge
makes a difference, but it is still an important tool that teachers can develop.
Organizational capital is reserved for those in roles that can exert positional authority in
the course assignment process. Administrators inherently have this, as they have the final say
over which teachers are assigned to which courses. Department chairs have it to a lesser extent,
as they have an official role to play in course assignment but not ultimate authority to enact their
wishes. It is essential to consider that even among employees with identical roles and titles, there
are likely to be different power levels. A new principal may not be able to effectively enact
decisions, while a 30-year veteran teacher may have de facto authority to govern their
department.
Methodology Review of the Literature
Within the literature, a wide array of techniques were used to research the topic of
within-school teacher sorting, course assignments, and teacher mobility, depending on the aims
of the specific studies. For this section, I will discuss the most common ones found in the
literature: descriptive statistics, multiple regressions, fixed-effects models, value-added models,
48

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
survival analyses, and qualitative studies. This review informed my own methodological choices
for the three studies that constitute this paper, which I will discuss in depth in the following
chapters.
Descriptives
Many of the studies that examined the characteristics of teachers in relation to the courses
they teach used simple descriptive statistics. Such studies typically focused on teacher
demographics and experience levels’ connection to assignment and avoided focusing on teacher
quality (Jeong & Luschei, 2019; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013). These studies also often compared
such teacher characteristics across various schools on the basis of variables like the percentage of
minoritized students or the percentage of low-income students (Atteberry et al., 2012; Flores,
2007; Jeong & Luschei, 2019). Similarly, studies that focused on the experience levels and
demographics of the teachers that various student groups were more likely to be assigned
frequently opted for this straightforward approach (Flores, 2007; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013;
Peske & Haycock, 2006). As explored earlier in this section, studies using these methods
generally found that low-income students, students of color, and academically at-risk students
were more likely to be assigned to novice teachers and those with less credentialing.
Multiple Regression Models Without Fixed Effects
The most common approach to examining teacher experience, quality, and demographic
factors in relation to teaching assignments involved some form of multiple regression. This
approach was especially preferred when authors studied how teacher experience and quality were
related to course assignments and student outcomes (Grissom et al., 2015; Hwang & Fitzpatrick,
2021; Kalogrides et al., 2015; Thiemann, 2018). This was also a common method when looking
at teacher grade and course assignments, mobility, and within- and between-school sorting
49

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
(Atteberry et al., 2021; Chingos & West, 2011; Feng & Sass, 2017; Grissom et al., 2013;
Grissom et al., 2017). Overall, these studies uncovered that teachers are non-randomly sorted to
courses within schools, and that such non-random assignments are likely associated with
mobility decisions. Further, it is likely that such assignments of less experienced and lower
quality teachers are associated with decreased student outcomes.
Fixed-Effects Models
Researchers typically opted for fixed-effects regression models when studies had access
to longitudinal teacher data. These approaches included school-level fixed effects, teacher-level
fixed effects, and year fixed effects in various attempts to isolate teacher assignment from
exogenous school characteristics, teacher characteristics, and year-to-year variation (Blazar,
2015; Feng, 2010; Ost & Schiman, 2015; Phillips, 2011; Player, 2009; Rogers & Doan, 2019).
This research frequently attempted to track teacher career progression as a function of quality,
such as the likelihood to leave the profession, be promoted, or switch assignments (Blazar, 2015;
Feng, 2010; Ost & Schiman, 2015; Player, 2009; Rogers & Doan, 2019). Such studies provide
the only plausible causal connections between teacher assignment and teacher mobility that
exists within the literature, although they do have limitations that prevent them from fully
establishing causation. Feng (2010) acknowledges potential problems with endogeneity, while
Blazar (2015) and Ost & Schiman (2015) did not use teacher or classroom fixed effects. Player
(2009) and Rogers and Doan (2019) both utilize year and teacher-level fixed effects at the
elementary level, giving them the best possible causal case for the impact of teacher sorting on
student outcomes and teacher mobility. Such fixed effects studies typically found that school and
classroom factors are associated with teacher mobility outcomes, with teachers tending to leave
50

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
more challenging classroom situations and schools with higher proportions of students of color
and low-income students.
Value-Added Models
Numerous economics studies focused on methods to ascertain teacher quality as a first
step in connecting it to the other topics mentioned above, such as teacher assignment and
mobility. These studies frequently used value-added models to isolate a teacher’s impact on their
students from other school- and student-level factors (Hanushek et al., 2005; Jackson, 2014;
Goldhaber et al., 2015; Ost, 2014). A few authors noted the extreme challenge of constructing
accurate value-added models for teachers due to students’ non-random assignment to teachers
and courses (Jackson, 2014; Rothstein, 2009). For example, a teacher may be assigned lower
achieving students because they are high quality and can help them more than a lower quality
colleague. However, these students still perform poorly on the exams used to construct the
value-added model, making it appear that this teacher is low-quality.
Discrete-Time Survival Analyses
Several studies explored factors that were predictive of teacher mobility, such as
classroom characteristics, school characteristics, subject area, experience, and salary. These
studies often employed discrete-time survival analyses to focus in on the predictors’ association
with mobility, especially from time-varying factors (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Feng, 2009;
Hansen et al., 2016; Gulosino et al., 2019; Vagi et al., 2017). Some studies focused on one
mobility risk, the overall likelihood of a teacher leaving their current job, and employed Cox
proportional hazard models (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Gulosino et al., 2019; Hansen et al.,
2016; Vagi et al., 2017). Others disaggregated various mobility risks, such as the likelihood a
teacher changes schools, changes districts, or leaves the profession entirely; these authors used
51

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
competing risk multinomial discrete-time hazard models (Feng, 2009; Gulosino et al., 2019;
Hansen et al., 2016). Within these studies, authors utilized various fixed effects to further
isolation the predictors, such as school-level, district-level, year-level, cohort-level, and
school-year effects, although school effects were by far the most common (Feng, 2009; Gulosino
et al., 2019; Hansen et al., 2016; Vagi et al., 2017). Just as in the regression studies with fixed
effects, these works generally found that classroom and school factors did play a significant role
in teacher mobility.
Qualitative Studies
The literature focusing on the mechanisms and potential explanations of teacher
assignment typically opted for qualitative approaches, such as structured interviews and case
study designs. Such studies frequently gathered data from administrators about their processes
and rationales for teacher assignments, promotions, and transfers. These authors then connected
teacher quality and experience to grade and course assignments through consistent patterns in
participants’ responses (Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018; Monk, 1987). Other
work delved into which employees had notable roles in teacher and student classroom
assignment, examining administrator, teacher, and parent impact on the process (Lieberman &
Clayton, 2018; Monk, 1987). Overall, these works found that schools have heterogeneous
processes in assigning teachers to their classrooms and courses, particularly noting the role of
teacher experience in guiding assignment outcomes. These authors’ research supports the
theoretical explanations for the associations described in the previous two chapters.
The Three Studies
From an extensive review of the teacher assignment literature, certain favored methods
were uncovered depending on the topic. Researchers seeking to better understand the
52

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
on-the-ground dynamics of assignment relied on qualitative interview studies to learn why
certain decisions were made (Cohen-Vogel, 2011; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018; Monk, 1987).
Authors attempting to associate teacher and student characteristics to assignment patterns relied
overwhelmingly on multiple regression analyses with fixed effects to help them isolate the
connection between their characteristic of interest (gender, race, experience, quality) and their
outcome of interest (teacher assignment, mobility, student outcomes) (Atteberry et al., 2021;
Chingos & West, 2011; Feng & Sass, 2017; Grissom et al., 2013; Grissom et al., 2015; Grissom
et al., 2017; Hwang & Fitzpatrick, 2021; Kalogrides et al., 2015; Thiemann, 2018). Work that
strived to build links between teacher characteristics, teacher assignments, and teacher mobility
frequently employed discrete-time survival analyses (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Feng, 2009;
Hansen et al., 2016; Gulosino et al., 2019; Vagi et al., 2017).
With these methods in mind, I opted to use these three approaches in three distinct
studies. Study 1 uses a qualitative interview approach to examine how and why secondary
teacher assignment decisions are made, additionally exploring how micropolitical theory
connects with school leaders’ conceptualizations of their work. Study 2 uses multiple regression
analyses with year- and state-fixed effects to investigate how teacher experience is associated
with lower-level course assignments and how such assignments connect with teacher mobility.
Study 3 primarily implements various discrete-time survival analyses with year- and school-fixed
effects to build a connection between teacher course assignment and teacher mobility.
The following three chapters describe the data sources, variables of interest, and
analytical strategies before exploring the results and discussing the findings’ implications.
53

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Chapter Three: Study 1: Enacted Micropolitics in Secondary Teacher Course
Assignment
By: Michael Fienberg, Shelby Leigh Smith, Isabel Clay, and Margaret Dawson-Amoah
This first study interrogates how and why teacher course assignment decisions are made
at the secondary level. We sought to examine the relational aspects that inform how school
leaders navigate challenges and mediate tensions. We draw on the framework of micropolitics
which facilitates the examination of organizations as political systems where actors compete for
power and influence (Ball, 2012; Malen & Cochran, 2008). This framework has been applied to
educational settings such as schools and policy-making bodies (Bjork & Blase, 2009; Flessa,
2009; Grissom et al., 2013; Lochmiller, 2017; Marsh, 2012; Singer et al., 2023; Struyve et al.,
2014). In schools, the micropolitical framework has been utilized to illuminate that more
politically or socially connected teachers may have more sway over their assigned classes and
students (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). We build from this application of
micropolitics to the school assignment process to explore the following research questions:
1. How do influential forms of political capital shape the way school leaders assign
secondary teachers to their courses?
2. How effective do school leaders perceive their course assignment process is at
maximizing teacher satisfaction, student success, and equity? Are there trade-offs
between priorities, and if so, how do leaders navigate these trade-offs?
Through interviews with 17 secondary school leaders in the Greater Los Angeles area
involved in the creation of the master schedule, this study provides insights into how the
micropolitical environments of schools influence school leaders in their course assignment
decisions. In our exploration, we found that school leaders centralize teacher preferences and
54

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
seniority in their creation of the master schedule in a way that they largely recognize creates
trade-offs with student interests.
Methodology
Data Source and Method
This study gathered original, qualitative data through semi-structured individual
interviews (Creswell & Poth, 2018) with 17 secondary department chairs and administrators
from 13 schools in the greater Los Angeles area in Spring 2023. We used purposeful sampling
(Seidman, 2006) to select participants who met the following criteria: 1) work for a public or
charter middle or high school in the Los Angeles area; 2) are a school leader such as an
administrator, department chair, or counselor actively involved in their school’s course
assignment process; and 3) have participated in the course assignment process at least one time
prior to the 2022-2023 school year. School leaders whom the researchers knew to meet these
criteria were solicited to join the study. To expand the number of participants in the study, we
also leveraged snowball sampling, as participating school leaders were encouraged to
recommend other eligible school leaders (Bertaux, 1981). This process yielded completed
interviews with 17 leaders from 13 schools. Participating school leaders were given gift cards as
an honorarium for their participation in the study.
Once participants joined the study, they completed a pre-interview survey to gather data
about their demographics and experiences in education (Table 1). They then participated in 30- to
60-minute long audio recorded 1-on-1 Zoom interviews, which were text transcribed using the
Otter AI technology platform. These interviews consisted of 20 scripted questions divided into
three general sections (Appendix, Instrument 1). The first section confirmed the demographic
data provided in the pre-interview survey. The second section explored the mechanics of the
55

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
interviewee’s school’s course assignment process. Within this section, school leaders were asked
to expound on the roles of various players in the process as well as to consider the impact of
teacher and student characteristics on their school’s decision-making. The final section solicited
respondents’ opinions on their school’s course assignment process, prompting them to rate their
school’s effectiveness at promoting teacher satisfaction, student success, and student equity
through teacher course assignments. Further, interviewees were asked if changes could be made
to improve their school’s processes, leading school leaders to elucidate their vision of an ideal
teacher assignment system. The 20th and final question of the interview allowed the respondent
to share any thoughts or information they felt was relevant that was not asked through the course
of the interview. While not all school leaders had anything extra to include, several people took
the opportunity to summarize their thinking, bolster arguments they had made earlier in the
interview, or include novel information they had not had a chance to express during the scripted
questions. Within several of the questions, the interview script left space for specific follow-ups
depending on the participants’ answers to those questions. Additionally, interviewers had the
latitude to prompt further responses to school leaders’ answers to gather further detail if
necessary.
Analysis for this study was performed using the qualitative analysis software Dedoose
and included both inductive and deductive coding (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To ensure the
credibility of our data and analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lincoln & Guba, 1986), we engaged
in a multi-cycle coding process, which included analytical memoing and peer debriefing sessions
throughout the data collection and analysis processes. Specifically, we began our process by
creating a set of deductive codes drawn from our theoretical framework and interview script.
Within this initial coding process, we also collaboratively discussed topics the interviewees had
56

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
brought up within the interviews that were not explicitly coded for. This discussion led to us
inductively adding several codes to our existing set. After this construction sequence, two
researchers initially independently coded each interview. From there, all the researchers
collectively reviewed the coding results, iteratively generated new codes, and modified existing
codes to handle nuances within the initial process that the two coders did not consistently agree
upon. Then, the team collaboratively reviewed one interview transcript, collectively applying the
new codes and discussing when various codes should be applied depending on the implicit or
explicit nature of respondent answers. Within this collaborative coding process, the researchers
constructed a final codebook detailing how each code should be applied or not within respondent
interviews. Finally, one coder from each of the original interviews completed a second pass on
their transcript, modifying existing codes and applying new codes where appropriate.
After this process was complete, the research team reconvened and collectively analyzed
the suite of interviews for common results, of which several specific findings were agreed upon.
These outcomes were clustered to form two broader thematic groups, each with several
sub-themes. Following this, the final step of our analytical process was to examine our findings
for similarities and differences on the basis of the demographic characteristics gathered in the
pre-interview surveys. We primarily focused on respondents’ position, school type, school size,
and experience level, as the micropolitics theoretical framework hypothesized potential
differences on the basis of these school characteristics.
Variables of Interest
Within the pre-interview survey, participants were asked nine demographic questions that
generated the following variables: position, school level, school type, gender, race, age, years
working in education, years working at their current school, and years in a leadership role. For
57

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
full information about each of the 17 respondents, please refer to Table 1 below. The final sample
of 17 participants yielded the following demographic characteristics:
● 10 administrators and 7 department chairs
● 15 leaders from 11 high schools and 2 leaders from 2 middle schools
● 11 participants from 9 public schools and 6 participants from 4 charter schools
● 9 females and 8 males
● 3 Asian respondents, 2 Black respondents, 1 Latina respondent, 10 white respondents,
and 1 respondent of multiple races
● The average interviewee was 43.2 years old, had worked in education for 19.5 years, had
worked at their current school for 9.4 years, and had been in a leadership role for 8.1
years.
Table 1: Respondent Characteristics for Study 1
Person Role School School
Level
Gender Race Age Years in
Education
Years in
Leadership
Role
1 DC A HS F W 61-65 36-40 26-30
2 DC B HS M W 31-35 6-10 1-5
3 DC B HS M A 36-40 11-15 1-5
4 AP C HS F W 41-45 21-25 6-10
5 DC D HS M W 41-45 16-20 1-5
6 DC D HS M W 46-50 26-30 11-15
7 P E HS M B 46-50 26-30 16-20
8 AP F HS M A 46-50 21-25 6-10
9 AP G HS M B 36-40 11-15 1-5
10 AP H HS M W 41-45 11-15 1-5
11 DC H HS F A 41-45 16-20 6-10
12 AP J HS F W 46-50 26-30 6-10
13 AP K HS F W 46-50 16-20 11-15
14 P L HS F A 41-45 21-25 6-10
58

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
15 DC M HS F W 26-30 6-10 1-5
16 D N MS F L 31-35 11-15 1-5
17 AP P MS F W 41-45 16-20 1-5
Notes: Roles: DC = Department Chair, AP = Assistant Principal, P = Principal, D = Director;
Race: A = Asian, B= Black, L = Latina/o, W= White
Findings
A Teacher-Centered Process
While the course assignment process is handled by school leaders to meet the needs of
both students and teachers, the school leaders in this study revealed that the process is centered
on teachers. Teachers are centered in the course assignment process through prioritization of
their satisfaction, which is achieved through the collection of teacher preferences. While not a
mandatory step in the course assignment process, all 17 school leaders reported that they collect
teacher preferences, either through surveys or informal conversations. A department chair
describes this process in the following quote:
My principal comes to me… and she says, “Hey, we need these courses for your
department.” And the counselor says, “Hey, I have to fit X number of students in these
classes, or the [special education] Teacher needs X number of sections for students with
IEPs.” And I make the master options.
Another department chair shared the following: “I had a Google form where I asked the teachers
what they prefer to teach, and kind of align that up with the assistant principal to suggest where
people should go.”
The school leaders opted into the collection of teacher preferences based on their beliefs
about how teacher satisfaction contributes to instructional quality as well as to retaining
instructors. One administrator noted that they “feel very strongly that people are the best teachers
[when] they're teaching what they love.” Another administrator agreed, sharing that “teachers are
going to do a better job if they're teaching classes that they're most comfortable with, so I do
59

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
want to make sure that teacher preferences are taken into account.” These comments highlight
that while the collection of teacher preferences do overtly center teachers in the assignment
process, the outcomes of assignments are also intended to benefit students.
Specifically, one department chair argued that their site offered too many courses with too
few teachers, and that the toll that multiple preps had on their staff made them feel that “all of
my teachers are going to quit." Another chair reported that a teacher in their department
threatened to quit if they were not given the grade assignment that they had requested. This
highlights retention concerns inherent in the course assignment process, as some school leaders
may fear losing teachers if their preferences are not enacted.
The realization of both teacher satisfaction and instructional quality, however, is not only
contingent upon the collection of teacher preferences, but also their implementation. While all
school leaders reported the collection of teacher preferences, the way that the reported
preferences informed final assignments was contingent upon the approach to the assignment
process taken by the school leader. School leaders that followed a bottom-up approach largely
adopted the preferences of teachers or recommendations of department chairs, unless there were
logistical issues that required different placements. As explained by one school leader: “It's very,
very, very rare that I'll make a change without having a conversation with the department chair
and the teacher who is being assigned that class.”
Administrators and department chairs in schools that utilized a bottom-up approach
regularly used language that stressed that teachers were prioritized and that no improvements
were needed to improve satisfaction. When asked about teacher satisfaction at their site, one
department chair shared that they "cater to them" and that they think teachers "should be thrilled
with how satisfied we make them." Another noted that in all the years they have worked in
60

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
teacher assignment, they had never had a teacher be unhappy with the courses they end up with.
A third shared that unless there is some sort of last-minute change such as someone leaving
immediately before the start of the school year, teachers do not receive courses that they are
unhappy with at their sites. One assistant principal explicitly stated no changes were necessary at
their site, saying that “[they] don’t know that [they] would do anything to the process to improve
teacher satisfaction.” They illustrated that point further noting that, “This year, I only had one
teacher out of a certificated staff of 125 teachers, who was dissatisfied with her teaching life.”
Administrators and chairs prioritized teacher satisfaction in the course assignment process stating
that generally, teachers are assigned to the courses they want to teach.
While the unaltered adoption of teacher preferences was typical of school leaders who
had a bottom-up approach to assignment, the process of collecting teacher preferences was found
to be more performative in schools with top-down approaches. Five different school leaders in
top-down environments answered in ways that indicated that collaborative efforts were often
secondary to enacting the leaders’ wants. One principal noted that they preemptively met with
teachers to discuss what courses they would most likely be assigned to teach, resulting in the
teachers then requesting courses that matched what the administration desired. Thus, although
administrators say they take into consideration teachers’ views about which subjects they want to
teach, even those views are sometimes influenced by them beforehand.
While some school leaders sought to influence stated preferences before collecting
teacher input, others treated the input collected as loose suggestions for their decisions. For
example, a department chair stated that while preferences were collected, “it's more of a
suggestion of where [teachers] want to teach, they almost have little to no input in where they're
going to teach unless their credential prevents them from teaching anything.” While teacher
61

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
preferences are collected, school leaders make the final decision about course assignments.
Stakeholders interviewed echoed this sentiment as seen in the following quote: “This year, it was
more of an administrative push towards which teachers should teach where, just to make sure
that there is a level of equity and a…precedent that the administration was going to oversee who
we’re teaching…I did the suggestions. But at the same time, the admin kind of filled in who they
thought was qualified to teach.” In this case, the school leader overstepped teacher preferences in
an attempt to support an equitable distribution of talent across students and classes.
In terms of the basis for assignment decisions, administrators also recognized teacher fit,
credentialing, and filling the gaps in the schedule as some of the factors beyond teacher
preference that guided their decisions. One of the department chairs reported classroom
management ability was a strong consideration when making assignment decisions for younger
grades. An assistant principal further illustrated this by saying, “it's…here's the gaps, here's what
your credential is for, here's what you will now teach.” Logistical limitations were also
prominent when leaders brought up situations where teacher preferences may not be honored.
One limitation to enacting teacher preferences that interviewees mentioned was the size of the
school. One principal in our sample shared “We're not a very big school, so there's only one
English 9 teacher, there's only one English 10 Teacher, for example. So we're relatively small in
terms of my school.” Here, the size of the school inherently limited how teachers could be
assigned. The absence of choice meant that there were fewer ways to honor teacher preferences.
The diverse ways in which teacher preferences were considered or disregarded in the
assignment decisions highlights that the process is largely dictated by the given school leader in
charge. One department chair explained this dependence in their experience working with
various administrators:
62

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
And then it's my responsibility initially, to say, okay, assign these courses to the teachers
in my department. I turn that into administration. And then the experience varies
depending on who my site administrator is, at that point in time, sometimes it's entirely at
my discretion. Sometimes it gets blown up. Sometimes it's a negotiation where they come
to me with a ‘here are our concerns’ and we work it out.
This department chair’s experiences highlight the dependence of the assignment process on the
approach adopted by the highest school leader in charge of the process.
The Greatest Source of Capital: Seniority
While the degree to which teacher preferences are adopted is dependent on the approach
school leaders take to assignment, we found that school leaders consistently prioritized the
preferences of teachers with seniority in their assignment decisions. While the number of years
that a teacher works does not inherently lead to the accumulation of expertise, it does broadly
lead to the accumulation of influence at the school. A teacher’s seniority, thus, leads to a greater
influence over their course assignments.
Through the centralization of seniority in assignments, the immediate satisfaction of new
teachers is deprioritized relative to their more senior colleagues. One department chair recounted
their experiences as a new teacher, “I was basically just told, this is what you're teaching. This is
what works, period.” Another department chair described having five classes of struggling
students “pretty much dumped on [her] plate” when they were new to a school. These quotes
demonstrate the specific powerlessness of new teachers in the course assignment process, with
novice instructors ending up with whatever courses more senior colleagues did not want. One
participant described this scenario as a result of new teachers being “lower on the totem pole of
seniority.” While this process leads to a lack of influence over assignments for new teachers, it
leaves them with the promise for future satisfaction once they have seniority.
63

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Through administrators’ spheres of influence over assignment, we found that seniority
was central to most administrators’ assignment processes. 16 out of the 17 respondents described
the importance of seniority in their school’s course assignment process. However, we discovered
that seniority held meaning at schools in two very different ways, explicitly and implicitly. We
define explicit seniority as the intentional consideration of a teacher’s current school experience
when making assignment decisions. For example, this could involve administrators giving
privileged consideration to more senior teachers’ course requests, or giving senior teachers the
first opportunity to teach perceived desirable courses, such as AP and Honors classes. The more
novel finding for this study was the strong presence of what we term “implicit seniority,” where
teachers’ senior status earned them deference in the course assignment process through the
continuation of existing course assignments, even in situations where school leaders believed
that a teacher’s seniority had no importance. Below, we discuss these two different situations,
including how participants contextualized explicit and implicit seniority, and how such
conceptualizations differ on the basis of a leader’s position.
Explicit Valuing of Seniority.
About half of the respondents considered seniority an explicitly important part of their
school’s course assignment process. One department chair argued that honoring seniority was
important for the “purpose of morale and keeping people feeling like they put in their time, they
served a purpose here, and that we care about them.” Others did not make a value judgment
about using seniority to make decisions, with another chair explaining that “the more senior
teachers tend to get their way” and a third describing that “if teachers want, they have first pick
[of classes] based on their hire date.” Another leader described that use of seniority to make
course assignment decisions was consistent across the multiple schools they had taught at,
64

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
explaining, “Historically speaking in my career, it has been incredibly important. At my old
school, the oldest teachers would pick their classes first, and then everything else kind of just got
slotted down.”
Many leaders made it clear that senior teachers typically teach more advanced courses,
such as AP and Honors. One described that at their school, newer math teachers “start with
Algebra I and Geometry” and “work their way up to Algebra II” before eventually earning the
right to teach advanced courses such as Pre-Calculus and AP Calculus. While respondents
described the importance of explicit seniority as commonplace at schools, one department chair
expressed concern that such practices may harm newer teachers, relaying her own frustration at
being unable to teach advanced courses: “So there was never going to be the opportunity for me
to break into [advanced] classes unless that teacher left, and like five other teachers left, because
it was all going to be seniority.” These insights reveal that seniority is often a respected form of
political capital that heavily influences the teacher assignment process for the purpose of
sustaining teacher satisfaction, but can also negatively affect the happiness of less senior
teachers.
Despite these findings being broadly consistent across leaders and schools, some leaders
disagreed about the importance of seniority. One department chair stated that “I’ve never made a
decision based on seniority,” and another claimed that “the last thing I look at is seniority.” When
breaking down our findings by respondents’ jobs, half of the administrators interviewed argued
that seniority was explicitly unimportant. One claimed that their teachers believed that seniority
was important in course assignment, but argued that from an administrative perspective, seniority
did not have a major role to play. While they may be right that their school actors do not
65

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
consciously consider seniority when making assignment decisions, we will now discuss how
implicit seniority may still be impacting these processes.
Passive Enactment of Micropolitics: Implicit Seniority.
While not all respondents agreed about the explicit importance of seniority in their
schools’ course assignment processes, interviewees repeatedly answered our questions in ways
that showed that the prioritization of seniority was frequently enacted passively throughout the
teacher assignment process. Many respondents did not refer to seniority explicitly, but either
disclosed that more seasoned teachers were rewarded with their desired assignments or that
assignments did not change annually, allowing senior teachers to keep desired assignments
through simple maintenance of the status quo. Numerous school leaders clearly described their
school environments as settings where continuity was king and maintaining the status quo was
expected. A school leader succinctly explained this phenomenon, “In terms of how teachers are
placed, a lot of it is what they taught the year prior.” An administrator echoed this at their school,
noting, “Teaching assignments don’t tend to change from year to year that often.” A department
chair further corroborated this, stating, “Honestly, our master schedule doesn’t change that
much…typically, we have teachers teaching the same thing year after year.” Another chair
described that at their school, teachers are more or less locked into the course assignments they
get when they are initially hired, saying, “For the most part, teachers teach what they are
originally assigned to teach.” Another leader argued that teachers maintaining consistent course
loads was desirable, asserting, “You can’t be a great teacher if you don’t do it for a while…and
get used to doing one thing…we want a sense of continuity for the students and for the teachers
as well.”
66

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
School leaders often went beyond simple status quo maintenance in explaining why
continuity was so important, centering teacher desires. One assistant principal explained their
school’s process through the lens of teacher preference, saying, “Once the teachers have been
established in a certain level, per se, they don’t like to change too much.” Other school leaders
deferred to teachers who did not wish to change their course assignments. One described that “A
lot of people like to stick to what they've been working on for a while.” An administrator framed
this setting as one where teachers have implicit claim on courses they’ve taught prior, noting,
“They have the right of refusal. They [also] have the right to give up their assignments if they
want to.” Another added an example, saying “If I'm an 11th grade English teacher, and I enjoy
teaching 11th grade English, and I am skilled [at] teaching English, it is my job forever,
essentially.” The most illuminating anecdote was from a chair who described clashing with a
new administrator who planned to switch teachers off their long-taught subjects:
He came in, and he said, “You know, I see some of your teachers have been teaching the
same grade level for a lot of years. I think it's time we start shaking it up and having
people teach different classes.” And I asked him, “Why would we do that? If they love
what they're doing now in their content? And it would just make them upset?” And he
said, “Wow, that wasn't…the answer [I] expected.” And he never talked to me about it
again.
We observe school leaders’ hesitancy to interrupt the status quo of teacher assignments
even when a teacher is perceived to be low quality within their current assignment. However,
leaders become more apt to change assignments when the lack of quality instruction is in
advanced classes rather than lower level courses due to the benefits that students’ completion of
advanced courses has for the school. Respondents indicated that the status quo of teaching
assignments changes only when a teacher gets a high volume of complaints, especially in an
advanced course. One administrator expanded on their school’s previously stated practice of
favoring the status quo by outlining that changes could be made if a teacher is “just doing a
67

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
horrible job in that particular teaching assignment.” A chair described how their school
occasionally reassigns unsuccessful advanced placement course teachers to lower level courses
to minimize parent complaints, noting, “I know, certain teachers may not want to teach the lower
levels, but…they will have to teach a lower level class because they might get a lot of parent
complaints.” Similarly, expounding on the role of continuity and the perceived importance of
having successful AP teachers, one administrator said:
I'm not going to tell the teacher that you can't teach AP US History anymore just because
I want a younger teacher to teach it, especially if they're doing a good job. If their test
scores are doing well, and their kids are finding success, I'm not going to take that away
from them. Typically, as far as if we move more veteran staff, it's typically because of
either their longitudinal AP data, or because there's just not enough students to take that
class. So it's one of those two reasons.
Part of the unwillingness to change who teaches advanced courses is logistical, with one leader
explaining:
I don't have a lot of turnover in terms of teachers teaching AP one year and then not
teaching AP the following year. Because there is a different process that we have to go
through with College Board in order to get that teacher “certified” through College Board
to be able to teach the AP level classes. So we try not to change that too much around at
least on my campus.
Lastly, it is important to note that while a majority of respondents described environments
where implicit seniority is meaningfully driving their schools’ course assignment processes,
many of these schools’ leaders explicitly rejected the role of seniority when asked. In response to
our question asking about the importance of seniority in their school’s course assignments, one
administrator said it had no role to play, before adding, “I think that in reality we do respect if
somebody is teaching a subject area and does not wish to move, we will not force them from that
subject area,” an apt description of the importance of implicit seniority. Another chair rejected
the importance of explicit seniority, stating, “I don't think seniority is that important at this
point,” but went on to describe an environment where their department deferred to maintaining
68

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
“consistency” in course assignments. Highlighting the disconnect in perceived importance of
seniority versus how it actually operates through status quo dynamics, one interviewee
responded to the question regarding seniority by saying that it did not, “necessarily [matter]
because of how long they've been teaching, but more, because that's just what they've been
doing.”
Teacher Attributes Beyond Seniority
Beyond teacher preferences, teachers’ skills and personality traits were the most
discussed attributes impacting course assignment. While teacher quality was the characteristic
most cited by respondents, teacher personality was the second most discussed characteristic.
Every single respondent discussed teacher quality as important, noting that teachers who have a
stronger grasp on material are more likely to be given higher-level courses. At the same time,
respondents emphasized the importance of personality and fit. More than half of the respondents
discuss the importance of teacher personality in assigning teachers to courses. One noted that
teachers "that have more empathy towards the students tend to get the lower level [courses]." All
seven department chairs in our sample mentioned trying to assign classes on the basis of teacher
personality concerns. One noted that for a particular math course, the teacher perceived as most
student-friendly was assigned to the senior students who struggled the most, as they would be
certain not to fail the students and impact graduation.
Teacher personality was repeatedly said to be considered in order to support students'
ability to succeed. The respondents also noted that there were specific student characteristics for
which specific teacher personality traits were most important. As mentioned, for low-achieving
students, school leaders noted the importance of matching an empathetic teacher. One
department chair noted that in the case of one less empathetic teacher for whom there were many
69

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
parent complaints, the assistant principal opted to move them to teach higher level courses
because that was where “the least harm would be done.”
In addition to student ability, student age was one of the most discussed student
characteristics, with leaders noting that younger students were also typically assigned to teachers
with particular personality traits seen as beneficial to "handling" a younger age group. One chair
explained that they felt capable at handling 9th graders but not 12th graders, “[12th grade] would
not be my forte, because I don’t have that sarcastic, quick wit that you can banter and talk to
them. But I banter with my 9th graders in a more playful way, in a more nurturing way.” Prior
experience with various student age groups was also a consideration for chairs assigning teachers
to courses, with one chair describing, “We thought we could put her into 9th or 10th grade,
depending on what slot we need, because we know that those are the age groups that she's
worked with before and she's familiar with."
Further, student behavior was an important factor in the assignment process, with more
senior teachers generally able to avoid teaching students who were struggling behaviorally at
their site. Another leader noted that they also thought there were certain teachers whose
personality traits made them more effective with behaviorally challenged students.
In many cases, age, ability, and behavioral challenges were discussed interchangeably.
Younger students as well as lower-level students were both referred to as more behaviorally
challenging than their older or higher-level peers. Outside of these characteristics, there was
relatively less weight given to student characteristics. Only three respondents gave any mention
of student background in the assignment process. All three respondents who mentioned
background later specified this population as their “LCAP students,” referring to English
Learners, foster youth, and homeless students. In these cases, respondents noted that these
70

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
students were typically hand scheduled to ensure they were in courses that would support their
success. For the general student population, however, student characteristics were largely
considered in light of how well different teachers could “handle” them, and whether these
student groups were fairly allocated across teachers.
Uneven Teacher Satisfaction
One assistant principal noted that the best way to improve teacher satisfaction would be
to tackle issues of seniority, arguing that "unintentional hierarchies" prevent new teachers from
having the same opportunities as those who have been teaching courses longer. Others noted that
while teacher happiness is put at a premium overall, some changes could be made to more
equitably distribute courses between teachers, agreeing that more senior teachers were generally
more satisfied than newer teachers. One argued that they would like to get to a point where each
teacher had “a fair schedule, when any person would be willing to take another person's schedule
and just be happy with it. Because there's nobody that kind of has the cake schedule, and
somebody else that has the difficult schedule.” While the respondents agreed that teacher
satisfaction was central to their assignment process, several respondents conceded that their
teachers may not all be equally happy.
One way that some sites promote more equitable assignment for teachers was through
assigning teachers using a high-low model. In this model, which was mentioned by more than a
third of our respondents, teachers are given a course load that is a mix of advanced and
lower-level courses. This results in teachers working with different subgroups of students
throughout the day. One leader explains, "I think that it's equitable... we've gotten to the point
where there's like an official policy [in] some departments [where] nobody is going to have all
AP, nobody is going to have all the high achieving kids, nobody's going to have all the low.
71

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
We're always going to have two preps, a higher level and a lower level. And so we're trying to be
really intentional about that process." The leader explicitly argued that this approach ensures
fairness amongst teachers, noting that if all teachers work with both higher- and lower-achieving
students, no teacher has the unfair benefit of teaching all of the advanced courses or the burden
of teaching all of the higher-need students. One respondent noted that while this still happens for
certain AP courses where there are certification limitations, they try to avoid having any teacher
"corner the market" in a way that is unfair to other teachers. Some leaders argued that there were
also benefits for students, noting that it was beneficial for all teachers to be working with all
student populations. However, most of the interviewees framed their school’s decision to use a
high-low model as a way to fairly distribute different types of students to teachers to promote
teacher happiness, rather than as a way to give lower-level students a chance to work with more
seasoned teachers who more typically work with advanced students.
Student Success and Equity
In contrast to the attention given to ensuring teacher satisfaction, most school leaders
acknowledged that the process did not do as much to guarantee student success and equity. While
equity looked slightly different among the participants in our sample, they generally understood
it as having a fair schedule for students and making sure high needs students had access to the
classes they needed.
Our data showed honoring teacher preferences was one of the main things that interfered
with doing what was actually best for students, the system is “an inequitable distribution of
teacher talent. I don't think we're using our skill sets properly” remarked one school leader. The
disconnection between teacher talents and what they were teaching versus where they could have
the most impact was attributed to the centering of teacher preferences in the course assignment
72

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
process. It is further evidenced by this school leader describing how equitable the process at their
school is: “Terrible. Teacher desires drive way too much of the decisions that we make. I've seen
individual teachers blow up the entire master schedule, because they intimidated the
administrator [to move a class] because they want to make their life easier, which creates a
domino effect.” This statement sums up well the general findings from our data; teachers were
centered in the process, often to the disadvantage of students’ success and equity. School leaders
often made comments similar to this response from a math department chair:
I think we've talked about this before to just make lines and say, these are the things that
we need, here's this line that we're going to create. And then teachers kind of choose from
that, versus me trying to match everybody's needs when they want. It's…great for
[teachers]. But to make it more equitable for the students, we really should just create the
lines of what the students need. And then teachers fill in those spaces versus what we do
now.
This quote suggests that instead of looking at what students need and addressing those, the
teacher assignment process looked at what teachers wanted and addressed them, making the
process less equitable and failing to ensure the success of students. Some leaders were concerned
about the impact of teacher centered processes on student learning and equity, noting “it gets
super challenging on the students, and more often than not, students are not getting their full
complement of courses that they would like.” Below is another example of how the system
prioritizes teachers over student success, a respondent explained that their school was failing at
prioritizing student learning:
I would say it's ineffective. I think that there is too much consideration of teacher
preference and not enough consideration of what would be the most effective for student
learning. So to be honest, I probably shouldn't be teaching AP, I should be teaching the
freshman seminar course, or I should be teaching 10th grade…. Because my ability to
manage that class after nine years in education, I feel more effective in getting an
understanding... Even though I am an effective AP teacher, my skills would probably be
better there. But I hate working with ninth graders. And that is part of the reason why I'm
73

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
not teaching ninth graders. So it's my preference, rather than what I would actually
probably be effective at.
A department chair in our sample stated that “to maximize student success, I think the
most tenured teachers should be teaching the toughest classes, and I would define tough as the
most classroom management. They may not be the most rigorous, but it's managing the course.”
However, the current focus on teacher preference meant that students having an equitable
experience may be dependent on teachers preferring to teach the students who would benefit the
most from their expertise and voluntarily making a choice as exemplified by this administrator:
“So as long as I have those strong teachers, choosing those low classes is great. But if I don't
have that anymore, the students are not going to have a great experience or that equitable
experience anymore.”
Some school leaders also talked about equity in terms of access to higher level classes
and making sure high needs students had what they needed to graduate. “Although, if we want to
get one step deeper into that we definitely don't have an equitable master schedule. Because if
you look at our data, our English learners do not take APs and our [learning disabled] students do
not take APs or honors courses. That's a whole other issue.” Another school leader said, “with
our special populations of students that are struggling, we typically will schedule their classes
first, just to make sure we lock them in at high school to make sure that they have you know,
math and English earlier in the day, and that they have teachers that we know will work really
well with them, too.” Here we see school leaders acting on the belief that by “paying special
attention to our students who need it the most, that it becomes an equitable practice.”
Overall, the sentiments expressed by school leaders are that students do not have an
equitable experience based on how the teacher course assignment process is structured but there
seems to be no steps taken to rectify the situation. One department chair trying to make changes
74

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
shared their frustration in the following way: “Since I'm not an administrator, though, I don't
always have the support. Because the administration just doesn't want to argue... Like they just
don't care enough. And so I think sometimes I would just like to push teachers a little bit more, to
try something new. And I can't really do that. Because if they complain, most of the time,
[administrators will] just be like, just give [the class] back to them. It doesn't matter.” It is in
instances like this where we see teachers using their capital to influence the process, pressuring
administrators to maintain the status quo.
Discussion
Issues of Seniority
In concurrence with the micropolitics literature, our respondents indicated that teacher
seniority frequently has an explicitly important role in schools’ course assignment processes
(Grissom et al., 2015; Iacconne, 1991; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). Teachers at such schools
hold various forms of capital that allow them the unique power to shape their course
assignments. Most importantly, our interviews indicate that seniority is an important form of
capital itself, as most school leaders indicated that the most seasoned teachers have the right to
simply ask for the courses they want, with such requests typically being honored. In practice,
seniority capital also affords teachers job security, as public schools typically lay teachers off in
reverse order of their hire date. Additionally, there may be a social capital component to the
importance of seniority within the course assignment process. Senior teachers likely have
stronger relationships with their fellow department members than more novice teachers, leading
to deference from these newer educators when making course requests. Several school leaders
reported that if a teacher had taught a course for many years, that other teachers would not
request to teach that course out of deference to their colleague. Only when the more senior
75

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
colleague vacated the course on their own was that course available to be requested again, even
if such a course would typically be seen as highly desirable to teach. Finally, senior teachers had
an edge in obtaining desirable advanced course assignments due to their prior experiences and
training. Administrators noted that the College Board requires teachers to complete workshops to
be eligible to teach Advanced Placement courses, which more experienced teachers are more
likely to have done. There was also a sense that senior teachers had earned the right to teach the
advanced courses by building instructional skills through teaching lower level courses. Leaders
noted that novice teachers must often pay their dues by teaching such courses before working
their way up to teaching the most advanced classes.
While we expected to find that seniority was consciously guiding school leaders in
secondary course assignment processes, we were surprised to find how often it unconsciously
guided matters as well. In fact, interviewees implicitly revealed that seniority was passively
enacted more often than it was intentionally enacted, a novel and essential finding. The passive
enactment of political capital stands contrary to a common application of the theory of
micropolitics in schooling, which suggests that school actors wield their capital actively to enact
their preferences (Grissom et al., 2015). Rather, it relates more tightly to arguments about the
difficulty of changing the status quo within schools, which Sarason (1990) argued, “Schools will
accommodate [change] in ways that require little or no change .... the strength of the status quo -
its underlying axioms, its pattern of power relationships, its sense of tradition and, therefore,
what seems right, natural, and proper almost automatically rules out options for change in that
status quo” (p. 35). In our interviews, we found numerous leaders arguing that while seniority
did not matter in course assignments, it made intuitive sense to everyone to just maintain the
status quo of such assignments. In the case of teacher assignment, we found that seniority is also
76

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
a form of passive capital respected by administrators and embedded in assignment processes.
Teachers need not actively invoke how many years they have been at a school to enact their
preferences. Rather, others shape the school world to such teachers’ liking, simply by keeping
things the way they have been.
One potential explanation for this deference to the status quo is a general desire for
school leaders to simultaneously avoid conflict with teachers and suppress conflict between
teachers. Malen and Cochran (2008) found that principals can legitimate their power by
preemptively quashing conflicts with teachers, allowing them to enact their own preferences.
Similarly, Marsh (2012) uncovered that, when given the choice of how to allocate bonuses to
teaching staff, teacher-leaders opted for a more egalitarian distribution system in large part to
avoid conflict, even when most teachers surveyed wanted to differentiate on the basis of
performance. In the current study, one department chair described an administrator coming in
with the idea to shake up the status quo of course assignment, only to back off once the chair
informed him that this would foment conflict within the department. Other administrators in our
study reported knowing that they ought to change the status quo for the good of teachers and
students. However, they also frequently stated that they did not feel it was possible for them to
ask for these changes without a pretext for doing so. Such pretexts described included a teacher
receiving parent complaints, a teacher’s students having poor outcomes in an advanced class, or
a teacher seeing declining student enrollment in elective courses. Without these things to point
to, the administrators in our study felt unable to interrupt the status quo and opted to instead
maintain it to avoid conflict
While we found a strong deference to the status quo within our interviews, there are some
potential benefits to maintaining continuity in assignments. Researchers have found that there are
77

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
negative impacts on quality for elementary teachers that switch grades (Blazar, 2015; Ost, 2014;
Rogers & Doan, 2019) and for secondary teachers that switch courses and subjects (Cook &
Mansfield, 2016). Cook and Mansfield (2016) in particular revealed that while much of teacher
quality can be ported from course to course, a significant minority of quality is dependent on the
course taught, and that such quality increases with repeated teaching of the same course. Thus,
reassigning teachers to new courses may lead to non-optimal distributions of teachers, as these
reassigned teachers are not teaching the course they are best at. Additionally, churning teachers
into different courses may risk them leaving, either to a job at another school or to another
profession entirely (Feng, 2010; Ost & Schiman, 2015). Concerns about losing reassigned
teachers may incentivize school leaders to maintain the status quo. In fact, in one interview, a
department chair noted that they feared giving a teacher an undesired assignment would lead to
them exiting the school to work elsewhere. Due to the potential positives of maintaining the
status quo and the potential negatives of disrupting it, it is unsurprising that many school leaders
will seek to uphold the status quo wherever possible.
Lastly, our findings corroborate the literature that more experienced teachers tend to get
assignments to courses perceived as more desirable, particularly AP and honors courses
(Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson, 2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012). This is a possible
equity concern, as it leaves less experienced teachers to teach lower-level courses that contain
disproportionately low-income, minoritized, and academically at-risk students (Goldhaber et al.,
2015; Kalogrides et al., 2012; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Rogers & Doan, 2019).
Teacher Preferences vs. Student Equity
Our findings indicated that one of the main priorities in the course assignment process
was to maximize teacher satisfaction. The literature notes that there are generally three actors
78

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
with influence in the course assignment process: teachers, who have preferences over the courses
they are assigned, department chairs, who convert preferences into initial assignments,and
administrators who either approve or make changes to these assignments (Paufler &
Amrein-Beardsley, 2014). In our findings, we saw that the actors involved in this process
generally avoided making changes that did not center teacher preferences, unless there were
structural limitations to doing so. Different stakeholders argued that there are compelling reasons
to honor teacher preferences. Many of the administrators who know that they do their best to
accommodate teacher preferences argue that by maximizing teacher preferences there are
benefits to students, sharing that when teachers are happy, they do a better job in their
classrooms. Department chairs similarly argued that teacher retention hinged upon maximizing
teacher wellbeing in this process, commenting that they felt their teachers would quit if they
were assigned too many different courses. Matching teacher preferences in the course assignment
process is of great import to teachers. The daily experience of a teacher throughout a 10-month
school year is substantively impacted by the courses that they are assigned to teach, so
maximizing teacher preferences in the course assignment process has an outsize impact on
improving teacher satisfaction overall.
It is logical that teachers would prefer to teach courses they personally enjoy teaching.
Further, it is also logical that they would prefer to avoid courses they perceive as particularly
challenging, such as those containing students that are perceived as more difficult to manage
(Grissom et al., 2015). While honoring teacher preferences has a number of crucial benefits to
school actors, these preferences can be in tension with what is equitable for students. The
literature argues that teachers see higher level courses, such as AP and honors level courses, as
preferable assignments to general education courses which in turn are seen as preferable
79

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
assignments to remedial level courses (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018).
Indeed, this is what we found in our study. One practice that was discussed to best accommodate
teacher preferences within a department was the practice of high-low course assignment. The
goal of this approach is that all teachers are given a mix of higher level and lower level courses,
so that no teacher has what is deemed an unfair schedule. Lower level courses are seen as a
burdensome assignment whereas higher level courses are seen as a preferable one. The literature
argues that this belief comes from the perception that higher ability students are easier to work
with and that they have fewer behavioral issues (Lieberman & Clayton, 2018; Monk, 1987). So,
a desirable schedule is one that has courses with a greater number of high-ability, or "easy"
students, while a less desirable schedule has a greater number of lower-ability, or "difficult"
students.
When teacher preferences are such that courses with lower-ability students are seen as
undesirable assignments, this means that teachers with more capital are less likely to teach these
courses. In our study, the teachers with the most capital to impact the course assignment process
were senior teachers. In other words, when teacher preferences are centered, the most
experienced teachers are least likely to work with the highest need students. While a great deal
has been said about the role of locality in talent placement, research has shown that there is
greater variation in teacher quality within rather than between schools (Hanushek et al., 2005;
Jeong & Luschei, 2019; Thiemann, 2018). The literature has established that students with higher
quality teachers on measures including qualifications, classroom management efficacy,
pedagogical skills, and value added, had higher achievement than their peers (Goe, 2007; Harris
& Sass, 2011; Jackson, 2014; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Phillips, 2010). Phillips (2010) reported a
notable finding, discovering that students considered at risk for low achievement were especially
80

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
sensitive to variations in teacher quality. As Hanushek et al. (2005) note large variations in
teacher quality within schools, how these teachers are sorted will thus greatly impact student
achievement.
Teacher assignment could be a powerful lever to maximizing student equity, by assigning
the highest quality teachers to the student populations in need of the most support. However, our
findings indicate that teacher preferences seem to be in tension with the goal of maximizing
student equity. This is particularly concerning knowing that historically marginalized
populations, such as students of color and low income students, are disproportionately taught by
less experienced and lower quality teachers (Feng, 2010; Flores, 2007; Goldhaber et al., 2015;
Kalogrides et al., 2012). When marginalized student populations are concentrated into courses
that are seen as less desirable assignments, the act of maximizing teacher preferences exacerbates
existing inequities for students.
We found that department chairs and administrators alike feel that they satisfied teacher
preferences throughout the course assignment process. Administrators and department chairs
alike noted that teachers are generally happy with the courses that they are assigned, with one's
department chair saying that they feel that they cater to the teachers at their site. Throughout our
conversations, every single interviewee spoke extensively about how they worked to honor
teacher preferences in the course assignment process. Some of the leaders asserted that this was
in fact an issue, arguing that teachers were centered in the process at the expense of students.
One respondent admitted that while they dislike working with younger students and prefer
working with the AP population, given their experience in education, it would probably be more
effective for them to teach the 9th grade students who have greater needs. Another chair noted
81

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
that the most tenured teachers should be teaching the courses with the most classroom
management needs, as these students benefit the most from having experienced teachers.
However, honoring teacher preferences led to the opposite outcome, with inequitable and
inefficient disbursement of teacher talent to students at their site. This sentiment was echoed
throughout our findings, with leaders noting that teachers exert their influence to avoid teaching
these undesirable courses when possible, centering their preferences rather than student needs.
Even in departments such as those that practiced a high-low approach, the practice was argued
from the standpoint of maximizing teacher well-being throughout a department. Equity amongst
teachers, rather than amongst students, was the goal. While leaders noted that there may be
benefits to students when all populations have an equal chance of having an experienced or
inexperienced teacher, this was not the rationale for instating a high-low process, but rather was a
positive side effect. The goal instead was to ensure that no teacher had an unfair schedule,
meaning a schedule with a greater number of "difficult" students than other teachers in their
department. Even in the approaches that led to enhanced student equity, teachers were centered
in the process, not students.
82

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Chapter Four: Study 2: Who Teaches Lower-Level Courses: Examining
Teacher Characteristics, Course Assignments, and Teacher Turnover
By: Michael Fienberg and Dr. Adam Kho
Micropolitics theory argues that teachers gain political capital through increased
experience (Grissom et al., 2015), giving them more latitude to shape decisions such as those
made in secondary school course assignment processes. Non-AP and non-Honors classes
containing younger students are considered less desirable to teach, likely due to behavioral issues
(Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). With that in mind, this current study
explores how teacher overall experience and teacher experience at their current school (hereafter
referred to as seniority), in conjunction with other teacher demographic characteristics, is
associated with assignment to teach lower-level courses with a school’s youngest students, such
as 6th grade, 9th grade, and Algebra I classes. Additionally, as being required to teach unwanted
courses is likely associated with lower teacher job satisfaction, we examine how assignment to
such courses is associated with the likelihood of teachers exiting their jobs. From those goals, we
ask:
1. What is the association between teacher experience and the likelihood of teaching the
lowest grade at a school? What is the association between teacher experience and the
likelihood of teaching Algebra I at the high school level?
2. To what extent are teachers teaching lower-level courses or Algebra I more likely to
move schools or leave the profession? Does this relationship differ for teachers of
different subjects?
83

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Methodology
Data Source, Variables, and Sample Characteristics
To examine the relationships between high school teacher experience, course assignment,
and turnover, we utilize data from the nationally representative National Teacher and Principal
Survey (NTPS) administrations from 2016, 2018, and 2021, as well as from its predecessor, the
School and Staffing Survey (SASS) administrations from 2008 and 2012. These studies
randomly sampled approximately 1-4 teachers per school from tens of thousands of randomly
selected schools drawn from across the United States. These surveys ask teachers about their
demographic characteristics, educational backgrounds, job particulars, school settings, and
opinions on issues facing their schools. The 2008 and 2012 SASS data also include follow-up
survey data in which principals were asked to report in the respective following years whether
teachers were still teaching at their school, were teaching elsewhere, or had left the profession.
Principals provided this follow-up data for approximately 75% of the surveyed teachers. This
missingness could plausibly impact the accuracy of our ability to distinguish findings between
those teachers teaching elsewhere and those who have left the profession, as there may be a
differential likelihood of principals not being able to identify teachers’ new locations as a
function of their mode of exit. However, this should not affect our investigations into teachers
who exited their school for any reason, as it does not depend on where a teacher moved
following their departure from their school. For the complete list of variables, see Table 2 below.
Table 2: Variables of Interest for Study 2
Variable Purpose Type Description
Teaching Algebra I Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught Algebra I
in the prior school year, 0 if they taught
another math course.
84

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
(RQ2)
Teaching 9th
Graders
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught 9th graders
in the prior school year, 0 if they taught
10th-12th graders.
Teaching 6th
Graders
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught 6th graders
in the prior school year, 0 if they taught
7th-8th graders.
Percentage of Math
Sections Taught That
Were Algebra I
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Continuous Returns the proportion of math sections
taught that were Algebra I courses
Percentage of
Sections Taught That
Were 9th Grade
Classes
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Continuous Returns the percentage of high school
sections taught that were 9th grade
courses
Percentage of
Sections Taught That
Were 6th Grade
Classes
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Continuous Returns the percentage of middle
school sections taught that were 6th
grade courses
Teacher Exited
School for Any
Reason
Outcome Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher has exited their
prior year’s school to either teach
elsewhere or to leave the profession, 0
if they are still teaching at their prior
year’s school
Teacher Left the
Profession
Outcome Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher left the
profession, 0 if they remain as a teacher
either at their prior year’s school or a
new school
Teacher Moved to a
New School
Outcome Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher left to teach at
another school, 0 if they remain as a
teacher at their prior year’s school.
Teacher Overall
Experience
Predictor Continuous How many years of experience a
teacher has in the profession
Teacher Experience
at Current School
Predictor
(RQ1),
Continuous How many years of experience a
teacher has at their current school
85

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Covariate
(RQ2)
Teacher Race Covariate Polychotomous A teacher’s stated race/ethnicity
Teacher Gender Covariate Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher is female, 0
otherwise.
Teacher
Undergraduate
Major
Covariate Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher majored in the
subject they teach as an undergraduate,
0 otherwise
Teacher Graduate
Degree
Covariate Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher has a Master’s
Degree or above, 0 otherwise
Number of Math
Sections Taught
Covariate Polychotomous The number of math courses that a
teacher reported teaching
Number of Sections
Taught
Covariate Polychotomous The number of courses that a teacher
reported teaching
Number of Teachers Covariate Discrete Returns the number of teachers at the
teacher’s school
We use all five years of data to establish the link between experience and course
assignment. Because follow-up surveys are unavailable for the latter three years, we can only
include the 2008 and 2012 SASS data for the turnover analyses. We focus on public school
teachers, and as we wanted to omit the likelihood of teachers retiring (rather than due to course
assignment), we restricted this sample to teachers with less than 30 years of experience who were
under 62 years old, as these are common benchmarks for retirement. Our analysis includes a
final sample size of 121,270 teachers across all five years of the data, of whom 66,970 taught at a
high school, 36,000 at a middle school, and the remaining 18,300 at a combined school. Our
sample included 52,220 teachers for the two years with turnover data, of whom 31,570 taught at
a high school, 14,070 at a middle school, and 6,580 at a combined school.
86

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
We had hoped to include further school-level data in our analysis, such as school
performance, economic status, and minority enrollment. Unfortunately, such information was not
in the available data sets; the only information available was the school’s urbanicity and state.
Our attempts to link unique school IDs within the data sets led to very high levels of
missingness, making any potential analyses including the linked school-level variables
unreliable. In light of this, we opted to exclude such variables from this analysis, instead
focusing on the reliable data we had at our disposal, leaving the exploration of several
school-level variables for the third study, which has more robust and reliable school-level data.
In Tables 3-5, we report the survey-weighted characteristics of our sample for high
school, middle school, and high school math teachers, and such characteristics disaggregated by
teachers’ years of experience at their specific school. Teachers were divided into approximate
quartiles: about 32.8% of teachers had 3 or fewer years of experience at their current school,
22.9% of teachers had 4-7 years of experience, 22.3% of teachers had 8-14 years of experience,
and 21.8% had 15+ years of experience; these proportions were similar regardless of school
level. The average teacher had 9.0 years of experience at their school and 13.8 years of
experience overall, means that were nearly identical for middle and high school teachers.
Table 3. Weighted Descriptive Statistics of the High School Teachers for Study 2
Characteristic
Full Sample
School-Specific Experience
0-3 Years 4-7 Years 8-14 Years 15+ Years
Teacher
Years at School 9.3 (8.2) 1.9 (0.8) 5.3 (1.1) 10.7 (2.0) 22.0 (6.2)
Total Years Teaching
Experience
14.0 (9.8) 7.7 (8.0) 10.9 (7.7) 15.2 (6.9) 24.5 (7.3)
87

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Teaches 9th Graders 72.4% 76.4% 73.5% 70.4% 67.8%
# of 9th Grade Sections
Taught
1.08 (1.57) 1.22 (1.68) 1.08 (1.58) 1.00 (1.50) 0.93 (1.44)
% of Sections taught that
are 9th Grade
28.2 (34.2) 33.1 (36.2) 28.8 (34.3) 25.7 (32.5) 23.9 (32.0)
Male 41.9% 40.6% 40.6% 41.8% 45.1%
White 85.4% 82.1% 84.2% 86.4% 90.1%
Black 5.7% 7.4% 6.2% 4.8% 3.8%
Hispanic 6.4% 7.6% 7.0% 6.4% 4.1%
Asian 2.5% 3.1% 2.6% 2.2% 1.8%
Union Member 70.0% 60.7% 67.3% 75.4% 80.2%
School
City 25.5% 28.5% 27.0% 24.2% 21.0%
Suburb 32.0% 29.1% 31.6% 34.1% 34.4%
Town 17.2% 16.5% 15.9% 17.3% 19.2%
Rural 25.3% 25.9% 25.5% 24.3% 25.5%
Moved Schools 6.0% 10.5% 5.8% 3.2% 1.7%
Exited Profession 2.2% 2.3% 1.3% 1.8% 4.0%
Left School for Any Reason 11.3% 18.8% 9.5% 6.4% 6.9%
N 66,970 20,920 15,480 15,370 15,200
Notes: Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples.
88

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 4. Weighted Descriptive Statistics of the Middle School Teachers for Study 2
Characteristic Full Sample
School-Specific Experience
0-3 Years 4-7 Years 8-14 Years 15+ Years
Teacher
Years at School 8.8 (7.8) 1.9 (0.8) 5.3 (1.1) 10.7 (2.0) 21.3 (5.7)
Total Years Teaching
Experience
13.8 (9.4) 8.0 (7.8) 11.1 (7.6) 15.5 (6.9) 23.9 (7.0)
Teaches 6th Graders 49.5% 50.2% 50.5% 49.1% 47.9%
# of 6th Grade Sections
Taught
1.1 (1.9) 1.0 (1.8) 1.1 (1.9) 1.1 (1.9) 1.1 (1.9)
% of Sections taught that
are 6th Grade
28.1 (39.1) 28.2 (39.0) 28.7 (39.5) 27.8 (38.9) 27.5 (38.8)
Male 28.8% 27.8% 28.4% 28.5% 31.1%
White 84.7% 81.1% 83.3% 86.6% 89.8%
Black 6.5% 8.7% 6.8% 5.3% 4.1%
Hispanic 6.6% 8.1% 7.5% 6.0% 3.9%
Asian 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9%
Union Member 72.6% 63.6% 71.0% 77.9% 82.6%
School
City 24.2% 27.3% 26.0% 21.6% 20.1%
89

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Suburb 35.6% 32.3% 35.1% 39.2% 37.2%
Town 18.6% 18.6% 17.3% 17.4% 21.5%
Rural 21.6% 21.8% 21.6% 21.8% 21.3%
Moved Schools 8.2% 11.9% 9.3% 5.5% 3.2%
Exited Profession 2.7% 2.8% 2.0% 1.9% 4.7%
Left School for Any Reason 14.1% 20.6% 13.6% 8.9% 8.6%
N 36,000 11,900 8,290 8,110 7,700
Notes: Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 5. Weighted Descriptive Statistics of High School Math Teachers for Study 2
Characteristic Full Sample
School-Specific Experience
0-3 Years 4-7 Years 8-14 Years 15+ Years
Teacher
Years at School 8.8 (8.2) 1.9 (0.8) 5.3 (1.1) 10.7 (2.0) 21.9 (6.1)
Total Years Teaching
Experience
14.0 (9.5) 7.9 (7.3) 10.3 (6.9) 15.3 (7.5) 23.9 (6.9)
Teaches Algebra I 40.3% 46.4% 39.7% 37.2% 34.4%
# of Math Sections Taught 4.2 (1.8) 4.1 (1.8) 4.2 (1.8) 4.2 (1.8) 4.2 (1.7)
% of Math Sections taught
that are Algebra I
12.5 (26.1) 15.9 (29.4) 12.4 (25.8) 10.8 (24.2) 8.8 (21.5)
90

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Bachelors in Math 53.4% 48.6% 52.3% 54.3% 61.7%
Certification to Teach Math 74.1% 72.9% 73.7% 74.9% 75.9%
Male 43.6% 43.4% 42.8% 42.8% 45.4%
White 85.7% 82.0% 84.6% 87.8% 90.8%
Black 5.5% 7.3% 5.9% 3.7% 3.7%
Hispanic 4.9% 5.9% 5.6% 4.7% 2.8%
Asian 3.6% 4.5% 3.6% 3.5% 2.2%
Union Member 67.4% 58.7% 64.5% 73.5% 78.7%
School
City 24.5% 27.7% 25.8% 23.5% 19.2%
Suburb 29.5% 27.2% 30.0% 30.8% 31.4%
Town 15.7% 15.0% 14.7% 16.6% 16.9%
Rural 30.3% 30.2% 29.6% 29.1% 32.6%
Moved Schools 6.9% 12.5% 7.2% 2.2% 1.3%
Exited Profession 2.5% 2.7% 1.7% 2.1% 4.0%
Left School for Any Reason 13.0% 22.0% 11.2% 5.2% 7.1%
N 13,160 4,410 3,120 2,890 2,750
Notes: Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
91

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Related to the first research question, as a whole, 72.4% of high school teachers in a
given year taught at least one course with 9th graders, 40.3% of high school math teachers taught
Algebra I, and 49.5% of middle school teachers taught 6th graders. However, when
disaggregating these numbers by teacher experience, the least experienced teachers were the
most likely to teach 9th graders, Algebra I, and 6th graders. Over three-quarters of high school
teachers with 0-3 years of school experience taught 9th graders (76.4%), while just over
two-thirds of teachers with 15+ years of experience did so (67.8%). Middle schools showed less
of a dropoff, with 50.2% of the newest teachers instructing 6th graders compared to 47.9% of the
most experienced teachers. Algebra I courses showed the steepest difference: nearly half of the
teachers (46.4%) with 0-3 years experience at the school taught Algebra I, but the most
experienced teachers were the least likely to do so, at about a third (34.4%). Similar patterns
emerge for the percentage of sections taught being lowest-level students. Overall, 33.1% of high
school sections taught were 9th-grade courses, 28.2% of middle school sections taught were
6th-grade courses, and 12.5% of high school math sections taught by math teachers were Algebra
I. Again, these numbers showed steep dropoffs for the most experienced high school teachers
and high school math teachers (23.9% and 8.8%), but only a gentle decrease for the most
experienced middle school teachers (27.5%).
For the research question focused on teacher job status compared to the prior school year,
for high school, 11.3% of teachers had exited their school for any reason, 6.0% had moved to
teach at another school, and 2.2% had left the profession. When focusing on these mobility
variables on the basis of school experience, teachers with 3 years or fewer of school experience
were much more likely than their peers with 15+ years of experience to exit the school (18.8%
vs. 6.9%) or move to another school (10.5% vs. 1.7%), while the more experienced teachers
92

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
were more likely to leave the profession entirely (4.0% vs. 2.3%). Similar trends were found at
the middle school level. 14.1% of teachers had left their school for any reason, 8.2% had moved
to teach at another school, and 2.7% had exited the profession. Again, teachers with less
experience were more likely to move school or exit their school for any reason, while teachers
with more experience were more likely to leave the profession.
In other teacher characteristics, 37.1% of the teachers reported being male, with that rate
increasing marginally from 35.8% to 39.9% as teachers gained school experience. High schools
tended to have higher proportions of male teachers than middle schools, with 41.9% compared to
28.8%. Racially, 85.2% of the sample was white, 6.0% was Black, 6.4% was Hispanic, and 2.3%
was Asian. The more experienced teacher categories had relatively lower rates of teachers of
color, with 90.2% of 15+ year experienced teachers being white compared to 81.8% of teachers
with 0-3 years of experience. These rates and trends were comparable across school levels.
69.0% of sampled teachers were union members, with that number increasing markedly as
school experience increased: 79.9% of the most experienced teachers were union members,
while only 59.7% of the least experienced teachers were. Again, these proportions and patterns
were similar between middle and high school teachers.
Analytical Strategy
We use linear probability models (LPMs) to answer our research questions. We also ran
logistic regression models, but as the results were substantially similar, we opted to report our
findings as linear probabilities to make them easier to interpret. For question 1, our outcomes
were binary indicators constructed using teachers’ self-reports of whether they taught
lowest-grade students (6th or 9th, depending on school type) or Algebra I in the given year. We
operationalize our primary independent variables as teachers’ overall years of experience as well
93

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
as years of experience at their current school. Additionally, we control for teacher demographic
and professional characteristics, such as gender, race, undergraduate major, subject credential,
number of math sections taught, and union status. We also accounted for school factors such as
size and urbanicity. These control variables were either hypothesized within the literature to have
potential connections to assignment patterns, such as teacher gender, race, undergraduate major,
credential, and school urbanicity (Bastian & Janda, 2018; Clotfelter et al., 2004; Hanushek et al.,
2005; Kalogrides et al., 2012; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013), or were found to be significantly
associated with the outcomes and alter the predictor slope coefficients from the unconditional
models. For a complete list of variables, see Table 2 above.
As patterns in teacher assignment may differ from state to state, we include a state-level
fixed effect. Moreover, with five years to account for in the first research question, we
additionally utilized a year-level fixed effect. Lastly, as teachers can plausibly teach both
lower-level students and higher-level ones, as well as Algebra I and advanced courses, we also
re-operationalize our teaching outcome variable as the percent of sections of a teacher’s courses
taught that was the outcome variable of interest (teaching 6th grade, 9th grade, or Algebra I). We
apply the respective survey weights for each dataset. Each outcome variable led to a different
sample restriction: for the 6th grade teaching outcomes, only middle school teachers at 6-8th
grade schools were included; for 9th grade teaching outcomes, only high school teachers at
9-12th grade schools were included; for Algebra I teaching outcomes, only high school math
teachers at 9-12th grade schools were included.
A general model for this work, Model 1, takes the following form:
Model 1: 𝑌(𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑖𝑡
) = α
𝑖𝑞𝑠𝑡
+ β
1
(𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑖𝑡
) + 𝑉
𝑠 + 𝑋
𝑖𝑡
+ Υ
𝑞
+ Ψ
𝑡
+ ϵ
𝑖𝑞𝑠𝑡
Within this model, we predict teacher i assignments that occur within schools s, which
are nested within states q, which occur in varying years t. Y represents teacher assignment to the
94

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
course of interest, whether as the binary or continuous operationalization. The parameter of
interest β reports the relative increase or decrease in assignment as a function of a teacher’s
1
overall experience or school experience, depending on the model. The vector of school controls
is represented by V, while the vector of teacher controls is represented by X. Υ and represent
𝑞
Ψ
𝑡
state- and year-fixed effects respectively.
For research question 2, we use three binary outcome variables related to teacher
mobility. The first is an indicator for teachers who transfer to teach at another school; we label
these teachers “movers” and contrast them with those who stay to teach at their school the
following year. The second is an indicator for teachers who exit the teaching profession entirely;
we label these teachers “leavers” and contrast them with teachers who remained in the profession
the following year, whether at their school or another school. Our third and final outcome
variable is an indicator for teachers who leave a school for any reason, whether to teach at
another school or to exit the profession entirely - “movers and leavers.” We contrast them to
those teachers who stay to teach at their school the following year. For all three of these
outcomes, we use our two operationalizations of teaching our lower-level students (the binary
indicator of whether a teacher teaches 6th/9th/Algebra I at all and a continuous variable that
reports the percentage of a teacher’s sections that consist of lower level courses) in six separate
models. To be clear, we do not claim causal relationships in any of these analyses but provide
correlational evidence of the relationships between teacher experience, assignment to lower-level
students, and teacher turnover.
These models, represented by Model 2, take the general form:
Model 2:
𝑌(𝑚𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑖𝑡
) = α
𝑖𝑞𝑠𝑡
+ β
1
(𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑖
) + β
2
(𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑖𝑡
) + 𝑉
𝑠 + 𝑋
𝑖𝑡
+ Υ
𝑞
+ Ψ
𝑡
+ ϵ
𝑖𝑞𝑠𝑡
95

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
This general model takes a very similar form to the model for research question 1. The
primary difference is that the outcome is the three mobility variables, while the key predictor is
course assignment, with seniority shifting to be a control. The school and teacher vectors as well
as state- and time-fixed effects remain the same.
Due to the nested nature of these models, clustered robust standard errors were employed
at the state level. Diagnostics indicated that the relationships between seniority and assignment,
as well as assignment and mobility, were approximately linear in nature, making the linear
probability models appropriate. As mentioned above, we also explored using logistic models but
found the results were directionally identical and substantially similar in their significance,
making us confident in utilizing the linear models described in this section.
Results
Research Question 1
Our first research question examines the relationships between teacher overall and
school-specific experience and assignment to teach 6th grade, 9th grade, or Algebra I. In Panel A
of Tables 6-8, we operationalize the outcome as a series of binary variables that represent
teaching any 6th grade, 9th grade, or Algebra I classes. In Panel B, we operationalize the
outcomes as the percentage of math sections taught that are 6th grade, 9th grade, or Algebra I. In
Model 1, we first examine how teachers’ overall years of teaching experience predict assignment
to lower-level classes or to Algebra I. We then focus on teachers’ years of experience at the
current school in Model 2.
Table 6. Probability of 9th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience
(1) (2)
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches 9th Grade (Binary)
96

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.00221***
(0.000241)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.00362***
(0.000297)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 9th Grade
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.281***
(0.0193)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.390***
(0.023)
Observations 66970 66970
Table 7. Probability of Algebra I Assignments based on Teaching Experience
(1) (2)
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches Algebra I (Binary)
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.0051***
(0.0006)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.0079***
(0.0007)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Math Sections Taught
that are Algebra I
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.382***
(0.041)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.580***
(0.048)
Observations 12770 12770
97

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Table 8. Probability of 6th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience
(1) (2)
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches 6th Grade (Binary)
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
0.00144***
(0.000393)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.000393
(0.000477)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 6th Grade
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
0.101**
(0.0349)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.0127
(0.0412)
Observations 36000 36000
Notes: Robust clustered standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher gender, race,
undergraduate major, subject credential, number of math sections taught, and union status, as
well as the school’s urbanicity and student population size. We also include a state and year
fixed effect. Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples.
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
We find that increased overall experience and school-specific experience are both
significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of teaching 9th grade and Algebra I , but the
magnitude of the coefficient for school-specific experience is greater (Tables 6 and 7 Panels A).
Each additional year of overall teaching experience is associated with a 0.2 percentage point
98

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
decrease in the likelihood of teaching a 9th grade course and a 0.5 percentage point decrease in
the likelihood of teaching Algebra I. When focusing on school-specific experience, each
additional year is associated with a 0.4 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of teaching
9th grade and a 0.8 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of teaching Algebra I. As just
about half of early career teachers in our sample taught Algebra I, this implies that by the time a
teacher is at a school for 20 years, that fraction would reduce to less than a third, something
corroborated by the descriptive statistics.
Intriguingly, the 6th grade findings differed greatly from the relationships uncovered at
the high school level (Table 8 Panel A). Teacher overall experience was significantly predictive
of an increase in likelihood of teaching 6th grade, with each additional year of experience
associated with a 0.1 percentage point increase in likelihood. In contrast, school-specific
experience was not significantly associated with the likelihood of teaching 6th grade.
We find similar patterns when examining the percentage of 9th grade, Algebra I, and 6th
grade sections taught. Each additional year of overall experience was associated with a 0.3
percentage point decrease in the proportion of a high school teacher’s course load that consisted
of 9th grade (Table 6 Panel B), a 0.4 percentage point decrease in the proportion of a math
teacher’s course load that consisted of Algebra I sections (Table 7 Panel B), and a 0.1 percentage
point increase in the proportion of a middle school teacher’s course load that consisted of 6th
grade sections (Table 8 Panel A). Each additional year of school-specific experience was
associated with a 0.4 percentage point decrease for 9th grade (Table 6 Panel B), a 0.6 percentage
point decrease for Algebra I (Table 7 Panel B), and was not significantly associated for 6th grade
(Table 8 Panel B).
99

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Further, to see if the uncovered 9th grade trends held across various subjects, separate
models were run to explore the association between experience and assignment exclusively on
teachers of each of the four core academic subjects: math, English, science, and social science.
As the 6th grade experience to assignment connection was inconsistent even in the full sample,
follow-ups were also conducted on the subject sub-samples, but no significant associations were
found. For 9th grade teachers, the effects described above remained significant and directionally
identical for all four sub-samples of teachers at both the middle school and high school levels.
While the point estimates varied, there were no meaningful differences in the relationship
between experience and assignment across the various academic subjects. For 9th grade teachers,
these estimates ranged from a decrease in assignment of 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points per year of
school experience depending on the subject, with social science and English showing the
strongest relationships, followed by math and science. For an abridged summary showing the
point estimates for assignment to 9th grade as a function of experience by subject, see Table 9
below:
Table 9: Predicting Assignment to 9th grade by Experience in the 4 Core Subjects
Math Science English Social Science
Overall
Experience
-0.00445***
(0.000588)
-0.00275***
(0.000689)
-0.00594***
(0.000645)
-0.00536***
(0.000717)
School Specific
Experience
-0.00532***
(0.000733)
-0.00444***
(0.000868)
-0.00677***
(0.000761)
-0.00702***
(0.000867)
Observations 10,610 8,590 11,150 8,760
Notes: Robust clustered standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher gender, race,
undergraduate major, subject credential, number of math sections taught, and union status, as
well as the school’s urbanicity and the number of teachers at a school. We also include a state
and year fixed effect. Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of
IES dataset samples.
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
100

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Research Question 2
Our second research question focuses on the connection between teaching lower grades
or Algebra I and departing from one’s school at the end of a school year. We examined three
types of school departures: “movers,” “leavers,” and “movers/leavers.” See Tables 10-12 for our
results.
Table 10. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience and Teaching
9th Grade
Moves or
Leaves
Profession
Moves Leaves
Profession
Outcome (1) (2) (3)
Panel A. Independent Variable = Teaches 9th Grade (Binary)
Teaches 9th Grade 0.00861 0.0113**
-0.00320
(0.00571) (0.00410) (0.00280)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00505***
-0.00422*** 0.00126***
(0.000381) (0.000256) (0.000222)
Panel B. Independent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 9th Grade
Percentage of Sections Taught
that are 9th Grade
0.000192* 0.000175**
-0.0000559
(0.0000842) (0.0000640) (0.0000371)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00511
***
-0.00425*** 0.00123***
(0.000401) (0.000282) (0.000238)
101

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Observations 30150 28310 29080
Table 11. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience and Teaching
Algebra I
Moves or
Leaves
Profession
Moves Leaves
Profession
Outcome (1) (2) (3)
Panel A. Independent Variable = Teaches Algebra I (Binary)
Teaches Algebra I 0.0269* 0.0154 0.0075
(0.0131) (0.0100) (0.0057)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.0069***
-0.0058*** 0.0009+
(0.0009) (0.0006) (0.0005)
Panel B. Independent Variable = Percentage of Math Sections
Taught that are Algebra I
Percentage of Math Sections
Taught that are Algebra I
0.0004+ 0.0003+ 0.00003
(0.0002) (0.0002) (0.00008)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.0069***
-0.0057*** 0.0009+
(0.0009) (0.0006) (0.0005)
Observations 5460 5690 5320
Table 12. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience and Teaching
6th Grade
Moves or
Leaves
Profession
Moves Leaves
Profession
Outcome (1) (2) (3)
102

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Panel A. Independent Variable = Teaches 6th Grade (Binary)
Teaches 6th Grade -0.0260**
-0.0121 -0.0111
*
(0.00984) (0.00823) (0.00474)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00573***
-0.00438*** 0.00122**
(0.000724) (0.000571) (0.000389)
Panel B. Independent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 6th Grade
Percentage of Sections Taught
that are 6th Grade
-0.000217 -0.0000760 -0.0000687
(0.000150) (0.000132) (0.000070)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00537***
-0.00448*** 0.00124**
(0.000821) (0.000656) (0.000450)
Observations 13730 13230 12900
Notes: Robust clustered standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher gender, race,
undergraduate major, subject credential, number of math sections taught, and union status, as
well as the school’s urbanicity and student population size. We also include a state fixed effect.
Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset samples.
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13.
Model 1 in each table (Tables 10-12) investigates teachers who left their school for any
reason (inclusive of both movers and leavers). We find that 9th grade teachers were not
significantly more likely to exit their school (Table 10 Panel A), although each one percentage
point increase in the percentage of 9th grade sections taught was significantly associated with a
0.02 percentage point increase in the likelihood of exiting their school (Table 10 Panel B). As
20% of a course load is typically equivalent to one class taught, each additional 9th grade section
103

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
taught was implicitly predictive of a 0.4 percentage point increase in the likelihood of exiting
one’s school.
In contrast, Algebra I is significantly associated with an increased likelihood of a teacher
exiting their school. Algebra I teachers are 2.7 percentage points more likely to exit than their
peers who do not teach the course (Table 11 Panel A). Similarly, each one percentage point
increase in the percentage of Algebra I sections taught is associated with a 0.04 percentage point
increase in the likelihood of exiting their school, though this relationship is only significant at the
10% level (Table 11 Panel B). Again, this implies that each one-section increase in Algebra I
classes assigned to a teacher predicts a 0.8 percentage point increase in the likelihood of exiting
one’s school.
Counter to these increases, the models showed the 6th grade teachers were significantly
less likely to exit their school, with 6th grade teachers 2.6 percentage points less likely to exit
than their peers who do not teach that grade (Table 12 Panel A). However, increasing the
proportion of 6th grade sections taught was not significantly associated with the likelihood of
exiting a school (Table 12 Panel B).
We then separate movers and leavers in Columns 2 and 3 of Tables 10-12. When looking
at 9th grade teachers, we found that such teachers were significantly more likely to move to
teach at another school, with 9th grade instructors moving to teach elsewhere 1.1 percentage
points more than their peers (Table 10 Panel A). Similarly, each one percentage point increase in
the percentage of 9th grade sections taught was associated with a 0.02 percentage point increase
in moving likelihood (Table 10 Panel B). Again, using 20% as being typical of one class taught,
this result implies that each one-section increase in 9th grade sections predicts a 0.4 percentage
point increase in moving likelihood.
104

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Across both outcomes and both operationalizations of teaching Algebra I, we find
consistently positive but non-significant results where those teaching Algebra I or more
percentages of Algebra I are more likely to move or leave (Table 11 Panel A). However, the
proportion of Algebra I sections taught was significantly associated with an increase in the
likelihood of moving to another school at the 10% level. Each percentage point increase in
Algebra I sections taught was predictive of a 0.03 percentage point increase in the likelihood of a
teacher moving from their school to teach at another school the following year (Table 11 Panel
B). This implies that each one-section increase in Algebra I classes assigned to a teacher predicts
a 0.6 percentage point increase in moving likelihood. For 6th grade instructors, neither the binary
variable nor the proportion of sections taught was significantly associated with moving schools,
although both were directionally negative (Table 12 Panels A and B).
Once again, we followed up by running separate models for teachers of each of the four
core academic subjects. For this follow-up, the specific subject point estimates were similar in
direction and magnitude to the overall estimate. However, due to the reduced sample sizes, none
of the assignment variables within the sub-samples were significantly associated with any of the
mobility outcomes There were no meaningful differences in the relationship between
assignment and mobility across the various academic subjects.
Discussion
Topline Findings
Teacher Experience and Assignment.
The literature argued that high school non-AP and non-Honors classes containing
younger students are considered less desirable to teach, likely due to behavioral issues (Grissom
et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). However, as most students are not in AP and Honors
105

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
courses, a large portion of a school’s students are in such classes. Further, students in lower-level
classes are building foundational skills that will be called upon throughout the remainder of their
high school career. In particular, Algebra I is a high leverage course in a student’s high school
career. On-time completion of Algebra I by the end of 9th grade more than doubles a student's
odds of graduating (Silver et al., 2008). Moreover, lower-grade non-AP courses consist of a
disproportionate amount of students who are low achieving, low-income, and people of color
(Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007). In order to maximize student success and equity, high
schools ought to put their most experienced, highest quality teachers on such courses, as such
teachers tend to achieve superior outcomes for their students compared to their less experienced
and lower quality counterparts (Bolyard & Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Harris & Sass, 2011; Peske
& Haycock, 2006).
In this study, we find the exact opposite at the high school level: more experienced
teachers are less likely to teach 9th grade and Algebra I, and more experienced teachers have a
lower proportion of their course loads made up of 9th grade and Algebra I classes. We found no
such relationship at the middle school level; increased experience was inconsistently associated
with the likelihood of teaching 6th graders, indicating different potential dynamics between
middle and high schools. This could indicate that it is not younger students at secondary schools
that are undesirable, but students of ages approximately 13-15 who are more likely to be in 9th
grade classes and less likely to be in 6th grade classes. Our high school findings complement the
literature of prior studies indicating that more experienced teachers tend to be disproportionately
assigned to AP and Honors-level courses (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson, 2014;
Kalogrides et al., 2012) by establishing that less experienced teachers are more likely to be
assigned to the lowest-level courses, particularly in math. This pattern sets up a major potential
106

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
equity issue, with the students most in need of effective instruction receiving the least
experienced teachers, who may be least able to provide that instruction.
While overall teaching experience matters, school-specific experience, or seniority, had a
stronger relationship with the likelihood of teaching 9th grade and Algebra I, a finding that
supports the micropolitics theory that frames this study. Our findings provide major credence to a
micropolitics understanding of how high school teacher assignment works. Teachers see
higher-level courses as more desirable to teach due to the perceived lack of “difficult” students
compared to lower-level courses (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). Under a
micropolitics lens, teachers with greater seniority would be able to utilize their superior
organizational, social, and informational capital to shape their annual teaching assignments. The
literature argues that a typical teacher would prefer to teach advanced courses and avoid teaching
courses with lower achieving students, such as Algebra I or those that contain 9th graders. Our
study supports this theory, even after accounting for important professional covariates such as
credentialing that are also significantly associated with the likelihood a teacher would teach
lower-grade courses. We note that it is a possibility that teachers may not necessarily be using
their capital to influence teaching assignment decisions. Rather, it could be that administrators
systematically have course assignment procedures that “favor” teachers who have worked in
their school longer. Although we are unable to test this directly in this study, this potential
dynamic was discussed by school leaders in the qualitative interview study. Regardless, the
greater equity concerns inherent in differential teacher assignment remain.
Teacher Assignment and Mobility.
Given the harm of teacher turnover and schools nationwide facing increasing difficulty
attracting and retaining qualified teachers, it is perhaps our second research question that is an
107

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
even more pressing concern (Darling-Hammond, 2023; Diliberti & Schwartz, 2022; NCES,
2022; Nguyen et al., 2022). We found that even after accounting for experience and other
demographic and professional factors, Algebra I teachers and teachers with course loads that
consisted of more 9th grade and Algebra I courses were significantly more likely to exit their
school at year’s end than their peers who taught other math classes. Further, 9th grade teachers
and teachers with course loads that consisted of more 9th grade courses were significantly more
likely to transfer to work at another school. The increased exit rates for Algebra I were also
primarily driven by teachers transferring schools. This finding aligns with the qualitative study in
this paper, where teacher-leaders reported leaving prior schools due to undesirable course
assignments. We found directionally similar but non-significant relationships between teaching
9th grade, teaching Algebra I, the quantity of 9th grade taught, the quantity of Algebra I taught,
and exiting the profession. In contrast, 6th grade teachers were less likely to exit their school and
to leave the profession. However, the quantity of 6th grade courses was not associated with the
likelihood of any of our three mobility variables.
The magnitude of these effects is not particularly large, with the high school estimates
ranging from a 1.1 percentage point increase in mobility from teaching 9th grade to a 2.6
percentage point increase from teaching Algebra I. That 2.6 percentage point magnitude was also
the decrease for 6th grade teachers compared to their middle school peers. While these effects
may be small, they are significant, and could be potentially meaningful for schools aiming to
retain as many teachers as possible. For example, a district with 40 teachers that teach Algebra I
and 40 teachers that teach other math subjects would expect one additional teacher from the
Algebra I group to exit their job at year’s end. As discussed earlier in this paper, losing even a
single teacher has negative time, financial, and effort costs for school districts (Boyd et al., 2008;
108

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry & Redding, 2018; Kho et al., 2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Thus,
even if a factor such as course assignment is found to only marginally associate with increased
turnover, it could still result in meaningful harm to schools and districts that are forced to replace
departing teachers.
Lack of Subject Differences.
Earlier in this dissertation, I hypothesized that trends in teacher assignment may present
differently depending on the secondary subject. In particular, there was potential for
differentiation between a more hierarchical subject, such as math, and more subject-focused
subjects, such as science and social science.
We tested this hypothesis by running separate models on samples restricted to teachers of
the four core subjects: math, science, English, and social science. Overall, teachers in all four
subjects saw substantially similar, significant relationships between seniority, experience, and
assignment to 9th grade courses, with slight differences in magnitudes. This same pattern was
found in the mobility models, with 6th and 9th grade teachers showing comparable likelihoods of
mobility regardless of the subject taught. These results were in line with the suite of studies on
individual secondary subjects that found comparable results linking teacher characteristics to
assignment patterns (Feng, 2010; Jeong & Luschei, 2019; Kalogrides et al., 2012; Kalogrides et
al., 2013; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Thiemann, 2018).
Limitations and Future Work
We note that the findings in the “leaver” and “mover” categories may be somewhat
constrained by the meaningful portion of teachers whose professional situation could not be
accounted for by their school leader the following school year (approximately 25%). This
missingness, in addition to the lack of turnover data for the latter three years of survey data, may
109

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
have impacted our models’ findings. Although we cannot infer causation from our findings, the
results are consistent with the hypothesis that teachers unsatisfied with their course assignments
may look to switch schools in search of more favorable teaching assignments, but not necessarily
exit the profession, suggesting that their dissatisfaction stems from their specific job rather than
with their career writ large. This is in line with prior work that found that mathematics teachers
who had less classroom autonomy over things such as their course content, textbook, student
evaluation, and student discipline were more likely to exit their schools than their peers with
more classroom control (Ingersoll & May, 2010).
Our study does well to utilize a large, nationally representative sample of high school
mathematics teachers across a meaningful period from 2008 to 2021. The robustness of our
findings across years and locations provides confidence in these findings. However, this study
could not track teacher assignment and mobility over many years, something that I can
accomplish in study 3. Further, our data lacked school-level data that could prove crucial, such as
socioeconomic status and racial demographics, which might help tease apart contextual
heterogeneity. Future work should also consider whether teacher quality, a correlate of
experience, ultimately drives the relationship between teacher assignment and mobility, whether
these relationships are stronger in lower-performing schools, and how these processes ultimately
influence student achievement. Overall, within-school teacher assignment is an understudied area
ripe for further research. Teacher assignment issues have a strong potential for easily
implementable changes that could rapidly improve student equity and success.
Potential Solutions to Inequitable Assignments
Secondary teacher course assignment is a challenging process, with school leaders
needing to balance teacher credentials and preferences with what will maximize student success
110

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
for all students. As currently constructed, the system appears to lean towards teacher preferences,
with the least senior high school teachers disproportionately teaching 9th grade courses and
Algebra I. As lower experience tends to be associated with lower quality on average, we can
infer that high school 9th grade and Algebra I students, who are more likely to be academically
at-risk, low-income, and people of color (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007), are being assigned
lower quality instructors than their peers in more advanced math classes. This pattern, in turn,
could lead to inferior outcomes for these students.
How can school leaders implement impactful changes to their course assignment
processes? The solution is not as simple as assigning a school’s most senior teachers to teach 9th
grade courses or Algebra I exclusively. While this may improve student equity, it would
undoubtedly face pushback from teachers, particularly those giving up their advanced course
loads. Further, the effectiveness of a teacher going from teaching exclusively Advanced
Placement and Honors courses to exclusively lower-level classes may be dampened by their
dissatisfaction with the course assignment. It is plausible that particularly dissatisfied teachers
under this new order would also consider opportunities at other schools.
As schools look for every possible way to retain their teachers, leaders should carefully
consider the courses their staff are assigned to teach each year and the satisfaction of teachers
with their assignments. Some teachers must teach 9th graders, as they cannot be eliminated from
high schools entirely. Even if the grade was returned to Junior High, it is quite plausible that 10th
grade would become the undesirable grade in its stead. However, school leaders could consider
ways to more equitably distribute these perceived undesirable 9th grade and Algebra I courses to
high school teachers, such as assigning teachers who may currently exclusively teach
higher-level courses to take one 9th grade or Algebra I section. This approach is known as a
111

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
high-low model, where teachers receive schedule loads that include both upper- and lower-level
courses. This change should not be a surprise for these teachers, but rather a department or
school discussion prior to course assignments about the importance of lower-level courses for
student success and equity and the role all teachers can play to ensure all students meet their full
potential. Alternatively, there could be a rotation system where some teachers alternate having
multiple sections of such courses from year to year. Some teachers may be more suited to teach
lower-grade students than others, so administrators should use their best judgment in deciding
which teachers are up to the task of teaching the class.
A potential pushback of implementing a high-low model or rotating assignments is the
additional preparation required. By taking on an additional class of a course that a teacher does
not consistently teach (whether throughout a day or over multiple years), a teacher increases their
“preps,” having to lesson plan for an additional course, thereby increasing their workload. In
other words, if a teacher’s course load consists of five of the same course, the preparation
required for that one course is split among the sections of the same course. They may require
some more time to prepare for or adapt to different sections. However, the workload is likely less
burdensome than preparing for two different courses.
Other alternatives that would not require additional “preps,” or at least lessen the burden,
include providing incentives for teaching lower-level courses and providing additional support to
better ensure these teachers’ success. For instance, school administrators might provide such
teachers an additional planning period in exchange for taking on these courses. This policy
would give lower-level teachers more time to prepare for their all-important classes, reduce the
amount of grading, and spend that time developing their skills as a lower-level teacher.
Administrators might provide these teachers with an instructional coach or a mentor teacher who
112

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
can provide coaching, professional development, and other support daily, helping lower-level
teachers hone their skills. Schools may even consider allowing lower-level teachers to co-teach a
portion of their sections so as to learn from each other and share the workload. 9th grade and
Algebra I ought not to be a difficult rite of passage for a school’s new teachers to endure before
they work their way up to more advanced classes, a situation commonly described by the school
leaders in the interview study. Rather, leaders might take steps to make the course more enticing
to teachers. Further, they can strive to elicit a sense of camaraderie and pride in the assignment of
this course, emphasizing the foundational skills that students will acquire and the dividends that
successful completion of this course will pay for these students in more advanced courses at the
school. The stronger the skills students build in these foundational courses, the better prepared
these students will be in the higher-level courses the very same teachers teach.
113

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Chapter Five: Study 3: Investigating Secondary Teacher Assignment’s
Association with Teacher Mobility in North Carolina: A Survival Analysis
By: Michael Fienberg and Dr. Adam Kho
This third and final study takes the crucial step of more robustly linking secondary
teacher assignment with teacher mobility outcomes using a longitudinal data set that tracks
teachers throughout their secondary teaching careers. As discussed in the literature review
section, studies explicitly linking teacher assignment to teacher mobility were rare, and those that
have been conducted were done so at the elementary level (Feng, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2017). The
current study is the first at the secondary level to explicitly link teacher course assignments to
teacher mobility decisions, specifically by seeing how assignments to various courses, including
6th grade, 8th grade, 9th grade, 12th grade, and AP, over time associate with the likelihood of a
teacher exiting their school for any reason. This study will first provide additional evidence for
Study 2’s associative findings on school experience, teacher assignment, and mobility patterns
before utilizing various survival analysis designs to connect teacher assignment to lower-level
courses to increased mobility more solidly. Further, this study will explore assignment to
advanced courses as a potential factor linked to reduced likelihood of teacher mobility. This is
the most essential exploration of this whole paper, especially due to the importance of schools
retaining teachers (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry & Redding, 2018; Kho et al.,
2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013) within the current American teacher shortage (Aragon, 2016;
Nguyen et al., 2022; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). With these goals in mind, we
ask:
1. Are teachers differentially assigned to lower-grade, upper-grade, and Advanced
Placement courses on the basis of school experience?
114

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
2. Is teacher assignment to lower-grade, upper-grade, and Advanced Placement courses
associated with teacher mobility? Does the recurrence of these assignments over time
associate with teacher mobility? Does the change in these assignments associate with
teacher mobility?
Methodology
Data Source
In order to answer our research questions, we utilize a variety of student, teacher, and
school-level variables provided by the North Carolina Educational Research Data Center
(NCERDC) restricted use, public school longitudinal student, teacher, and school data set from
1995 to 2021. However, our primary analysis features teacher data from 2007 to 2021, as this is
when student course membership and teacher mobility data were jointly available. Data prior to
2007 was used to establish teacher characteristics, such as teacher seniority. This longitudinal
data allows us to track teacher characteristics, course assignments, and mobility on an annual
basis for tens of thousands of North Carolina teachers. This data set provides an incredibly robust
sample size to convincingly associate teacher experience with assignment and assignment to
teacher mobility.
Variables of Interest
In order to conduct this analysis, we use teacher and school-level data primarily for the
fifteen years from 2007 through 2021.
From the teacher level, our first research question features variables similar to the ones in
the prior study. The primary variables of interest are courses taught, overall experience, and
school-specific experience (seniority). It is important to note that North Carolina did not offer
high school Algebra I within the study period, so that course is excluded from this analysis.
115

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Additionally, to better explore how assignment to the lowest grade at a school compares to
assignment to the highest grade, 12th grade and 8th grade assignments were explored within this
analysis. The course assignment variables were derived from student-level course membership
data. The modal grade of students within each section was used to determine what grade that
section was considered. For example, a section with 23 9th graders and 11 10th graders would be
considered a 9th grade course. In the rare event of two modes, the mode that was also the median
was used. If that still did not generate a distinct result, the class was coded as a “combined
grade.”
Further, as this data set includes specific course assignment data, rather than simple
grade assignment, the role of assignment to Advanced Placement courses at the high school level
was examined. As in the prior study, multiple operationalizations of the courses taught variable
were explored: lower-grade, upper-grade, and Advanced Placement courses taught are expressed
as a binary as well as a proportion of a teacher’s class load. Both overall experience and
school-specific experience are expressed as a continuous variable of the number of years a
teacher has been in the profession or at their school respectively. Seniority was imputed by the
number of years that a teacher was observed at a school within the study’s time frame
(1995-2021). As our analysis does not start until 2007, this is likely sufficient to approximate
more senior teachers but will miss teachers who had been at their schools for more than 12 years
prior to 2007, somewhat limiting the ability to recreate the analysis from Study 2. Unfortunately,
North Carolina did not gather teacher demographic data for the period of this study. As statistical
controls, we include advanced degree status and the number of classes a teacher teaches within a
year, as teachers with more class sections are more likely to be assigned to teach the courses of
interest.
116

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
For the second research question, the primary outcome of interest is a teacher leaving
their school for any reason, whom we designate as “movers/leavers” or alternatively as “exiters.”
While the prior study drew mobility data from surveys of the principals of teachers' schools, this
data set lacked such a survey, requiring mobility data to be imputed from year-to-year changes in
specific teachers’ employment statuses. The most valid mobility measure for this study is thus
the combined “mover/leaver” variable, which compares teachers who left their school for any
reason to those who stayed for the following school year. Practically, these movers/leavers are
also likely the most important group. While it is worthwhile to differentiate where a teacher goes
when they exit a school, from a school leader’s perspective, a teacher who leaves negatively
impacts the school (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016; Henry & Redding, 2018; Kho et al.,
2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013), regardless of their new destination. Thus, this mobility measure will
be the primary one utilized in this study’s analyses.
For the second question, we utilize several different predictor variables to explore the
connection between assignment to 9th grade, 12th grade, AP courses, 6th grade, and 8th grade to
our mobility outcomes. We aim to explore three potential ways that assignment may be
meaningfully connected to mobility:
1. An instantaneous effect of teaching a course in the year of interest.
2. A cumulative effect of teaching a course repeatedly over several years of interest.
3. A “change” effect of teaching a course for the first time or for a repeat time.
As with research question one, we use the single-year binary operationalization for
courses taught to address the instantaneous relationship between course assignment and mobility.
Further, as we now make use of the longitudinal nature of this data, we tested a cumulative
variable derived by summing the binary operationalization over time. This variable thus tracked
117

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
the amount of years that a teacher was assigned to a course of interest, as we hoped to see if
additional assignments to the courses of interest associated with mobility outcomes. Lastly, we
hypothesized there may be a particular “shock” for teachers assigned to a new course for the first
time. Thus, we examined how the first year a teacher was assigned to a particular course may
predict mobility outcomes. This is a polychotomous variable that compares first-time instructors
of a course and multi-time instructors of a course to those not teaching the course.
Additionally, for both research questions, we have a suite of school-level variables,
primarily to examine how such factors are associated with assignment and mobility patterns, as
well as how such variables influence the predictors’ connection to our outcome variables. From
the set of public schools in North Carolina, our variables include the percentage of a student
body that is minoritized, the percentage designated low-income (DLI), school size, and school
Title I status. As the North Carolina data set stopped collecting these variables in 2017, the years
2018-2022 include the reported 2017 values for these variables as the best possible estimate.
These school variables were explored to see if they are associated with teacher assignment
practices and with teacher mobility outcomes by including them as statistical controls in
follow-up analyses.
For a full guide to all the variables in this study, please refer to Table 13 below.
Table 13. Variables of Interest for Study 3
Variable Level Type Description
Teaching Course of
Interest
Teacher Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught the course
of interest, 0 if they taught another
course.
Percentage of
Sections Taught That
Were Courses of
Interest
Teacher Continuous Returns the proportion of sections
taught that were the courses of interest
118

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Cumulative Times
Teaching Course of
Interest
Teacher Discrete Returns the number of cumulative times
that a teacher has taught the course of
interest from the beginning of the study
period
First Time
Instructing a Course
Teacher Polychotomous Returns 0 if they are not assigned to the
course, 1 if a teacher is teaching a
course for the first time in the study
period, and 2 if they are assigned but
have taught the course before.
Teacher Exited
School for Any
Reason
Teacher Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher exited their prior
year’s school to either teach elsewhere
or to leave the NC Public School
System, 0 if they are still teaching at
their prior year’s school
Teacher Overall
Experience
Teacher Continuous How many years of experience a
teacher has in the profession
Teacher Experience
at Current School
Teacher Polychotomous Returns the number of a years a teacher
has been at their school, bucketed into
various intervals by North Carolina
Teacher Graduate
Degree
Teacher Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher has a Master’s
Degree or above, 0 otherwise
Number of Sections
Taught
Teacher Polychotomous The number of courses that a teacher
reported teaching
Percentage of School
Population That is
Designated
Low-Income Status
School Continuous Returns the proportion of the students
in teacher’s school’s population that is
designated as low-income status (note:
for 2018-2022, returns a school’s 2017
status)
Percentage of School
Population That Are
Students of Color
School Continuous Returns the proportion of the students
in teacher’s school’s population that are
students of color (note: for 2018-2022,
returns a school’s 2017 status)
School Size School Discrete Reports the number of students at the
teacher’s school (note: for 2018-2022,
returns a school’s 2017 status)
119

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Analytical Strategies
Multiple Linear Regression with Fixed Effects.
In order to answer the first research question, we use a multiple linear regression to
associate teacher overall and school-specific experience with their assignment to various courses.
Courses will include 9th grade courses, 12th grade courses, AP courses, 6th grade courses, and
8th grade courses. As discussed above, these regression models will account for teacher
advanced degree status, as well as a control for the number of courses a teacher taught in the year
of interest. Additionally, we will include school-level and year-level fixed effects to specifically
compare the relationship between experience and course assignment within schools within years.
As a follow-up, the school-fixed effect will be dropped, and a number of school-level variables
will be included, both to see how they correlate with assignment and how they influence the
association between experience and assignment. For these multiple linear regressions, all
secondary teachers from the data set with school and course data available from 2007-2021 will
be included to best examine the role of experience in assignment.
An illustrative model, Model 1, for this work takes the following form:
Model 1: 𝑌(𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑖𝑠𝑡
) = α
𝑖𝑠𝑡
+ β
1
(𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑖𝑠𝑡
) + 𝑋
𝑖𝑡
+ γ
𝑠 + Ψ
𝑡
+ ε
𝑖𝑠𝑡
Within this model, we predict teacher i assignments that occur within schools s, which
occur in varying years t. Y represents teacher assignment to the course of interest, whether as the
binary or continuous operationalization. The parameter of interest β reports the relative increase
1
or decrease in assignment as a function of a teacher’s overall experience or school experience,
depending on the model. The vector of teacher controls is represented by X. Υ and represent
𝑠
ψ𝑡
school- and year-fixed effects respectively.
120

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
To answer the second research question, we first repeat our method from the prior study,
conducting a multiple linear regression regressing school mobility outcomes on course
assignment predictors, controlling for seniority, advanced degree status, and number of classes
taught. This time, year- and school-fixed effects will be included, allowing us to compare the
mobility patterns for teachers within the same schools within the same years. Again, following
this initial model, we will repeat our analysis with school-level variables in lieu of the
school-fixed effect. To align with the survival analyses that we conducted for the second research
question, we restrict the sample in this part of the analysis to new teachers at the first public
North Carolina secondary school they were hired at within the time frame from 2007 to 2021, the
years for which we have reliable mobility and course assignment data.
These models, Model 2, take the general form:
Model 2:
𝑌(𝑚𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑖𝑠𝑡
) = α
𝑖𝑠𝑡
+ β
1
(𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑖𝑠
) + β
2
(𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑖𝑠𝑡
) + 𝑋
𝑖𝑡
+ Υ
𝑠 + Ψ
𝑡
+ ϵ
𝑖𝑠𝑡
This general model takes a very similar form to the model for research question 1. The
primary difference is that the outcome is the key mobility variable, while the key predictor is
course assignment, with seniority shifting to be a control. The teacher vectors as well as school
and time fixed effects remain the same.
As in the prior national study, due to the nested nature of these models, clustered robust
standard errors were employed, this time at the school level. Diagnostics again indicated that the
relationships between seniority and assignment as well as assignment and mobility were
approximately linear in nature, making the linear probability models appropriate.
Discrete-Time Survival Analyses.
To more completely answer the second research question, we make use of the
longitudinal nature of this data to employ discrete-time hazard survival analyses, specifically a
121

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Cox proportional hazards model, that more concretely connects teacher course assignment to 9th
grade, 12th grade, AP courses, 6th grade, and 8th grade to mobility outcomes, specifically the
likelihood a teacher exits their school for any reason. Survival analysis is a powerful tool in
situations with a “time-to-event” outcome (George et al., 2014). In this case, we are studying
how long new North Carolina public school teachers “survive” at their initial place of hire before
exiting that school, making the survival analysis the perfect method for this scenario. A survival
analysis reports “hazard ratios,” where the coefficient of interest predicts either increased or
decreased odds of the outcome occurring as a function of the predictor of interest (George et al.,
2014). In this case, we explore the hazard of course assignment as a predictor for mobility.
To meet the left censoring and truncation assumptions of survival analyses, we restrict the
sample in this study to new teachers hired to a public North Carolina secondary school within the
time frame from 2007 to 2021, the years for which we had mobility and course assignment data.
Any teachers who reported having prior teaching experience were not included in the sample,
leaving only teachers new to the profession. School data was utilized to restrict the sample of
teachers to those who taught at high schools or middle schools, excluding those who taught at
combined schools. When the high school variables of interest were analyzed, the sample was
further restricted to include only high school teachers; when the middle school variables of
interest were analyzed, the sample was further restricted to include only middle school teachers.
As we will discuss in detail below, there is a potential problem fully separating movers
from leavers due to the lack of information about where leavers end up after leaving the North
Carolina Public school system. Thus, our approach utilizes the mover/leaver mobility variable to
represent teachers who exited their schools for any reason. For this approach, we used a Cox
proportional hazards model comparing teachers who left their schools for any reason to those
122

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
who stayed the following year. We also included a hire-year fixed effect to control for differences
across cohort years. Lastly, our primary analysis further implemented a school-level fixed effect
to control for differences across schools. Follow-up analyses that explored the impact of
school-level factors on mobility removed this fixed effect and included a suite of school-level
covariates instead.
Following the model from Gulosino et al. (2019), our final model take the general form:
𝑙𝑜𝑔{𝑃𝑟(𝑌
𝑖𝑠𝑡 = 2)/𝑃𝑟(𝑌
𝑖𝑠𝑡 = 1)} = α
𝑖𝑠𝑡
+ β
1
(𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑖𝑠𝑡
) + β
2
(𝑎𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒
𝑖𝑡
) +
β
3
(𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠
𝑖𝑠𝑡
) + Υ
𝑠 + Ψℎ + Σα
𝑘
𝐷𝑘
Within this model, the outcome variable is Y with two possible outcomes (1 = stay, 2 =
move/leave). The risk of a teacher i, exiting their school (m = 2) relative to staying (m = 1) in
year t is a function of their course assignment, after controlling for teacher advanced degree
status and the total number of classes they teach in a given year. The parameter of interest is β ,
1
which reports the relative increase or decrease of the odds of a teacher moving schools or leaving
North Carolina schools based on the relevant course assignment variable. In various models,
multiple independent course assignment variables were included simultaneously to explore
which variables most strongly associated with the mobility outcomes. Additionally, we included
the time-variant teacher’s advanced degree status. The time-variant total number of classes
accounts for the number of courses a teacher is assigned in a given year. The school-level and
hire-year-level fixed effects are represented by Υ and respectively.
𝑠 Ψℎ
As Gulosino et al. (2019) explain, we must account for the mobility risk as dependent on
the duration of time a teacher has been at a school. Thus, our survival functions include a set of
time indicators, 𝐷 . These time indicators are set to 1 in the time period it represents and 0
𝑘
123

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
otherwise. For example, 𝐷 in the first year a teacher is at their school and 0 in all
1 = 1
subsequent years; 𝐷 in the second year a teacher is at their school and a 0 in their 1st year
2 = 1
and years three and later, and so on. The parameter α represents the flexible baseline logit 𝑘
hazard function (Singer & Willett, 2003). As in the prior models, we again use robust standard
errors clustered at the school level to account for the nested nature of the data.
Sample Characteristics
Experience and Assignment Analyses.
Within this sample, our analyses followed teacher assignment and mobility outcomes
from 2007 to 2021. For the multiple regression analysis, our sample included 359,297
teacher-year observations at the high school level and 266,956 at the middle school level; these
counts included 71,418 and 58,535 distinct teachers respectively. Over the course of the study
period, for high school teachers, 56.5% of teacher-years were assigned to 9th grade courses,
49.8% were assigned to 12th grade courses, 13.6% were assigned to AP courses. For the middle
school teacher-years, 51.8% were assigned to teach 6th grade while 53.9% were assigned to
teach 8th grade. The average high school teacher-year had 30.52%, 21.33%, and 4.08% of their
course loads within a given year made up of 9th grade, 12th grade, and AP courses respectively,
while the average middle school teachers had 32.96% and 33.40% of their course loads made up
of 6th and 8th grade courses respectively. The average high school teacher-year observation had
13.37 years of experience and 6.29 years of seniority, while the average middle school
teacher-year observation had 12.65 years of experience and 5.93 years of seniority. 56.28% and
66.38% of high and middle school teacher-year observations were at Title I schools. The average
high school teacher was at a school with 1,282.07 students, a 42.36% POC percentage, and a
46.45% designated low-income students (DLI) percentage. The average middle school teacher
124

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
was at a school with 765.59 students, a 44.32% POC percentage, and a 54.94% DLI percentage.
A full summary of these statistics are in Table 14 below.
Table 14. Respondent Characteristics for Multiple Regression Experience Analyses
Variable High School Middle School
Number of Teacher-Year Observations 359,297 266,956
Number of Unique Teachers 71,418 58,535
Teach 9th Grade 56.5% NA
Teach 12th Grade 49.8% NA
Teach AP Courses 13.6% NA
Teach 6th Grade NA 51.8%
Teach 8th Grade NA 53.9%
9th Grade Proportion 30.52 (34.68) NA
12th Grade Proportion 21.33 (28.48) NA
AP Proportion 4.50 (14.00) NA
6th Grade Proportion NA 32.96 (39.59)
8th Grade Proportion NA 33.40 (39.12)
Years of Experience 13.37 (9.65) 12.65 (9.10)
Years of Seniority 6.29 (5.32) 5.93 (5.12)
# of Courses Taught 5.94 (1.88) 6.26 (3.74)
Have a Master’s Degree or Higher 14.4% 13.7%
# of Students at School 1,282.07 (613.60) 765.59 (293.72)
POC Proportion 42.36 (24.20) 44.32 (24.55)
DLI Proportion 46.46 (21.40) 54.94 (23.62)
Title I School 56.28% 66.32%
Note: Statistics represent mean with standard deviation in parentheses or proportion
125

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Mobility Analyses.
For the mobility analyses, we restricted our sample to teachers starting their careers after
2006. This sub-sample included 69,895 high school and 54,542 middle school teacher-year
observations, representing 22,648 and 19,083 unique teachers respectively. For this group, 59.4%
of teachers-years were assigned to 9th grade courses, 43.4% to 12th grade courses, and 10.6% to
AP courses. For the middle school teacher-years, 49.1% were assigned to teach 6th grade while
50.9% were assigned to teach 8th grade. The average high school teacher from this group had
32.8%, 17.4%, and 3.2% of their course loads made up of 9th grade, 12th grade, and AP courses
respectively, while the average middle school teacher-years had 32.1% and 32.2% of their course
loads made up of 6th and 8th grade courses respectively. For the cumulative outcomes, the high
school teacher-years averaged 1.95, 1.41, and 0.35 years of teaching 9th grade, 12th grade, and
AP courses. For the middle school cumulative outcomes, teacher-year observations averaged
1.47 and 1.52 years of teaching 6th grade and 8th grade. 23.0%, 17.7%, 4.1%, 19.6%, and 20.2%
of teacher-years were instructing 9th grade, 12th grade, AP courses, 6th grade, and 8th grade for
the first time, while 36.4%, 25.7%, 6.5%, 29.6%, and 30.8% were teaching such courses for the
second or greater time. For the mobility outcomes at the high and middle school levels, 11.8%
and 14.8% of teacher-year observations saw a teacher move to teach at another school, 12.6%
and 13.3% saw a teacher leave the data set entirely, and 22.9% and 26.1% saw a teacher exit
their school for any reason. For full sample characteristics, see Table 15 below.
Table 15. Respondent Characteristics for Mobility Analyses
Variable High School Teachers Middle School Teachers
Number of Teacher-Year
Observations
69,895 54,542
Number of Unique Teachers 22,648 19,083
126

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Teach 9th Grade 59.4% NA
Teach 12th Grade 43.3% NA
Teach AP Courses 10.6% NA
Teach 6th Grade NA 49.1%
Teach 8th Grade NA 50.9%
Times Teaching 9th Grade 1.95 (2.13) NA
Times Teaching 12th Grade 1.41 (1.93) NA
Times Teaching AP Courses 0.35 (1.15) NA
Times Teaching 6th Grade NA 1.47 (2.07)
Times Teaching 8th Grade NA 1.52 (2.11)
1st Time Teaching 9th Grade 23.0% NA
1st Time Teaching 12th Grade 17.7% NA
1st Time Teaching AP Courses 4.1% NA
1st Time Teaching 6th Grade NA 19.6%
1st Time Teaching 8th Grade NA 20.2%
Repeat Time Teaching 9th
Grade
36.4% NA
Repeat Time Teaching 12th
Grade
25.7% NA
Repeat Time Teaching AP
Courses
6.5% NA
Repeat Time Teaching 6th
Grade
NA 29.6%
Repeat Time Teaching 8th
Grade
NA 30.8%
Years of Experience 4.39 (5.37) 4.03 (4.75)
Years of Seniority 3.48 (2.72) 3.27 (2.59)
# of Courses Taught 5.89 (1.71) 5.86 (3.28)
127

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Have a Master’s Degree or
Higher
9.7% 8.5%
Moved to Teach At Another
School
11.8% 14.8%
Left the Data Set for Any
Reason
12.6% 13.3%
Exited School for Any Reason 22.9% 26.1%
# of Students at School 1284.19 (619.52) 756.51 (289.80)
POC Proportion 46.86 (24.99) 49.31 (25.39)
DLI Proportion 51.21 (23.23) 60.87 (25.01)
Title I School 68.4% 77.9%
Note: Statistics represent mean with standard deviation in parentheses or proportion
Data Limitations.
While this is a robust data set to conduct these analyses, this data did have limitations,
particularly within the mobility variables. Due to a lack of specific information about where
teachers go when they leave North Carolina public and charter schools, it is possible that some of
the leavers are still teaching elsewhere, whether it be in a private school or in another state or
country, meaning they would more accurately be considered as movers. It is also possible that
leavers have left the data set to become school administrators or remain at their school in another
non-teaching capacity. Further, it is possible that teachers leaving the data set are on a leave of
absence or are retiring from teaching entirely. Thus, for this analysis, we decided to focus on the
combined mover/leaver variable, as we can more reliably know that teachers have left their
school than where they ended up. Beyond the mobility variable limitations, this data lacked
potentially meaningful teacher demographic covariates beyond degree status, such as gender,
race, and age. Additionally, while this data set included school-level variables, these were only
available until 2017, limiting our ability to include them in our full analysis. Further, the school
128

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
performance and growth data were unavailable after 2013, preventing us from including them in
the analysis.
Results
Multiple Regression Model Results
As with the prior study, this examination of North Carolina teachers used multiple
regression with fixed effects to explore teacher experience’s association with various course
assignments and various course assignments with the likelihood of teacher mobility outcomes.
As described in the prior study, a typical teacher has a five course load, meaning that one course
makes up 20% of that load. That value will be used to add a practical interpretation to the
reported slope coefficients, with a one-course increase corresponding to a 20% load increase.
Additionally, as described in the methodology section, the primary analysis focuses on teachers
who exit their school for any reason due to potential data validity concerns with the mover and
leaver data.
Assignment to Courses of Interest as a Function of Experience.
For the high school results, we focused on assignment to 9th grade, 12th grade, and AP
courses. As in the prior study, more experienced and more senior teachers were significantly less
likely to be assigned to teach any 9th grade courses in a given school year, with each year of
experience correlating with a 0.4 percentage point decrease and each year of seniority correlating
with a 1.0 percentage point decrease (Table 16 Panel A). This finding was also true of the
variables gauging the proportion of a teacher’s course load that consisted of 9th grade courses.
Each year of experience and each year of seniority were associated with 0.3 and 0.8 percentage
point decreases in proportional 9th grade course loads respectively (Table 16 Panel B).
129

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
For the courses that may be perceived as more desirable, 12th grade and AP, increased
experience and seniority were both associated with increased likelihood of assignment and
increased proportion of course load that consisted of these assignments. Each additional year of
experience predicted a 0.6 percentage point increased likelihood of teaching 12th grade and a 0.2
percentage point increased likelihood of teaching AP courses, while each additional year of
seniority predicted 1.3 percentage point and 0.9 percentage point increases in 12th grade and AP
likelihood respectively (Table 16 Panel A). When turning to the proportions of course load,
increased experience predicted 0.4 and 0.09 percentage point increases in proportional 12th
grade and AP course loads, while seniority similarly associated with 0.7 and 0.3 percentage point
increases (Table 16 Panel B).
Table 16. Linear Probability of High School Assignments based on Teaching Experience
9th Grade 9th Grade 12th Grade 12th Grade AP Course AP Course
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches Course of Interest (Binary)
Teacher’s
Overall
Years of
Experience
-0.00361***
(0.000199)
0.00551***
(0.000187)
0.00219***
(0.000159
Years of
Experience at
Current
School
-0.0101***
(0.000364)
0.0129***
(0.000405)
0.00901***
(0.000359)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that are Course of Interest
Teacher’s
Overall
Years of
Experience
-0.269***
(0.0149)
0.373***
(0.0121)
0.0923***
(0.00713)
Years of
Experience at
-0.806***
(0.0279)
0.748***
(0.0255)
0.318***
(0.0174)
130

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Current
School
Observations 308,521 342,554 308,521 342,554 308,521 342,554
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
At the middle school level, we explored assignment to 6th and 8th grade variables. These
findings aligned with the prior study on overall experience but differed on seniority: more
experienced and more senior teachers were both significantly more likely to be assigned to teach
a 6th grade course in a given school year, with each year of experience associating with a 0.3
percentage point increase and each year of seniority correlating with a 0.1 percentage point
increase (Table 17 Panel A). Like in the prior study, there was a split when considering the
proportion of a teacher’s course load that consisted of 6th grade courses. Each year of experience
was associated with a 0.1 percentage point increase in proportional 6th grade course load, while
each year of seniority was non-significantly associated with a 0.03 percentage point decrease
(Table 17 Panel B). Unlike the opposing 9th and 12 grade trends at the high school level,
increased experience and seniority was also significantly associated with increased likelihood of
assignment to teach 8th graders. Each additional year of experience and each additional year of
seniority correlated with 0.2 and 0.4 percentage point increases in the likelihood of teaching 8th
grade (Table 17 Panel A). Similarly, additional experience and seniority predicted 0.03 and 0.3
percentage point increases in proportional 8th grade course loads (Table 17 Panel B).
Table 17. Linear Probability of Middle School Assignments based on Teaching Experience
6th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches Course of Interest (Binary)
Teacher’s Overall 0.00303***
(0.000248)
0.00200***
(0.000243)
131

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Years of
Experience
Years of
Experience at
Current School
0.00100*
(0.000474)
0.00408***
(0.000431)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that are Course of Interest
Teacher’s Overall
Years of
Experience
0.139***
(0.0210)
0.0335+
(0.0197)
Years of
Experience at
Current School
-0.0328
(0.0377)
0.280***
(0.0359)
Observations 236,556 263,416 236,556 263,416
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 18. Summary of Multiple Regression Assignment Significant Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Increased Overall Experience Increased School-Specific
Experience (Seniority)
Increased Likelihood of
Assignment
● Teaching 6th, 8th, 12th,
and AP
● Proportion of 6th, 12th,
and AP
● Teaching 6th, 8th, 12th,
and AP
● Proportion of 8th, 12th,
and AP
Reduced Likelihood of
Assignment
● Teaching 9th grade
● Proportion of 9th grade
courses
● Teaching 9th grade
● Proportion of 9th grade
courses
Note: All results are significant at the 5% level or below
Mobility Outcomes as a Function of Course Assignments.
Again starting with high school, the results of this study were comparable with the prior
study’s findings on the connection between course assignment and mobility. As in Study 2, 9th
grade teachers were not significantly more likely to exit their schools than their high school
132

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
peers, nor was increased proportional 9th grade course load significantly associated with exit
likelihood (Table 19). As predicted, 12th grade teachers were significantly less likely to exit their
school, at 1.1 percentage points less likely than their peers. However, 12th grade proportional
course load was not significantly associated with the likelihood of teacher mobility. Like 12th
grade instructors, AP teachers were significantly less likely to exit than their peers, with an
estimated 2.2 percentage point decrease compared to their high school colleagues. Unlike the
12th grade findings, this trend also held for the AP proportional course load, with an estimate of
a 0.07 percentage point decrease in exit likelihood per one percentage point increase in AP
course load. Assuming that one course is approximately 20% of a teacher’s load, this estimate
means that a one-course increase in AP load would predict a 1.5 percentage point decrease in
exit likelihood.
Table 19. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting High School based on Course Assignment
9th Grade 9th Grade 12th Grade 12th Grade AP Course AP Course
Assignment to
Course
-0.00143
(0.00343)
-0.0116***
(0.00348)
-0.0216***
(0.00535)
Percentage of
Sections
Taught that are
Course of
Interest
0.0000469
(0.0000482)
-0.0000483
(0.0000692)
-0.000737***
(0.000134)
Observations 65,682 65,682 65,682 65,682 65,682 65,682
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
For the middle school results, in line with the prior national data study, 6th grade teachers
were significantly less likely to exit their schools than their middle school colleagues, at a 1.4
percentage point decrease (Table 20). When turning to proportional 6th grade course load, an
133

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
increased 6th grade course load was associated with a decreased likelihood of mobility. Each one
percentage point increase in proportional 6th grade load was associated with a 0.02 percentage
point decrease in exit likelihood. This estimate implies that a one-course increase in 6th grade
load predicts a 0.4 percentage point decrease in exit probability. In contrast, 8th grade teachers
were more likely to exit the school system with an increased likelihood of 1.6 percentage points.
Similarly, a one percentage point increase in 8th grade courses was associated with a 0.02
percentage point increase in exit likelihood.
Table 20. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting Middle School based on Course Assignment
6th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade
Assignment to
Course
-0.0140**
(0.00468)
0.0156***
(0.00415)
Percentage of
Sections
Taught that are
Course of
Interest
-0.000238***
(0.0000501)
0.000177***
(0.0000507)
Observations 52,095 52,095 52,095 52,095
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
In the models run without school fixed effects, increased school proportions of students
of color (POC) were significantly associated with increased likelihood of mobility at both the
high school and middle school level, replicating the results of the literature (Aragon, 2016; Feng,
2010; Feng & Sass, 2017; Peske & Haycock, 2006; Podolosky et al., 2016). In a typical high
school model, each one percentage point increase in POC proportion was associated with a 0.14
percentage point increase in moving/leaving likelihood. On the other hand, the proportion of
designated low-income students (DLI ) was not significantly associated with mobility
134

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
probability. The trends in the middle school models were identical, but the effect magnitudes
were minimally stronger. Each one percentage point increase in POC proportion was associated
with a 0.16 percentage point increase in moving/leaving likelihood. Teachers at middle schools
with higher proportions of DLI students were significantly more likely to exit than their peers at
the 10% level, with each one percentage point increase in DLI students associated with a 0.04
percentage point increase in exit probability. Teachers at bigger schools at both levels were also
relatively less likely to exit for any reason, with each one student increase predicting respective
0.003 and 0.002 percentage point decreases in mobility likelihood at the high school and middle
school levels. Throughout all of these models, the relationships between the predictors and the
mobility outcomes did not meaningfully differ compared to the models that included school
fixed-effects.
Survival Analysis Results
Now, we explore the survival analyses, which more rigorously examine the connections
between various assignment variables and mobility outcomes. As in the multiple regression
approach, this approach uses a reduced sample of teachers, including only those starting their
careers in NC Public Schools between 2007-2021. Additionally, these models account for how
far into their career teachers are through the set of time indicators. Further, while the multiple
regression approach exclusively used instantaneous assignment variables through binary
assignment to and proportional course load for the course of interest, the survival models further
investigate various longitudinal assignment variables that account for cumulative assignments as
well as examining the impact of teaching a course or grade for the first time. Despite these added
layers, the instantaneous year findings in the survival analysis models were generally in line with
135

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
the multiple linear regression approach, adding a level of confidence that the results are not
simply a modeling artifact.
High School Findings.
Once again, the primary model for these analyses focuses on teachers who exited their
school for any reason (movers/leavers).
At the high school level, there was a marked split between the 9th grade single-year,
cumulative, and first-time teaching variables (Table 21). As in the multiple regression models,
the single-year 9th grade assignment variable was not significantly associated with
moving/leaving. Additionally, the cumulative variable was significantly associated with a
decreased likelihood of moving/leaving. Each additional year of teaching 9th grade was
associated with a 5.2% odds reduction in moving/leaving. A follow-up analysis revealed that this
effect was fairly steady over time, with teachers flattening out the decrease around the 10th time
they teach the grade. Counter to these results, teaching 9th grade for the first time was
significantly associated with an increased likelihood of moving/leaving compared to those
teachers, with a 9.4% increase in moving/leaving odds compared to those teachers not instructing
the course. Teachers teaching 9th grade for a second or greater time were significantly less likely
to exit their school, with a 9.2% decrease in moving/leaving odds compared to those teachers not
teaching the course, essentially zeroing out the increase from teaching the course for the first
time.
Table 21. 9th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 9th Grade 0.975
(0.019812)
Cumulative times teaching 9th 0.94797***
(0.0062678)
136

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Grade
First time teaching 9th Grade 1.09428**
(0.030067)
2nd or greater time teaching 9th
grade
0.90827***
(0.022476)
Number of Observations 64,970
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
In a split with the multiple regression findings, the single-year 12th grade variable was
not significantly associated with a teacher exiting their school (Table 22). The cumulative 12th
grade variable, counting the number of years teaching 12th graders, was significantly associated
with a decreased likelihood of moving/leaving, with a mobility odds reduction of 3.9% per
additional time teaching the course. A follow-up found that this reduction was not steady as with
the 9th grade teachers. Instead, there was a fairly steep drop in mobility likelihood the 5th time a
teacher taught a course and a more gradual decline in exit probability each year of assignment
after that. Unlike 9th grade, the first year teaching 12th grade was not associated with a change
in exit odds compared to those not teaching the course, while teaching 12th grade for the second
or greater time was associated with a reduction in exit odds, with an odds decrease of 7.2%.
Table 22. 12th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 12th Grade 0.97971
(0.020804)
Cumulative times teaching 12th
Grade
0.96072***
(0.0068036)
First time teaching 12th Grade 1.04003
(0.029596)
2nd or greater time teaching
12th grade
0.92845**
(0.024763)
137

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Number of Observations 64,970
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Unlike the 9th and 12th grade outcomes, the single-year AP course variable was
significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of exiting a school, with assignment to an
AP course associated with an 8.2% reduction in moving/leaving odds (Table 23). As with the 9th
and 12th grade variables, the cumulative variable was significantly associated with a decreased
likelihood of exiting, with this decrease progressing steadily over time. Each additional year
instructing an AP course correlated with a moving/leaving odds reduction of 3.7%. The first year
teaching an AP course was not associated with a change in exit odds, while teaching an AP
course for the second or greater time was associated with a decrease in moving/leaving odds,
with a 10.2% odds reduction.
Table 23. AP Course Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches AP Course(s) 0.91908*
(0.031233)
Cumulative times teaching AP
Courses
0.96306***
(0.010904)
First time teaching AP courses 0.94752
(0.047426)
2nd or greater time teaching AP
courses
0.89837*
(0.041811)
Number of Observations 64,970
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
138

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Table 24. Summary of High School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated with Mobility
Outcomes
Mobility
Variable
Movers/Leavers
Increased
Odds
● First time teaching 9th grade
Reduced
Odds
● Teaching AP
● Cumulative times teaching 9th, 12th, and AP
● 2nd or greater time teaching 9th, 12th, and AP
Middle School Findings.
Moving on to the middle school level, both the single-year and cumulative variables for
teaching 6th grade were significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of a teacher exiting
their school (Table 25). The single-year 6th grade assignment variable predicted a 5.8%
reduction in moving/leaving odds. Each additional year of 6th grade assignment was associated
with a 4.2% reduction in moving/leaving odds. Similar to the 12th grade cumulative variable,
this reduction was driven by a steep drop in mobility likelihood that occurred after teaching the
course five or more times. Unlike the cumulative variables, although similar to the 9th grade
teaching variable, the first time teaching 6th grade was associated with an increase in exit odds
of 7.3% compared to those not teaching the course. However, instructors teaching the course for
the second or greater time showed a decrease in exit odds of 14.8% compared to those not
teaching the course.
Table 25. 6th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 6th Grade 0.94248*
(0.023712)
Cumulative times teaching 6th
Grade
0.95812***
(0.0073460)
139

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
First time teaching 6th Grade 1.07321*
(0.034382)
2nd or greater time teaching 6th
grade
0.85250***
(0.026136)
Number of Observations 51,337
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
The single-year 8th grade variable was significantly associated with an increased
likelihood of a teacher exiting their school (Table 26). 8th grade teachers had 12.2% increased
odds in moving/leaving compared to their middle school peers. The cumulative 8th grade
variable was not significantly associated with exit likelihood. The first time teaching 8th grade
was associated with a 23.3% increase in exit odds compared to those teachers not teaching the
course. Unlike the other four course assignments, teaching 8th grade for the second or greater
time was not significantly associated with exit likelihood.
Table 26. 8th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 8th Grade 1.12221***
(0.026174)
Cumulative times teaching 8th
Grade
0.99333
(0.0071464)
First time teaching 8th Grade 1.23398***
(0.035890)
2nd or greater time teaching 8th
grade
1.04154
(0.031575)
Number of Observations 51,337
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 27. Summary of Middle School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated with
Mobility Outcomes
140

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Mobility
Variable
Movers/Leavers
Increased
Odds
● Teaching 8th grade
● First time teaching 6th and 8th
Reduced
Odds
● Teaching 6th grade
● Cumulative times teaching 6th grade
● 2nd or greater time teaching 6th grade
School Results.
In the models run without school fixed effects, increased school POC proportions were
significantly associated with increased likelihood of mobility at both the high school and middle
school levels. Just as in the multiple regression models, increased DLI proportions were not
associated with increased mobility at the high school nor the middle school levels. In a typical
high school model, each one percentage point increase in POC proportion was associated with a
0.07% odds increase in moving/leaving likelihood. The trends in the middle school models were
identical but the effect magnitudes were again marginally stronger. Each one percentage point
increase in POC proportion was associated with a 0.1% increase in moving/leaving odds.
Teachers at bigger high schools were also relatively less likely to exit for any reason.
Moving/leaving was significantly associated with increased school size at the middle school
level, with each additional student predicting a 0.002% odds decrease in exit likelihood at the
middle school level. When examining the key course assignments predictors within these
models, the findings remained substantially similar to the fixed-effects models, with no notable
changes in association significance or direction.
141

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Discussion
The Role of Seniority in Assignment
Just as in our prior study, we hypothesized that more senior teachers at schools would be
able to more successfully utilize various forms of capital to garner desired course assignments
and avoid undesired ones. We believed that teaching older and more advanced students, in the
form of 12th grade and AP courses, would be more alluring for high school teachers, while we
thought that teaching the younger students in 9th grade courses would be seen as less appealing.
At the middle school level, we predicted that the same general idea would also hold, with older
8th grade students seen as more enticing to instruct and younger 6th graders to be avoided if at
all possible.
Our high school hypotheses were generally borne out in the robust connection between
increased seniority and various course assignments, adding further credence to our national study
findings. As with the prior study, assignment to 9th grade and the proportion of course loads that
consisted of 9th grade decreased as teachers gained more experience and seniority, likely
pegging it as an undesirable grade to instruct. Further, as we predicted, teacher assignments to
12th grade and AP courses and the proportion of course loads that consisted of these two
assignments increased as teachers gained experience and seniority, meshing with the idea that
these courses are more desirable to teach. The effect was particularly strong for AP courses,
which supports the literature’s findings that more experienced teachers are more likely to teach
AP classes (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson, 2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012).
The results were not as clear cut at the middle school level, although they were generally
in line with the national study we conducted earlier in this paper. Just as with that prior study,
assignment to 6th grade and the proportion of course loads that consisted of 6th grade increased
142

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
as teachers gained experience. Unlike that study, this work showed a similar trend for increased
seniority as well, but only for the binary assignment variable. This finding implies that 6th grade
may be perceived as a desirable level to teach at the middle school level, a shift from the ideas
we brought into this investigation. Unlike the high school findings, which showed clear divisions
between higher and lower grade assignment trends, assignment to 8th grade and the proportion
of course loads that consisted of 8th grade also increased as teachers gained experience and
seniority. While this also implies that more senior teachers may prefer to teach 8th grade as well
as 6th grade, this counters the mobility findings connected to teaching 8th grade, which we will
discuss in depth momentarily. This could indicate that more senior teachers who are comfortable
in their assignments prefer to teach 8th grade courses, even if the overall body of 8th grade
teachers may be potentially unhappy with such assignments. There are alternative plausible
explanations for these trends that we will discuss further in the section below.
These findings should further cement the connection between seniority, increased
assignment to perceived desirable courses, and decreased assignment to perceived undesirable
courses. Regardless of the mechanism, there is a clear, consistent association between how long a
teacher has been at a school and the assignments they get. The literature had convincingly
established these links for Advanced Placement courses (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007;
Jackson, 2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012), but we further the connection for specific grades.
Assignment as a Potential Influence in Teacher Retention
The more crucial investigation of this particular study was the connection between
assignment and teacher mobility outcomes, specifically the likelihood that a teacher exits their
school for any reason. With the importance of retaining teachers amid the ongoing teacher
shortage (Aragon, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2022; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016) and the
143

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
potential harms that come from teacher mobility (Boyd et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2016;
Henry & Redding, 2018; Kho et al., 2023; Ronfeldt et al., 2013), school leaders must be aware of
the factors that are predictive of a teacher leaving their job, whether it be to teach elsewhere or to
leave the school system entirely.
We began this investigation into mobility by repeating our multiple regression analysis
from the prior national study before employing various survival analyses to more robustly isolate
assignment’s connection with mobility outcomes. These varying approaches examined the same
subsample of teachers, examining North Carolina public school teachers from 2007 to 2021
without prior teaching experience at their initial school of hire. The main difference was in the
methodology, with the survival analyses adding to the linear multiple regression analysis by
employing a set of time indicators and a baseline logit hazard function (Singer & Willett, 2003).
Further, the survival analyses took the additional step of examining multi-year assignment
variables, such as how often a teacher instructed a course and the first time they were assigned to
instruct a course. Overall, these two methods revealed substantially similar findings, with
implications for what they say about the desirability of various course assignments, the impact of
single-year and repeated assignments to such courses on mobility outcomes, as well as the
connection between assignment changes and teacher retention.
High School Considerations.
This study provides unique findings at the high school and middle school levels. Starting
with high school, based on the results of the prior national study we conducted in this paper, it
appeared that 9th grade courses were particularly undesirable for high school teachers. The
multiple regression analyses in that study as well as this one revealed that more senior teachers
are much less likely to be assigned to teach 9th grade, implying that 9th grade courses are
144

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
unwanted assignments. However, unlike that prior study, the current work did not find significant
associations between single-year 9th grade assignment and the likelihood of a teacher exiting
their school for any reason. More intriguingly, we saw that repeated teaching of 9th grade
courses over time was actually associated with a decreased likelihood of teachers exiting their
schools. What might explain this result? Ost & Schiman (2015) found that repeated teaching of
the same grade correlated with reduced mobility likelihood, likely due to the effective reduced
workload that comes from reusing lesson plans. Furthering this line of thought, it is plausible that
repeated teachings of the same grade level over time build comfortability that increases the odds
of a teacher remaining at their school. Thus, it is quite possible that while 9th grade may not be a
course that most teachers actively seek to be assigned to, those who are assigned it and do not
exit their school immediately may come to prefer such assignments or the reduced effective
workload that comes with teaching them again, reducing the odds they will leave their job in
comparison to those teachers with less consistent assignments. Alternatively, this could indicate
that teachers' preferences differ across experience levels, with more senior teachers preferring to
teach older students and more novice teachers preferring to teach younger students. In that
scenario, younger teachers assigned to 9th grade would not be more likely to leave than those
assigned to other courses. This could reasonably explain the experience divide in assignment but
the lack of instantaneous effect of assignment on mobility. Lastly, it could be that while 9th grade
courses may not be desirable assignments, teaching such courses may not be unsatisfying to the
point that such teachers would opt to exit their schools.
On the other hand, one 9th grade assignment predictor was associated with an increased
likelihood of exiting a school. Teachers in their first year teaching 9th grade were more likely to
exit their schools than teachers who have taught the course before and those who were not
145

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
teaching it. In fact, teachers teaching 9th grade for a 2nd or greater time were less likely to exit
than those not teaching the course at all. It may be the first exposure to an undesired class that
connects to a teacher’s decision to exit their school for any reason, with teachers in newly
unwanted working conditions opting to find preferred conditions at another school or in another
job.
While our prior study focused exclusively on assignment to courses hypothesized as
undesirable, the current work goes a step further by examining courses that we predicted would
be more desirable to teach. At the high school level, this included teaching older students in 12th
grade courses and higher-ability students in AP courses (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman &
Clayton, 2018). As we thought, increased experience and seniority were both highly associated
with an increased likelihood of assignment to these courses, confirming prior literature that
found that more experienced teachers are more likely to teach advanced classes (Clotfelter et al.,
2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson, 2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012). Interestingly, this relationship was
stronger for 12th grade than for AP courses. As 12th grade classes are more plentiful at high
schools than AP courses, this could indicate that more senior teachers are better able to earn
assignments to teach older students than they are at gaining the right to teach advanced students.
In line with prior works, teaching these courses perceived as more desirable was
generally associated with significantly decreased likelihood of all mobility outcomes across both
the multiple regression models and the survival analyses (Gulosino et al., 2019). While the
single-year variables were only predictive of this decrease for the AP courses, the cumulative
variables and repeat teaching indicator were all correlated with a decreased likelihood of a
teacher moving/leaving. Unlike the 9th grade variable, the first time teaching these courses was
not associated with mobility outcomes. These findings could indicate that, similar to assignment
146

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
to 9th grade, teachers need to build comfort with 12th grade courses over time to see retention
benefits. In contrast, assignment to AP courses likely has instantaneous benefits for teachers,
with such teachers much less likely to leave their jobs for any reason. Again, it is important to
remember that these findings are not causal. It is plausible that teachers assigned to AP are
already more committed to teaching, to remaining at their school, or are more successful overall
instructors. As this study utilized a method unsuited to causal inference and lacked teacher
quality and demographic covariates, there is no way to definitively say that assignment to teach
AP courses is the cause of the reduced mobility.
Middle School Considerations.
At the middle school level, our prior work indicated that teaching 6th grade may actually
be a preferable assignment, with the national study of teachers showing that teachers with such
assignments were less likely to exit their school for any reason. We wanted to follow up those
findings by further analyzing assignment to 6th grade in our survival analyses, as well as by
comparing such assignments to the highest middle school assignment, 8th grade.
6th grade assignments continued to be implicitly more desirable, with more senior and
more experienced teachers significantly more likely to end up with such assignments. Unlike the
high school results, which showed marked reversals in trends between 9th and 12th grade, these
patterns also held for 8th grade assignments, with more senior and experienced teachers also
more likely to teach 8th grade. This trend could indicate that more senior teachers take more
varied course loads as they gain experience. The proportional course load findings somewhat
bear this out, as more senior teachers had marginally less 6th grade but significantly more 8th
grade courses. This finding may indicate that the most senior teachers are comfortable with many
different preps, reducing their concentration of 6th grade courses but still increasing the
147

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
likelihood that they teach the class. Alternatively, it is possible that more senior teachers simply
do not teach 7th grade as often, with those courses disproportionately assigned to novice
teachers.
Despite these parallel patterns, 6th and 8th grade instructors showed dramatically
different mobility outcomes. In both the multiple regression and survival analyses, 6th grade
teachers were significantly less likely to exit their schools on nearly all of the assignment
variables, with the exception of the first time teaching the course. 8th grade teachers showed just
the opposite, with an increased likelihood of moving/leaving for the single-year variable as well
as their first time instructing the course. These opposing forces may reveal that 6th grade is the
preferable assignment at the middle school level compared to 8th grade. This is a reversal of the
high school trends, where teachers of older students tended to stay in their jobs more frequently.
At the middle school level, it is teachers of the youngest students who are the most secure.
However, the lack of teacher-level covariates also lend plausible alternative explanations for
these findings. Middle schools include teachers with multi-subject credentials that limit them to
teaching K-6, and single-subject credentials that allow teachers to teach a particular subject for
grades 6-12. Thus, it is possible that K-6 certified teachers prefer younger students and
single-subject teachers prefer older students, which could further explain the
seniority-assignment connection described above. It is important to note that such credentialing
differences were explored in Study 2, with no major link between credential type and mobility,
so this is a less compelling explanation for the mobility differences between 6th and 8th grade
teachers.
The 8th grade results were unique compared to the other four course assignments. 8th
grade assignment was the only course explored that showed no cumulative benefit of teaching
148

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
the course, with a non-significant increase in exit likelihood with each additional time instructing
8th grade. Neither additional years of being assigned to teach 8th grade nor teaching the course
for a repeated time were significantly predictive of mobility likelihood. All four of the other
assignments showed decreased likelihoods of mobility with increased assignment, again in line
with the prior finding that repeated teaching of the same grade correlated with reduced mobility
likelihood (Ost & Schiman, 2015). We argued earlier that these decreases may also be signs of
developing comfortability with courses over time, even for a conceivably undesirable assignment
such as 9th grade. This comfortability does not seem to apply to instructing 8th grade. There are
adverse instantaneous effects for mobility of being assigned to such courses and no positive
effects that accumulate over time. However, the increased mobility likelihood did abate within
the cumulative variable, even though it never turned to a reduced likelihood. This pattern could
help explain the counterintuitive finding that more senior teachers are more likely to teach this
seemingly unwanted assignment. Repeat 8th grade teachers are no more likely to exit their job
than those not teaching the course. So, while there may be an increased likelihood of mobility as
a function of being assigned to 8th grade, such an increase may be concentrated in teachers
teaching the course earlier in their careers. Again, we caution that these findings lack the power
of causal inference, and it is possible that teachers more likely to exit their school are shifted into
8th grade assignments rather than the assignments spurring the mobility. Nevertheless, it would
be prudent for middle school leaders to check in with 8th grade teachers to ensure they are
suitably handling their course load. School leaders would do well to pay special attention to
those teachers assigned to teach 8th grade for the first time.
149

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Who Wants to Teach 14-Year-Olds?.
Earlier studies have found that teachers with the toughest classroom assignments are the
most likely to exit their schools (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Feng, 2010), while those with the
most desirable assignments are less likely to exit (Gulosino et al., 2019). Applying those findings
to the current work, we can infer that 9th grade is the most challenging high school assignment,
while 8th grade is the most challenging middle school assignment. This trend runs somewhat at
odds with another idea from the literature: higher-ability students are seen as particularly
desirable to teach (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018; Monk, 1987). As students
gain academic ability as they age, it follows that older students are more desirable to teach than
younger students. This belief was the case in our high school findings, but we saw the opposite
in our middle school results.
What are we to make of this seeming paradox? Part of what prior work has found is that
teachers seek to avoid being assigned to courses with greater student behavioral issues due to the
increased classroom management requirements of instructing such classes (Feng, 2010; Grissom
et al., 2015; Monk, 1987). Additionally, those assigned to classes with more student discipline
incidents are more likely to leave their schools (Feng, 2009). With that in mind, where are
discipline issues most prevalent in middle and high schools? Cook et al. (2006) found that
disciplinary issues increase markedly throughout the middle school years, peaking in 8th grade.
In contrast, Gopalan and Nelson (2019) reported that student suspension and expulsion rates
tended to decrease with age at the high school level, while Scott et al. (2012) noted that 9th
graders make up a disproportionately high share of disciplinary referrals, with males making up
most of these referrals. The disproportionate prevalence of 8th and 9th grade disciplinary issues
150

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
is further explained by the finding that male emotional and behavioral problems peak at ages 14
and 15.
As most students are between the ages of 13 and 15 when completing 8th and 9th grades,
teaching these students is certain to come with emotional, behavioral, and disciplinary challenges
for teachers that they would likely not face if they were instead working with students aged 11 or
18. This likely increased prevalence of classroom management issues makes teaching 8th and 9th
graders an inherently more difficult assignment than teaching 6th or 12th graders. This line of
thinking provides a compelling explanation for the increased mobility of those teachers assigned
to 8th and 9th grade courses, as well as the decrease in such assignments as teachers gain
experience and seniority. Teachers may prefer not to teach such students and opt for other course
assignments once they gain the power. It may also explain why those instructors newly moving
into a behaviorally challenging course assignment may be especially likely to exit their school.
151

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Chapter Six: Implications
Within-school teacher assignment is an understudied area of the education field, with
major potential implications for teacher mobility outcomes, student equity, and student
achievement. This dissertation sought to meaningfully advance the field’s understanding of
within-school assignment by answering three important questions about within-school teacher
assignment:
1. What are the processes of secondary teacher assignment? What factors drive course
assignment decisions?
2. What is the association between teacher characteristics and course assignments,
particularly to the lowest-level courses at a school, such as instructing 6th graders, 9th
graders, or Algebra I students, and the highest-level courses at a school, such as
instructing 8th graders, 12th graders, and AP courses?
3. What is the association between teacher course assignments and teacher mobility?
These three questions inspired three interconnected studies that attempted to answer the what,
why, and so what of this work: What teachers are differentially assigned to teach lower-level and
higher-level courses? Why are such differential assignments happening? And so what: what are
the implications of differential assignment for teacher retention?
School Assignment Processes Center Teachers and Reward Seniority
The first question was investigated through a qualitative interview study that asked 17
Los Angeles area public and charter school leaders about their schools’ course assignment
processes. Within that work, we uncovered that although course assignments shape the
experiences of students and teachers, the process of assigning courses is dominated by teacher
interests alone. In the political systems of schools, teachers possess sources of capital valued by
152

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
the school leaders who dictate course assignments. The primary mechanism through which we
see teachers being centered is through school administrations’ collection of teachers’ course
preferences, which is undertaken in order to ensure teacher satisfaction, and in some cases,
retention. Though the course assignment process is not typically centered on student equity,
administrators frequently try to maximize it. However, this is not always possible when honoring
teacher preferences is the first priority. Generally, this results in a distribution of teacher talents
that school leaders feel does not maximize student success, especially for high-needs students.
A main deterrent to more equitable course assignment processes for students is teacher
seniority, which the prior micropolitics literature hypothesized would hold particular importance
in course assignments (Grissom et al., 2015; Lieberman & Clayton, 2018). Some schools
consciously defer to more senior teachers’ preferences, but even schools that do not explicitly
value seniority still maintain the status quo of prior assignments, which prior work argued was a
common organizational feature (Sarason, 1990). Maintaining the status quo implicitly lends itself
to valuing seniority, as the longer the teacher is in a role, the more likely the person is to keep
that assignment. This practice was mostly described as a way to avoid conflict between
administrators and teachers as well as conflict amongst teachers within departments. Using
seniority as the mechanism that drives assignment has a major drawback: teachers tend to prefer
higher-level course assignments. This process has the propensity to exacerbate equity issues for
students, as the most vulnerable students end up with the least experienced teachers at a school.
While student characteristics like age, behavior, and ability were discussed as important factors
that should be considered when assigning teachers, these were inconsistently applied depending
on the style of the school leader, which does not ensure equitable teacher distributions for student
needs.
153

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
This study is the first qualitative work at the secondary level to explicitly explore the role
of teacher capital in the course assignment process. It found practical evidence to support prior
hypotheses made utilizing the micropolitics framework, particularly regarding the power that
increased school-specific experience grants teachers.
Seniority’s Connection to Desirable and Undesirable Course Assignments
Following up this first study’s revelations about the unique importance of seniority and
teacher preferences in guiding schools’ course assignment processes, the second and third studies
sought to answer the second guiding question by uncovering the association between teacher
experience, particularly experience at their current school, and assignment to various courses,
such as 9th grade, 12th grade, AP, Algebra I, 6th grade, and 8th grade. The second study focused
in particular on the lowest grade courses at middle and high schools, 6th and 9th grade, as well as
Algebra I, due to the hypothesis that such assignments would be seen as generally undesirable
due to teacher preference to work with higher ability students (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores,
2007; Grissom et al., 2015; Jackson, 2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012). This work used a nationally
representative data set of public school teachers over five different school years to examine these
potential relationships. The third study repeated the national study’s work with a much larger
longitudinal data set of North Carolina public school teachers from 2007 to 2021 while also
further examining seniority’s connection to assignment to potentially desirable courses, 12th
grade, AP, and 8th grade.
Overall, the high school results conformed to our expectations, with increased experience
and increased seniority predicting decreased assignment likelihood to the lower-level courses,
9th grade and Algebra I, and increased assignment likelihood for the upper-level courses, 12th
grade and AP. The findings were less consistent at the middle school level. The national study
154

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
found a split in 6th grade assignment likelihood between seniority and overall experience. The
North Carolina study found that more senior teachers were more likely to be assigned to 6th
grade courses, but also found the same thing for 8th grade courses. Thus, it is potentially the case
that more senior teachers teach a wider variety of courses at the middle school level or that such
teachers concentrate in 6th and 8th grade classes at the expense of 7th grade classes.
These findings implicitly reveal the most desirable courses to teach at the high school
level. While prior work had accomplished this for AP courses, this is the first study to do this for
all level courses for 9th and 12th grades. These results also more deeply establish the deep
importance of seniority in course assignment outcomes. Increased seniority was significantly
associated with assignment to every course we regressed it against. Further, seniority was more
strongly connected to assignment than overall experience, highlighting a gap in the literature that
tended to focus on overall rather than school-specific experience.
Course Assignment as a Predictor of Teacher Mobility
The second and third studies attempted to answer my final guiding question examining
the connection between various course assignments and teacher mobility outcomes. The national
study used multiple single administration surveys to track teacher mobility as a function of their
course assignments to perceived undesirable courses. The North Carolina study went several
steps further by utilizing longitudinal data over 15 school years, employing various survival
analyses to more robustly connect single-year and cumulative assignment to both potentially
undesirable and desirable courses to track teacher mobility outcomes.
Despite the differences in data sets and approaches, the findings were substantially
similar across both works, with the primary difference being the 9th grade results. In general,
teaching implicitly undesirable courses, such as 8th and 9th grade, for the first time was
155

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
associated with an increased likelihood of teacher mobility. The 8th grade teaching variables had
the strongest association with increased mobility outcomes of any predictor. In contrast, teaching
desirable courses, such as 6th grade, 12th grade, and AP, was associated with reduced mobility
outcomes. Of these three, teaching AP courses had the strongest association with mobility of any
of the high school predictors. For four of the five courses studied, repeated teachings were
associated with reduced mobility likelihood, potentially due to increased comfortability with the
assignments or due to the decrease in effective workload that comes from reusing lesson plans
from year to year (Ost & Schiman, 2015).
This work also brings unique attention to the potential challenges of teaching students
that are in 8th and 9th grades. These students have disproportionately high behavioral, emotional,
and disciplinary issues (Gopalan & Nelson, 2019; Scott et al., 2012). This reality makes
managing classrooms with high concentrations of such students distinctly challenging for
teachers, likely making such courses particularly undesirable to teach. As prior work has found
that teachers in classrooms with more disciplinary issues are more likely to exit their schools
(Feng, 2010), it is reasonable to believe this may explain the increased mobility outcomes for
these teachers.
This is the first study to use a longitudinal data set to robustly link secondary course
assignment to teacher mobility outcomes, further establishing the importance of within-school
teacher assignment. In particular, this study uniquely makes use of cumulative looks at course
assignment, considering how factors such as repeated teachings of a course and first assignment
to a course correlates with teacher retention.
156

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Recommendations for School Leaders
America continues to face a nationwide teacher shortage and retention crisis (Aragon,
2016; Nguyen et al., 2022; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Having established the
importance of teacher preferences and seniority in the course assignment process, the
associations between seniority and course assignment, and the connection between course
assignment and teacher mobility, I now make recommendations to help school leaders best
manage course assignments to support teacher retention, study equity, and student achievement.
With teacher retention of paramount importance, leaders must intentionally consider
faculty course assignments and teachers’ corresponding contentment with such assignments.
Knowing that teachers working in behaviorally difficult situations are at increased risk of leaving
their jobs (Feng, 2009), school leaders must be wary of how potentially undesired or challenging
courses are doled out to teachers. School leaders can ask: How often are the same teachers
assigned to desirable and undesirable courses? Have they taught such courses before? What
proportion of their course load consists of varying types of courses?
As there are necessarily scarce desirable higher-level courses, particularly for AP classes,
school leaders must assign some teachers to teach implicitly less desirable courses. These less
desirable courses come with an increased proportional risk that such teachers will exit their
school, whether to teach elsewhere or to leave the profession entirely. As uncovered in the
qualitative study in this paper, most school leaders already do well in gathering teacher
preferences and trying to enact them. However, some leaders reported regularly preempting
teacher preferences, typically by steering teachers to request certain courses they may have not
otherwise desired. Getting an accurate gauge of what teachers honestly prefer to teach is
important. The interview respondents argued that teachers instructing courses they wanted to
157

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
were more effective instructors and less likely to exit the school. While the link between explicit
teacher preference and mobility was unable to be examined, it is reasonable to think that teachers
happy with their working conditions are less likely to exit their schools, as corroborated by the
literature (Feng, 2010; Podolsky et al., 2016).
As discussed in Study 2, school leaders could work to more equitably distribute
undesirable and desirable courses amongst the faculty body. This practice could encompass
assigning teachers who may currently exclusively teach higher-level courses, such as 12th grade
or AP, to take one lower-grade course through a high-low model. This approach was already in
place at a few of the schools included in the interview study, with leaders mentioning it as a
potential boon for teacher satisfaction and student equity. As discussed above, such a decision
would have to come as the result of school and departmental discussions that emphasize the
positive effects of such changes - imposing such a change from the top risks elevating some
teachers’ satisfaction at the expense of diminishing others’ happiness. Even administrators
making such changes with the best intentions will almost certainly face pushback, as described
by the department chairs in this paper’s qualitative study.
Another plausible solution to inequitable assignments could be a rotation system where
some teachers alternate having multiple sections of undesirable courses from year to year. While
this may be challenging for teachers within an individual year, the survival analysis indicates no
additional negative associations with mobility of teaching 8th and 9th grade for a repeat time.
Giving teachers in difficult course assignments the promise of a less taxing course load to look
forward to in the following year may be a tool to help promote retention, as teachers would need
not leave the school to find better working conditions elsewhere. However, it may also have the
opposite effect on teachers moving from preferable assignments to more challenging ones.
158

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Again, it would be essential for administrators to get teachers to buy into such a plan before
implementing it.
An increased spread system and a rotation system both have the added benefit of placing
greater numbers of experienced teachers into the lower-level classrooms they often avoid
(Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007; Jackson, 2014; Kalogrides et al., 2012). As such classrooms
have disproportionate numbers of students of color, low-income students, and low-achieving
students (Clotfelter et al., 2004; Flores, 2007), this implicitly creates an equity issue. Further, as
less experienced teachers tend to have students with inferior outcomes (Bolyard &
Moyer-Packenham, 2008; Goe, 2007), inequitable assignments also create student achievement
gaps. Redistributing a school’s highly experienced and high-quality teachers, even a marginal
amount, could have major benefits for students. Further, Jeong and Luschei (2019) argue that
schools should complement teacher redistribution by better integrating students with different
ability levels into a wider variety of courses. This adjustment would avoid concentrating the
negative effects of having a low-quality teacher onto a single student group, as they would be
spread among a greater number of classes.
There is no easy solution when attempting to address inequitable course assignments, and
every school context will be different. School leaders would do well to gather annual anonymous
survey data about how satisfied teachers are with their course assignments and why to see if
there are potential problems at their school. If a meaningful portion of teachers are unhappy in
their assignments, leaders could follow up with honest conversations that could spur some of the
changes described in this section. Simply maintaining the status quo as a way to avoid conflicts
both between administrators and teachers and amongst teachers, as our school leaders reported,
is not a successful path forward. Changing the status quo often feels unnatural to organizations
159

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
and their leaders (Sarson, 1990), but such changes could pay major dividends for teacher
satisfaction and retention, as well as for student equity and achievement.
Future Work
This dissertation’s three studies are a step forward in the field’s understanding of
secondary within-school teacher assignment. Particular strides were made regarding the
importance of seniority in assignment as well as the link between assignment and teacher
retention. Moving forward, there are a number of further avenues that could expand on these
findings.
While this work allows me to infer teacher preferences from their assignments and
mobility behavior, survey studies that explicitly ask teachers what they prefer to teach would
provide more concrete evidence. Administrators in the interview study in this dissertation argued
that teachers were overwhelmingly teaching what they preferred to teach, although chairs relayed
their own negative teaching experiences that rebutted such claims. Such work would reveal what
proportion of teachers are assigned to the courses they wish to teach. That survey or a related
work could also more explicitly link mobility decisions to course assignments. Podolsky et al.
(2016) asked teachers about their working conditions when exploring teacher mobility but did
not specifically ask about course assignment as a factor in retention decisions. A similar work
that allows teachers to report dissatisfaction with course assignments as a reason for exiting their
job would reveal if teachers are consciously leaving due to undesired assignments. Lastly, the
data sets in the mobility studies in this dissertation were not suited for causal methods. However,
it is plausible that schools have conducted experiments regarding course assignments or have
changed their policies in ways that would create natural experiments suitable for causal analysis.
160

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Such a study could explicitly and causally link assignment to teacher retention, with significant
potential implications for practice.
Conclusions
This overall work does well to complement rigorous quantitative explorations, which
uncovered meaningful patterns in teacher assignment, seniority, and mobility, with a
corresponding qualitative work that provided compelling explanations for why such patterns may
emerge as a natural result of secondary course assignment processes. This multi-pronged
approach yielded compelling answers to the what, why, and so what I sought to uncover through
these investigations.
The two quantitative studies revealed the “what,”: more senior teachers are much more
likely to instruct AP and higher grade courses and much less likely to instruct 9th graders or
Algebra I. Such patterns did not hold at the middle school level, as more experienced teachers
tended to be assigned 6th grade at the highest rate. The interview study with administrators and
department chairs provided the “why” in explaining these initial findings. Teachers were
centered over all else in the course assignment process, with a primary goal of enacting their
preferences as much as possible. Leaders explicitly and implicitly indicated that seniority was a
particularly influential form of capital in these processes, explaining why more senior teachers
may have differential assignment patterns compared to their more novice colleagues.
Lastly, the two quantitative studies provided the “so what” by robustly linking course
assignments to teacher retention outcomes. While this study did not establish causal links, it did
establish that assignment to undesirable courses was generally associated with increased
mobility, while assignment to desirable courses was generally correlated with decreased mobility.
This work also further uncovered 8th grade as a potentially undesirable course at the middle
161

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
school level, which paired with the possible unpopularity of 9th grade courses at the high school
level. This result hints at a potential preference for teachers to avoid working with 13- to
15-year-olds, who are concentrated within these grades. These findings were corroborated by
prior studies that reported greater emotional, behavioral, and disciplinary problems for these
students. This work provides the most compelling evidence yet that course assignment decisions
play a role in teacher retention outcomes. School leaders, policymakers, and researchers hoping
to combat the teacher retention crisis must continue to examine within-school course assignment
as a potential mechanism for teacher mobility.
This dissertation aims to bring greater attention to within-school teacher assignment as an
important factor in teacher mobility, student equity, and student achievement. While the field
focuses primarily on variations in teacher quality and experience between schools, just as much,
if not more, variation exists within schools. Thus, while it is well established that students
between schools receive vastly different educational experiences, work exploring the differing
experiences of students within schools is not as ubiquitous. While within-school teacher sorting
has salient consequences for teachers and students alike, the benefit of focusing on this issue is
that it can be meaningfully addressed within schools and districts without costly or complicated
policy interventions. Changing course assignment practices to maximize teacher retention,
student equity, and student achievement will be challenging, but I am confident that
improvement is attainable.
162

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Contributions to This Paper
This paper would not be possible without my talented collaborators. For Study 1, the
coding, analysis, methodological descriptions, results, discussion, and conclusions were
completed in conjunction with Shelby Leigh Smith, Isabel Clay, and Margaret Dawson-Amoah,
in a conference paper (and hopeful future journal article) that I will be first author on. For Study
2 and the work that supported it, the literature review of teacher mobility, methodological
descriptions, analysis, discussion, and conclusions were completed in collaboration with Dr.
Adam Kho, for a preprint journal paper that I serve as first author on. For Study 3, the data was
graciously provided by the North Carolina Education Research Data Center with the assistance
of Dr. Adam Kho, and the analytical strategy was conceived with the assistance of Drs. Morgan
Polikoff and Adam Kho. When the work will be submitted, I will again be listed as first author.
The introduction, literature review, theory sections, and methodological approaches were greatly
sharpened from my qualifying exam writings with valuable feedback from Drs. Morgan Polikoff,
David Quinn, Adam Kho, Julie Marsh, and Dan Silver.
163

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and
Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
Amanchukwu, R. N., Stanley, G. J., & Ololube, N. P. (2015). A Review of Leadership Theories,
Principles and Styles and Their Relevance to Educational Management. Management
Science, 5(1), 6–14.
http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/magha/files/2014/05/A-Review-of-Leadership-Theories.pdf
Aragon, S. (2016). Teacher Shortages: What we know. Teacher Shortage Series. Education
Commission of the States. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565893.pdf
Atteberry, A., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2017). Teacher churning: Reassignment rates and
implications for student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1),
3–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716659929
Ball, S. J. (2012). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization.
Routledge.
Barrett, N., & Toma, E. F. (2013). Reward or punishment? Class size and teacher quality.
Economics of Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.03.001
Bastian, K. C., & Janda, L. (2018). Does quantity affect quality? Teachers’ course preparations
and effectiveness. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(4), 535–558.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1483455
Bertaux, D. (1981). Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences. (No
Title).
Björk, L. G., & Blasé, J. (2009). The micropolitics of school district decentralization.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(3), 195–208.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9078-y
Blase, J. (Ed.). (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blasé, J. (2007). The micropolitics of educational change. In Springer eBooks (pp. 264–277).
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4453-4_13
Blasé, J., & Björk, L. G. (2010). The micropolitics of educational change and reform: Cracking
open the black box. In Springer eBooks (pp. 237–258).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_14
164

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Blase, J., & Blasé, J. (2002). The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 6–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x02381002
Blazar, D. (2015). Grade assignments and the teacher pipeline. Educational Researcher, 44(4),
213–227. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15580944
Bolyard, J. J., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2008). A review of the literature on mathematics and
science teacher quality. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(4), 509–535.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802414890
Boyd, D., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Who leaves? Teacher
attrition and student achievement. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14022
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2023). Single subject teaching credential
requirements for teachers prepared in California (CL-560C). ctc.ca.gov. Retrieved
February 27, 2023, from
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/credentials/assignment-resources/science-aut
hs-chart.pdf?sfvrsn=b85e2338_2
Chingos, M. M., & West, M. R. (2011). Promotion and reassignment in public school districts:
How do schools respond to differences in teacher effectiveness? Economics of Education
Review, 30(3), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.011
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2004). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution
of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.06.008
Cohen-Vogel, L. (2011). “Staffing to the test”: Are today’s school personnel practices evidence
based? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483–505.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711419845
Cook, J. C., & Mansfield, R. (2016). Task-specific experience and task-specific talent:
Decomposing the productivity of high school teachers. Journal of Public Economics,
140, 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.04.001
Cook, P. J., MacCoun, R. J., Muschkin, C. G., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Should sixth grade be in
elementary or middle school? An analysis of grade configuration and student behavior.
NBER Working Papers Series. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED493391
Creswell J.W., Poth C.N.. (2018, 4
th Ed). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Approaches. Fourth edition. SAGE.
Csaszar, F. A., & Ostler, J. (2020). A contingency theory of representational complexity in
organizations. Organization Science, 31(5), 1198–1219.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1346
165

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Darling-Hammond, L. (2023, January 5). Policymakers should ring in the new year with action
to end teacher shortages. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindadarlinghammond/2023/01/05/policymakers-should-rin
g-in-the-new-year-with-action-to-end-teacher-shortages/?sh=693dab8b6d35
Dilberti, M. K., & Schwartz, H. L. (2022). Districts continue to struggle with staffing, political
polarization, and unfinished instruction: Selected findings from the fifth American
School District Panel Survey. In RAND Corporation eBooks.
https://doi.org/10.7249/rra956-13
Donaldson, L. (2005). The contingency theory of organizational design: Challenges and
opportunities. Springer US EBooks, 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34173-0_2
Feng, L. (2006). Combating Teacher Shortages: Who Leaves, Who Moves, and Why. Retrieved
(Unpublished Dissertation) from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-4479
Feng, L. (2010). Hire today, gone tomorrow: New teacher classroom assignments and teacher
mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 5(3), 278–316.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00002
Feng, L. (2009). Opportunity wages, classroom characteristics, and teacher mobility. Southern
Economic Journal, 75(4), 1165–1190.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2009.tb00952.x
Feng, L., & Sass, T. R. (2017). Teacher quality and teacher mobility. Education Finance and
Policy, 12(3), 396–418. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00214
Flessa, J. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership. Peabody Journal of
Education, 84(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902973522
Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or
opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29–42.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2007.0022
Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes. National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality.
https://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/LinkBetweenTQandStudentOutcomes.pdf
Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher
quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher,
44(5), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15592622
Gopalan, M., & Nelson, A. A. (2019). Understanding the racial discipline gap in schools. AERA
Open, 5(2), 233285841984461. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419844613
166

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Graham, B. S., Ridder, G., Thiemann, P., & Zamarro, G. (2020). Teacher-to-Classroom
assignment and student achievement. ArXiv: Econometrics.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w27543
Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). The micropolitics of educational inequality:
The case of teacher–student assignments. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(5), 601-614.
Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2017). Strategic staffing? How performance
pressures affect the distribution of teachers within schools and resulting student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1079–1116.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716301
Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Nakashima, N. A. (2013). Strategic involuntary teacher transfers and
teacher performance: Examining equity and efficiency. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 33(1), 112–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21732
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
Hansén, M., Backes, B., & Brady, V. (2016). Teacher attrition and mobility during the Teach for
America Clustering Strategy in Miami-Dade County public schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 495–516.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716638441
Hanson, E. M. (1979). School management and contingency theory: An emerging perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(2), 98–116.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x7901500209
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. P., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher
quality. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.3386/w11154
Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G., & Schiman, J. C. (2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on
the quality of instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55, 132–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.08.004
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement.
Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 798–812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference, what is the research evidence?.
https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_confere
nce_2003
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating
to achievement. Taylor & Francis.
167

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Henry, G. T., & Redding, C. (2020). The consequences of leaving school early: the effects of
within-year and end-of-year teacher turnover. Education Finance and Policy, 15(2),
332–356. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00274
Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 81(396), 945–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354
Hwang, N., & Fitzpatrick, B. D. (2021). Male teacher assignment and teacher turnover in
elementary schools. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211054106
George, B., Seals, S. R., & Aban, I. (2014). Survival analysis and regression models. Journal of
Nuclear Cardiology, 21(4), 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12350-014-9908-2
Gulosino, C., Ni, Y., & Rorrer, A. K. (2019). Newly hired teacher mobility in charter schools and
traditional public Schools: An Application of Segmented Labor Market Theory.
American Journal of Education, 125(4), 547–592. https://doi.org/10.1086/704096
Iannaccone, L. R. (1991). Micropolitics of education. Education and Urban Society, 23(4),
465–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124591023004008
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? [Dataset]. In PsycEXTRA Dataset.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e382722004-001
Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics
and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4),
435–464. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712454326
Jackson, C. K. (2014). Teacher quality at the high school level: The importance of accounting for
tracks. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(4), 645–684. https://doi.org/10.1086/676017
Jaffee, D. (2001). Organization theory: tension and change (First). McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Jeong, D. W., & Luschei, T. F. (2019). Teacher sorting within and across schools and nations: A
comparative study of South Korea and the United States. Teachers College Record: The
Voice of Scholarship in Education, 121(8), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912100804
Johnson Jr., B. L. (2001). Micropolitical dynamics of education interests: A view from within.
Educational Policy, 15(1), 115-134.
Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2013). Different teachers, different peers: The magnitude of student
sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 304–316.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x13495087
168

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Béteille, T. (2012). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and
class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86(2), 103–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712456555
Kho, A., Henry, G. T., Pham, L. D., & Zimmer, R. (2023). Spillover effects of recruiting teachers
for school turnaround: Evidence from Tennessee. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 45(2), 268-284.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A
descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024001037
Lieberman, D. S., & Clayton, J. (2018). Social capital, power, school-based decision making, and
the teaching assignment process. Journal of Professional Capital and Community.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-01-2018-0002
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in
naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, 1986(30), 73-84.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lochmiller, C. R. (2017). Exploring the micropolitics of principal staffing advocacy. Journal of
Educational Administration, 56(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-02-2017-0014
Luschei, T. F. (2012). In search of good teachers: Patterns of teacher quality in two Mexican
states. Comparative Education Review, 56(1), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1086/661508
Malen, B., & Cochran, M. V. (2008). Beyond pluralistic patterns of power: Research on the
micropolitics of schools. In Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 19-52).
Routledge.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). The micropolitics of implementing a school-based bonus policy.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 164–184.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711428354
Marsh, J. A. (2022). Policy implementation from a micropolitical perspective: The case of New
York City's bonus program. DRAFT forthcoming in the updated In M. Honig (Ed.), New
directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity Albany, NY:
SUNY.
Merenbloom, E. Y., & Kalina, B. A. (2017). The educational leader’s guide for school
scheduling: Strategies addressing grades K-12. Routledge.
Monk, D. (1987). Assigning elementary pupils to their teachers. Elementary School Journal,
88(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/461531
169

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). National teacher and principal survey - NTPS
methods, procedures, and research. nces.ed.gov. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/methods-procedures.asp
Napier, J. B., Luft, J. A., & Singh, H. (2020). In the classrooms of newly hired secondary science
teachers: The consequences of teaching in-field or out-of-field. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 31(7), 802–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2020.1800195
Nguyen, T. D., Lam, C. B., and Bruno, P. (2022). Is there a national teacher shortage? A
systematic examination of reports of teacher shortages in the United States.
(EdWorkingPaper: 22-631). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University:
https://doi.org/10.26300/76eq-hj32
Ogunsola-Bandele, M. F. (1999). Teaching science courses in and out of area of specialisation
in a single-sex co-educational schools. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED429834
Opper, I. M. (2019). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4312.html
Ost, B. (2014). How do teachers improve? The relative importance of specific and general
human capital. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2), 127–151.
https://doi.org/10.1257/app.6.2.127
Ost, B., & Schiman, J. C. (2015). Grade-specific experience, grade reassignments, and teacher
turnover. Economics of Education Review, 46, 112–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.03.004
Pathak, R. (2011). Behavioural and emotional problems in school going adolescents.
Australasian Medical Journal, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.4066/amj.2011.464
Paufler, N. A., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). The random assignment of students into
elementary classrooms: Implications for value-added analyses and interpretations.
American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 328–362.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213508299
Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are
shortchanged on teacher quality. The Education Trust.
https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TQReportJune2006.pdf
Pffefer, J., & Salanick, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. Stanford Business Books.
170

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Phillips, K. J. R. (2010). What does “highly qualified” mean for student achievement?
Evaluating the relationships between teacher quality indicators and at-risk students’
mathematics and reading achievement gains in first grade. Elementary School Journal,
110(4), 464–493. https://doi.org/10.1086/651192
Player, D. (2009). Nonmonetary compensation in the public teacher labor market. Education
Finance and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2009.5.1.5105
Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the Teacher
Shortage: How to attract and Retain Excellent Educators.
https://doi.org/10.54300/262.960
Rogers, L. K., & Doan, S. (2019). Late to class: Estimating the relationship between teacher
assignment change and student sorting. The Elementary School Journal, 120(2),
347–371.
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813
Rothstein, J. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on
observables and unobservables. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 537–571.
https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2009.4.4.537
Scheerens, J. (2015). Theories on educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 10–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.858754
Scott, T. M., Hirn, R. G., & Barber, H. (2012). Affecting disproportional outcomes by ethnicity
and grade level: Using discipline data to guide practice in high school. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(2), 110–120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2011.592168
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. Teachers college press.
Silver, D., Saunders, M., & Zarate, E. (2008). What factors predict high school graduation in
LAUSD. California Dropout Research Project.
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/11619/11619.pdf
Singer, J., Marsh, J. A., Menefee-Libey, D., Alonso, J., Bradley, D., & Tracy, H. (2023). The
politics of school reopening during COVID-19: A multiple case study of five urban
districts in the 2020–21 school year. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(3),
542–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x231168397
171

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Singer, J. & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling
Change and Event Occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Struyve, C., Meredith, C., & Gielen, S. (2014). Who am I and where do I belong? The perception
and evaluation of teacher leaders concerning teacher leadership practices and
micropolitics in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2), 203–230.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9226-5
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching?
teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. https://doi.org/10.54300/247.242
Thiemann, P. (2018). Inequality in education outcomes: The role of sorting among students,
teachers, and schools.
Vagi, R., Pivovarova, M., & Barnard, W. (2017). Keeping our best? A survival analysis
examining a measure of preservice teacher quality and teacher attrition. Journal of
Teacher Education, 70(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117725025
Webb, P. T. (2008). Re‐mapping power in educational micropolitics. Critical Studies in
Education, 49(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480802040183
172

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Appendix
Instruments
Instrument 1: Interview Protocol for Qualitative Study
Script:
Today, we will be talking for about one hour about your experiences with the teacher course
assignment process. If at any time you do not understand a question or do not wish to answer a
question, please let me know and I will either rephrase the question or we will move on to the
next one. Additionally, if at any time you wish to end the interview, please let me know and we
will do so immediately. For the purposes of data analysis, would you be comfortable with our
conversation being audio recorded? The audio recording will only be accessed by our research
team members for transcriptions and analysis, and will not be shared elsewhere. Having the
recording helps us ensure we accurately represent your words in our work.
The data for this study will be compiled into a report, but your responses will remain
anonymous. No identifiable information about you will be included in the final report. After the
interviews have been analyzed, the recording will be destroyed after 3 years.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
First, I’d like to learn more about your experiences as an educator and to confirm the answers
you gave on the pre-interview survey.
1. For the recording, can you please say your name and the school you work at?
2. You mentioned in the survey you’ve been in education for ( ___) years. Is that accurate?
3. You mentioned that you’ve been at this school for (___) years, is that right?
4. You mentioned in the survey that you are currently (___ role) at your school. Is that
right?
5. How many years have you held the specific position that you hold now?
6. How did you come to be in a school leadership role?
This section of the interview is focused on discussing your experiences in assigning teachers the
courses they will teach, or “building the master schedule”.
7. What is the process your current school uses to assign courses to teachers?
a. Follow up if necessary:
i. How is it decided who teaches advanced courses?
173

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
ii. How is it decided who teaches remedial courses?
8. (If they’ve worked at another school) How does this process compare to other schools
you’ve been at?
9. What is your role in teacher course assignments?
10. What role do teachers play in delegating course assignments?
11. (If they are not department chair) What is the department chair’s role in course
assignment?
12. Who are the key administrators at your school in the course assignment process?
a. (Based on their response) What role do the people you identified play in the
process?
13. Are there any teacher characteristics that you perceive as being connected to what
courses teachers are assigned?
a. (If they don’t bring up experience/quality or don’t have an answer) What role do
you think teacher experience plays in course assignment? What about time spent
at your particular school? And what about teacher quality?
14. Are there any student characteristics that you perceive as being connected to what
courses teachers are assigned?
a. (If necessary, prompt about student ability, behaviors, age, first language)
Now I would like to ask you about your thoughts on your school’s course assignment process.
15. How effective would you say your school’s process is in properly placing teachers with
courses that they are most suited to teach?
16. How equitable would you say your school’s process is to teachers?
17. What changes would you make to the process (if any) to improve teacher satisfaction?
18. How equitable would you say it is to students?
a. Follow up if necessary:
i. How equitable would you say it is to students in advanced courses?
ii. How equitable would you say it is to students in remedial courses?
19. What changes would you make to the process (if any) to maximize student success? To
maximize student equity?
20. Is there anything else that you would like to add about your experiences with teacher
course assignments that I have not asked? Please feel free to add in anything you’d like
me to know.
That concludes our interview and your participation in this study. Now that you’ve completed the
interview, you will receive your study incentive once we are done with all of our interviews,
likely sometime in May. The amount will be between $25 and $50. If you would like to be sent a
copy of the final report once this study is completed, please let one of the study investigators
know and they will do so. Thank you for your time, and please reach out if you have any
questions or concerns about this study and your involvement in it.
174

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Instrument 2. Codebook
Former School Assignment Process
● Bottom-Up Teacher Assignment: Chairs/teachers primarily drive the assignment process
● Collaborative Teacher Assignment: Administrators and Department Chairs work
collaboratively to build the master schedule
● Top-Down Teacher Assignment: School administrators primarily drive the assignment
process
Assignment Equity
● School is Equitable to Teachers: Respondent believes that the school is “equitable” based
on their interpretation of the word; Question-specific code
● School is Inequitable to Teachers: Respondent believes that the school is “inequitable”
based on their interpretation of the word; Question-specific code
Changes Needed?
● Student Equity
○ Changes can be made to maximize equity: Question-specific code, can be implicit
though admittance that conditions aren’t great
○ No changes needed to maximize equity: Question-specific code
● Student Success
○ Changes can be made to maximize success: Question-specific code, can be
implicit though admittance that conditions aren’t great
○ No changes needed for success: Question-specific code
● Teacher happiness
○ Changes needed for teacher satisfaction: Question-specific code, can be implicit
though admittance that conditions aren’t great
○ No changes needed for teacher satisfaction: Question-specific code
● Consistency across schools: Teacher notes that processes are similar across multiple
schools they have worked at
● Current school assignment process
○ High-low model: School assigns teachers to advanced and remedial classes
simultaneously
○ Collaborative teacher assignment: Administrators and Department Chairs work
collaboratively to build the master schedule
○ Bottom-up teacher assignment: Chairs/teachers primarily drive the assignment
process
○ Teacher preference considered
○ Top-down teacher assignment: School administrators primarily drive the
assignment process; only be coded when explicit
● Descriptive
175

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
○ Position: What is their job at the school
○ Role: What is their role in the teacher assignment process
○ School size : indicator code - only mark the text that specifies size
● Assignment Effectiveness
○ School effectively places teachers: Question-specific code
○ School ineffectively places teachers: Question-specific code
● Logistical limitations: Scheduling limitations, staffing limitations, distribution of
credentials limitations, special programs, any practical thing that constrains what the
person can control within the schedule
● Performative collaboration: Disconnect between stated collaboration practices and actual
practices, as evidenced elsewhere in the interview. If this co-occurs with the actual
approach, also code the actual approach. If this is just them saying collaboration, do not
also code as collaboration.
● Special course considerations
○ Advanced courses special consideration: School gives special consideration to
some aspect of how teachers are assigned to advanced courses
○ Remedial courses special consideration: School gives special consideration to
some aspect of how teachers are assigned to remedial courses
● Student characteristics associated with assignment
○ No importance given to student ability
○ Age importance: consider needs of students at different ages/grades
○ Background importance: Demographic differences (gender and race)
○ Behavior importance: considers how student behaviors necessitate different
student needs (e.g. immaturity of 9th graders or senioritis of 12th graders)
○ Ability importance
○ No importance given to student age
○ No importance given to student background
○ No importance given to student behavior
○ Student course placement issues
● Teacher characteristics associated with assignment
○ Hiring importance: The importance of hiring teachers that fit into the plans for
course assignment (e.g. hiring someone with interest in teaching geometry when
the school needs a geometry teacher). The idea that you teach what you are hired
to teach.
○ Overall experience is important: Respondent response to how important overall
teacher experience is in teacher assignment; experience specific to being in the
classroom (not including degrees or other experience)
○ Overall experience is not important:
○ Personality importance: Teacher personality/relationships with students
176

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
○ Quality is important: Respondent response to how important teacher quality is in
teacher assignment; quality can be defined by academic preparation; can be how
they handle classroom
○ Quality is not important:
○ Credential importance
○ Seniority is Explicitly Important
○ Seniority is Explicitly Unimportant
○ Seniority is Implicitly Important: Teachers teach the same thing every year. More
experienced teachers tend to get what they want. Can be co-coded with overall
experience. Discussions of continuity.
○ Seniority is Implicitly Unimportant: Language of teacher quality or fitting the
people to the classes they are most suited for. Anything about clean slate from
year to year.
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Respondent Characteristics for Study 1
Person Role School School
Level
Gender Race Age Years in
Education
Years in
Leadership
Role
1 DC A HS F W 61-65 36-40 26-30
2 DC B HS M W 31-35 6-10 1-5
3 DC B HS M A 36-40 11-15 1-5
4 AP C HS F W 41-45 21-25 6-10
5 DC D HS M W 41-45 16-20 1-5
6 DC D HS M W 46-50 26-30 11-15
7 P E HS M B 46-50 26-30 16-20
8 AP F HS M A 46-50 21-25 6-10
9 AP G HS M B 36-40 11-15 1-5
10 AP H HS M W 41-45 11-15 1-5
11 DC H HS F A 41-45 16-20 6-10
12 AP J HS F W 46-50 26-30 6-10
177

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
13 AP K HS F W 46-50 16-20 11-15
14 P L HS F A 41-45 21-25 6-10
15 DC M HS F W 26-30 6-10 1-5
16 D N MS F L 31-35 11-15 1-5
17 AP P MS F W 41-45 16-20 1-5
Notes: Roles: DC = Department Chair, AP = Assistant Principal, P = Principal, D = Director;
Race: A = Asian, B= Black, L = Latina/o, W= White
Table 2: Variables of Interest for Study 2
Variable Purpose Type Description
Teaching Algebra I Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught Algebra I
in the prior school year, 0 if they taught
another math course.
Teaching 9th
Graders
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught 9th graders
in the prior school year, 0 if they taught
10th-12th graders.
Teaching 6th
Graders
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught 6th graders
in the prior school year, 0 if they taught
7th-8th graders.
Percentage of Math
Sections Taught That
Were Algebra I
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Continuous Returns the proportion of math sections
taught that were Algebra I courses
Percentage of
Sections Taught That
Were 9th Grade
Classes
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Continuous Returns the proportion of high school
sections taught that were 9th grade
courses
Percentage of
Sections Taught That
Were 6th Grade
Classes
Outcome
(RQ1),
Predictor
(RQ2)
Continuous Returns the proportion of high school
sections taught that were 6th grade
courses
Teacher Exited Outcome Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher has exited their
178

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
School for Any
Reason
prior year’s school to either teach
elsewhere or to leave the profession, 0
if they are still teaching at their prior
year’s school
Teacher Left the
Profession
Outcome Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher left the
profession, 0 if they remain as a teacher
either at their prior year’s school or a
new school
Teacher Moved to a
New School
Outcome Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher left to teach at
another school, 0 if they remain as a
teacher at their prior year’s school.
Teacher Overall
Experience
Predictor Continuous How many years of experience a
teacher has in the profession
Teacher Experience
at Current School
Predictor
(RQ1),
Covariate
(RQ2)
Continuous How many years of experience a
teacher has at their current school
Teacher Experience
at Current School
Predictor,
Covariate
(RQ2)
Polychotomous Returns if a teacher has been at their
current school for 0-2, 3-5, 6-10, or 11+
school years. 0-2 years is the reference
group.
Teacher Race Covariate Polychotomous A teacher’s stated race/ethnicity
Teacher Gender Covariate Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher is female, 0
otherwise.
Teacher
Undergraduate
Major
Covariate Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher majored in the
subject they teach as an undergraduate,
0 otherwise
Teacher Graduate
Degree
Covariate Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher has a Master’s
Degree or above, 0 otherwise
Number of Math
Sections Taught
Covariate Polychotomous The number of math courses that a
teacher reported teaching
Number of Sections
Taught
Covariate Polychotomous The number of courses that a teacher
reported teaching
Number of Teachers Covariate Discrete Returns the number of teachers at the
teacher’s school
179

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Table 3. Weighted Descriptives Statistics of the High School Teachers for Study 2
Characteristic
Full Sample
School-Specific Experience
0-3 Years 4-7 Years 8-14 Years 15+ Years
Teacher
Years at School 9.3 (8.2) 1.9 (0.8) 5.3 (1.1) 10.7 (2.0) 22.0 (6.2)
Total Years Teaching
Experience
14.0 (9.8) 7.7 (8.0) 10.9 (7.7) 15.2 (6.9) 24.5 (7.3)
Teaches 9th Graders 72.4% 76.4% 73.5% 70.4% 67.8%
# of 9th Grade Sections
Taught
1.08 (1.57) 1.22 (1.68) 1.08 (1.58) 1.00 (1.50) 0.93 (1.44)
% of Sections taught that
are 9th Grade
28.2 (34.2) 33.1 (36.2) 28.8 (34.3) 25.7 (32.5) 23.9 (32.0)
Male 41.9% 40.6% 40.6% 41.8% 45.1%
White 85.4% 82.1% 84.2% 86.4% 90.1%
Black 5.7% 7.4% 6.2% 4.8% 3.8%
Hispanic 6.4% 7.6% 7.0% 6.4% 4.1%
Asian 2.5% 3.1% 2.6% 2.2% 1.8%
Union Member 70.0% 60.7% 67.3% 75.4% 80.2%
School
City 25.5% 28.5% 27.0% 24.2% 21.0%
Suburb 32.0% 29.1% 31.6% 34.1% 34.4%
Town 17.2% 16.5% 15.9% 17.3% 19.2%
180

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Rural 25.3% 25.9% 25.5% 24.3% 25.5%
Moved Schools 6.0% 10.5% 5.8% 3.2% 1.7%
Exited Profession 2.2% 2.3% 1.3% 1.8% 4.0%
Left School for Any Reason 11.3% 18.8% 9.5% 6.4% 6.9%
N 66,970 20,920 15,480 15,370 15,200
Notes: Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 4. Weighted Descriptives Statistics of the Middle School Teachers for Study 2
Characteristic Full Sample
School-Specific Experience
0-3 Years 4-7 Years 8-14 Years 15+ Years
Teacher
Years at School 8.8 (7.8) 1.9 (0.8) 5.3 (1.1) 10.7 (2.0) 21.3 (5.7)
Total Years Teaching
Experience
13.8 (9.4) 8.0 (7.8) 11.1 (7.6) 15.5 (6.9) 23.9 (7.0)
Teaches 6th Graders 49.5% 50.2% 50.5% 49.1% 47.9%
# of 6th Grade Sections
Taught
1.1 (1.9) 1.0 (1.8) 1.1 (1.9) 1.1 (1.9) 1.1 (1.9)
% of Sections taught that
are 6th Grade
28.1 (39.1) 28.2 (39.0) 28.7 (39.5) 27.8 (38.9) 27.5 (38.8)
181

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Male 28.8% 27.8% 28.4% 28.5% 31.1%
White 84.7% 81.1% 83.3% 86.6% 89.8%
Black 6.5% 8.7% 6.8% 5.3% 4.1%
Hispanic 6.6% 8.1% 7.5% 6.0% 3.9%
Asian 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9%
Union Member 72.6% 63.6% 71.0% 77.9% 82.6%
School
City 24.2% 27.3% 26.0% 21.6% 20.1%
Suburb 35.6% 32.3% 35.1% 39.2% 37.2%
Town 18.6% 18.6% 17.3% 17.4% 21.5%
Rural 21.6% 21.8% 21.6% 21.8% 21.3%
Moved Schools 8.2% 11.9% 9.3% 5.5% 3.2%
Exited Profession 2.7% 2.8% 2.0% 1.9% 4.7%
Left School for Any Reason 14.1% 20.6% 13.6% 8.9% 8.6%
N 36,000 11,900 8,290 8,110 7,700
Notes: Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 5. Weighted Descriptive Statistics of High School Math Teachers for Study 2
182

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Characteristic Full Sample
School-Specific Experience
0-3 Years 4-7 Years 8-14 Years 15+ Years
Teacher
Years at School 8.8 (8.2) 1.9 (0.8) 5.3 (1.1) 10.7 (2.0) 21.9 (6.1)
Total Years Teaching
Experience
14.0 (9.5) 7.9 (7.3) 10.3 (6.9) 15.3 (7.5) 23.9 (6.9)
Teaches Algebra I 40.3% 46.4% 39.7% 37.2% 34.4%
# of Math Sections Taught 4.2 (1.8) 4.1 (1.8) 4.2 (1.8) 4.2 (1.8) 4.2 (1.7)
% of Math Sections taught
that are Algebra I
12.5 (26.1) 15.9 (29.4) 12.4 (25.8) 10.8 (24.2) 8.8 (21.5)
Bachelors in Math 53.4% 48.6% 52.3% 54.3% 61.7%
Certification to Teach Math 74.1% 72.9% 73.7% 74.9% 75.9%
Male 43.6% 43.4% 42.8% 42.8% 45.4%
White 85.7% 82.0% 84.6% 87.8% 90.8%
Black 5.5% 7.3% 5.9% 3.7% 3.7%
Hispanic 4.9% 5.9% 5.6% 4.7% 2.8%
Asian 3.6% 4.5% 3.6% 3.5% 2.2%
Union Member 67.4% 58.7% 64.5% 73.5% 78.7%
School
City 24.5% 27.7% 25.8% 23.5% 19.2%
Suburb 29.5% 27.2% 30.0% 30.8% 31.4%
Town 15.7% 15.0% 14.7% 16.6% 16.9%
183

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Rural 30.3% 30.2% 29.6% 29.1% 32.6%
Moved Schools 6.9% 12.5% 7.2% 2.2% 1.3%
Exited Profession 2.5% 2.7% 1.7% 2.1% 4.0%
Left School for Any Reason 13.0% 22.0% 11.2% 5.2% 7.1%
N 13,160 4,410 3,120 2,890 2,750
Notes: Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 6. Probability of 9th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience
(1) (2)
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches 9th Grade (Binary)
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.00221***
(0.000241)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.00362***
(0.000297)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 9th Grade
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.281***
(0.0193)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.390***
(0.023)
184

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Observations 66970 66970
Table 7. Probability of Algebra I Assignments based on Teaching Experience
(1) (2)
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches Algebra I (Binary)
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.0051***
(0.0006)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.0079***
(0.0007)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Math Sections Taught
that are Algebra I
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
-0.382***
(0.041)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.580***
(0.048)
Observations 12770 12770
Table 8. Probability of 6th Grade Assignments based on Teaching Experience
(1) (2)
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches 6th Grade (Binary)
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
0.00144***
(0.000393)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.000393
(0.000477)
185

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 6th Grade
Teacher's Overall
Years of Experience
0.101**
(0.0349)
Years of Experience at
Current School
-0.0127
(0.0412)
Observations 36000 36000
Notes: Clustered robust standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher gender, race,
undergraduate major, subject credential, number of math sections taught, and union status, as
well as the school’s urbanicity and student population size. We also include a state and year
fixed effect. Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 9: Predicting Assignment to 9th grade by Experience in the 4 Core Subjects
Math Science English Social Science
Overall
Experience
-0.00445***
(0.000588)
-0.00275***
(0.000689)
-0.00594***
(0.000645)
-0.00536***
(0.000717)
School Specific
Experience
-0.00532***
(0.000733)
-0.00444***
(0.000868)
-0.00677***
(0.000761)
-0.00702***
(0.000867)
Observations 10,610 8,590 11,150 8,760
Notes: Robust clustered standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher gender, race,
undergraduate major, subject credential, number of math sections taught, and union status, as
well as the school’s urbanicity and the number of teachers at a school. We also include a state
and year fixed effect. Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of
IES dataset samples.
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
186

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 10. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience and Teaching
9th Grade
Moves or
Leaves
Profession
Moves Leaves
Profession
Outcome (1) (3) (5)
Panel A. Independent Variable = Teaches 9th Grade (Binary)
Teaches 9th Grade 0.00861 0.0113**
-0.00320
(0.00571) (0.00410) (0.00280)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00505***
-0.00422*** 0.00126***
(0.000381) (0.000256) (0.000222)
Panel B. Independent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 9th Grade
Percentage of Sections Taught
that are 9th Grade
0.000192* 0.000175**
-0.0000559
(0.0000842) (0.0000640) (0.0000371)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00511
***
-0.00425*** 0.00123***
(0.000401) (0.000282) (0.000238)
Observations 30150 28310 29080
Table 11. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience and Teaching
Algebra I
187

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Moves or
Leaves
Profession
Moves Leaves
Profession
Outcome (1) (3) (5)
Panel A. Independent Variable = Teaches Algebra I (Binary)
Teaches Algebra I 0.0269* 0.0154 0.0075
(0.0131) (0.0100) (0.0057)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.0069***
-0.0058*** 0.0009+
(0.0009) (0.0006) (0.0005)
Panel B. Independent Variable = Percentage of Math Sections
Taught that are Algebra I
Percentage of Math Sections
Taught that are Algebra I
0.0004+ 0.0003+ 0.00003
(0.0002) (0.0002) (0.00008)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.0069***
-0.0057*** 0.0009+
(0.0009) (0.0006) (0.0005)
Observations 5460 5690 5320
Table 12. Predicting Teacher Turnover with Years of School-Specific Experience and Teaching
6th Grade
Moves or
Leaves
Profession
Moves Leaves
Profession
Outcome (1) (3) (5)
Panel A. Independent Variable = Teaches 6th Grade (Binary)
Teaches 6th Grade -0.0260**
-0.0121 -0.0111
*
188

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
(0.00984) (0.00823) (0.00474)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00573***
-0.00438*** 0.00122**
(0.000724) (0.000571) (0.000389)
Panel B. Independent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that
are 6th Grade
Percentage of Sections Taught
that are 6th Grade
-0.000217 -0.0000760 -0.0000687
(0.000150) (0.000132) (0.000070)
Years of School-Specific
Experience
-0.00537***
-0.00448*** 0.00124**
(0.000821) (0.000656) (0.000450)
Observations 13730 13230 12900
Notes: Clustered robust standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher gender, race,
undergraduate major, subject credential, number of math sections taught, and union status, as
well as the school’s urbanicity and student population size. We also include a state and year
fixed effect. Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest ten for disclosure protection of IES dataset
samples. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08, 2011-12, and “Teacher
Follow-Up Survey,” 2008-09, 2012-13; National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public
Teacher Questionnaire,” 2015-16, 2017-18, 2020-21.
Table 13. Variables of Interest for Study 3
Variable Level Type Description
Teaching Course of
Interest
Teacher Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher taught the course
of interest, 0 if they taught another
course.
Percentage of
Sections Taught That
Teacher Continuous Returns the proportion of sections
taught that were the courses of interest
189

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Were Courses of
Interest
Cumulative Times
Teaching Course of
Interest
Teacher Discrete Returns the number of cumulative times
that a teacher has taught the course of
interest from the beginning of the study
period
First Time
Instructing a Course
Teacher Polychotomous Returns 0 if they are not assigned to the
course, 1 if a teacher is teaching a
course for the first time in the study
period, and 2 if they are assigned but
have taught the course before.
Teacher Exited
School for Any
Reason
Teacher Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher exited their prior
year’s school to either teach elsewhere
or to leave the NC Public School
System, 0 if they are still teaching at
their prior year’s school
Teacher Overall
Experience
Teacher Continuous How many years of experience a
teacher has in the profession
Teacher Experience
at Current School
Teacher Polychotomous Returns the number of a years a teacher
has been at their school, bucketed into
various intervals by North Carolina
Teacher Graduate
Degree
Teacher Indicator Returns 1 if a teacher has a Master’s
Degree or above, 0 otherwise
Number of Sections
Taught
Teacher Polychotomous The number of courses that a teacher
reported teaching
Percentage of School
Population That is
Designated
Low-Income Status
School Continuous Returns the proportion of the students
in teacher’s school’s population that is
designated as low-income status (note:
for 2018-2022, returns a school’s 2017
status)
Percentage of School
Population That Are
Students of Color
School Continuous Returns the proportion of the students
in teacher’s school’s population that are
students of color (note: for 2018-2022,
returns a school’s 2017 status)
School Size School Discrete Reports the number of students at the
190

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
teacher’s school (note: for 2018-2022,
returns a school’s 2017 status)
Table 14. Respondent Characteristics for Multiple Regression Experience Analyses
Variable High School Middle School
Number of Teacher-Year Observations 359,297 266,956
Number of Unique Teachers 71,418 58,535
Teach 9th Grade 56.5% NA
Teach 12th Grade 49.8% NA
Teach AP Courses 13.6% NA
Teach 6th Grade NA 51.8%
Teach 8th Grade NA 53.9%
9th Grade Proportion 30.52 (34.68) NA
12th Grade Proportion 21.33 (28.48) NA
AP Proportion 4.50 (14.00) NA
6th Grade Proportion NA 32.96 (39.59)
8th Grade Proportion NA 33.40 (39.12)
Years of Experience 13.37 (9.65) 12.65 (9.10)
Years of Seniority 6.29 (5.32) 5.93 (5.12)
# of Courses Taught 5.94 (1.88) 6.26 (3.74)
Have a Master’s Degree or Higher 14.4% 13.7%
Moved to Teach At Another School 9.0% 10.7%
Left the Data Set for Any Reason 11.4% 11.7%
Exited School for Any Reason 19.3% 21.1%
# of Students at School 1,282.07 (613.60) 765.59 (293.72)
191

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
POC Proportion 42.36 (24.20) 44.32 (24.55)
DLI Proportion 46.46 (21.40) 54.94 (23.62)
Title I School 56.28% 66.32%
Note: Statistics represent mean with standard deviation in parentheses or proportion
Table 15. Respondent Characteristics for Mobility Analyses
Variable High School Teachers Middle School Teachers
Number of Teacher-Year
Observations
69,895 54,542
Number of Unique Teachers 22,648 19,083
Teach 9th Grade 59.4% NA
Teach 12th Grade 43.3% NA
Teach AP Courses 10.6% NA
Teach 6th Grade NA 49.1%
Teach 8th Grade NA 50.9%
Times Teaching 9th Grade 1.95 (2.13) NA
Times Teaching 12th Grade 1.41 (1.93) NA
Times Teaching AP Courses 0.35 (1.15) NA
Times Teaching 6th Grade NA 1.47 (2.07)
Times Teaching 8th Grade NA 1.52 (2.11)
1st Time Teaching 9th Grade 23.0% NA
1st Time Teaching 12th Grade 17.7% NA
1st Time Teaching AP Courses 4.1% NA
1st Time Teaching 6th Grade NA 19.6%
1st Time Teaching 8th Grade NA 20.2%
Repeat Time Teaching 9th
Grade
36.4% NA
192

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Repeat Time Teaching 12th
Grade
25.7% NA
Repeat Time Teaching AP
Courses
6.5% NA
Repeat Time Teaching 6th
Grade
NA 29.6%
Repeat Time Teaching 8th
Grade
NA 30.8%
Years of Experience 4.39 (5.37) 4.03 (4.75)
Years of Seniority 3.48 (2.72) 3.27 (2.59)
# of Courses Taught 5.89 (1.71) 5.86 (3.28)
Have a Master’s Degree or
Higher
9.7% 8.5%
Moved to Teach At Another
School
11.8% 14.8%
Left the Data Set for Any
Reason
12.6% 13.3%
Exited School for Any Reason 22.9% 26.1%
# of Students at School 1284.19 (619.52) 756.51 (289.80)
POC Proportion 46.86 (24.99) 49.31 (25.39)
DLI Proportion 51.21 (23.23) 60.87 (25.01)
Title I School 68.4% 77.9%
Note: Statistics represent mean with standard deviation in parentheses or proportion
Table 16. Linear Probability of High School Assignments based on Teaching Experience
9th Grade 9th Grade 12th Grade 12th Grade AP Course AP Course
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches Course of Interest (Binary)
Teacher’s
Overall
Years of
-0.00361***
(0.000199)
0.00551***
(0.000187)
0.00219***
(0.000159
193

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Experience
Years of
Experience at
Current
School
-0.0101***
(0.000364)
0.0129***
(0.000405)
0.00901***
(0.000359)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that are Course of Interest
Teacher’s
Overall
Years of
Experience
-0.269***
(0.0149)
0.373***
(0.0121)
0.0923***
(0.00713)
Years of
Experience at
Current
School
-0.806***
(0.0279)
0.748***
(0.0255)
0.318***
(0.0174)
Observations 308,521 342,554 308,521 342,554 308,521 342,554
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 17. Linear Probability of Middle School Assignments based on Teaching Experience
6th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade
Panel A. Dependent Variable = Teaches Course of Interest (Binary)
Teacher’s Overall
Years of
Experience
0.00303***
(0.000248)
0.00200***
(0.000243)
Years of
Experience at
Current School
0.00100*
(0.000474)
0.00408***
(0.000431)
Panel B. Dependent Variable = Percentage of Sections Taught that are Course of Interest
Teacher’s Overall
Years of
Experience
0.139***
(0.0210)
0.0335+
(0.0197)
194

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Years of
Experience at
Current School
-0.0328
(0.0377)
0.280***
(0.0359)
Observations 236,556 263,416 236,556 263,416
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 18. Summary of Multiple Regression Assignment Significant Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Increased Overall Experience Increased School-Specific
Experience (Seniority)
Increased Likelihood of
Assignment
● Teaching 6th, 8th, 12th,
and AP
● Proportion of 6th, 8th,
12th, and AP
● Teaching 6th, 8th, 12th,
and AP
● Proportion of 8th, 12th,
and AP
Reduced Likelihood of
Assignment
● Teaching 9th grade
● Proportion of 9th grade
courses
● Teaching 9th grade
● Proportion of 9th grade
courses
● Proportion of 6th grade
courses
Note: All results are significant at the 5% level or below
Table 19. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting High School based on Course Assignment
9th Grade 9th Grade 12th Grade 12th Grade AP Course AP Course
Assignment
to Course
-0.00143
(0.00343)
-0.0116***
(0.00348)
-0.0216***
(0.00535)
Percentage of
Sections
Taught that
are Course of
Interest
0.0000469
(0.0000482)
-0.0000483
(0.0000692)
-0.000737***
(0.000134)
Observations 65,682 65,682 65,682 65,682 65,682 65,682
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
195

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Table 20. Linear Probability of a Teacher Exiting Middle School based on Course Assignment
6th Grade 6th Grade 8th Grade 8th Grade
Assignment to
Course
-0.0140**
(0.00468)
0.0156***
(0.00415)
Percentage of
Sections
Taught that are
Course of
Interest
-0.000238***
(0.0000501)
0.000177***
(0.0000507)
Observations 52,095 52,095 52,095 52,095
Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced degree status and number of
sections taught. We also include a year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 21. 9th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 9th Grade 0.975
(0.019812)
Cumulative times teaching 9th
Grade
0.94797***
(0.0062678)
First time teaching 9th Grade 1.09428**
(0.030067)
2nd or greater time teaching 9th
grade
0.90827***
(0.022476)
Number of Observations 64,970
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 22. 12th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 12th Grade 0.97971
(0.020804)
196

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Cumulative times teaching 12th
Grade
0.96072***
(0.0068036)
First time teaching 12th Grade 1.04003
(0.029596)
2nd or greater time teaching
12th grade
0.92845**
(0.024763)
Number of Observations 64,970
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 23. AP Course Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches AP Course(s) 0.91908*
(0.031233)
Cumulative times teaching AP
Courses
0.96306***
(0.010904)
First time teaching AP courses 0.94752
(0.047426)
2nd or greater time teaching AP
courses
0.89837*
(0.041811)
Number of Observations 64,970
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 24. Summary of High School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated with Mobility
Outcomes
Mobility
Variable
Movers/Leavers
Increased
Odds
● First time teaching 9th grade
Reduced
Odds
● Teaching AP
● Cumulative times teaching 9th, 12th, and AP
● 2nd or greater time teaching 9th grade, 12th grade, and AP
197

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Table 25. 6th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 6th Grade 0.94248*
(0.023712)
Cumulative times teaching 6th
Grade
0.95812***
(0.0073460)
First time teaching 6th Grade 1.07321*
(0.034382)
2nd or greater time teaching 6th
grade
0.85250***
(0.026136)
Number of Observations 51,337
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 26. 8th Grade Survival Analyses Associations
Assignment Variable of
Interest
Movers/Leavers
Teaches 8th Grade 1.12221***
(0.026174)
Cumulative times teaching 8th
Grade
0.99333
(0.0071464)
First time teaching 8th Grade 1.23398***
(0.035890)
2nd or greater time teaching 8th
grade
1.04154
(0.031575)
Number of Observations 51,337
Exponentiated coefficients; Clustered Robust Standard errors in parentheses. We control for teacher advanced
degree status and number of sections taught. We also include a hire-year and school fixed effect.
+ p < 0.10,
* p < 0.05,
** p < 0.01,
*** p < 0.001
Table 27. Summary of Middle School Assignment Variables Significantly Associated with
Mobility Outcomes
Mobility
Variable
Movers/Leavers
198

EXAMINING SECONDARY TEACHER COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Increased
Odds
● Teaching 8th grade
● First time teaching 6th and 8th
Reduced
Odds
● Teaching 6th grade
● Cumulative times teaching 6th grade
● 2nd or greater time teaching 6th grade
199

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Secondary course assignment substantially determines a teacher’s day-to-day work life, incentivizing them to realize their personal desires, which prior work shows tend to be working with more advanced students. Teachers have varying abilities to enact these desires, potentially due to their political capital, which is largely influenced by school-specific experience. Teachers with more challenging assignments may be more likely to be dissatisfied and exit their jobs, making course assignment an important issue within the current nationwide teacher shortage.

The current work includes three interconnected studies that explore the process of within-school secondary teacher assignment, how teacher experience associates with course assignment, and how course assignment associates with teacher mobility outcomes. The first work is a qualitative interview study with 17 Southern California secondary school leaders, revealing that teacher seniority was explicitly and implicitly important in driving course assignment decisions, with more seasoned teachers generally realizing their preferences. The second study utilizes nationally representative teacher data for a multiple regression analysis, finding that more senior teachers are less likely to teach potentially undesirable courses, such as Algebra I and 9th grade, and that such assignments correlate with increased teacher mobility. The third study makes use of longitudinal data from North Carolina teachers over a 15-year period with a survival analysis, uncovering that teachers assigned to potentially desirable courses, such as 6th grade, 12th grade, and AP, were less likely to exit their schools, while those assigned to 8th grade were significantly more likely to leave. The combined undesirability of 8th and 9th grades implies a plausible teacher preference to avoid teaching 14-year-olds, who tend to have greater behavioral issues. I conclude with recommendations for combatting potential inequities in assignment that may pay dividends for teacher retention, student success, and student equity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The assignment of teachers to classes: efficiency, equity, or expediency?

PDF

Examining the sociopolitical and racial beliefs of United States history teachers

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

An application of value added models: School and teacher evaluation in Chinese middle schools

PDF

Considering queerness: examining school policies and their influence on inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ secondary students

PDF

Examining teacher retention and attrition in novice teachers

PDF

A qualitative examination of PBIS team members' perceptions of urban high school teachers' role in implementing tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior supports

PDF

Examining how teacher pre-service/credential programs prepare teachers to teach BIPOC students

PDF

Counselors and teachers’ perceptions of underrepresentation of female secondary students in STEM

PDF

Who’s teaching whom: a micropolitical examination of teacher placement practices in Milwaukee County high schools

PDF

Urban teacher residencies and their impact on teacher retention in high-needs school settings

PDF

Three essays on the high school to community college STEM pathway

PDF

Breakthrough: an outperforming model continuation school's leadership, programs, and culture case study

PDF

Impact of elementary grade teachers practicing radical love in Florida classrooms

PDF

Student mobility in policy and poverty context: two essays from Washington

PDF

Fostering leadership resilience: examining the influence of social networks on female administrators’ capacity to lead in times of crisis or organizational change

PDF

The importance of WHY: teachers’ knowledge of student misunderstandings of ratios and proportional relationships

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China

PDF

In-service teacher training in Pakistan’s elite private primary schools – lessons for Pakistan’s public schools

PDF

California teacher residency leaders’ understanding and implementation of the characteristics and evidence of an effective teacher residency

Asset Metadata

Creator Fienberg, Michael Charles (author)

Core Title Examining within-school secondary teacher course assignment: what, why, and so what?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/01/2024

Defense Date 03/27/2024

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

Tag K-12 policy,micropolitics,OAI-PMH Harvest,secondary schools,teacher assignment

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Polikoff, Morgan (committee chair), Kho, Adam (committee member), Quinn, David (committee member)

Creator Email fienberg@usc.edu,mcfien@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113865221

Unique identifier UC113865221

Identifier etd-FienbergMi-12742.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FienbergMi-12742

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Fienberg, Michael Charles

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240403-usctheses-batch-1134 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu