University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Teacher Retention in an Urban, Predominately Black School District: An Improvement
Study in the Deep South
by
Jed H. Oppenheim

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

© Copyright by Jed H. Oppenheim 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jed H. Oppenheim certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Ruth Chung
Dr. Tracy Tambascia
Dr. Cathy Krop, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this gap analysis was to identify the motivation and organizational
influences needed to achieve a 90% teacher retention rate at University High School (UHS) in
Southern School District (SSD) by the 2022–23 school year, and to provide recommendations on
how to get to that rate. UHS is a predominately Black school, serving mostly low-income
students in a district with similar demographics. The lack of high teacher retention rates in UHS
impacts the success of the students. This is an issue of great importance throughout the district,
the state SSD is in, and the country. It is also one that has deep racial disparities in terms of
which teachers, serving which students, are most likely impacted. The study confirmed at least
four influences necessary to achieve a 90% retention rate at UHS, which were having teachers
whose professional goals were strongly aligned with the goals of the school; teachers needing to
feel confident in their ability to be effective in their practice as teachers, and administrators
needing to cultivate a culture of trust between administration and teachers. The final influence
was a theme that emerged from the study, which was the influence of high stakes testing (HSTs)
on teachers’ decisions to stay or leave UHS. Recommendations focused on getting to 90%
teacher retention at UHS were a mix of organizational audits or assessments, shifting of practices
from the leadership levels at UHS, relationship-building amongst staff, leaders, and peers,
policy, and practice changes, and “Freirean-based principles-focused” evaluation (Patton, 2017).

v
Dedication
For Salam, who gets us through: “Education either functions as an instrument which is
used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and
bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and
women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the
transformation of their world” from Richard Shaull in the foreword to Paulo Freire’s 30th
anniversary edition of Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000).

vi
Acknowledgements
My time working on this doctorate has been a roller coaster. We saw the arrival of our
first child, Salam—a true blessing after many struggles. But we have also been living through the
horrors and deep depression of a global pandemic that has killed millions, impacting all of us in
some way or other, and that has only further exposed the deep inequities that exist within our
societies. Still, there are countless many who have supported this struggle of a journey for me
whether they knew it or not.
Much thanks to the amazing people at Rossier who have guided this journey, from the
professors and my committee to the support, particularly Dr. Chong. A special appreciation to
my advisor Dr. Krop who has always provided timely and critical feedback and encouraged and
challenged me to uncover more. Also, to my cohort members—both 7 and 8 and probably 10!
Thank you for pushing me and each other at every turn.
Without the support of my employer, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, this course of study
would not have been possible. To the foundation and my colleagues who have pushed me to
keep going, I am greatly appreciative. Particularly Kinah (Dr. Harrison!) who has been a true
comrade in both the work and USC journey. Also, to the administrators and leadership in the
district I studied I am truly grateful for the access you allowed for this study. And to the teachers
who participated, these pages cannot truly capture all you do to support our young people every
single day. Thank you for your time, experiences, and humanity.
I would not have made it through this without the support of my community. Each day, I
am pushed by you to be better than I am. You have let me bounce ideas off you about anything
and told me how crazy I am. The list is too long to note here, but a special shout out to Al,
Treshika, Von, Anthony, Noel, Naomia, Rosser, Cassio, Kuong, and particularly Summer and

vii
Miriam, who opened up their worlds as educators to me with no filter. We are all just trying to
get a little closer to justice in and for our communities each day.
And, of course, my family. We would not have survived this pandemic were it not for
Ms. Rachell Stepney, a fierce teacher in her own right. Many thanks to my “adopted” parents,
Judy and Josh Wiener, who have allowed me to be where I am. My brothers, Jonas (the best
copy editor) and Lucas, and parents, Patricia Hoffman and Gene Oppenheim, who are constantly
teaching me how to work to make the world a little better and a little more equitable each day
with a mix of humor and deep dialogue built on the study of issues, the interrogation of ideas, the
questioning of authority, and actions meant to move our communities forward. And, finally,
Salam and Harriett, who are constantly encouraging me, challenging me, interrogating my
beliefs and values, and doing the hard work of trying to make our little unit better and more
whole. It has not been easy, through health scares and the omnipresence of our own mortality.
This work would not have been completed without you. Thank you.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication .................................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem ................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2
Importance of Solving the Problem ................................................................................. 4
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................ 5
Organizational Performance Status .................................................................................. 6
Organizational Performance Goal.................................................................................... 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups .................................................................................. 8
Stakeholders Performance Goal..................................................................................... 11
Stakeholder Groups for the Southern School District Study ........................................... 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions............................................................................. 13
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ................................................................. 13
Definitions .................................................................................................................... 14
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................ 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ..................................................................................... 17
History of Low Teacher Retention ................................................................................ 18
Causes of Low Teacher Retention ................................................................................. 27
Effect of Teacher Retention on Quality of Education ..................................................... 33
Addressing Teacher Retention Problems ....................................................................... 38
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework .................................................. 44
Teacher Motivation and Organizational Influences on Performance .............................. 47

ix
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................................... 60
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 61
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................. 65
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 68
Credibility and Trustworthiness..................................................................................... 69
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 71
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................... 73
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .......................................................................................... 76
Review of KMO Framework and Use in Data Collection .............................................. 77
Overview of Participants and Determination of Effect of Influences on Retention ......... 78
Research Question #1: What Are the Teacher Motivation Influences Related to
Remaining a Teacher in UHS for at Least Three Years? .......................................... 84
Research Question 2: What Are the Organizational Influences Related to Achieving
and Maintaining a 90% Certified Teacher Retention Rate in UHS by August 2022? 92
Emergent Themes ....................................................................................................... 116
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 121
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation, and Evaluation ......................................... 122
Proposed Recommendations for Strongly Affected Influences .................................... 123
Future Research .......................................................................................................... 150
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 151
References………………………………………………………………………………………154

Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Current Teachers…………………………………………163

Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Past Teachers…………………………………………….165

Appendix C: Information Sheet .............................................................................................. 167

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational and Stakeholder Goals 12
Table 2: Assumed Motivation Influences 49
Table 3: Assumed Organizational Influences 57
Table 4: Assumed Motivation Influences 76
Table 5: Assumed Organizational Influences 77
Table 6: Participant Demographics 80
Table 7: Strongly Affect, Moderately Affect, and No Effect Summary, Plus Strong Effect for
Tested Subject Area Teachers 83
Table 8: Motivation Utility Task Value (Professional Goal Alignment) Strong Effect 85
Table 9: Motivation Self-Efficacy (Confidence in Own Abilities), Strong Effect 88
Table 10: Organization Cultural Model (Trust Between Teachers and Staff), Strong Effect 93
Table 11: Organization Cultural Setting (Autonomy), Moderate Effect 97
Table 12: Organization Cultural Setting (Resources), Moderate Effect 101
Table 13: Organization Cultural Setting (Onboarding), Moderate Effect 105
Table 14: Organization Cultural Setting (Incentives), Moderate Effect 109
Table 15: Organization Cultural-Setting (Professional Development), No Effect 113
Table 16: Summary of Influences with Strong Effect and Their Recommendations to Address 124
Table 17: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
1.1 Goal Alignment 126
Table 18: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
1.2 Career Pathway Options 128
Table 19: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
2.1 Teacher Agency 130
Table 20: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
2.2 Support for “Struggling” Teachers 131
Table 21: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
3.1 Relationship Building 133

xi
Table 22: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
3.2 Administrators as Morale and Culture Leaders 135
Table 23: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
4.1 Reduce High Stakes Test Hours 137
Table 24: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
4.2 Reduce High Stakes Test Preparation Days 139
Table 25: Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation
4.3 Testing Culture and Morale Assessment 142
Table 26: Remaining Recommendations, Freirean Principles, & Evaluative Questions 146

1

Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem
Every school year, school districts around the United States must fill their vacant teacher
positions with qualified teachers in order to ensure students have the greatest possibility of
accessing a high-quality education. Yet districts struggle to keep many of the educators that they
have hired because of teacher attrition (retirement, job changes) and low teacher retention
(teachers leaving the district, school or profession). The National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), part of the U.S. Department of Education, tracks teacher-retention rates in the United
States. Gray and Taie (2015), for NCES, examined a 5-year cohort of teachers in the United
States starting from the 2007–08 school year. Gray and Taie (2015) found that each year for five
years the percentage of teachers who left their respective school increased, starting with 10%
after the first year, to 17% by the fifth year. Multiple studies of low-income, urban communities
of color, such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Jackson, Mississippi, show that these districts
lose teachers at an even higher rate—some as high as a quarter of teachers each summer (Boyd et
al., 2011; Kokka, 2016). The problem of practice addressed by this dissertation is teacher
retention at a school in a Deep-South, medium-sized, urban, low-income school district made up
mostly of Black students. For the purposes of this study the district will be called the “Southern
School District” or SSD, and the school will be called “University High School” or UHS.
Without high-quality teachers committed to stay, children will not be ready for the world in front
of them. Their critical thinking and other needed workforce skills and their future education
trajectories could be abbreviated (Rockoff, 2004; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). If students are not
prepared to succeed in the 21st-century workforce and are not ready to be active citizens in their
communities, then our community’s potential for better outcomes may not be so clear.

2

Background of the Problem
The issue of teacher retention is not a new one to American education systems, and it has
a long history of being studied. Darling-Hammond’s (1984) report for the Rand Corporation was
a watershed moment in calling attention to this very issue. Her work was one of the first major
pieces of research that drew on concrete data about what was happening within the teaching
profession with regard to teachers leaving (or not entering) the profession. Darling-Hammond
was primarily focused on the recruitment and teacher-pipeline problems American schools faced.
Later researchers moved away from recruitment being the main driver of teacher shortages and
focused more on shortages by subject area or by demographic area (e.g., not enough teachers in
rural or urban areas, or not enough teachers serving low-income students; Murphy et al., 2003;
Ingersoll & May, 2011; Anthony et al., 2017). Ingersoll (2001) was one of the first researchers to
start focusing on the “demand” side of the teacher shortage issue, leading into more robust
research on teacher retention. Ingersoll’s later research defined subsets of teacher retention
problems in more detail such as that of keeping educators of color in schools (Ingersoll & May,
2011). Much current research is focused on what it would take to keep teachers in place and why
they would leave, including issues of autonomy, working conditions such as administrative
support and school discipline, and new accountability models based mostly in high-stakes
assessments (Boyd et al., 2011; Fisher, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2013). The history of the
problem of low teacher retention and attempts to address it have not just been in an American or
a local context, but is a global issue, a point the United Nations Education, Scientific and
Cultural Organization highlights in its Education For All work (2012).
Low teacher retention has significant costs to stakeholders at various levels of the
education system, including districts, teachers, and students. At the district level, it costs money
3

to recruit, train, and retain new educators either as novices or new to the district (Helfeldt et al.,
2015). Papay et al. (2017) found in one of the districts they studied that high teacher turnover
cost the district over $4.1 million more than another similarly sized district that did not have such
a high turnover rate. The problem also affects the teaching force as low retention rates are the
direct outcome of poor organizational working conditions, little support from leadership, and
poor professional development (Evans, 2017; Fisher, 2011; Ladd, 2011; Loeb et al., 2005; Papay
et al., 2017; Shen, 1997; Simon & Johnson, 2013). Simon and Johnson (2013) write that teachers
are not leaving high-needs students, but they are leaving poor working conditions, and they are
often “migrating” to other districts with better working conditions. Tragically, these issues
ultimately fall on students, the most important stakeholders in education, and their own learning
outcomes (Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
The negative impact of high teacher turnover and low retention disproportionately falls
on low-income and students of color (Sutcher et al., 2016). Further, even though the teacher-of-
color pipeline has increased, especially into schools with predominately students of color, these
teachers also leave at greater rates than their white counterparts, pointing to issues in lack of
administrative support, extra pressure to play multiple roles in students’ lives beyond teaching,
and larger external pressures coming from districts and communities (Kokka, 2016). The
students, and their parent/guardians, who desire strong educational foundations for them, and the
communities in which they live, need strong, consistent educators in order to have an opportunity
to thrive. Evidence suggests that high teacher turnover/low retention impacts students by
impacting not only their achievement levels but also their trust in their schools and teachers
(Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Rockoff, 2004; Romero, 2015; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). In addition, low-
income students and students of color are particularly impacted by low teacher retention because
4

their schools may already be operating at a resource deficit, and the resources it takes to recruit,
replace, train, and support a new teacher will decrease the resources put into the classroom to
support the students (Barnes et al., 2007; Ladd, 2011; Watlington et al., 2010). Students and
schools may not perform if they are in a constant state of flux due to the turnover of the teacher
stakeholders (Ingersoll, 2001; Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
Low teacher retention is not only an old and persistent problem, but a global one (United
Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2012). It has deep consequences on the
ability of schools and districts to provide high-quality education for their students in order to
meet their learning outcomes. And it has a disproportionate impact on low-income communities
made up mostly of students of color. Therefore, this is an important problem to solve.
Importance of Solving the Problem
Putting a high-quality teacher in front of every student has the potential to overcome
educational inequities that have persisted over time (O’Day & Smith, 2016). High-quality
teachers contribute to the disruption of disparities that low-income, mostly students of color face
in both rural and urban schools (Anthony et al., 2017). Therefore, the problem of low teacher
retention, particularly in low-income communities of color, is important to solve for a number of
reasons. Without high-quality, certified teachers in every classroom, school districts will not be
able to provide a 21st-century education, preparing children and communities for future
workforce and civic needs. Districts will spend considerable resources on teacher recruitment
and training that could be used on boosting services and programs for students (Barnes et al.,
2007; Watlington et al., 2010). In addition, teachers are the “front line” for ensuring students
have every opportunity for successful futures (Romero, 2015). Without consistent, high-quality
teachers, students and communities will suffer. Further, student trust in teachers (and schools)
5

has a positive impact on student achievement, and frequent teacher turnover limits this building
of trust that is positively linked to student outcomes (Romero, 2015).
Failure to solve this problem will continue to have a disproportionate impact on students
most in need of a high-quality education that would lead to better life outcomes—in particular
low-income students of color in urban areas, but also in rural areas in parts of the United States,
who are already on the wrong side of racial and economic disparities (Anthony et al., 2017;
Ingersoll & May, 2011; Kokka, 2016). Solving this problem will allow all students the utmost
chance for more equitable life outcomes due to having received a consistent, high-quality
education from highly qualified teachers.
Organizational Context and Mission
At the time of this research, the mission of the SSD was to be an urban district that is
innovative and provides a quality education to every student. The goals of SSD were to: 1)
increase academic and performance achievement, 2) provide a safe school climate, and 3)
maintain fiscal integrity and accountability. SSD believed there were five characteristics of high-
performing schools: 1) academic success, 2) effective principal leadership, 3) effective teaching,
4) active parent and community engagement, and 5) scholar and adult recognition.
The SSD is located in a state in the Deep South. SSD is a low-income school district with
100% of its schools, including UHS, Title 1–eligible, with all students receiving free and/or
reduced lunch and breakfast (indicators of student poverty). It is close to 100% Black and is
considered the state’s only urban school system. There are about 60 schools, with more than half
elementary, and five special program schools such as alternative schools. SSD employs
approximately 1,600 teachers for their close to 24,000 students. It is accredited through
AdvancED. Based on the state’s accountability ratings, SSD has been rated an “F” district for the
6

last three of the five school years 2016–2020. According to a recent report on SSD, nearly a
quarter of SSD teachers left at the end of the 2017–18 school year, or just under 400. This annual
rate of teacher turnover has been increasing over time: in the two years prior to 2017–18, 11%
and 18% of teachers left at the end of the school year, respectively.
This study will focus on UHS (a pseudonym) in SSD. At the time of this research, the
mission of UHS was to build students’ leadership and responsibility through education,
accountability, and real-world experience. It was opened in the first part of the 20
th
century and
had about 600 students in grades 9–12 during the 2018–19 school year. UHS had a teacher
retention rate of about 71% in 2018–19. UHS is also one of the lowest-achieving high schools in
the district, with relatively low graduation rates and academic achievement. It lies in the city’s
community with one of the lowest socioeconomic statuses. The school is surrounded by
abandoned and boarded-up buildings, overgrown yards, and a dearth of community-supported
businesses. Many students walk to school seeing the crumbling infrastructure, likely impacting
their socio-emotional well-being.
Organizational Performance Status
Almost 400, or nearly a quarter, of certified teachers left SSD after the 2017–18 school
year. Similarly, almost 29% of certified teachers left UHS after the 2017–18 school year. These
numbers do not include the numbers of underqualified teachers (including those with no
certification, on emergency licensure, and long-term substitutes) who remain in the district
between school years or fill positions slated for certified teachers. For example, during the 2016–
17 school year, almost 300 teachers (or about 15% of the teachers in the district) were not
properly certified, being either unlicensed altogether or teaching outside of their area of
certification.
7

SSD’s mission notes that it will be an “innovative, urban district committed to
excellence, [and] will provide every student a quality education.” For students to achieve a high-
quality, excellent education there must be a high-quality educator in every classroom trained to
meet the needs of their students (Ingersoll, 2001). If a quarter of all certified teachers leave the
district each year or summer, including up to 29% at UHS, to pursue other opportunities, this has
negative ramifications for students. If the district does not fill all teacher slots with certified
teachers, students are left with long-term substitutes, or emergency-licensed-, and unqualified
educators. Even if the slots eventually get filled, if they are not filled at the beginning of the
school year, this could leave the teachers and students playing catch-up for the remainder of the
year.
As this research began, SSD was under scrutiny by the state, with its accreditation at risk.
This could lead to a state takeover of UHS and the district. SSD has been an “F” (failing) district
for three of the last five school years, according to the state accountability model, and is already
eligible for takeover by the state. Vital to the success of the district and the prevention of the
takeover is having highly qualified, certified teachers in front of every child, helping to improve
student outcomes. The state’s accountability model includes noting how many classrooms in
each school building have properly certified teachers in them.
Organizational Performance Goal
The organization performance goal to be addressed in this dissertation is that by August
of 2022, SSD will have a 90% certified teacher retention rate from one school year to the next.
This is up from about 75% currently. This goal is one that SSD put in place when it created their
“balanced scorecard” to measure outputs based on strategic priorities prior to the 2015–2016
school year. This measure appears under strategic priority 1.9 “Improve State Accountability
8

Rating of Each School” and reads in the scorecard as item 27: “Maintain a 90% teacher retention
rate or higher.” It is a yearly goal. As one education-consultation organization noted in their
study of the district, SSD is far from meeting this goal. After the 2015–16 school year, SSD self-
assessed certified teacher retention at 82%; after 2016–17 it was 89%. Then there was a clear
drop after 2017–18 to about 75% retention.
SSD created this goal when the school district’s board wanted clear measurements to
track against the overall district goals that included increased academic performance and
achievement, a safe school climate, fiscal integrity, and accountability of resources. These
overall goals were determined by the then-superintendent in consultation with his administration
and the school board, in order to have the best chance of meeting the district’s mission. For the
purposes of this dissertation, the performance goal being examined falls under Goal 1 of the
district, to Increase Academic Performance and Achievement. The goal was part of an amended
policy on “Mission, Vision, Goals” approved by the school board on December 15, 2015, then
was reviewed and approved again on February 7, 2017.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Several stakeholder groups are critical to meeting the SSD’s performance goal, including
the superintendent and Board of Trustees, local administrators, and teachers. Many other
stakeholder groups, including students, parent/guardians, and community members, are clearly
important to achieving this goal, but for the purposes of this research, the first set of three will be
analyzed here.

9

Stakeholder Group 1 – Southern School District (SSD) Board of Trustees (the Board) and
Superintendent
The board is the governing body of SSD. In consultation with the superintendent, the
board creates policy or amends existing policy for the school district, ensuring that SSD follows
state and federal law as relates to running and managing a school district. The board’s main
responsibilities are policy, fiduciary oversight and setting the budget, setting the mission and
vision of the district, and managing the superintendent (and the hiring and/or firing of), who is
their only direct employee. There are seven board members, appointed by the mayor of the city
SSD resides in, to staggered five-year terms. They are all considered volunteers but receive a
small monthly stipend for gas. The board acts as a body and no board member can act alone.
Board members do not manage the day-to-day business of the district; that is the responsibility of
the superintendent, who establishes procedures and practices in line with school district policy.
Board members must follow the vote of the board, even if their personal vote was not supportive
of an item or action.
The superintendent is the executive who runs the administration of the district in line with
the policies set out by the board. It is largely the superintendent who recommends policy and the
budget to the board, though amendments or changes can be made before final approval by the
board and based on public input. The superintendent establishes practices, such as the balanced
scorecard, to track and measure against the goals of the district, and procedures, such as through
the school discipline handbook. They are also responsible for any internal mechanisms, such as
developing professional-development procedures, that would directly impact teachers remaining
in their positions.
10

SSD leadership – the board and superintendent – together contribute to the achievement
of strong teacher retention by setting the mission and vision for the district. They set the course
for meeting the mission and vision through creating or amending policy and directing the
implementation and practices specifically related to a 90% teacher-retention target and
preventing turnover from one year to the next. Part of the mission states that SSD is an
“innovative, urban district committed to excellence, [and] will provide every student a quality
education.” The board and superintendent are under pressure to maintain the district in local
control, which affects their focus on the goal of a 90% certified teacher retention rate.
Stakeholder Group 2 – Local School Administration
The local school administration is responsible for carrying out the practices and
procedures established through the superintendent based on policy approved by the school board.
The LSA manages teachers in their school buildings by providing professional and resource
support. LSAs are responsible for making sure teachers are achieving performance goals. They
are also responsible for recruiting teachers to their schools. LSAs have a small, local budget,
some of which is discretionary for activities and some of which is from Title I dollars (federal
dollars distributed based on the number of low-income students in a school). LSAs manage the
day-to-day operations of their local schools. The LSA has a direct impact on the achievement of
the organizational performance goal by supporting the needs of the teacher and ensuring a
positive working environment within the school building. For the purposes of this study, the LSA
is that of UHS.
Stakeholder Group 3 – Certified Teachers
Teachers are the most important variable to achieving the performance goal of a 90%
retention rate by August of 2022. Every teacher that leaves – be it during the school year or after
11

– will affect the rate of retention. Teachers deliver instruction by utilizing chosen curriculum and
meeting the accountability standards meant to show performance progress for the students.
Teachers are at the front line of student success. For many students, teachers also play an
important role as a surrogate parent/guardian or role model, and if they establish trusted
relationships with the students, students will perform better (Romero, 2015). It is critical that
teachers are certified because this is an important factor in providing a high-quality education to
their students. Certification implies the teacher has certain competencies necessary to provide
high-quality instruction based on state and federal standards.
Stakeholders Performance Goal
Table 1 is an overview of important stakeholder groups for this study. It represents what
the stakeholder goal of the teacher is, along with the goals of the local school administration and
the district-level board and superintendent goals that will help reach the ultimate teacher goal. It
also notes the organizational performance goal and the mission of SSD.

12

Table 1
Organizational and Stakeholder Goals
SSD Mission
To be an urban district that is innovative and provides a quality education to every student in
partnership with community stakeholders.
SSD Performance Goal
By August of 2022, SSD will have a 90% certified teacher retention rate from one school year
to the next.
SSD Stakeholder Groups
Southern School District Board Members and Superintendent

By fall of 2021, the school board together with the superintendent will set three specific
district wide targets meant to retain teachers.
Local School Administration at University High School

By winter of 2022, local school administration will develop an action plan based on the
districtwide targets for teacher retention.
Certified Teachers

By winter of 2022, certified teachers at University High School in SSD will work with local
school administration to design strategies and incentives to enable them to remain in their
positions based on targets for teacher retention.

Stakeholder Groups for the Southern School District Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, the certified teacher stakeholder group has been chosen for this study. Teachers are the
key stakeholder group to meet the goal of a 90% teacher-retention rate. They are specifically
cited in the goal; thus, they are the key variable in accomplishing this goal.
The certified teacher stakeholder goal is that by winter of 2022, teachers at UHS will
work with local school administration to design strategies and incentives to enable them to
remain in their positions based on SSD targets for teacher retention. While the overall
13

performance goal was largely created by the school district, I specified the targeted goal for the
teacher stakeholder group, recognizing the exclusive understanding teachers have of why they do
or do not stay.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the motivation and
organizational influences that interfere with achieving a 90% certified teacher-retention rate at
UHS in SSD by August 2022. The analysis will include generating a list of possible or assumed
interfering influences that will be examined systematically to focus on actual interfering
influences. While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes
the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is current and past certified teachers from UHS
in SSD.
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What are the teacher-motivation influences related to remaining a teacher in UHS for at
least three years?
2. What are the organizational influences related to achieving and maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention rate in UHS by August 2022?
3. What are the recommended motivation and organizational solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) write that “gap analysis diagnoses human causes behind
performance gaps” (p. 21). A gap analysis is a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization. For the purposes of this dissertation, a gap analysis
will be implemented as the conceptual framework. A qualitative case study with descriptive
14

statistics will be the methodological framework. Assumed teacher motivation and organizational
influences that interfere with the organizational goal of 90% certified teacher retention rate by
August 2022 will be generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These
influences will be assessed by using interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Root
causes of the gap will be examined and research-based solutions will be recommended and
evaluated.
Definitions
This study is about teacher-retention problems in SSD, and specifically at UHS within
SSD. There are multiple terms used throughout this study to describe the act of leaving a school
permanently. This research will use the term “retention problem” most often to denote that
retention is the problem—teachers do not stay in their schools. It should be noted that not all
retention problems are bad—sometimes it is a good thing for schools to have certain
underperforming, ill-equipped or negative teachers leave their school environment (Ingersoll,
2001; Papay et al., 2017).
There are other terms used in literature to be cited in this study and may be used
interchangeably with “retention problem” when cited from research. Definitions of those terms,
and others, are presented here.
• Attrition: used to refer to teachers who leave schools through retirement, other job
opportunities, family-related movement, or the deliberate non-filling of teacher positions
due to changes in enrollment at schools, and school closures, amongst many reasons.
• High Stakes Tests (HSTs): according to the Glossary of Education Reform, HSTs are any
“test used to make important decisions about students, educators, schools, or districts,
most commonly for the purpose of accountability—i.e., the attempt by federal, state, or
15

local government agencies and school administrators to ensure that students are enrolled
in effective schools and are being taught by effective teachers. In general, ‘high stakes’
means that test scores are used to determine punishments (such as sanctions, penalties,
funding reductions, negative publicity), accolades (awards, public celebration, positive
publicity), advancement (grade promotion or graduation for students), or compensation
(salary increases or bonuses for administrators and teachers).”
• Leaver: a teacher who leaves the profession from one year to the next or in the middle of
a school year.
• Mover: teachers that remain as teachers from one year to the next but move schools either
within the same district or to a different district (Gray & Taie, 2015).
• Retention: used to refer to remaining or staying with a currently held position at a
specific school from one year to the next.
• Stayer: teachers that stay in the same school from one year to the next (Gray & Taie,
2015).
• Teacher Migration: refers to teachers who remain teachers but leave the particular school
for a different school because of better working conditions or family-related movement or
other reasons.
• Turnover: used to refer to the outflux and influx of teachers in a school building. For
example, a school may have 25 teacher slots, and from one year to the next all 25 slots
are filled, but with some of the teachers being different. This usually implies that teacher
slots that were emptied are filled from one year to the next.
16

• Working Conditions: Ladd (2011) noted working conditions as “the physical features of
the workplace, the organizational structure, and the sociological, political, psychological
and educational features of the work environment” (p. 237).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with key
context, concepts, and terminology commonly found in a discussion about teacher retention
problems generally and in the SSD and UHS specifically. SSD’s mission, goals, and
stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis, were introduced. Chapter Two
provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. The history of and
extent of the problem at the national and local level and the effect of the problem at the local
level are addressed, particularly regarding low-income students of color. This is followed by a
discussion of the teacher-motivation and organizational influences this study will attempt to
address. Chapter Three details the assumed interfering motivation and organizational elements as
well as the methodology when it comes to the study’s choice of participants, data collection, and
analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides
solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps, as well as
recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

17

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The following is a review of the literature as it pertains to problems of low teacher
retention in schools and districts across America. It will begin with a history of the problem of
teacher pipelines and a discussion about how the framing of the issue has changed over time. It
will delve into the shift from a “shortage” crisis to one of a retention and turnover issue. As this
analysis will be a qualitative analysis of one urban, Deep-South district predominately made up
of students of color, this literature review will then examine the retention issue as it pertains to
this particular set of schools. The review will examine the causes for retention such as school-
based support from leadership or administration, working environment and autonomy in
decision-making for teachers, salaries, and policy issues such as HST. There will then be a
discussion about the effect of low teacher retention on schools and districts particularly as it
pertains to costs of retainment (or lack thereof) and student achievement and trust. Concluding
the first part of the literature review, there will be an examination of the literature focused on
solutions to maintaining high teacher-retention rates, particularly in urban schools made up
mostly of students of color, such as more targeted recruitment strategies, better onboarding
supports, along with stronger organizational leadership and teacher autonomy, and involvement
in school-based decisions.
The second part of the literature review will introduce the conceptual framework of the
study, focused on the teacher-motivation and organizational influences to be studied in this
problem of practice as they relate to teacher retention (Clark & Estes, 2008). This problem of
practice will only examine the motivation and organizational influences as relevant, as
knowledge influences have not been determined to be useful in the context of teacher retention in
this analysis. This will be explained in further detail in the following sections. There are two
18

motivation influences in this study: utility value and self-efficacy. There are six organizational
influences; one is a cultural model and five are cultural settings. All eight of these influences will
be discussed in the second part of the literature review.
History of Low Teacher Retention
Teacher-Pipeline Problems Over Time
Many issues have contributed to the ability of schools and districts to recruit and retain
new teachers over time, including challenges related to the teacher pipeline (Anthony et al.,
2017; Cowan et al., 2016; Darling-Hammond, 1984). The pipeline into teaching positions is
integral to high-quality education in communities (Cowan et al., 2016; Darling-Hammond,
1984).
Darling-Hammond’s (1984) influential study of the pending teacher-pipeline crisis was
one of the first major analyses of teacher crises in American communities. Darling-Hammond
(1984) noted the decline of education majors at the time, while the need for teachers rose when
the children of baby boomers entered school-age. Looking at NCES data, Darling-Hammond
(1984) found that in the span of a decade, the percent of education majors graduating of all
conferred bachelor’s degrees dropped from 20% to 12% (p. 7). She noted the shifting workforce
and the impact it had on education, as teachers had been predominately women and people of
color; as other job markets opened for women and people of color and salaries for other
professions were becoming more competitive, it was becoming harder to recruit them into
teaching (Darling-Hammond, 1984). Darling-Hammond’s analysis also noted specific subject-
area shortages—especially math and sciences. Darling-Hammond’s analysis continues to
resonate today. Like Darling-Hammond (1984), McCreight (2000) saw the pipeline as a problem
and found that only about 60% of trained educators actually become teachers (p. 5). This means
19

that individuals spent time training to become educators then did not move into the profession
upon completion of their program of certification. McCreight (2000) predicted this would lead to
an almost two-million-teacher shortfall over the coming decade.
While Darling-Hammond (1984) and McCreight (2000) pointed out the impending
pipeline crisis, later researchers focused on other nuanced aspects of the crisis. Cowan et al.
(2016) argued that the number of teachers actually increased into the 1980s, but, like Darling-
Hammond (1984) noted, the shortages seemed to be around specific subject areas. Cowan et al.
(2016) also noted that shortages were prone to occur by specific demographics, impacting mostly
students who were considered to have low socioeconomic status (SES), were predominately of
color, or who lived in deeply rural or urban centers. There has never been a significant shortage
of teachers for mostly suburban, predominately white communities (Cowan et al., 2016).
Anthony et al. (2017) took up these nuances in their focus on the teacher pipeline in
Mississippi. In their study of Mississippi, they call the issue a “distribution” issue, which is more
reflective of the shortages by subject area than student demographics, though demographics
mattered (Anthony et al., 2017). At the time of their study, there were 151 school districts in
Mississippi, 47 of which had a shortage problem under their definition. Anthony et al. (2017)
focused on eight predictive factors of teacher shortages, finding only three of them to be
significant: 1) race, whereas predominately Black districts were significantly more likely to have
teacher shortages than white districts; 2) the deeply rural Mississippi Delta was more likely to
face shortages than other parts of the state (the Delta is also predominately Black); and 3)
districts where local funds generated for students were low – meaning families have lower SES
and contribute less to local taxes – were also significantly more likely to have teacher shortages
20

(p. 27). Districts that had all three of those factors were the most likely to have teacher shortages
(Anthony et al., 2017).
There are multiple reasons for teacher-pipeline problems over time: changes in the labor
market for women and people of color, fewer education majors becoming teachers, increased
enrollment of public-school students leading to shortages in specific subject areas, racial
demographic of students, and geographical isolation (Anthony et al., 2017; Cowan et al., 2016;
Darling-Hammond, 1984).
While the teacher pipeline may continue to be a problem if public-school enrollment
stays steady or increases, it is also important to understand the interrelated challenge to education
of what happens when teachers do start teaching but decide not to stay.
Shifting From Teacher “Shortage” to Retention and Turnover
Over time, as research continued on the subject of teacher shortages, there became a
recognition that the bigger issue may be low retention and high turnover rates, rather than a
pipeline issue (Gray & Taie, 2015; Hancock & Scherff, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001, 2002; McCreight,
2000). Therefore, research has pointed toward this being a demand issue and not a supply issue
(Ingersoll, 2001, 2002).
Ingersoll’s (2001, 2002) research over the years has focused on the shortage issues
schools face largely as organizational issues. Thus, Ingersoll is focused on the demand side—
retention, attrition, and turnover—of the pipeline, rather than the supply side. Ingersoll’s (2001,
2002) analyses took a deep dive into data from the NCES, which conducts semi-regular School
and Staffing Surveys (SASS) and Teacher Follow-up Surveys (TFS), to understand trends in the
teacher workforce. Ingersoll (2001) notes the data between the 1994 and 1995 school years,
showing about 418,000 teachers leaving their jobs – or roughly 14% of all teachers – a not
21

insignificant number (p. 514). Some of these teachers may come back to the profession later or
may be moving to schools or districts (“migration”) for better opportunities, but the impact of
their leaving is substantial. Ingersoll (2001) writes that high-poverty schools (more than 50% of
students in poverty) have much higher turnover rates than low-poverty schools (less than 15% of
students in poverty) (p. 515). Ingersoll (2001) notes that early-years teachers (before age 30) are
171% more likely to depart than older teachers, meaning teachers early in their career turn over
at significantly higher rates. Of note, Ingersoll (2001) did not find a significant difference
between rural and urban teacher turnover, though rural teachers were a little less likely to turn
over, while suburban and urban teachers’ turnover was about the same rate (p. 518). Some of
these claims run counter to previous and future studies on the issue as already noted. Ingersoll’s
(2001) claim of shortages being an organizational issue is confirmed by his research stating that
“schools with higher faculty decision-making influence and autonomy have lower levels of
turnover” (p. 519). This could mean that when educators feel empowered to be a part of the
process of decisions in their school, they are more likely to stay at their respective school.
Hancock and Scherff (2010) examined attrition risks of secondary English teachers to better
understand who stays and who leaves the profession. Their work primarily focused on the
organizational issues in individual decision making. Hancock and Scherff (2010) found that
teachers with more peer and administrative support were between four and eight percent less
likely to leave their schools (p. 333). Unlike other studies, they found teachers of color in their
study were 45% less at risk of attrition than their white counterparts (p. 333). Experience was a
primary factor of retention, according to Hancock and Scherff (2010), and teachers with more
than five years of experience were more likely to remain in teaching. Teachers with higher levels
22

of “apathy” were bigger risks to leave their jobs (Hancock & Scherff, 2010). Peer and
administrative support and the issue of “apathy” were clear organizational issues.
Gray and Taie (2015) also looked at NCES data to examine attrition and mobility for
early-years teachers. Starting following the 2007–08 school year, 10% of beginning teachers left,
followed by 12, 15, and 17% over the next three years (p. 3). While some attrition is a regular
occurrence, these numbers show the increasing likelihood of leaving a teaching position within a
teaching professional’s first few years on the job (Gray & Taie, 2015). Gray and Taie’s (2015)
examination of the NCES data revealed that teachers with higher first-year salaries and first-year
mentors are more likely to stay on their job, and that there was no significant difference of
retention of teachers who enter with bachelor’s degrees versus master’s degrees (p. 3). Gray and
Taie (2015) did note that of teachers who “moved” schools (movers) or districts (as opposed to
leaving the profession altogether), between 21 and 40% did so involuntarily, which may be an
indicator of having low organizational support (p. 3).
Papay et al. (2017) examined teacher retention in urban schools by comparing 16 districts,
collectively comprised of about 2.4 million students (p. 437). Retention rates varied from district
to district but, generally, early-career educators and educators near retirement were least likely to
be retained (Papay et al., 2017). Overall, they found that 13% of all teachers leave their districts
each year, with 45% by their fifth year; 19% of teachers leave their school within a year and 58%
within five years; 55% of first-year teachers leave their district and 70% leave their school within
five years (p. 437). There are retention issues within each of these districts and these numbers
indicate it is affecting both schools within districts, and districts generally (Papay et al., 2017).
23

There are multiple studies showing that schools and districts are hurt more by the
inability to keep teachers than to attract them, which is a demand-side issue rather than a supply-
side issue (Gray & Taie, 2015; Hancock & Scherff, 2010; Ingersoll, 2001, 2002).
Broadly, low teacher retention is an issue of concern, but it is more specific to some
schools and districts than others, particularly schools that are made up mostly of students of color
in urban, low-income districts.
Retention in Urban Districts Predominately of Color
The growth of teachers of color (usually referencing Black and Latino/a) has outpaced
that of white teachers, and they are more likely to teach in urban districts made up predominately
of students of color (usually referencing Black and Latino/a student’s), yet they are more likely
to leave these schools earlier in their careers than teachers in suburban or rural areas or districts
without a majority of students of color (Hanushek et al., 2001; Ingersoll & May, 2011; Olsen &
Anderson, 2007; Papay et al., 2017;Scafidi et al., 2007;).
Ingersoll’s later work began to focus on other subsets of teachers as they pertain to
teacher-retention issues. Ingersoll and May (2011) in their report “Recruitment, Retention and
the Minority Teacher Shortage” examine TFS/SASS data from the NCES to better understand
recruitment and retention issues regarding teachers of color (usually Black and Latino/a).
Ingersoll and May (2011) found that while teachers of color had increased almost 96% over a
two-decade period (1988–2008), a gap still existed regarding their representation for students of
color, given that students of color went up 73% during the same period of time and all enrolled
public-school students increased by 19% in that time (p. 17). This meant students of color were
still more likely to have white teachers than they were to have teachers who looked like them or
came from similar cultural, communal, or racial backgrounds. Ingersoll and May (2011) make
24

the point that teachers of color are still more likely to be employed in urban districts made up
mostly of students of color than their white peers. The presence of teachers of color in these
schools does not mean they are more likely to stay, and in fact they leave at higher rates – about
28% – than their white peers (p. 23). Ingersoll and May (2011) conclude that it is not the
school’s demographics (urban/suburban, poverty levels, or enrolled students of color) that make
the difference as to whether teachers of color are retained or leave, but the organizational
conditions at the schools, such as autonomy and decision-making involvement.
Olsen and Anderson (2007) focused on teacher recruits in a graduate program for
teachers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Center X. Center X recruits and
trains teachers to be teacher-advocates in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) schools
(UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, Center X, 2020). They focused
on 15 teachers at schools associated with the program, 13 of whom were teachers of color and 14
of whom had five years or less of experience. Of the 15, only three said they would definitely
stay in the profession as long as they could, nine were not so sure about staying educators and
three were definitely going to leave (Olsen & Anderson, 2007). “Supportive or unsupportive
administration” was a big factor in decisions to remain or leave a current job or the profession
altogether (p. 12). While most of the teachers wanted to be able to support “kids like them,” there
were too many other factors that got in the way of the desire to see themselves as teachers in the
long term (p. 18). Many of the teachers felt they were over-extended and considered on the
bottom rung of the educator ladder for teaching in urban schools, which would not be conducive
to remaining in the profession (plateauing) (p. 19). While this is a small subset of just 15
teachers, the deep-dive qualitative analysis provides informative data on the specifics of what
draws people into the profession—and what may cause them to leave. That 12 of 15 teachers
25

were uncertain, or had already decided to move on, reflects the broader teacher-retention
narrative, particularly in urban schools made up of students of color (Olsen & Anderson, 2007).
Like Ingersoll and May (2011), Papay et al. (2017) did not find that the student
demographics were a significant reason for lower teacher retention rates, nor were other factors
like school environment or regional labor markets. They attributed retention variance amongst
the districts to more local policy decisions, which are much harder to simply observe in a school
setting (p. 442). Still, with up to 58% of teachers leaving their schools within five years within
these districts, there is a high impact on these districts’ ability to ensure a high-quality teacher is
in front of every student every day. Papay et al. (2017) show this turnover costs districts
immensely – as much as $4.1 million over five years in the most extreme example from their
analysis – so districts have a great incentive to address their retention issues (p. 442).
Hanushek et al. (2001) studied urban, suburban, and rural elementary schools in Texas.
Hanushek et al. (2001) concluded that white teachers were more likely to leave because of
student demographics, as well as student achievement levels (p. 16). Like Ingersoll and May
(2011), Olsen and Anderson (2007), and Scafidi et al. (2007), Hanushek et al. (2001) note
teachers of color are more likely to go where there are high numbers of Black students (p. 18).
Over a four-year period in the mid-1990s, Hanushek et al. (2001) found that 79% stayed in their
schools for the duration (p. 9). This means 21% of teachers left, at a time when the national
average was about 14% of teachers leaving their schools (p. 9). Hanushek et al. (2001) also
found that teachers are more likely to leave schools in the lowest quartile of achievement,
indicating a teacher’s desire to potentially go where the work is less stressful (p. 15). Hanushek
et al. (2001) also looked at if a difference in salary, or additional compensation, would help
retain teachers in schools with any single potential indicator of “disadvantage” (i.e. very rural or
26

urban, mostly students of color, high-poverty rates). While there was little to no evidence to
support this inquiry that just one indicator would necessitate more compensation, they did find
that having two or more of the indicators would necessitate the school “to pay an additional 20,
30, or even 50 percent more in salary than those schools serving a predominately white or Asian,
academically well-prepared student body” in order to increase retention (p. 19). Therefore, more
than one of these indicators in a school setting would require higher salaries to retain teachers.
This may then put the onus on the school district to find additional dollars to retain teachers in
districts that may already be cash-strapped and resource-poor.
Scafidi et al. (2007) studied teacher turnover in Georgia, focusing on the impact of race
and poverty of students as drivers of teacher retention. Scafidi et al. (2007) looked at individual
teacher data in Georgia 1991–2001 as the focus of their study. Only 38% of teachers in the data
set stayed at their schools for the entire period, or about 10 school years, while about 60%
remained in the same district and just over 70% remained teachers (p. 149). They found teachers
are more likely to leave schools that have high-poverty and mostly students of color (p. 146).
There have been many efforts to recruit more teachers of color into schools made up
mostly of students of color, and these efforts have mostly worked, but these same schools have
trouble retaining them—though white teachers are still more likely to leave these schools
(Hanushek et al., 2001; Ingersoll & May, 2011; Olsen & Anderson, 2007; Papay et al., 2017;
Scafidi et al., 2007).
Urban districts made up of mostly students of color have a harder time retaining teachers
than suburban or rural and mostly white schools, and it is often the same reasons teachers leave
any school: administrative support, working conditions, autonomy and contribution to decision-
making, and school environment.
27

Causes of Low Teacher Retention
There are many causes of low teacher retention, including support by school-based
leadership, the school environment, and systemic issues, as discussed in the following sections.
Support by School-Based Leadership
School-based administrative support – leadership – has an outsized influence on whether
teachers remain in their schools or leave (Olsen & Anderson, 2007; Boyd et al., 2011; Brill &
McCartney, 2008).
As noted previously, Olsen and Anderson (2007) studied 15 teachers in LAUSD and why
they may stay or leave a school. While most of the teachers believed in their work through a
social justice lens, the ones who said they would leave their jobs said institutional problems and
working conditions – such as poor leadership or little autonomy – would be reasons for leaving,
not student demographics. They found these organizational factors to be the biggest reasons
teachers left their schools or thought about leaving (Olsen & Anderson, 2007).
Brill and McCartney (2008), like Ingersoll and May (2011) and Boyd et al. (2011),
attempted to understand the reasons behind low teacher-retention numbers in certain schools.
Studying the data, they found high percentages of teachers leaving their schools after three to
five years (Brill & McCartney, 2008). They found teachers were not leaving because of salary
issues, but because of work environment (Brill & McCartney, 2008). They also found that
teachers who received quality ongoing professional development, and schools that had strong
induction and mentoring programs for new teachers, had the highest retention rates (Brill &
McCartney, 2008). Thus, they concluded that low retention rates were more directly linked to
institutional support (i.e. administrative leadership and support) than any other indicator (Brill &
McCartney, 2008).
28

Boyd et al. (2011) examined first-year teachers in New York City to understand why they
may stay (retention) or leave (attrition, turnover) their teaching positions in schools. Boyd et al.
(2011) looked at the 2004–05 school year and surveyed about 4,370 first-year teachers (p. 312).
Boyd et al. (2011) found that teachers that did alternate-route certifications through programs
such as Teach for America and NYC Teaching Fellows were more likely to leave schools after
their first year. They found that this was mostly due to being ill-prepared for various school
contexts and cultures, as many of the teachers were white, from middle-class backgrounds, and
the students were low-income students of color (p. 316). The schools that were lower-income
and mostly students of color tended to have less-qualified, or less- “desired” principals and
administrators, which potentially led to less administrative support of those first-year educators,
be they alternate-route or traditional (p. 321).
Similar to Ingersoll and May (2011), Boyd et al. (2011) found that working conditions
were bigger indicators of teacher retention than student demographics. Boyd et al. (2011) point
out that having safe and supportive school environments benefits student behavior but also leads
to more resources for teachers in classrooms. According to Boyd et al.’s (2011) research,
supportive administrators are the key reason teachers stay past their first year. Administrators
that involve teachers in school-based decisions, give teachers more classroom autonomy while
supporting classroom management (i.e. behavior) needs, and encourage intra-staff relationships
to reduce the feeling of classroom isolation are the most likely to retain teachers at higher rates
(p. 328–329).
Schools that have low retention rates also usually have weaker leadership support for
their teachers (Olsen & Anderson, 2007; Boyd et al., 2011; Brill & McCartney, 2008). This is a
29

much larger indicator for retention than issues of salary or student demographic (Boyd et al.,
2011; Brill & McCartney, 2008).
As alluded to previously, besides leadership, teacher retention is also influenced by the
kind of school environment, working conditions, autonomy, and contribution to decision-making
teachers have.
School Environment, Working Conditions, Autonomy
There are many factors influencing teacher retention at the school level, including the
environment, working conditions, and autonomy in classroom-level decision-making (Evans,
2017; Fisher, 2011; Ladd, 2011; Loeb et al., 2005).
Loeb et al. (2005) examined a California teacher survey of over 1,000 teachers to
understand if and how working conditions impacted teacher’s decisions to stay or leave their
schools (p. 50). They looked at factors like class size, facilities, salary, multi-track schools
(specific to California), and lack of textbooks, to determine what, if any, of these were predictive
of turnover (Loeb et al., 2005). Loeb et al. (2005) found that these organizational working-
condition factors were bigger determinants of turnover than student racial and/or income
demographic, though demographic is significant (p. 65). They found that schools with higher
Black and/or Latino/a student numbers had more serious facilities (environmental) issues, and
schools with less of a Black and/or Latino/a population had teachers making higher salaries
(Loeb et al., 2005). Both of these findings highlight deeper systemic inequities within the state,
which this research did not directly address. They concluded that increases in salaries and better
working conditions could help stabilize the turnover rates in many schools (p. 67).
Fisher (2011) looked at factors leading to low retention rates in secondary schools. Fisher
(2011) used various surveys from 412 high school advanced-placement teachers in the Southeast,
30

and also used the NCES TFS to understand these factors (p. 12). Fisher (2011) found that years
of experience on the job, job satisfaction, and burnout are significant predictors of stress, which
leads to teachers leaving. Likewise, job satisfaction, preventative coping skills, and stress are
predictors of burnout, which leads to teachers leaving (Fisher, 2011). Stress and burnout can
come from having poor leadership in the school or from lack of parental support (p. 7). Newer
teachers and experienced teachers have about the same stress levels, but newer teachers have
higher burnout rates, according to Fisher (2011). It is poor working conditions that leads to these
predictors of retention of stress and burnout. Fisher (2011) noted that in schools with poor
working conditions, that led to higher stress and burnout of teachers, teachers were less likely to
remain. Fisher (2011) did find that schools with greater peer collaboration, mentoring, and
ongoing professional development were more likely to retain their teachers.
Ladd (2011) examined working conditions for teachers in North Carolina to understand
predictors that may cause them to leave their schools. She surveyed teachers at various levels
(elementary, middle, and secondary). Ladd (2011) looked at six working conditions: school
leadership, teacher empowerment (peer relationships and involvement in decision-making), time,
professional development supports, mentoring, and facilities and resources (p. 237). She found
that school leadership was the most important working condition that determined whether a
teacher stayed at or left a school (Ladd, 2011). She did find that student demographics were an
important factor in retention, but demographics were still not as important working conditions
(Ladd, 2011).
Evans (2017) looked at perceptions of various school employees – principals, assistant
principals, and teachers – to understand teacher attrition and retention for middle school teachers
in a southern, urban district made up predominately of Black students. Evans (2017) found that
31

schools that had poor leadership, lacked in collaboration and autonomy, and did not have strong
mentoring and induction opportunities were more likely to have teacher retention issues. Evans
(2017) found that teachers, assistant principals, and principals all had similar perceptions about
these factors as causes for high or low retention rates. Like others, she did not find that student
demographics were a significant predictor of low teacher retention (Evans, 2017). Evans (2017)
found that community “respect” was a factor in retention, “wherein teachers are viewed as
professionals” by the communities they serve, as were class size and the physical facility
(environment) of the school (p. 40).
There are many factors leading to low retention rates, but leadership, working conditions,
school environment, autonomy, and contribution to decision-making are consistently vital factors
in a teacher’s decision to stay or leave a school (Evans, 2017; Fisher, 2011; Ladd, 2011; Loeb et
al., 2005).
Outside of what is under the control of local school-level leadership, there are other
factors in play when a teacher considers leaving a school or not, such as salary (usually a district-
level decision) and state and federal standards-based policy.
Larger Systemic Issues Such as Salary, and State and/or Federal Policy and Standards
Some issues impacting teacher retention are largely outside of the control of local
leadership, including the level of salary (Imazeki, 2005; Jacobson, 1988) and standards-based
state and federal policy changes, such as No Child Left Behind (an update of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act; Smith & Kovacs, 2011).
Jacobson (1988) and Imazeki (2005) examined the connection between salaries and a
teacher’s decision to leave their current school or district. Imazeki (2005) looked at teachers in
school districts in Wisconsin. Imazeki (2005) specifically tried to understand moving amongst
32

districts (i.e., moving districts for a higher salary) versus simply leaving the profession because
of salary. She found increasing salaries does reduce the numbers of teachers leaving the
profession but has less impact on teachers deciding to move districts (Imazeki, 2005). Likewise,
Jacobson (1988) found salaries in a neighboring district can contribute to leaving a district or
school. Still, Imazeki (2005) suggests districts do need to have competitive wages with their
neighboring districts in order to retain teachers and that female teachers were more likely to
follow these higher wages to other districts. She found that salary increases for teachers at all
levels of experience positively impact retention (Imazeki, 2005). Imazeki (2005) found it would
likely take a 15–20% salary increase to increase retention in urban districts, but she noted that
this is highly unlikely to happen given funding sources and political climate (p. 448).
Salaries are not the only large-scale systemic issue that may predict teacher retention.
Federal, state, or local mandates may also be a factor depending on how intrusive they may be on
the day-to-day functions of a school or district. The federal law, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001 (a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA),
was a good example of this intrusiveness, according to Smith and Kovacs (2011). Smith and
Kovacs (2011) examined a mid-sized southern city along with other data sources to understand
how NCLB may have contributed to low teacher retention (p. 204). They found the standards on
high-quality teachers actually pushed high-quality teachers out of the classroom (Smith &
Kovacs, 2011). NCLB was highly focused on standardized-test scores from high-stakes tests to
determine quality of instruction and student achievement, and teachers noted that this focus put
undue pressure on them to perform (Smith & Kovacs, 2011). In fact, 86% of the teachers
surveyed felt pressure to improve test scores (p. 208). According to Smith and Kovacs (2011),
faced with this pressure, plus the reduced time for professional development and instruction in
33

non-tested subjects, teachers were more likely to leave the profession than under previous
iterations of the law (p. 222), and 38% were unlikely to encourage friends to become teachers (p.
208). Teachers felt the standards made them feel devalued in their expertise, and that their
training and skills were underappreciated, while they felt more isolated from their peers (p. 219).
Smith and Kovacs (2011) found that all of these factors led to an increasing dissatisfaction with
the profession, increasing the likelihood of leaving; this was consistent across districts that had
both lower and higher SES, and a broad range of student racial demographics (p. 222). With the
2015 reauthorization of ESEA – now known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) – it is
still too early for there to be large bodies of research to understand its impact on teacher-
retention rates.
While salary and standards policies that apply undue pressure on educators may not be
the most pivotal for a teacher’s decision to stay or leave, they are important contributing factors
teachers consider (Imazeki, 2005; Jacobson, 1988; Smith & Kovacs, 2011).
Salary levels and standards-based policies are important to understand as they can have
an impact on both teacher retention and the quality of education students receive. There is also a
direct cost of not retaining teachers in schools and districts.
Effect of Teacher Retention on Quality of Education
Costs of Low Teacher Retention to Schools and Districts
The causes of low teacher retention, including school leadership, school environment,
and systemic issues, are well documented and important to address given the substantial impact
low teacher retention has on the quality of education. There are high costs to districts that have
low teacher-retention rates due to costs incurred during recruitment, new-teacher induction, and
training (Barnes et al., 2007; Papay et al., 2017; Watlington et al., 2010). There are also many
34

“hidden” costs, such as of morale and productivity (Watlington et al., 2010) and of trust from
students toward teachers in order to succeed (Romero, 2015).
Barnes et al. (2007) attempted to understand the costs of teacher turnover (low retention)
in comparing five school districts from around the country using the National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future Teacher Turnover Cost Calculator (TTCC). The districts ranged
from small to large, urban and rural, as well as having diverse teacher and student demographics.
Barnes et al. (2007) found teacher turnover costs are significant to both schools and districts
from as low as $4,366 per teacher in Jemez Valley, NM, to as high as $17,872 per teacher in
Chicago (p. 5). In Chicago that meant an aggregate of about $86 million per year (p. 5). Besides
the difference in being a small, rural district (Jemez Valley) and a large, urban one (Chicago)
some of this difference can be attributed to the costs it takes to recruit and train and support
teachers differently in each district. Barnes et al. (2007) found that teachers are more likely to
leave schools with predominately students of color at higher rates, meaning higher costs for
those schools and districts in dealing with turnover, but because of relatively low resources these
schools are less likely to spend dollars preventing turnover (p. 5). They do note that a high-
quality induction program for teachers, which can cost about $6,000 per teacher in a place like
Chicago, could greatly reduce turnover in their schools, and thus the long-term costs of low
retention (p. 5). Barnes et al. (2007) also found that there are direct links between low
performance achievement in schools and high turnover (low retention), meaning the same
schools struggling with their performance are also disproportionately burdened with the
mounting costs of teacher turnover (p. 66).
Watlington et al. (2010) draw on a comparison of the School Turnover Analysis (STA)
and TTCC to fully understand the actual fiscal impact on schools and districts of teachers leaving
35

their positions each year. Watlington et al. (2010) found both analyses have numerous indicators
they use, some of which overlap, but neither of which fully address all the actual or hidden costs
of teacher turnover (p. 28). While there are very clear costs such as the cost to recruit, hire,
induct, train, and support new teachers, there are other “hidden costs” such as school morale
costs and “productivity costs” such as when a seasoned educator is replaced by a new teacher (p.
26). Watlington et al. (2010) found very different costs for each district when it comes to teacher
turnover. The STA model for districts in Florida found that in St. Lucie County School District,
the cost was about $4,631 per teacher, while in Broward County School District the cost was
about $12,652 per teacher (p. 31). Watlington et al. (2010) note this big difference could be
because Broward invests a much greater amount into their internal teacher-induction-and-support
program which led to lower turnover rates (p. 31). Watlington et al. (2010) conclude that districts
should have better understandings of the cost of turnover in order to build in stronger safeguards,
such as a strong induction program that can help reduce the short- and long-term costs of low
teacher retention.
As noted previously, Papay et al. (2017) studied teacher retention in 16 urban districts
throughout the country to see what the similarities and differences in how well districts did in
retaining teachers (p. 437). While the focus was on retention and not costs of turnover, Papay et
al. (2017) still had some findings as it relates to the costs of teachers leaving. They found that
turnover is costly to districts, and that there is wide variance between the districts in this study,
but costs reached as high as about $4.1 million over five years in the most extreme example in
the study – that is, District C spending $4.1 million more than District B over a five-year period
on turnover – showing how widely costs vary amongst districts (p. 442). Some of this difference
can be explained through understanding how much each district spends on new teachers,
36

differences in retention rates amongst the districts, and regional labor market differences (Papay
et al., 2017).
There is a high cost to schools and districts when teachers leave, and the numbers vary
across districts (Barnes et al., 2007; Papay et al., 2017; Watlington et al., 2010). These are costs
that could be used elsewhere in schools and districts to improve the quality of education.
Much like there are costs to the quality of education – hidden and visible – in having low
teacher retention in schools and districts, there are also negative impacts of low retention on
students and their outcomes academically and socio-emotionally (well-being).
Impact of Teacher Retention on Students and Achievement
Teachers have a clear impact on the success of their students by being consistent and
building trusted relationships with them (Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Romero, 2015). When there is
low retention of teachers in student lives, there may be a negative effect on them and on their
achievement and well-being (Rockoff, 2004; Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
Bryk and Schneider (2003) examined the idea of trust and the connection to student
achievement. They studied 400 Chicago elementary schools in 12 different communities over a
four-year period. Bryk and Schneider (2003) looked at “relational trust” through a number of
factors, including respect, personal regard, competence in core responsibilities, and personal
integrity, all of which impact trust across a number of relationships including student–teacher,
community–teacher, and teacher–teacher (p. 41–42). Bryk and Schneider (2003) found benefits
to this trust included buy-in on core educational functions, including students and teachers
engaging in new practices to increase performance (p. 43). They noted schools with high
“relational trust” saw 8% improvement in reading and 20% improvement in math over a five-
year period (p. 43). As Bryk and Schneider (2003) point out, if trusted teachers are not retained
37

at schools in high rates, that lack of trust (or the need to build trust) can have an impact on
student achievement.
Rockoff (2004) attempted to understand the impact of teachers on student achievement.
This study looked at data from school districts’ student achievement on tests and those students’
teacher assignments to understand their impact. Rockoff (2004) found there was a large
difference of teacher quality within schools and the higher the quality, the higher the student
achievement (p. 251). The implication here is that if there is low retention of these teachers,
student achievement is likely to go down at these schools.
Ronfeldt et al. (2013) studied fourth- and fifth-grade teacher turnover in New York City
schools. Specifically, they looked at New York City and State Department data from eight
academic years focused on the students in these fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms (p. 9).
Ronfeldt et al. (2013) found students in schools with higher teacher turnover tended to perform
worse on math and English language arts exams; this was especially true in schools with higher
proportions of students of color (p. 30). Ronfeldt et al. (2013) found the impact of teacher
turnover was especially bad on lower achieving schools, but that there was no significant impact
on teacher turnover in higher achieving schools (p. 28).
Romero (2015) examined the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 to understand the
link between student trust in their teachers and their personal behavior, and their educational
outcomes. She also wanted to understand the impact of the students’ SES on the outcomes
(Romero, 2015). She found that there is a link between trust and their outcomes, and that trust
and behavior are more closely linked (p. 226). As Romero (2015) notes, “students who are more
trusting of their teachers and schools get in trouble less frequently and have better high school
38

outcomes” (p. 226). The trust students have in teachers is a hidden factor in the impact of teacher
retention in schools (Romero, 2015).
Low retention is disruptive and impacts the quality of education students receive,
negatively affecting their academic achievement, but it also causes trusted relations to be
harmed, negatively impacting a student’s socio-emotional well-being as well as achievement
(Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Rockoff, 2004; Romero, 2015; Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
While student achievement and well-being are important to the success of schools and
districts, and low teacher retention has a negative impact on this success, there are promising
practices of how to ensure that teachers stay, especially in low-income urban schools mostly of
students of color.
Addressing Teacher Retention Problems
Possible Solutions and What Has Shown Promise in Urban Districts Predominately of
Color
Research has shown that there are promising practices in retaining teachers in urban
districts predominately of color, which include better recruitment and retention strategies, and
having teachers with a good amount of cultural awareness who know how to build effective
relationships with their students, while also being empowered with a certain amount of autonomy
and decision-making capacity (Helfeldt et al., 2015; Imazeki, 2005; Kokka, 2016; Whipp &
Geronime, 2017; Wronowski, 2018).
Better Recruitment Strategies
Recruitment of teachers should reflect the student demographics at the school. As
Imazeki (2005) reported that there may be a difference in recruiting depending on the racial
makeup of the teacher, given that she found white teachers were more likely to leave when their
39

students were mostly students of color. She notes, “Race appears to be more important to exiting
teachers than to transfers, with higher exit attrition among white men when there are more non-
white students in a district. Non-white teachers, both male and female, have higher exit (but not
transfer) attrition but they are less likely to leave when they have more non-white students” (p.
442). While implicit or explicit, white male teachers are least likely to commit long-term to
teaching students of color (Imazeki, 2005). The implication here is that the teacher–racial
demographic being reflective of the student body should be considered in a recruitment strategy.
Kokka (2016) examined math and science teachers, who were mostly of color, in one
under-resourced urban school, who have remained at the school longer than what national and
local trends tend to dictate for these schools. Each teacher had stayed between 7 and 24 years in
the same school (Kokka, 2016). One of Kokka’s (2016) findings was that many of the teachers
came from the same or similar communities as their students. The implication here is that much
like Wronowski’s (2018) notes on the importance of cultural awareness and acceptance of
students, a good recruiting strategy will include the recruitment of teachers from the same or
similar communities or cultural backgrounds as their students (Kokka, 2016).
Whipp and Geronime (2017) studied graduates of an urban education program to
understand what may cause them to stay or leave the schools they committed to upon graduation.
The district studied had 46% of students below the poverty line and 81% of their students
qualifying for free or reduced lunch (Whipp & Geronime, 2017, p. 808). They tried to
understand if the teachers’ own K–12 experience, volunteer service, and/or student-teaching in
similar urban, high-poverty districts correlated to their commitment to remaining at their school
(Whipp & Geronime, 2017). The teacher-prep program studied had future teachers “investigate
their entering beliefs and knowledge about diversity, discuss and debate educational policy
40

issues relating to structural inequities in school and society, and practice culturally responsive
pedagogies in five supervised field experiences and practica in urban schools” (p. 807).
According to Whipp and Geronime (2017), “many candidates during their preparation program
volunteer or are employed as tutors, teachers, recreational directors, camp counselors, and/or
childcare workers for a variety of educational organizations and agencies serving children and
adults in urban settings” (p. 808). Of note, most of the participants (94%) in this study were
white teachers (p. 809). Whipp and Geronime (2017) found that there was a strong correlation
between the aforementioned factors (personal K–12 experiences, urban/high-needs student-
teaching experience, or other voluntary service to similarly situated students) and higher
retention of these teachers in their jobs (p. 817). Therefore, long-term retention strategies should
include recruitment strategies that entail identifying potential teachers with the three core
personal experiences mentioned previously (Whipp & Geronime, 2017). Whipp and Geronime
(2017) suggest schools should be working with teacher-prep programs that identify future
teachers with these life experiences (p. 818).
Wronowski (2018) looked to understanding recruitment and retention approaches of
successful secondary teachers in urban, “high-need” schools as identified through NCLB
standards (p. 552). Wronowski (2018) examines how personal traits of teacher recruits are just as
important – if not more important – than high achievement of the teachers during their studies.
Wronowski (2018) notes, “traits related to teacher recruitment and retention in high-needs
schools include personality, relationship between teachers and students, motivation for entering
the teaching profession, and the relationship of personal and professional goals related to staying
in the teaching profession. These traits do not exist in a vacuum. They are uniquely located
within individual interpretation, specific spaces and time, and are fluid in nature” (p. 551).
41

Wronowski (2018) concludes that recruitment strategies should include identifying teachers with
particular assets such as cultural awareness and acceptance as well as an understanding of how to
build effective relationships with students. Wronowski (2018) notes teachers also have to be
highly motivated to build relationships and be successful teachers (p. 557). Therefore,
Wronowski (2018) asserts that it is important to recruit teachers through this lens of motivation,
but also through three core attributes of “cultural awareness and acceptance, a defined set of
personality traits, and an ability to cultivate meaningful relationships with students” (p. 565).
Teacher recruits that do not have these attributes will be harder to retain in the long term
(Wronowski, 2018).
Greater Autonomy, Decision-Making Capacity and Other Retention Strategies
Helfeldt et al. (2015) examined a pilot internship program between a university and urban
school district to see if it would create higher retention rates for the teacher participants in the
district. Helfeldt et al. (2015) wrote that payment as a full-time teacher, as well as a strong
mentoring and induction plan came as part of the internship (p. 5). Helfeldt et al. (2015) found
that 83% of the teachers stayed on after the first year, and after the third year 54% (25) had
remained in the same school where they interned (p. 7). They found these rates to be much better
than national averages that placed teachers at the same intervals, with about a 71% retention rate
(p. 10). Helfeldt et al. (2015) noted that after three years in those same schools, turnover had
been about 90%—meaning that at 54% retention, teacher-interns in this pilot were much more
likely to remain in the school than non-teacher intern participants did at the same schools (p. 11).
They conclude that having a strong internship program with strong mentorship and a
comprehensive induction plan can lead to higher retention levels at schools long considered to
42

struggle with retention, such as urban schools made up of predominately students of color
(Helfeldt et al., 2015).
To understand high retention rates in urban schools made up mostly of students of color,
Kokka (2016) examined math and science teachers, who were also mostly of color, in one under-
resourced urban school who remained at the school longer than what national and local trends
tend to dictate for these schools. 100% of the students at this school were considered
“socioeconomically disadvantaged” and 98.5% were students of color, yet Kokka (2016) found
that all the teachers interviewed in the study had been at the school for between 7 and 24 years,
unlike most similarly situated schools (p. 171). Kokka (2016) found that many of the teachers
actually came from the same community – or a similar community – as the school in which they
taught, meaning that they had a familiarity with the context and the environment their students
faced on a day-to-day basis, and this contributed to their sense of purpose in staying at the school
for the long term. These teachers felt a social–emotional reward in working with students who
reflected their own life experiences (p. 170). Kokka (2016) found it was important for these
teachers to have autonomy in instructional and curricular decisions, but support from
administrative leadership was important to them particularly in disciplinary issues (p. 172).
Anthony et al. (2017) offered up a similar local solution to this issue as Kokka (2016): a
strong “grow your own” program to expand the teacher pipeline and increase retention (p. 29).
This is when communities and districts start building the internal teacher pipeline from within by
supporting local students as they go to universities, get education degrees, then return home to
teach in the district that they came from. Anthony et al.’s (2017) analysis of the Mississippi
teacher crisis makes this suggestion, as these teachers will be most likely to stay in their districts
for the long-term.
43

Wronowski (2018) focuses on how to retain the successful teachers in high-needs schools.
Wronowski (2018) notes that beyond the attributes for recruitment, they need to be in school
environments where they have a voice and feel empowered to affect decision-making as it relates
to their classrooms (p. 567). Effective strategies to retain these teachers must include sufficient
administrative support and “empathy,” but also a certain amount of autonomy for the teachers, as
well as trust in their ability to make decisions affecting their classrooms (p. 562). This is part of
what Wronowski (2018) notes as the teacher “empowerment” strategy within the organization of
a school—that schools with strong practices of teacher empowerment have better retention
numbers in high-needs schools. Wronowski (2018) writes there are four key components of
teacher empowerment in schools that have strong administrative support: “school policy, teacher
work life, student experience, and instruction” (p. 570). According to Wronowski (2018)
teachers who have a voice in this integrated leadership model are most likely to stay in their
schools (p. 570).
There are many promising practices in ensuring teachers stay at schools that are urban,
low-income, with predominately students of color, especially having strong teacher-prep
programs, such as yearlong teaching internships, and recruitment practices that have good links
between teacher and school characteristics (i.e. commitment, cultural awareness, efficacy),
strong induction and mentoring practices, and identifying teachers who come from the same
communities as the school (Anthony et al., 2017; Helfeldt et al., 2015; Imazeki, 2005; Kokka,
2016; Whipp & Geronime, 2017; Wronowski, 2018). Stronger teacher induction programs,
combined with supportive leadership and good working conditions can lead to fewer teachers
leaving and thus reducing the costs of low retention over time (Barnes et al., 2007; Papay et al.,
2017; Watlington et al., 2010).
44

While schools will always have a certain amount of attrition – and not all attrition is bad
– there are measures and practices schools and districts can put in place to prevent low retention
rates and the impact teachers leaving has on students, especially in urban schools made up
predominately of students of color.
While the literature clearly points toward solutions to solve the teacher retention problem
in districts similar to SSD, it is important to have a framework for understanding how to address
the gap between what is happening in schools now and what might possibly have a positive
impact on teacher retention in SSD. The next section will provide an overview of the gap
analysis used in this research (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) wanted to improve performance within organizations and
institutions. They determined there were three “active ingredients” that influence performance in
every organization: (a) knowledge and skills, (b) motivation, and (c) organizational goals—or
KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) determined that by understanding gaps in
each of the KMO areas for a particular organization, and targeting improvements for these gaps,
an organization can improve from its current state to its desired state. Thus, any research must be
focused on this gap analysis in KMO in order to resolve issues and improve at an organizational
level.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge and skills are necessary when “people
do not know how to accomplish their performance goals” and when it is “anticipated that future
challenges will require novel problem solving” (p. 58). Further information, job aids, and/or
training may be required to support the first necessity, while further education may support the
second necessity (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 58). Not every gap analysis will include a knowledge
45

component due to it not being applicable in every case, such as this gap analysis on SSD. This
will be discussed in the following sections.
Knowledge and skill influences can be broken down by their types. According to
Anderson et al. (2001), there are three types of knowledge: declarative (factual and conceptual),
procedural, and metacognitive. Rueda (2011) explains that the factual part of declarative
knowledge is knowledge based in specific “disciplines, contexts or domains” and the conceptual
part is based in knowledge of “categories, classifications, principles, generalizations” (p. 28).
Procedural knowledge is about knowing how to do something or methods of inquiry (Anderson
& Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011). For example, in the case of a teacher, procedural knowledge
is manifested in a teacher having the knowledge and skills related to implementing a lesson plan.
Finally, according to Mayer (2011), metacognition is the awareness and control of “one’s
cognitive processing” or in other words, one’s own ability to think about thinking (p. 42).
Teachers need all the different types of knowledge in order to deliver instruction.
However, the focus of this study is on teacher retention. The literature on teacher retention
reveals many reasons why teachers choose to leave their positions (Darling-Hammond, 1984;
Ingersoll, 2001; Hancock, & Scherff, 2010; Gray, & Taie, 2015), but most were not explicitly
related to a teacher’s knowledge. It is important to recognize that each influence is not always an
effective means to understand possible improvement solutions. This is the case with knowledge.
While knowledge may play some role in this problem of practice, given the history of the district
and interventions attempted to date with little effect, including interventions to build teacher
knowledge, this research has chosen to focus on motivation and organizational influences on
teacher retention. Therefore, there will be no knowledge influences examined in this study.
46

Clark and Estes (2008) note that motivation is what “gets us going, keeps us moving and
tells us how much effort to put into a task” (p. 80). This can be considered “why” someone may
do something in any context. According to Clark and Estes (2008), in a work context there are
three types of motivational factors at play: 1) choice in pursuit of a goal, 2) persistence in
achieving that goal, and 3) the mental effort it takes to complete the goal (p. 80). It will be
important to understand how these motivating factors influence a teacher’s decision to stay at
(retention) or leave a school (attrition/turnover) within the context of this study.
Even the most highly motivated individuals can fail to achieve their professional goals or
that of their organization if they do not have the support of their organization in fulfilling that
goal, or if the culture of the organization is such that improved performance on the goal is
impossible. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework notes the need to
understand organizational influences, such as culture, in order to improve performance. Every
work culture is different. Each organization’s culture is the implicit and explicit values of the
organization and the “conscious and unconscious understanding” of who the organization is and
how the organization does what it does (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 107). The implicit and explicit
culture of the organization should lead to certain behaviors in support of the organization’s
success by all components (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture is ever-evolving, based on new
components—in the case of an organization this may be, for example, new employees, policies
and/or resources.
Motivation and organizational influences are more pertinent for the purposes of this
research and will be discussed in more extensive detail in the following sections.

47

Teacher Motivation and Organizational Influences on Performance
Assumed Motivation Influences on Performance
The following section will focus on motivation-related influences on performance. A
teacher, like a student, may be motivated to succeed in a task or in a goal as much as they may be
motivated to avoid failing at a task or a goal (Rueda, 2011). According to Mayer (2011)
motivation is “an internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior” (p. 39). Much
like cognition or metacognition, by being an internal state, motivation is difficult to measure or
observe (Ambrose et al., 2010; Mayer, 2011). In operationalizing motivation into its visible
manifestations, Rueda (2011) and Clark and Estes (2008) discuss that motivation is demonstrated
via three behavioral indices: 1) active choice to pursue a goal, 2) persistence to work through
barriers to accomplish a goal, and 3) mental effort to understand how much is needed to press
forward for goal attainment. Also, according to Rueda (2011), in order to understand the
behavioral indices, it is important to explore the underlying causes of maintaining these
behaviors, which are self-efficacy and competence beliefs, attributions and control beliefs,
values, goals, and goal orientation (p. 39). These causes influence whether the three behavioral
indices are achieved, and it is important to understand each. These three factors impact
motivational behavior. Still, without a purposeful examination, it is challenging to understand
what motivates teachers and enables them to remain and do their best to provide a good
educational experience for their students.
For teacher retention to occur, there are two main motivation constructs to understand:
utility value and self-efficacy. Rueda (2011) explains that utility value is “how useful one
believes a task or activity is for achieving some future goal” (p. 42). In the context of this study,
utility value about the teacher recognizing that remaining in their organization of employment as
48

a teacher holds some value for their future goals. In order for a teacher to choose to remain in
their school (retention), the teacher needs to believe it is of value for their future goals.
Self-efficacy is the internal belief that the task or goal can be accomplished successfully
(Rueda, 2011). Without adequate self-efficacy, individuals will have difficulty beginning a task
or working to accomplish a goal, persisting through it, and mentally sustaining the effort required
to complete the task (Bandura, 1986). These two motivation influences are the key underlying
constructs necessary for teachers to actively choose to remain teaching, persist in their duties,
and mentally sustain their instructional efforts.
Teachers Need to Perceive Being Employed at University High School as in Alignment With
Their Professional Goals
If the ultimate goal is retention at their school, the teacher must see utility – or usefulness
– in remaining in their school as it relates to their professional goals. If the teacher does not
perceive that being employed at UHS in the SSD is aligned with their professional goals, they
are not likely to engage in the activity of remaining, they will not persist through difficult times
in their work, and they will not mentally sustain their effort. Without the underlying belief in the
utility, the teacher might not perceive the value in remaining at UHS. Classroom autonomy and
decision-making opportunities within schools can help with the teacher’s perception of the
district being aligned with their professional goals, for example, in career advancement (Kokka,
2016; Whipp & Geronime, 2017; Wronowski, 2018). In this, there is a certain amount of
intrinsic value since the teacher may enjoy their work more by being in more control of it
(Rueda, 2011).

49

Teachers Need to Feel Confident in Their Ability to Be Effective in Their Practice as Teachers
Teachers are likely to leave teaching if they do not feel confident in their practice as a
teacher. If teachers do not perceive that they can be effective in successfully completing the tasks
or achieving goals related to teaching, they are not likely to actively choose to continue, to
persist, and to mentally sustain the effort needed to achieve the task or goal (Rueda, 2011).
Lacking professional self-efficacy can lead to the teacher leaving their school of employment
and possibly the profession. Confidence in one’s own ability may not come for many years into a
chosen profession; therefore, it is likely that novice teachers struggle with their professional
efficacy as teachers the most, and are therefore more likely to leave their profession (Helfeldt et
al., 2015; Papay et al., 2017; Shen, 1997).
Table 2 presents the aforementioned assumed motivation influences and their aligned
motivation constructs.

Table 2
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation Influence
Utility Value Utility Value – Teachers need to perceive being employed at UHS
in SSD as in alignment with their professional goals.
Self-Efficacy Value Self-Efficacy – Teachers need to feel confident in their ability to
be effective in their practice as teachers.

50

Assumed Organizational Influences on Performance
Organizational influences are critical influences in understanding teacher retention. In
order to increase teacher retention, it is important to understand how the organization – UHS –
influences the teachers in their employment-related decisions. Organizational influences will
encompass the predominate analysis of this problem of practice.
There are two types of organizational influences: cultural models and cultural settings.
They are intricately linked (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) describe cultural models as the common or “normative understandings of
how the world works or ought to work” (p. 47). This can mean interpretations of events and the
environment that are so common they are practically rendered invisible (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Thus, in an organization, the cultural model is what may seem obvious or
familiar and what is at the surface of what is happening in the organization and how, whereas the
cultural settings are the specific contexts of what is happening in the organization. That is,
according to Rueda (2011), what can be seen: “the who, what, when, where, why and how of the
routines which constitute everyday life” (p. 57). For the purposes of this study, the UHS’s
everyday environment may be the cultural model, but the setting would be, for example, the
specific policies, teacher incentives, and resources a teacher may be able to obtain that constitute
the particular school’s cultural setting.
Before defining the specific organizational influences at UHS in this study, it is important
to recognize that organizations have cultures (Clark & Estes, 2008). To understand an
organization’s culture, it is necessary to understand the climate of the organization, who works
there and why, the kinds of practices that are encouraged or not encouraged within the
workplace, and how those practices are influenced (Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark & Estes, 2008;
51

Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) notes the importance of understanding that organizational cultures
are “not monoliths,” as they are ever changing, depending on the component parts such as the
personnel (p. 54–55).
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), organizational cultural models are the
unseen influences within the organization. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) describe cultural
models as the common, or “normative understandings of how the world works or ought to work”
(p. 47). These may be the organizational “customs” that are assumed to take place in an
organization, such as trust between leadership and staff (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). For
example, a cultural model in a school may be the degree to which teachers perceive their
administrators as being supportive, knowledgeable, or willing to mentor within their leadership
roles. The cultural model of the school will greatly influence how the teacher feels valued within
the organization. Does UHS’s cultural model value the teacher and their work?
Connected to organizational cultural models are cultural settings. Cultural settings are the
more concrete, visual aspects of the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011).
In practice, a school’s setting may be the policies supporting teachers, teacher incentives to
remain teaching, or the resources the teacher has access to that support their teaching. There are
both cultural model and setting influences that will guide practice in order for that school to be
successful.
Ladson-Billings (2014) research and writing on culturally relevant pedagogy provide
another example of how cultural models may look in practice. The cultural-model influence is
that teachers must believe that their students who may be Black, Latino/a, or low-income have
the assets to be successful in their school setting (Ladson-Billings, 2014). The cultural-setting
influence stems from what the teacher and the school put in place (practice and policy) around
52

the students for them to be successful in a way that appreciates who they are, where they come
from, and the community in which they sit. These may be pedagogical practices, they may be
disciplinary practices, or even the structure of the school day. These are seen and unseen
influences within the school setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Thus, if UHS decided to
adopt a culturally relevant pedagogy, the cultural-model influences would be the degree to which
stakeholders perceive the values of UHS to be about recognizing assets. The cultural-setting
influences would be whether teachers are trained to support the success of the predominately
Black students, and/or whether the disciplinary approaches are carefully aligned with culturally
relevant pedagogy, for example (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
In the context of understanding teachers’ likelihood to remain employed with UHS in
SSD, six organizational influences – one cultural model, five cultural settings – have been
identified. These are: 1) UHS needs to cultivate a culture of trust between administration and
teachers, 2) UHS needs to provide teachers a certain level of autonomy of decision-making
ability within the classroom setting, 3) UHS needs to provide teachers with the resources
necessary for them to succeed within the classroom setting, 4) UHS needs to have a strong
onboarding and mentoring process for new teachers, 5) SSD needs to provide a strong incentives
package, and 6) SSD and UHS need to provide ongoing, effective, and relevant professional
development to teachers. In the following pages, these influences will be examined.
University High School Needs to Cultivate a Culture of Trust Between Administration and
Teachers
The need to cultivate a culture of trust between administration and teachers is a cultural
model influence. As noted previously, there are “unseen” or “invisible” aspects of an
organizational culture, and these are the model influences (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
53

Rueda, 2011). Trust between the administration and its teachers is vital in order to successfully
achieve goals. In order to build this trust, teachers need to believe administrators have their best
interests, plus those of the students who the teachers interact with every day, at heart.
Simon and Johnson (2013) note the importance of school leadership in whether a teacher
decides to continue or discontinue their employment. Autonomy, involvement in decision-
making, communication, clear guidance, and timely support or interventions are factors that
allow teachers to believe their administrators are working on a common goal together. These
aspects of a school culture can help build trust amongst everyone. Fisher (2011) implies that
having trust in leadership can help reduce teacher stress and burnout. It is vital to understand
how, if it all, UHS builds a culture of trust in order to be successful in retaining teachers.
University High School Needs to Provide Teachers a Certain Level of Autonomy of Decision-
Making Ability Within the Classroom Setting
The need to provide teachers a certain level of autonomy of decision-making ability
within the classroom setting is a cultural-setting influence. Teachers do not want to be reliant on
administrators for every decision they make. With more autonomy, they may be more willing to
work with their peers. In addition, teachers value their independence in making decisions
specific to their classroom, while still wanting administrative support on issues like student
discipline (Wronowski, 2018).
Boyd et al. (2011) and Evans (2017) examined the connection between autonomy and
working conditions in relation to whether a teacher decides to stay or leave their school. Evans’
(2017) analysis concluded there is a connection between autonomy and employment decisions.
According to Evans (2017), teachers want to feel independent and valued in their school setting,
and autonomy could be one indicator of how the organization values them. Wronowski (2018)
54

also made clear that autonomy is important to high retention. Wronowski (2018) framed
autonomy as an issue of teacher empowerment and if teachers feel empowered within their
school setting, they are more likely to stay.
University High School Needs to Provide Teachers With the Resources Necessary for Them to
Succeed Within the Classroom Setting
UHS needing to provide teachers with the resources necessary for them to succeed within
the classroom setting is another cultural-setting influence. Clark and Estes (2008) describe these
resources as being “tangible supplies and equipment to achieve goals” (p. 104). Teachers need
resources to be successful and commit to continuing to teach. These resources may be physical
such as a science lab for a chemistry teacher or adequate facilities. The resources may also be
having supplies such as printer paper and up-to-date textbooks. These resources – and ease of
access to them – contribute to the school climate and the degree to which a teacher feels valued
within the organizational setting.
Loeb et al. (2005) note the importance of working conditions, especially having fully
functioning facilities and access to quality, up-to-date textbooks in influencing employment
decisions. Ladd (2011), Evans (2017), and Simon and Johnson (2013) also confirm this issue of
working conditions – the physical resources – in relation to a teacher’s decision to stay or leave a
school setting. For the purposes of this study, this cultural-setting influence is vital to
understanding teachers’ employment decisions. The resources, or lack thereof, are tangible
aspects of their day-to-day organizational settings in UHS and will be explored in the study.

55

University High School Needs to Have a Strong Onboarding and Mentoring Process for New
Teachers
UHS needing to have a strong onboarding and mentoring process for new teachers is
another cultural-setting influence. For an organization to be effective in achieving goals, there
must be clear processes or procedures for new employees to be integrated into the existing
organizational culture. There is a need for all parts of an organization to be aligned and moving
together for a common goal or objective. Clark and Estes (2008) may refer to this need for
alignment as a “work process” (p. 104). In the school setting, that may mean horizontal
alignment with teachers teaching the same subject, and vertical alignment for meeting academic
goals of the school and district. On the human-resources side, there must be a clear process for
new teachers to become part of these school-based processes, leading to the success of the
institution (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Brill and McCartney (2008) write about the importance of an effective induction
(onboarding) and mentoring process as being important for teacher retention. A teacher’s
experience in their first few years has a strong influence on whether they stay or leave.
Organizations that devote time and resources to strong onboarding and mentoring are more likely
to keep their teachers longer. For this problem of practice, it will be important to understand the
effectiveness of any types of onboarding or mentoring teachers engage in early in their careers at
UHS.
Southern School District Needs to Provide a Strong Incentives Package
SSD needing to provide a strong incentives package is another cultural-setting influence.
Incentives for teachers can be a wide variety of items in the education organizational context. It
can mean having health insurance, a salary commensurate with experience and knowledge,
56

bonuses for performance, or choice of classroom in a building, amongst other incentives.
Organizations use incentives to encourage meeting performance goals.
Jacobson (1988) and Imazeki (2005) showed salary as a positive incentive to keep
teachers from discontinuing employment. SSD, as an organization, is in constant competition
with the surrounding districts to recruit and retain teachers. Unlike the surrounding districts, SSD
is a district with low SES and is under close monitoring from their state department of education
for quality of education and infrastructure problems. These are two factors that may not
encourage new teachers to come to the district. Therefore, it will be important to examine what
incentives SSD does provide to understand how that impacts a teacher’s decision to stay or leave.
There are other potential incentives that do not require salary or bonuses. Wronowski
(2018) discussed teacher empowerment as an incentive, therein giving teachers greater autonomy
in their classrooms and a greater voice in decision-making and leadership in their school.
McCreight (2000) provided many ideas to incentivize teachers to remain in their schools that are
not directly salary-related, such as loan-forgiveness programs and supporting childcare for
teachers’ children. SSD may consider a combination of these types of incentives.
Southern School District and University High School Need to Provide Ongoing, Effective, and
Relevant Professional Development to Teachers
SSD and UHS needing to provide ongoing, effective, and relevant professional
development to teachers is another cultural-setting influence. Ensuring that individuals within an
organization have up-to-date knowledge and skills as it relates to being successful in achieving
the performance goals is integral to the success of the organization. This is a cultural-setting
issue given the organization should have the mechanisms in place to ensure the success of the
teacher in their context.
57

Brill and McCartney (2008) and Fisher (2011) cite high-quality professional development
as integral to teacher retention. Smith and Kovacs (2011) discuss the reduction in professional
development in non-tested subjects as a reason teachers leave, implying that the organization
values one type of teacher (those teaching tested subjects) over another (teachers in non-tested
subjects). This value set can have a negative overall impact on school climate, culture, and
morale. It is also important that the professional development is directly related to the immediate
and long-term needs of the teacher. Thus, it is important to understand how ongoing, effective,
and relevant professional development is important to meeting the goal of high retention.
Table 3 presents the six assumed organizational influences for this study. One is a
cultural model, while the other five are cultural-setting influences, both types of which are
described in the introduction to this section.

Table 3
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Category Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural-Model influence 1 UHS needs to cultivate a culture of trust between
administration and teachers.
Cultural-Setting Influence 1 UHS needs to provide teachers a certain level of
autonomy of decision-making ability within the
classroom setting.
Cultural-Setting Influence 2 UHS needs to provide teachers with the resources
necessary for them to succeed within the classroom
setting.
Cultural-Setting Influence 3 UHS needs to have a strong onboarding and mentoring
process for new teachers within their schools.
Cultural-Setting Influence 4 SSD needs to provide a strong incentives package.
Cultural-Setting Influence 5 SSD and UHS need to provide ongoing, effective, and
relevant professional development to teachers.

58

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to do a gap analysis of teacher retention-problems in SSD,
specifically one school: UHS – a low-income, urban, Deep-South district and school made up
mostly of Black students – in order to move toward the desired performance improvement of
SSD. The first part of this chapter was a review of the literature as it pertains to problems of low
teacher retention. The review began with a history of the problem. The review then examined the
retention issue in schools similarly situated to UHS. The review examined the causes for
potentially strong retention numbers in districts. Then there was a discussion about the effect of
teacher retention on schools and districts particularly as it pertains to costs. Concluding the first
part of the literature review, there was an examination of the literature focused on solutions to
maintaining high teacher-retention rates, particularly in urban schools made up mostly of
students of color.
The second part of the literature review introduced and focused on the conceptual
framework of this study’s gap analysis. That is the KMO framework as developed by Clark and
Estes (2008). The second part focused on the teacher motivation and organizational influences to
be studied in this problem of practice as they related to teacher retention (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This problem of practice only examined the motivation and organizational influences as relevant,
as knowledge influences were determined to not be useful in the context of teacher retention.
There are two motivation influences in this study: utility value and self-efficacy. There are six
organizational influences: one is a cultural model and five are cultural settings. All eight of these
influences were discussed in the second part of the literature review.
59

Chapter three will focus on the methodology used in this research to understand the
assumed motivational and organizational influences relevant to this study focused on
performance improvements for UHS in SSD.

60

Chapter Three: Methodology
This research attempted to understand the root motivation and organizational influences
affecting UHS in SSD’s current low certified teacher retention rate in order to help achieve the
stakeholder goal of a 90% certified teacher retention rate by the 2022–23 school year. In chapter
three, the research design and method for data collection and analysis will be explained. This
will be followed by the presentation of this study’s methodology in responding to the research
questions. The research questions are:
1. What are the teacher-motivation influences related to remaining a teacher in UHS for at
least three years?
2. What are the organizational influences related to achieving and maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention rate in UHS by August 2022?
3. What are the recommended motivation and organizational solutions?
First, there will be a description of the participant stakeholders. Following that section,
there will be an explanation of the interview selection approach and rationale, plus the criteria
chosen for the interview samples. Then there will be a description of the types of interviews
along with the documents to be collected and analyzed. The documents gathered will be for
context of the subject only. Following there will be a description of how the gathered data were
analyzed, and efforts undertaken to ensure the data were credible and trustworthy, followed by a
section on the ethical approach to the data collection and analysis. Finally, this chapter will
conclude with the limitations and delimitations of this study.

61

Participating Stakeholders
Teachers are the most important variable to achieving the performance goal of a 90%
teacher-retention rate at UHS by August of 2022. Every teacher that leaves the classroom affects
the rate of retention. Teachers deliver instruction by utilizing chosen curriculum and meeting the
accountability standards meant to show performance progress for the students. Teachers are at
the front line of student success. For many students, teachers also play an important role as a
surrogate parent/guardian or role model, and if they establish trusted relationships with the
students, students will perform better (Romero, 2015). Having these trusted relationships with
students and providing a high-quality education are vital to school success and the chances a
teacher will remain in place from year to year. It is critical that teachers are certified because this
is an important factor in providing a high-quality education to their students. Certification
implies the teacher has certain competencies necessary to provide high-quality instruction.
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical purposes, the
certified teacher stakeholder group has been chosen for this study.
This study intended to interview 12 teachers from one particular high school, UHS in
SSD. Initially, there were to be eight current teachers, four of whom had taught for more than
three school years at UHS, and four of whom had taught for three or less years at UHS. The
methodology as originally planned also included four teachers who would have left UHS in the
last three years. Due to the global coronavirus pandemic that began in the spring of 2020, just
before data collection, and the eventual shift in teaching demands online, and family obligations,
the study ended up with nine participants, three from each of the categories. This cross-section of
teacher experience from the same high school allowed for a robust understanding of the
motivational and organizational influences leading to positive or negative retention trends at the
62

school and within the district. Three years was the cutoff because much national data show
teachers who get past three to five years are more likely to stay for the long-term, but there is a
disproportionately high attrition rate for teachers who have not made it that far in their careers
(Gray & Taie, 2015; Shen, 1997). It should also be noted that SSD was at risk of state takeover
during the 2017–2018 school year, meaning that teachers who were interviewed during the
2020–2021 school year and had taught three or less years at UHS could have come in after the
height of the threat of the state takeover, while teachers there more than three years stuck
through the uncertainties of a potential takeover.
There are a total of nine high schools in SSD, seven “traditional” schools and two special
alternative programs where high school diplomas can be conferred. UHS was the chosen high
school for this study based on having a low teacher-retention rate (approximately 71% in 2018–
19) and generally low student outcomes (i.e. achievement, graduation). All the certified teachers
from UHS met the requirement for this research study in the district, and for the teachers who
have left, they were certified while teaching at UHS. While there are over 1,500 teachers in SSD,
studying this one subset of teachers from UHS could allow for some key learnings. The nine
teachers interviewed represented 1) saturation, and 2) a variety of experiences, in order to have
an accurate understanding of teacher experiences for this qualitative analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The saturation is determined by understanding at what point there is no new
information relevant to the issue being produced through the interviews but still a large enough
amount to produce a deep analysis (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Being teachers from just one
school, saturation does not require interviewing every teacher. Though the number of teachers
interviewed ended up at nine, these two objectives were still met. Basic demographic data of
teachers in the district was gathered as well to contextualize the learnings from UHS.
63

Interviewees were all certified SSD teachers based on state-mandated criteria who have been at
UHS for 1) three school years or less including the current one, 2) more than three school years
including the current one, or 3) who have left within the last three years.
Interview Selection (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
For the interview part of the data collection, the selection strategy was purposeful.
Specific types of teachers were recruited (certified, current school year at school, and employed
at UHS), from which the greatest learnings could be drawn (Johnson & Christensen, 2015;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A “typical” approach to the purposeful selection was used in order to
understand the Motivation and Organizational (MO) influences of the teachers in their decision-
making process in whether they decide to stay or leave their current job (Clark & Estes, 2008). I
invited all teachers at UHS that met the criteria to be interviewed through an email, with a letter
of introduction directly from me with the assumption that some would not respond or not be
interested in participating. This was after receiving the list of eligible UHS students from the
principal and after being introduced to the principal by the deputy superintendent of SSD. There
was a small incentive, a $25 gift card, offered for participation. Six teachers responded this way
and were included in the research study.
In order to identify certified teachers who taught at UHS but had left in the last three
years, I identified teachers through community networks. I used a network-sampling approach to
identify the past teachers to be interviewed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). One past teacher who
met the criteria for interviewing was identified (having left teaching from UHS in the last three
years and was certified during their time as a teacher). This teacher then referred me to other
teachers who met the same criteria until three had been identified and interviewed (initially
planned for four). There was a small incentive, a $25 gift card, offered for participation.
64

Interview Selection Criterion and Rationale
Teachers Certified by the State Department of Education
All participants were certified by the state department of education. For those teachers
who had left UHS, they were certified when they did teach there. Certification is an indicator of
high quality as created by state standards, which is important for the schools of SSD. The
interviews did not include teachers who were emergency-licensed, alternative-route, or had other
types of licensure. Since the goal for the district is 90% certified teacher retention, the study
focused on interviewing certified teachers on motivational and organizational factors related to
their retention. I had to be careful about conducting outreach so as not to offend non-certified
teachers and cause harm to them by not including them in this problem of practice.
Teachers Who Have Taught at University High School for the Entire Current School Year
This approach disallowed teachers who had been hired midyear and may not have had a
good sense of motivational or organizational factors at UHS. It was important for the teachers to
have some sense of the “culture” at UHS.
Employed by University High School Within Southern School District
This was the target school and school district for this improvement model problem of
practice, therefore the teachers taught at UHS in SSD.
Be One of Three Categories of Teacher From University High School: (a) Three School Years
Or Less Including The Current One, (b) More Than Three School Years Including The
Current One, Or (c) Who Have Left Within The Last Three Years
As noted previously, teacher retention data shows that three years is a key hurdle to get
past in order to ensure a long-term commitment to a school. Also, the state was close to taking
over SSD approximately three school years previous to this study, meaning that the three years
65

serves as a proxy for understanding if a teacher stayed through the potential takeover, came in
after it, or left soon thereafter (or because of) the potential takeover.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The interviews took place during the fall of 2020, at a time when the teachers were not
distracted by state testing. This was important due to schools typically “shutting down” for much
of the spring to adhere to comprehensive testing calendars. It should be noted that when the
interviews were conducted, it was the height of the coronavirus pandemic in this community, and
all schools were doing virtual learning. All teachers were interviewed virtually due to safety
concerns. This also meant there were often family and other simultaneous obligations happening
during interviews.
Interviews
Prior to conducting any interview, two interview protocols were created to have a basic
outline of the questions that would address the motivational and organizational influences for the
current teachers and those that had left UHS (see Appendix A and B). The format was an
interview guide, and the questions were tested beforehand on one teacher already acquainted
with me. This was to ensure the questions would flow, and to identify where deeper probing may
be necessary (Maxwell, 2013). A modified protocol was used for the teachers who had left UHS,
with some questions needing to be in the past tense. There was a final, general, broad question
added about the impact of Covid-19 on their responses to the interview questions.
This study attempted to understand the MO influences on teachers’ decisions to leave or
remain at UHS in SSD (Clark & Estes, 2008). The core approach to data collection was to
conduct semi-structured interviews with the teacher participants. A semi-structured interview
approach allowed for more open-ended questions and room to ask probing follow-up questions
66

as necessary (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given that the research was on
the motivational and organizational influences, being able to ask open-ended questions that
attempted to understand teacher self-efficacy or trust in leadership, there was the need to have
this flexibility (Bandura, 1986). This flexibility allowed me to ask quality follow-up questions
when important or unexpected points came up. Close-ended questions do not allow for this type
of flexibility in questioning. Semi-structured interviews are less formal and likely made the
participants more comfortable with me.
As noted previously, while 12 interviews were intended, nine were conducted with three
sets of three teachers that met each of the three categories: (a) taught at UHS three school years
or less including the current one, (b) taught at UHS more than three school years including the
current one, or (c) teachers who had left UHS within the last three years. Even with the reduced
number of interviews, this was enough for saturation, as the information provided had enough
variety and depth in the analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews were initially
intended to take place on the school campus in private settings that were comfortable for the
teacher, such as a teachers’ lounge or office, unless the teacher desired for it to be elsewhere, off-
campus and/or in private. Due to the coronavirus, all interviews were conducted via Zoom virtual
technology. This was also the case for the teacher subset that had already left UHS. Interviews
were approximately one hour. While doing data analysis and coding, had the need arisen to do a
follow-up interview with a participant, this would have happened. Upon completion of the
analysis, I went back to the interviewees to review that the findings reflected what they shared. I
provided the sections of the analysis in which they appeared to the participants and gave
participants about six weeks to review and make comments.

67

Documents
As part of the data collection, a number of documents were collected from various
sources. These documents were for context only. In order to address the research questions there
was a need for data explicitly about teacher retention–related issues in the school, district, and
state. The documents were not meant to answer the research questions, only to provide helpful
context in understanding the situation in SSD. These documents were:
1) Data from SSD as a whole. This included data on total certified teachers, teacher
retention and attrition rates for the three most recent completed school years both at UHS
and the whole district, and demographics on teacher race and gender and years of
experience (average). Student demographic data from UHS and the full district on student
race, gender, and SES (i.e. eligibility for free and/or reduced lunch) were also collected.
2) Data from the state department of education. This included data on total certified
teachers, teacher retention and attrition rates for the three most recent completed school
years throughout the state, and general demographic data on teacher race, gender, and
years of experience (average).
For the first set of data, I worked with the SSD office focused on data and accountability.
I had to make a public-records request to obtain this data. This was the same for the information
from the state department of education, as I had to make a public-records request.
This data was helpful in understanding the organizational influences at issue with teacher
retention (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). It was not meant to answer the research questions
but to help with understanding the context of the cultural settings within the organization.
Cultural settings are the more concrete, visual aspects of the organization (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Having these data facilitated the discussion about school
68

climate and administrative support that the teacher may or may not have received. This also
helped with analyzing the findings from the interview data, in that if a teacher talked about a lot
of turnover, the document data from the district could verify that assertion.
Data Analysis
As suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) for interviews, data analysis began during
data collection. Each interview was recorded through Zoom technology, then transcribed by
Rev.com for a fee. The transcription was then reviewed for accuracy. I wrote analytic memos
after each interview. This was meant to capture initial thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions
about the data in relation to the research questions. Once I finalized the interviews and
transcriptions, they were coded. Harding (2013) writes extensively about this coding process
which helped with a deeper analysis of the interviews. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
coding is “nothing more than assigning some sort of shorthand designation to various aspects of
your data so that you can easily retrieve specific pieces of the data” (p. 199, italics removed). In
the first phase of analysis, I used open coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori
codes from the conceptual framework. For example, these were the basic issues teachers raised
about UHS, such as specific actions their leadership had taken to support them, or specific issues
within their classrooms or non-school-based issues they face in the school (i.e. from the
community). A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were
aggregated into analytic/axial codes, such as where they landed in the motivational- or
organizational-influence analysis. In the third phase of data analysis, I identified pattern codes
and emergent themes in relation to the conceptual framework and the research questions. These
themes helped guide findings that were based on the interviews. If, at any time, the different
levels of analysis were not clear or aligned to the research questions, this was an indicator to go
69

back to the data and revisit the coding. Finally, I analyzed the chosen documents for contextual
evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework and the research questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Since this problem of practice on teacher retention at UHS in SSD is a qualitative
analysis, ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of the data and the conclusions presented is
vital (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As someone who is passionate about the success of this district
and resolving this issue, it was important to take serious precautions to ensure the credibility and
trustworthiness of the data and analysis. Processes were implemented to build credibility and
trustworthiness in collecting, analyzing, and summarizing all information and data gathered
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I used member checks with participants to
ensure that what they shared accurately captured their sentiment, given it was their interpretation
of their experiences in a professional context. It would be unreasonable, unnecessary, and
impossible to completely eliminate my bias; what was more important was a strong
understanding and clarity on how those biases may have impacted the research and the
participants (Maxwell, 2013). Because of my own cultural, racial, and professional background, I
had to be well aware of how this “positionality” affected my relationship to both the participant
and the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 64). Prior to entering into interviews, I did a
critical self-analysis and developed strategies to mitigate the effects of their positionality and
biases. This analysis allowed my positional self-awareness to be clear.
Rubin and Rubin (2012) write extensively about addressing researcher bias. For this
study, I did a personal “checklist” to understand both my known and unknown biases about the
research to be conducted. I grounded myself in the cultural context of my role as researcher as
well (Glesne, 2011). For example, I have never been an educator in the formal sense, but in the
70

past have taken on advocacy and policy roles in attempts to improve SSD so that students have
the best chances for success. I am also the parent of a young child who may be a future student in
SSD. Therefore, for highly personal reasons, this is an issue that I clearly want resolved before
he enters the education system.
Triangulation was another method used to ensure credibility of the data (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define this in the context of interviews as
“data collected from people with different perspectives or from follow-up interviews with the
same people” (p. 245). While the data documents to be collected from the district (such as high
school teacher demographics, overall numbers, general information about teacher attrition,
retention, and certification) did not serve to ensure credibility of interviewee data sources, they
provided some context to the interviews conducted, and I was able to ensure what was being
heard in the interviews aligned to the document data gathered from the district. I triangulated
interview data to make sure that, for example, teachers were not inconsistent in some of their
assertions. While recognizing that each teacher had a different experience at UHS, it was
important to ensure that general specifics of the school setting were relatively consistent.
I served in a governance role in SSD for nearly four years. This role included helping the
district create, amend, and pass policy and the budget; providing oversight to ensure educational
and administrative practices were complied with; and employing the superintendent. On
occasion, in this role, appeals of personnel, such as teachers, who may have been fired or
otherwise disciplined by the district, were heard. Due to this role – which I no longer hold – I
had developed deep relationships in the district and potentially at UHS. I am also a citizen of the
SSD community and, as noted, a parent of a young child who may go to SSD in the near future.
The organization I work for provides funding for some district-based initiatives, though I am not
71

a part of that work. I have a deep commitment to the success of this district and the resolution of
the problem at hand as it impacts the UHS and SSD community and especially the children. For
administrators and teachers who may know me from the previous role, it was made clear that I
no longer served in that capacity and this study was only an attempt to help UHS solve a pressing
issue that needs attention.
The issue of teacher retention was an important one both in the accountability measures,
with which the district was out of compliance at the state level, and simply as a need that must be
filled to ensure the success of every student. I assumed that this was an important issue for the
district and the school to resolve, and the attention paid to it did not have feasible plans for
improvement. I had to override trust issues based on being an outsider to the district and a non-
trained educator. Another assumption I made was that relationships are everything, and
sometimes it just depends on who introduces whom in order to build trust. I had previously done
a good job of making relationships at many levels in the district (teachers, administrators, district
personnel, support staff, and others). For the purposes of this analysis, these relationships could
have been both helpful and harmful. I worked toward alleviating any potential for these
relationships being a barrier. Finally, the research participants had an opportunity to review what
had been written in the findings and general themes based on their interviews before the problem
of practice was finalized so they could ensure that I did justice to their thoughts and opinions
with a high level of integrity.
Ethics
The stakeholders who participated in this qualitative analysis of low teacher-retention
rates at University High School in SSD were certified teachers who were both current teachers
and past teachers at UHS. My goal was to “do no harm” to the participants—to ensure no one
72

would be negatively impacted in any way, shape, or form by participating in the research
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I conducted private, individual interviews. I
worked to achieve district-level approval to conduct the research through the superintendent,
then relied on an introduction from the deputy superintendent to the lead administrator at UHS to
help identify and invite the teachers to interview, as noted previously. Through the introduction
letter and email, and later the information sheet (Appendix C), I ensured that teachers understood
their participation was voluntary and not coerced (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Besides the
information sheet, read to each participant at the onset of the interview, this was done with an
initial question with the teachers to make sure they were not coerced into participation, such as “I
appreciate you participating in this voluntary interview. Are you still comfortable participating?”
It was my assumption that teachers would be motivated to participate given their desire to
improve the school and district in which they work, thus their participation would not be a
barrier to completion of this analysis. Prior to agreeing to participate, I ensured that participants
knew that a small gift card incentive, of $25, would be provided to them due to their valuable
time being taken to participate, regardless of completion of the interview (Glesne, 2011).
I reviewed an information sheet with the participants so they fully understood what their
participation entailed and what rights they had as a participant, because an informed consent
sheet was necessary for this type of interview (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Participants
had to have information to make an informed decision about participation in the study. They had
to understand that they could withdraw at any time, I would get rid of any potential risks to them,
and that this research will hopefully benefit them and their community (Glesne, 2011; Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). The information sheet made clear that participation in the research had nothing to
do with their professional evaluation or potential for future advancement.
73

Given the research happened with one high school, UHS, where numbers of teachers
were small enough that identifying characteristics could be easily noticed, I took clear
precautions regarding confidentiality, using pseudonyms and even changing genders of
participants where necessary (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). During narrative descriptions for
participants with pseudonyms all precaution was taken to ensure revealing information was
contained. Permission to record was gained through participant consent. Data collected through
interviews and from the district and state were stored in a password-protected computer; hard-
copy notes were destroyed upon typing them into a password-protected document.
In order to conduct the study in the district, approval from the current superintendent was
needed. Once approved, I had this verification present during interviews to show the distinction
between this current course of study and my previous role in district governance—this should
have allayed any confusion for the research participants. I made clear that I held no leadership or
supervisory roles within the district at the time of the research conducted. This was important to
ensure participants did not feel pressure to participate.
Limitations and Delimitations
This research had certain limitations and delimitations. The limitations in this study were
any potential weaknesses and issues that arose out of my control (Simon, 2011). The
delimitations were in my control but were self-imposed boundaries that may have limited the
scope of possibility within the research (Simon, 2011). Patton (2002) writes that “the
fundamental principle of qualitative interviewing is to provide a framework within which
respondents can express their own understandings in their own terms” (p. 48, italics added).
Given this, it was important to recognize the limitations and delimitations inherent in the data
74

through the interviews and documents gathered for this study, especially when these were
personal interpretations of one’s own experiences.
The limitations consisted of contextual factors that I would not be able to control even if
they worked to alleviate them on the forefront of the interviews. Teachers came with their own
inherent biases based on experiences. For example, two teachers interviewed may have had
completely different interpretations of what it is like to work within UHS. While they were both
telling the truth based on their experiences, both of them had very different realities. One may
have seen the school leader as very supportive of their professional growth, while another may
not have, even though they may have experienced similar professional-development practices.
A teacher may also not have told the truth, especially if they were not fully understanding
the use of their information derived from the interview. If they believed, even after the
researchers’ introduction and a review of the information sheet, that something they said may be
used against them in their professional setting, they may have been less likely to tell the truth
about their experiences. Another limitation could have been the quality of the interviews.
Though it was my intent to keep the interviews under an hour, in some cases it may have taken
longer and a teacher may have grown impatient or may have gotten off topic if good interview
management skills were not utilized.
Along with quality and time, access could have been a limitation. Interviews were meant to
be at a convenient time for teachers, but knowing what happens in a school building, sometimes
there are timing issues beyond the control of a teacher, let alone a researcher. These may have
been last-second meetings, unscheduled test-preparation for students, or matters related to
student discipline. These types of last-second adjustments could have limited the time and
convenience of the interviews. All of these issues could have affected findings because teachers
75

may have been rushing to respond to questions if their time were limited or inconvenient, and if
they were distracted by more pressing concerns. In the context of the coronavirus and virtual
interviews along with familial obligations, most of these limitations held true, as participants
often postponed interviews after initial agreements on times, and some potential participants
agreed on times, then never did the interviews.
Delimitations were prevalent in this study as well. There were certain decisions made that
limited the scope of this study. Given that this was a study of current and past certified teachers
from one school, the expanse of experiences within the school may have been limited or may not
have led to clear conclusions that were helpful for the larger district.
Another delimitation was that I chose to confine the research to one school and a limited
number of teachers, some of whom had already left the school. While this was done to simplify
and focus the qualitative research, while ensuring saturation, these choices could have led to
quality issues in the data gathered through the interviews. Also, the research was delimited by
the district chosen. SSD, due to a lot of external forces, was constantly under threat to be taken
over by the state and thus could have made the pursuit of an analysis difficult given the research,
while potentially helpful, may not have been a priority for the district.
Throughout the process I worked with my advisor for guidance on how to handle access
issues or other barriers that may have arisen limiting the research. I worked to address the
limitations before they occurred with the advisor. For example, the decision to reduce the
number of interviewees from 12 to nine given multiple attempts to reach more participants
within the context of the horrors of the coronavirus pandemic, was made in collaboration with
my advisor.

76

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This study examined teacher retention in a Deep-South, predominately Black, urban, and
low-income school (UHS) in a similarly situated school district (SSD). The previous chapters
provided an overview of this study, a literature review of the problem and potential solutions to
this particular issue in similarly situated school districts around the United States, an overview of
the study’s conceptual framework, and the methodology with which the study has been
approached.
Chapter four examines the results of the qualitative data collection and presents findings
of the results of each influence as strongly affecting, moderately affecting, and not affecting
teacher decisions to remain in or leave their positions, with brief explanations of each. The data
analysis attempts to answer the first two research questions for this study:
1. What are the teacher-motivation influences related to remaining a teacher in UHS for at
least three years?
2. What are the organizational influences related to achieving and maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention rate in UHS by August 2022?
To attempt to answer these two questions, the data collection–interview protocols focused
around eight assumed influences, two motivational, and six organizational:

Table 4
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation Influence
Utility Value Utility Value – Teachers need to perceive being employed at UHS
in SSD as in alignment with their professional goals.
Self-Efficacy Value Self-Efficacy – Teachers need to feel confident in their ability to
be effective in their practice as teachers.

77

Table 5
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Category Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural-Model influence 1 UHS needs to cultivate a culture of trust between
administration and teachers.

Cultural-Setting Influence 1 UHS needs to provide teachers a certain level of
autonomy of decision-making ability within the
classroom setting.
Cultural-Setting Influence 2 UHS needs to provide teachers with the resources
necessary for them to succeed within the classroom
setting.
Cultural-Setting Influence 3 UHS needs to have a strong onboarding and mentoring
process for new teachers within their schools.

Cultural-Setting Influence 4 SSD needs to provide a strong incentives package.
Cultural-Setting Influence 5 UHS and SSD needs to provide ongoing, effective, and
relevant professional development to teachers.

Review of KMO Framework and Use in Data Collection
As noted elsewhere in this study, Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that there are three
“active ingredients” that influence performance in every organization: 1) knowledge and skills,
2) motivation, and 3) organizational goals (KMO). They suggested that by understanding gaps in
each of the KMO areas for a particular organization, and targeting improvements toward these
gaps, an organization can improve from its current state to its desired state.
It is important to recognize that each influence is not always a necessary means to
understanding possible gaps in performance. For this study, while knowledge may play some
role in this problem of practice, given the history of the district and interventions attempted to
date with little effect, including interventions to build teacher knowledge, this research has
78

chosen to focus on MO influences on teacher retention. In studying retention issues at UHS,
knowledge of teaching – pedagogy, content, preparation – were not the focus of the data
collection. As state certification was one of the prerequisites for participation in this study, it was
assumed the teacher participants had the necessary knowledge to deliver content to their
students, as being certified is an indicator of a strong base of knowledge for teaching. Therefore,
the reader will notice the results focus on MO influences on teacher retention.
Overview of Participants and Determination of Effect of Influences on Retention
Participants for Data Collection
In order to identify the teacher research participants for the study, I first gained approval
for the study from the superintendent of SSD through written request. Upon approval from the
superintendent, I was connected to the principal of UHS in order to gain access to current
teachers. The principal provided the names and contact information for the teachers in the school
that met the qualifications requested: 1) currently certified as a teacher by the state department of
education, and 2) broken down by teachers with more than three years’ experience at UHS, and
teachers with three or less years of experience. I then contacted every teacher who met these
qualifications via email. Teachers self-selected in their response. With the original intent to
interview four teachers with more than three years of experience, and four with the three or less,
saturation was completed at three teachers at each category after three tries to get more
participants. The reduction from 12 to nine participants was in large part due to constraints on
potential participants brought on by the coronavirus and its context. The data collection was done
in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. I, in conversation with the faculty advisor, decided
saturation was achieved at nine participants, as no groundbreaking new information was being
gathered from the participants.
79

Teachers who left UHS since the beginning of the 2017–18 school year were included in
the study. To identify the teachers who left UHS within this time frame, I tapped into community
networks using a network-sampling approach. After the first teacher was identified and
interviewed, they suggested other teachers to interview and connected me to them. Again, while
four was the intent, and given coronavirus limitations, at three participants saturation was
reached.
Table 6 shows the breakdown of participants and their basic demographics. Pseudonyms
are used throughout this study and noted in the first column of the table. There were nine
teachers interviewed in all. As noted in the third, fourth, and fifth columns, six current (split in
their experience) and three former teachers were interviewed. All nine identified as
Black/African-American teachers, while one identified as male and eight as female. This is
relatively consistent with UHS’s overall teacher data during the 2019–2020 school year (the
most recent year with the data) showing 55 certified teachers, 49 of whom identified as
Black/African-American. Past or present teachers who taught in a tested-subject-area are noted
in the last column.

80

Table 6
Participant Demographics
Pseudonym Race/Gender Years at
UHS
Current or Former
Teacher
Tested-Subject-Area
P1 Black Female +3 Former X
P2 Black Female +3 Former X
P3 Black Female +3 Former X
P4 Black Female +3 Current
P5 Black Female +3 Current X
P6 Black Female 0–3 Current
P7 Black Male 0–3 Current
P8 Black Female 0–3 Current
P9 Black Female 0–3 Current X

I added a column for “tested-subject-area” (TSA). It was not the original intent of the
study to understand how teachers in a TSA may think about leaving or staying at UHS, but it
became clear early in the data collection that the impact of HST was emerging as a big issue for
the small selection of teachers in this study. While there are commonly formative and summative
tests and quizzes in all subject areas, it is clear that what was meant in the data collection for this
study was HSTs. These are tests students must take that directly impact their ability to graduate
and/or pass courses. At the time of this research, the state in which SSD sits required four “exit”
exams in order for high school students to graduate. Coupled with SSD-run and -managed
district testing, and test-prep days for each type of test, a theme emerged from teachers that HSTs
had an outsized impact on both motivational and organizational influences in this study. One
regional publication examining testing and test-prep noted that low-performing districts, such as
UHS, administered more tests (state and district) and spent more time testing than higher
performing districts; it also found these low-performing districts, such as UHS, spending
81

disproportionately more time in test-prep than in content instruction (Bass & Canter, 2018). The
TSA teachers in this study reflected extensively on how all the time on tests affected their
decisions to stay or leave UHS.
All three of the teachers who left UHS in the last three school years (P1, P2, P3) were in
TSAs when they left. One of the current teachers was in a TSA (P9) and made it clear that they
were likely to leave teaching soon, almost solely because of the impact of HSTs. One of the
current teachers, P5, had been in a TSA until the end of SY2019–20, and made it clear that she
would have left teaching if her request to get out of a TSA was not granted. This analysis will go
into greater detail in subsequent sections.
Of the other four teachers, the majority of them briefly noted the impact of HSTs on their
students, but there was not enough data to note if the HSTs affected their decisions about staying
or leaving UHS.
Originally, I assumed years of experience would be a significant indicator as to whether
teachers stayed or left, thus creating the participant criteria around years of experience. This
holds true for national and regional research (Brill & McCartney, 2008). For the small sample of
participants in this research, being in a TSA played a larger role in their decisions to stay or
leave. It is important to note that none of the questions in the interview protocol for motivational
or organizational influences of teacher retention asked specifically or generally about testing or
HSTs, and/or being in a TSA, yet it was the most common thread that emerged from the
interviews. During the discussion of the influences and their effect on teacher decisions, the
impact of HSTs will be noted on the particular influence. There were certain influences that
clearly strongly affected the TSA teachers’ decisions to stay or leave teaching at UHS, and there
82

were some influences that did not affect their decisions, as will be discussed in the following
section.
Determination of Strong Effect, Moderate Effect, Or No Effect of Influences on Teacher
Retention
In analyzing the data of the nine participants, I determined that if eight or nine of the
participants affirmed that an influence affects their decision to stay or leave UHS, this influence
would be marked as “Strongly Affects Their Decision.” Whereas if 5–7 participants responded
that the influence affects their decision to stay or leave, this influence would be marked as
“Moderately Affects Their Decision” (55–87%). If fewer than five teachers responded that the
influence affects their decision to stay or leave, the influence would be determined to have “No
Effect” (below 55%).
The smaller selection size of five TSA teachers was also analyzed to determine effects on
their decisions to stay or leave. For TSA teachers, if four or five participants responded in the
affirmative of the influence, it was considered to strongly affect their decision to stay or leave; if
less than that, it was determined to not affect the decision-making (less than 80%).
Each participant’s responses to the questions were analyzed and then put into the a priori
codes (the assumed influences on performance). For each participant, I analyzed all the
responses under an influence and determined the extent to which they affirmed the influence as
related to teacher retention. If there was not enough data for the particular influence on a
participant, this was noted, and in the aggregate for all participants, would count toward “no
effect.”

83

Table 7
Strongly Affect, Moderately Affect, and No Effect Summary, Plus Strong Effect for Tested Subject
Area Teachers
Strongly
Affects
Decision
to Stay
or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or
Leave
Teaching
No Effect Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Motivation – Utility Task Value
(M-V)
X X
Motivation – Self-Efficacy (M-S) X X
Organizational – Cultural Model
(O-M)
X X
Organizational – Cultural Setting
Autonomy (O-SA)
X X
Organizational – Cultural Setting
Resources (O-SR)
X X
Organizational – Cultural Setting
Onboarding (O-SO)
X X
Organizational – Cultural Setting
Incentives (O-SI)
X
Organizational – Cultural Setting
Professional Development (O-
SPD)
X X

As shown in Table 7, both motivational influences – utility task value and self-efficacy –
strongly affected teachers’ decisions to stay or leave. One organizational influence – cultural
model for trust between administration and teachers – also strongly affected the decision-
making. Four organizational cultural settings – autonomy, resources, onboarding/mentoring, and
incentives – moderately affected decisions to stay or leave. And one organizational cultural
setting, professional development, had no effect. Interestingly, for the teachers in TSAs, in their
small selection of five, all influences strongly affected TSA teachers’ decisions to stay or leave
84

UHS (80% and up), except for organizational cultural settings in the area of incentives. This will
be discussed in further detail in the following section.
Research Question #1: What Are the Teacher Motivation Influences Related to Remaining
a Teacher in UHS for at Least Three Years?
To address the first research question, two teacher motivation-related influences on
retention were explored. These were first, motivation utility task value (M-V), specifically
teachers needing to perceive being employed at UHS as being in alignment with their
professional goals. And second, motivation self-efficacy (M-S), specifically teachers needing to
feel confident in their ability to feel effective in their practices as a teacher. The effect of these
two influences on the teacher participants in this study will be examined closely, along with their
nuanced effects on TSA teachers in the study.
Assumed Motivational Influence 1: Motivation Utility Value – Teachers Need to Perceive
Being Employed at UHS in SSD as in Alignment With Their Professional Goals
During data collection, participants were asked to discuss their professional goals as a
teacher. They were then asked to discuss how they saw those goals aligning both with UHS and
SSD’s stated goals. As shown in Table 8, all nine participant responses showed this assumed
influence had a strong effect on their decision to stay or leave teaching—they do need to perceive
being employed at UHS as in alignment with their professional goals in order to feel like they
should stay at UHS.

85

Table 8
Motivation Utility Task Value (Professional Goal Alignment) Strong Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Motivation – Utility Task Value X X

As noted in Chapter Two, Rueda (2011) explains that utility task value is generally about
“how useful one believes a task or activity is for achieving some future goal” (p. 42). In the
context of this study, utility task value is about the teacher recognizing that remaining in their
position as a teacher holds some value for their current and future career goals. If the teacher
does not perceive that being employed at UHS in the SSD is aligned with their professional
goals, they are not likely to engage in the activity of remaining, they will not persist through
difficult times in their work, and they will not mentally sustain their effort (Kokka, 2016; Whipp
& Geronime, 2017; Wronowski, 2018).
For each teacher participant – whether they were still teaching at UHS or not – to confirm
this influence indicates that these teachers do want to have mission- and profession-aligned goals
with their employers, and when they do, they are more likely to stay on. When their goals begin
to diverge from their employers,’ they are more likely to leave or think about leaving. Each
participant in this study believed their goals were aligned with UHS,’ but with some
differentiation for TSA teachers. P8 made her alignment clear when she made the connection
between her personal goals and the goals of UHS:
So, my professional goal is to be able to effectively service all students that need
additional assistance when it comes to meeting graduation requirements, whether that is
86

attendance issues, behavior issues, issues at home. So being able to identify and be able
to assist them and getting on the right track so that they can be eligible for graduation.
That's one of my professional goals is to be able to identify them quickly…well the goals
of the school is to increase the graduation rate and to decrease the dropout rate. And so,
my role is directly intertwined with that role, that goal that the school has in my role.
For P8, there are multiple aspects in meeting her professional goals which mostly intertwine with
student success. P8 is looking at the child (behavior, attendance, home) and thinking through her
role in getting the child on track for graduation. P8 notes that it is very much what the school is
trying to do in getting students to graduate. P8 understands that her goals and the school’s goals
cannot be different in order for everyone to succeed. Keeping these goals aligned keeps P8 from
thinking about leaving.
P7 had a similar take on goal alignment. He noted, “The goals that our administrators set
are excellent goals. They also brought some goals that incorporate with the ones that I
established for myself, along with the kids. So we’re all on the same page.” P7 is clear about
goals-alignment. He believes the current administration has done an “excellent” job in setting the
goals for the school, and P7 understood how to incorporate those goals with his own and those of
his students. P7 also noted in the interview that, “My goal has always been to give the kids what
I had and more, so they can better themselves for their lives and careers.” P7 saw UHS’ goals
fitting neatly with this ambition for his kids.
Each of the TSA teachers also affirmed the need to have their professional goals align
with the school and districts in order to stay, but it is when their perceived goals became
misaligned due to HST that they began contemplating leaving UHS. P9, who is early in her
career and is still teaching at UHS, wants to be the most effective teacher possible, in order to
87

give her students a chance at success. She noted, “yeah, everyone’s end goal is the same, pretty
much. If you don’t follow that goal, you’ve got to go.” Reflecting on a misalignment of her
professional goals with HST, P9 went on to say,
Literally, from what I’m hearing, averaging in the first four years is probably going to be
your worst years. They said the first year is bad, the second year is okay, but the third
year is going to be the roughest, and the fourth year is like, “Okay, you’ve got it from
here.” [But] unless they get me out of [TSA], there is nothing that they can say or do to
keep me here. That’s it, that’s just, no. I’m not coming. I don’t care to do another [TSA]
course in my life.
Even though P9 recognizes that goals have to be aligned or she will not be teaching at UHS
anymore, she is starting to realize that maybe her goals are not aligned with the school’s because
of being in a TSA. Whereas P9 came into teaching knowing her goals were the same as UHS,’
when it came down to the actual course that P9 taught, P9 realized that maybe they were not so
aligned. And, as P9 noted, unless she changes subject areas, she will be leaving soon. P9 is
drawing a clear line between her professional goals and her perception of UHS goals, focused on
TSA performance.
Assumed Motivational Influence 2: Motivation Self-Efficacy—Teachers Need To Feel
Confident In Their Ability To Be Effective In Their Practice As Teachers
During data collection, participants were asked about their confidence in their abilities to
improve student outcomes. Outcomes were purposely not specified as academic, social, or any
other issue students may face. They were also asked at what points do they feel more or less
confident, and where they went for support in UHS when they were feeling less confident.
Having confidence and knowing where to go (and when to go) for help building confidence is an
88

important factor for teachers seeing themselves as staying in their school for a long time, and is a
self-efficacious trait. As shown in Table 9, all nine participants in this analysis strongly affirmed
this self-efficacy influence, that having confidence in their abilities as a teacher affected whether
they would decide to stay or leave teaching at UHS.
Table 9
Motivation Self-Efficacy (Confidence in Own Abilities), Strong Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Motivation – Self-Efficacy X X

89

Teachers are likely to leave teaching if they do not feel confident in their practice as a
teacher (Helfeldt et al., 2015; Papay et al., 2017; Shen, 1997). If teachers do not perceive that
they can be effective in successfully completing tasks or goals related to teaching, they are not
likely to actively choose to continue, to persist, and to mentally sustain the effort needed to
achieve the task or goal (Rueda, 2011). Lacking professional self-efficacy is likely to lead to the
teacher leaving their school of employment and possibly the profession. Confidence in one’s
own ability may not come for many years into a chosen profession; therefore, it is likely that
novice teachers struggle with their professional efficacy as teachers the most, and are therefore
more likely to leave their profession (Helfeldt et al., 2015; Papay et al., 2017; Shen, 1997).
For all the participants to affirm the effect of this influence indicates the importance of
self-efficacy in discussions about teacher retention. As noted, a teacher who does not believe in
their abilities and does not feel they have a place to go to build their confidence is more likely to
leave. Whereas one who does have confidence and does feel they know where to go for support
is more likely to stay. Examining the differing experiences of participants P9 and P8 helps
understand this point.
P9 is an early-career educator at UHS and is already clear that she does not intend to stay
much longer. P9 noted in response to the questions:
I’m a bit iffy, only because it’s like, I’m so overwhelmed. I’m not able to get to
everything. I get frustrated too and I’m the teacher, so it’s like…I’m trying to just,
damned if you do, damned if you don’t…I can get overwhelmed, but for the most part I
try to be very optimistic, and I do try to make the best out of everything because I am,
regardless of how bad of a day that a kid is having, I am their best hope, so…I’m not
90

quite keen to go to administration. Not saying that they wouldn’t be able to sit down and
talk with me and see where I’m at.
P9 expressed feeling lost and does not want to go to school leaders for help, and it is not because
P9 thinks they would not help. P9 stated her passion is for the students but is frustrated and
lacking in confidence to make a difference for them. P9 expressed wanting to succeed and thus
for the students to succeed but felt overwhelmed. Later in the interview, P9 made clear she
would likely not be teaching much longer.
By contrast, P8 expressed confidence not just in getting to student outcomes, but in
feeling comfortable seeking support. After P8 noted her general confidence in her abilities, she
went on to say:
I go to those who I trust with my feelings and with my thoughts and that’s very
important, those that I can trust with them and that I can openly express what I’m feeling
and they can reciprocate to me and they can validate what I am feeling and also give me
some resolve. I work closely with the graduation coach and so sometimes things can get
frustrating and therefore your confidence in being able to assist the student or get them to
be where you know that they can be can get the best of you and you can get so frustrated
to where you want to throw up your hands…I would draw on strength from my
colleagues and my principal.
P8 is not saying her job is easy with her students but acknowledging all the routes she may seek
to support the students and what P8 may be doing with the students. P8 provides multiple
strategies (graduation coach, colleagues, principal) she may use to assist the students. This
motivational self-efficacy shows a determination to not give up, in contrast to P9. Both P9 and
P8 had been at UHS for three school years or less, and while P9 expressed a clear desire to leave
91

soon, P8 clearly wants to remain at UHS for the long-term. They had very different levels of
self-efficacy, and both examples point toward the importance of self-efficacy: feeling it means a
teacher is more likely to stick things through, not feeling it leads to giving up.
All the TSA teachers were affected by the motivational self-efficacy influence as part of
their reason for staying or leaving teaching. All three of the teacher participants who had already
left UHS were TSA teachers, and the remaining two TSA teachers included in the interview were
still at UHS. One of those at UHS, P9, clearly indicated plans to leave teaching relatively soon
and, as noted previously, was lacking in confidence and was unwilling to seek support. The
other, P5, switched out of being in a TSA within the last school year partly because she lost her
confidence in her ability to strongly impact her students’ outcomes.
P9 noted, “…but I think the big thing is just, if a kid don’t get it, it’s just so much on your
shoulders because ultimately how my kids perform on these tests affects the school overall.”
This sentiment was also reflected by P3, who had recently left teaching at UHS, when she noted,
“So there were times where I didn’t feel confident at times, right? Just because of how
challenging situations can be. Whether it’s challenging because of the test scores, whether it’s
challenging because of students that have problems at home or even me as a teacher trying to
reach students.” Both teachers expressed a lack of ability to support their students. The pressures
of testing (amongst other pressures) were de-motivators even as both teachers wanted to do right
by their students for them to be successful but felt limited by what they could do mostly due to
the overwhelming presence and culture of testing at UHS.
Motivation Results Summary
Through this analysis, it was found that both the motivation influences of 1) utility task
value—UHS goals being in alignment with the teacher’s professional goals, and 2) self-
92

efficacy—teachers needing to feel confident in their ability to be effective as teachers, were
found to strongly affect decisions to stay or leave teaching at UHS for the teachers in this study.
This was also true for TSA teachers with both motivation influences.
Research Question 2: What Are the Organizational Influences Related to Achieving and
Maintaining a 90% Certified Teacher Retention Rate in UHS by August 2022?
To address the second research question, six teacher organization-related influences on
retention were explored. These were:
1. Organization Cultural Model (OM) – UHS needs to cultivate a culture of trust between
administration and teachers.
2. Organization Cultural-Setting Autonomy (OSA) – UHS needs to provide teachers a
certain level of autonomy of decision-making ability within the classroom setting.
3. Organization Cultural-Setting Resources (OSR) – UHS needs to provide teachers with
the resources necessary for them to succeed within the classroom setting.
4. Organizational Cultural-Setting Onboarding/Mentoring (OSO) – UHS needs to have a
strong onboarding and mentoring process for new teachers within their schools.
5. Organizational Cultural-Setting Incentives (OSI) – SSD needs to provide a strong
incentives package.
6. Organizational Cultural-Setting Professional Development (OSPD) – UHS and SSD need
to provide teachers ongoing, effective, and relevant professional development.
The effect of these six influences on the teacher participants in this study will be
examined closely along with their nuanced effects on TSA teachers in the study.
Assumed Organizational Cultural-Model Influence 1 – University High School Needs to
Cultivate a Culture of Trust Between Administration and Teachers
93

During the data collection, the nine participants were asked to discuss the relationship
between teachers and administrators at UHS and what, in particular, administrators did to build
(or not build) cultures of trust at UHS. Trust was not defined to the teacher participants, giving
participants flexibility to determine their own meanings based on their own experiences.
Through data analysis, and as shown in Table 10, all nine of the participants strongly affirmed
that trust with their administrator strongly affects their decision to stay or leave UHS.
Table 10
Organization Cultural Model (Trust Between Teachers and Staff), Strong Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Organization – Cultural Model
(O-M)
X X

94

The need to cultivate a culture of trust between administration and teachers is an
“unseen” or “invisible” aspect of organizational culture and are part of the cultural models that
influence performance (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Trust between the
administration and its teachers is vital in order to successfully achieve goals. In order to build
this trust, teachers need to believe administrators have their best interests, plus those of the
students with whom the teachers interact every day, at heart. Trust in administrators is key to
teachers deciding whether to stay or leave their employment (Simon & Johnson, 2013).
For all the participants to point toward the importance of trust with their administrators
helps in understanding their decisions to stay or leave UHS. For some who left, the lack of a
trusting relationship may have directly led to them leaving, whereas for those who remained,
their belief in the culture of trust in UHS played a factor in their decisions to stay. If teachers do
not believe they have a good relationship with peers and leadership in their school, or if they
cannot trust their leadership – or if they think leadership does not trust them – they will leave
(Simon & Johnson, 2013).
For the teachers in this study who have remained at UHS, there was a clear sentiment of
trust that has been built with the current administration and what that means for teacher and
school morale. Though leadership changes relatively frequently, the current administration seems
to have made trust-building an important part of their approach to leadership. P4 said:
The administration we had this year, I would say, I actually would pat my administration
on the back this year. And I would say that they are going above and beyond trying to
bring the morale in the building. And so they’re always doing something to bring us
together as a team. I would say, we’re coming together as a team this year to work
95

together. And I would say my principal, she’s putting the expectations on everyone to
work together.
P4 explicitly cites morale-building by the current administration, but she also noted the high
expectations leadership has for the teachers, implying trust and morale is a two-way street where
everyone has to be their best selves in order for everyone to succeed.
P8 explained it this way, “My principal is a very open person and allows you to speak. I
like the fact that I can be open and say, ‘I got frustrated today and this is what happened…’ Do
the work and you won’t have any issues, you won’t have any problems.” This openness comes
from a trusting environment. For P8 to feel comfortable speaking up means she believes it will
not be held against her for having opinions that may go against the grain. P8 went on to state that
the administration builds trust not just through their words but, more importantly through their
actions, “Allowing people to gain trust in them by what they do and not so much as what they
say has to line up with their actions. By having their words and their actions coincide and doing
what they say, meaning what they say is very important to foster a trust and also being
transparent but yet being confidential when it’s time to be confidential.” P8 is implying that
teachers are used to being told one thing by their leaders only to see it contradicted elsewhere.
For P8, it is vital that the administration is not just all talk. For all these teachers, the building of
a culture of trust between teachers and administration impacted their decision to stay at UHS.
All five TSA teachers confirmed that having a trusted relationship between
administrators and teachers strongly affects or affected their decisions to stay or leave teaching.
For one of the two TSA teachers in this study that remained at UHS, a trusted relationship with
their administrator preserved their desire to remain a teacher at UHS, and resulted in moving
them out of a TSA. As P5 noted, “I asked to change. The previous principal was leaving and I
96

begged him before he left. And so he honored my request and I’m grateful.” But P5 went on to
note the general fickleness of administration as P5 had been under three different leaders in her
time at UHS. P5 said, “The relationship depends on the principal and the personality of that
principal…if you’re looking for administration in the way of support and guidance, I would say
that, again, it’s fickle…I’ve been under three different administrators and it’s all been different,
my relationship with all three of them.” It can be daunting to have to build trusting relationships
when one cannot be sure the same administrator will be present the next year. For this teacher,
they were able to take advantage of a short-term, trusted relationship with one of the leaders they
had to get out of a TSA.
One teacher participant who taught a TSA and has left UHS explained the difficulty in
building trust when the only thing the administrators seemed to be worried about was test
performance of students on the high-stakes tests. P2 framed this as an issue of accountability;
that is, the administrators only believed test scores equaled accountability, which hurt the culture
of the school. P2 said:
No one was being held accountable for anything, other than test scores. But these last few
years, it was strictly test scores. “What’s the results?” Results are poor. Not realizing,
“Well they know our students are poor test takers.” But the administration is only focused
on test results. Test results…but if your administration’s only focus is, “You’ve got to get
those test scores up. You’re not doing something right. Or you’re not teaching,” then
that’s disheartening.
This idea of being “disheartened” points to not having a relationship with her administrators
beyond the test results. P2 stated that this test-oriented accountability did not build a culture of
trust with the administrators. While P2 acknowledged that most of the testing was mandated at a
97

higher level than UHS (district and state), the way administrators made TSA teachers feel about
the tests and their overwhelming influence on the culture of the building diminished trust and led
her out of UHS.
Assumed Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 1: Autonomy – University High School
Needs to Provide Teachers a Certain Level of Autonomy Of Decision-Making Ability
Within the Classroom Setting
During data collection, the nine participants were asked to describe their level of
classroom-level autonomy. Participants interpreted this to mean anything from academic
autonomy to disciplinary autonomy. Through the data analysis, and as shown in Table 11, five of
the nine participants affirmed that having more classroom autonomy affected their decisions to
stay or leave UHS, meaning this influence only had a moderate overall influence as it relates to
decisions to stay or leave UHS. Three participants did not provide enough information –
meaning they did not have much to say or have much of an opinion on the matter – and one
participant clearly did not think autonomy mattered in their potential decision to stay or leave
UHS.

Table 11
Organization Cultural Setting (Autonomy), Moderate Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Organization – Cultural-Setting
Autonomy (OSA)
X X

98

The need to provide teachers a certain level of autonomy of decision-making ability
within the classroom setting is a cultural-setting influence. As noted previously, cultural settings
are the specific contexts of what is happening in the organization. That is, according to Rueda
(2011), what can be seen— “the who, what, when, where, why and how of the routines which
constitute everyday life” (p. 57). For the purposes of this study the setting would be, for example,
the specific policies, teacher incentives, and resources a teacher may be able to obtain. Teachers
do not want to be reliant on administrators for every decision they make. With more autonomy,
they may be more willing to work with their peers. In addition, teachers value their independence
in making decisions specific to their classroom, while still wanting administrative support on
issues like student discipline (Wronowski, 2018).
Moderate effect for this influence shows that while classroom autonomy was an
important influence for a simple majority of the teacher participants, autonomy does not carry
the same overall weight as other influences that more strongly affect decisions to stay or leave
teaching. Explained further in the following sections, four of the five participants who affirmed
this influence of autonomy were TSA teachers. The three participants who did not provide much
information on this influence were assumed to not see it as an influence and thus did not have
much to say about classroom autonomy and if it may influence their decisions to stay or leave.
The one non-TSA participant who did affirm the importance of autonomy, P4, said, “I wouldn’t
say 100% control, but I will say I have control of the classroom. I have control of their
instruction. And I would say there’s no micromanaging in that, as long as I’m in line in
guidelines to everything.” It was important for P4 to have some autonomy but she did not need
complete control to feel she had the right amount. P4 understood the limits but seemed to
appreciate not being “micromanaged.”
99

Tested-Subject-Area Teachers And Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 1
As noted previously, four of the five participants who affirmed the effect of classroom
autonomy on their decisions were TSA teachers. The only TSA teacher who did not find
autonomy an important issue in their decision to stay or leave teaching was P9, a current teacher
who expressed their desire to leave teaching regardless of autonomy. Autonomy (having it or
not) did not play into P9’s thinking. All three of the teacher participants who have left teaching at
UHS were TSA teachers and noted the impact of HST on their classroom autonomy. One of the
teachers, P3, went out of her way to give the students experiences that were creative and not
always classroom-based. P3 said,
What we didn’t have was, I think, the support that would allow us to just freely say,
“Okay, we’re not going to teach the test.” I still did what I felt was best and not focus so
much on test questions but it was always in the back of my mind because it was checklist
items and I don’t do too well with checklist items because to me it’s an interruption to
what my students are working [on]. I wanted to focus more on emotional well-being. I
wanted to focus more on having students see counselors more or have them be outside,
learn about community service but that was just always met with, “Maybe we don’t have
the time, we can’t focus on that.”
P3 believed that focusing on the students’ socio-emotional well-being would end up
having a strong effect on their academic outcomes. But P3 felt limited in focusing there because
she was having to abide by test-focused “checklists” that allowed little innovative flexibility.
This flexibility was highlighted by another TSA teacher, P5 – who remains at UHS, but got
switched out of a TSA in the last year – when she noted, “being taken out of that situation, which
I’ve always been in subject area ever since I began teaching, I can now have the flexibility to
100

teach students what I think they need in order to go to college or maybe just even simple skills in
order to go into the job market.” This need for flexibility – or autonomy to do what P5 felt was
most pertinent – is a clear example of the importance of this influence on TSA teachers in
particular and their thinking behind whether they stay in the classroom or not. As noted, P5
requested to change out of the TSA course previously and her lack of autonomy was a big reason
for her desire to not be in a TSA; had this change not happened, she made clear she would have
left UHS.
Assumed Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 2: Resources (OSR) – University High
School (UHS) Needs to Provide Teachers With the Resources Necessary for Them to
Succeed Within the Classroom Setting
During the data collection, the nine participants were asked to what extent they have the
resources they need to be successful in the classroom. They were also asked about how they
obtain the resources they do not have in the classroom. Through their responses the participants
affirmed overall that having the necessary resources in their classroom to serve their students
moderately affected their thinking behind whether they may stay or leave teaching at UHS. As
shown in Table 12, Seven participants were affirmative, one was neutral on the issue, and one
did not provide enough information to make a clear assessment of their thinking on the issue.

101

Table 12
Organization Cultural Setting (Resources), Moderate Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Organization – Cultural Setting
Resources (OSR)
X X

UHS needing to provide teachers with the resources necessary for them to succeed within
the classroom setting is another cultural-setting influence. Clark and Estes (2008) describe these
resources as being “tangible supplies and equipment to achieve goals” (p. 104). Teachers need
resources to be successful and commit to continuing to teach. These resources may be physical
such as a science lab for a chemistry teacher or adequate facilities. The resources may also be
having supplies such as printer paper and up-to-date textbooks. These resources contribute to the
school climate and the degree to which a teacher feels valued within the organizational setting.
Their self-worth as a teacher may also be dependent on if they, the teacher, are responsible for
finding the resources from external partners or their own pockets versus the resources being
easily accessible through the school or district.
Moderate effect for this influence shows that while access to resources was an important
influence for a majority of the teacher participants, it does not carry the same overall weight as
other influences that have stronger effects. The teachers did not want it “to be a fight” just to get
the bare minimum in terms of resources, which is what a number of the teachers mentioned to be
the current situation. The participants thought of resources as everything from specific
educational materials, such as textbooks for students, to basic learning materials like pens and
102

paper; other items that came up were lab and band equipment. It was clear teachers were willing
to purchase or seek out resources without help from UHS or SSD, but they also felt burdened and
frustrated by having to seek out community or social network support for resources they felt the
school and/or district should have been providing. Multiple participants used the online
crowdfunding site DonorsChoose to get basic needs met.
One participant who has recently left UHS noted her frustration between what they
perceived as the resource budget available versus what they actually had access to. P1 noted, “It
seems like they have a lot of money, a budget line for supplies, but they never get to us. And
that's very annoying, because it seems like they hoard the paper, or they hoard the material. It
annoys me, I shouldn't have to justify why I need construction paper” and they did not want to
fight with UHS or SSD just to get the bare minimum. P1 went on, “I have to think about how I'm
going to get it, even if I get it dropped off at my house, how am I going to get it to the school?
That's too much. And then you'll just be like, well, what's the easiest path, what's the least path of
resistance?” The teachers expressed that there are many obligations that a teacher must think
about, and it was frustrating to have to go to battle to get resources needed when they had the
perception (the assumed budget line) that the resources should have been more accessible. For
P1, this struggle for resources affected her decision to leave UHS.
The cultural-setting influence around resources also suggested the racial and economic
inequities that the participants felt they and their students had to deal with. One teacher, who has
since left UHS, noted a science competition she took her students to, “I was very embarrassed.
UHS came up there with some Dollar Tree type cloths, and some candy that we bought from
Dollar Tree or Walmart. We never had any money for anything at UHS, so that would make the
creativity 10 times greater.” P1 is comparing their students to that of the other competing schools
103

which, in this case, were predominately white and wealthier, whereas UHS is low-income and
predominately Black. P1 attempts to turn the negative into a positive by noting the great
creativity, but there is clearly a frustration of how the self-perception of her students may
manifest compared to their peers from other schools, all centered around what their resource
materials were and how they were obtained.
Another teacher participant framed this same resource issue through a race-conscious,
racial equity lens. P7 noted about resources,
A lot of our predominantly Black schools, we don't have the resources that many other
schools have and that hurts our kids. And if you look at the resources that the other
schools have, compared to what we have, you'll understand why we don't have the higher
ACT scores… but you have districts before the pandemic, their students already have a
computer and do their work. But why not give us those same resources? Give all the
schools, the equal, fair opportunity.
P7 sees the resource issue as an example of the inequities within education. P7 ties the resource
inequities to academic outcomes by noting the ACT scores – the ACT of which the higher the
score the more likely the student is 1) to get into a post-secondary education opportunity, and 2)
more likely to get debt-free financial aid in order to pay for the educational opportunity. As P7
said most of the districts surrounding SSD – which are predominately white and wealthier –
already had much of their resource needs met prior to the Coronavirus pandemic and P7’s fear is
that this current situation for his students, who are predominately Black and low-income, will set
them even further behind. For P7, at the end of the day, he just wants an equal opportunity for his
students and having sufficient and equitable resources is a big part of this. While P7 showed no
104

interest in leaving teaching, it is clear he did not think it was fair to have to fight this battle for
the UHS students.
Most of the teachers were satisfied with their access to the resources they needed when
they needed them. P6 said, “I say that I do have resources available, those that I need for right
then and there.” P6 went on, “I have all of the resources that I need. They're constantly writing
grants so that we can get the materials that we may need, the software that we may need” and P5
noted, “I feel like I have more than enough resources. I feel like some of the resources aren't
really curtailed to our specific students' needs.” Each of these teachers remain at UHS and felt
the resources were there even if it they were not always aligned to student needs. While they did
not specifically say it was the resource access that influenced their decisions to remain, they were
not stressed by the resource questions in a way that would cause them some level of frustration
toward UHS.
Four of the five TSA teachers noted resources as an important influence in their thinking
to stay or leave UHS. The one TSA teacher who did not was neutral to the issue even though
they clearly stated their intent to leave teaching. These TSA teachers struggled with the
expectations of ensuring their students pass the tests and having the right types of resources for
them. P3 knew what their resource needs were but was frustrated because they felt those likely
did not matter when testing came up, because the resource or resources would have to be focused
on the test questions. P2, who has also recently left UHS, had a similar frustration about
resources: “‘There’s no money in the budget. There’s no money in the budget.’ But we would
always have all of these FIT [Focused Instructional Team] meetings, talking about how we were
deficient. But no one would discuss, ‘Well, let’s put something in the budget. If a student needs
this, put it in.’” FIT meetings were when teachers and administrators would get together to
105

discuss testing and other data for their students and decide how to intervene for students who
needed it. P2’s frustration was the expectation that teachers improve testing outcomes for
students, but that the administration was not going to provide additional resources to do this.
Both P3 and P2 have left UHS in the last three years and it was clear that the overwhelming
presence of testing in their day-to-day negotiations for resources for their students was part of
their decisions for leaving.
Assumed Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 3: Onboarding/Mentoring –
University High School Needs to Have A Strong Onboarding and Mentoring Process for
New Teachers Within Their Schools
During the data collection for this analysis, the nine participants were asked if UHS had a
formal onboarding or mentoring process for new teachers and if so, what was it like? Through
their responses the participants affirmed the moderate effect of this cultural-setting influence on
their thinking behind whether they may stay or leave teaching at UHS. As shown in Table 13,
seven of the nine participants affirmed the importance of having a strong onboarding process in
their eventual decisions to stay or leave UHS. Two participants did not provide enough
information to draw a conclusion.

Table 13
Organization Cultural Setting (Onboarding), Moderate Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Organization – Cultural Setting
Onboarding (OSO)
X X

106

For an organization to be effective in achieving goals, there must be clear processes or
procedures for new employees to be integrated into the existing organizational culture. There is a
need for all parts of an organization to be aligned and moving together for a common goal or
objective. Clark and Estes (2008) may refer to this need for alignment as a “work process” (p.
104). In the school setting, that may mean horizontal alignment with teachers teaching the same
subject, and vertical alignment in meeting academic goals of the school and district. On the
human-resources side, there must be a clear process for new teachers to become part of these
school-based processes, leading to the success of the institution (Clark & Estes, 2008).
It was important for the teachers in this study to have a strong onboarding and/or
mentoring process when they came to UHS. For most of the participants it was clear they did not
have a formal process, but essentially had to create the process for themselves, or they had to
“fail” before UHS put a process in place for them. The participants in this study often had to
reach out to their peers on their own to find mentors, and they had to go “hunting” for
information and resources that would help them in adjusting to UHS. Most of the teachers felt
welcomed by their peers but did not feel like there was clear guidance from their administration.
P3, who has recently left UHS, provided a good example of the extreme ups and downs of her
first days at UHS:
My first day I was given a teacher’s manual and I was told, “We need you, get in there.”
And she threw the manual to me. [I was] overwhelmed. I was like, “What the fuck is
this?” I’m sorry, what is this? I just felt scared, I was like, “What is she doing?” I just felt
so afraid because it was a new environment. So, I cried for two weeks because I was just
scared of my abilities or inability at the time. My department colleagues were amazing,
they just allowed me to ask questions. Once my administrator noticed my struggles that
107

first year, she did assign me a mentor. I had a mentor. She was lovely. However, before I
had the mentor I didn’t have a mentor at first.
Like P3, other participants also noted that it should not have taken failing for the
administration to take notice and provide a mentor to new teachers. P1 explained her experience,
“because I was doing so horribly my first year, I got put on the improvement plan, and the
improvement plan was the first time I ever have had a mentor.” It should not have taken failing –
which would directly impact student outcomes – to receive a mentor, according to P1.
Some of the participants noted the importance of a good onboarding process because it
would allow them to really understand the school culture and the community’s culture around the
school. Having some time to integrate into the context of the school culture would allow for a
better transition from learning to teach to teaching, as training to teach is very different than
teaching, and it was clear these teachers felt some of that pain. As P6 noted, “have new teachers
meetings for teachers that are fresh out of college, first year of teaching, that they would
probably just have the same for people that are new at the school as well, just to give them the
ins and outs and introduce them to everybody, but give them the ins and outs about UHS, or
about the school in general.” These “ins and outs” are a reference to cultural understanding. This
is about getting below the surface of their instructional training and being able to really
understand the students, school, and community.
The teachers were cognizant of the early years at a school being vital to whether they
eventually leave or stay. This was consistent for teachers early in their careers (three years or
less) and later (more than three years). The participants spent a lot of time reflecting on their first
year, regardless of how long ago it may have been. P5, who remains at UHS, but had left
teaching before and came back, commented, “The first couple of years, that’s when teachers
108

quit” and P9, in her second year at UHS and who clearly noted her intent to leave teaching, said,
“Being a new teacher is always going to be hard.” This self-awareness highlights the importance
of this issue when it comes to teacher retention at UHS. Most participants knew how important it
was to get off to a strong start at the school and how it would impact their future prospects to
remain there. And while they were critical of the onboarding experiences they had when coming
to UHS, they sought out the support they believed they needed. The generally poor onboarding
process did have an effect on decisions to remain, because the teachers that stuck through the
difficulties grew stronger in their ability to seek out the support necessary to succeed (self-
efficacy). Most participants had strong recommendations on how to improve the onboarding
process at UHS because it did have such a strong effect on them in their early years.
Tested-Subject-Area Teachers And Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 3
Four of the five TSA teachers saw onboarding as an important influence on their thinking
about teacher retention; the other teacher did not provide enough information to draw a
conclusion. While the influence of testing did not show up specifically as it related to onboarding
and/or mentoring, P9 noted it would have been helpful to have a mentor in her TSA. She said,
“It’d have been different if I had somebody in [TSA] who was a seasoned teacher, to help me
teach the content and know how to teach the content and whatnot.” P9 wanted the direct
mentoring of a “seasoned” educator with her same subject area, but was not provided it. Having
this may have helped P9 adjust to the demands of the TSA while also adjusting to being a new
teacher in UHS. It is just one of the many factors that led P9 to later say, “Unless they get me out
of [TSA], there is nothing that they can say or do to keep me here.”
Assumed Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 4: Incentives – Southern School
District Needs to Provide a Strong Incentives Package
109

During the data collection for this analysis, the nine participants were asked what kind of
incentives existed at UHS and SSD that encouraged teachers to want to stay. They were also
asked what, if anything, that is not already offered at UHS and/or SSD would be a good
incentive to encourage teachers to remain at UHS. I did not suggest types of incentives but let the
participants define for themselves what was meant by “incentive.” Through their responses the
participants affirmed the moderate effect of incentives on their thinking behind whether they may
stay or leave teaching at UHS. As shown in Table 14, five participants affirmed incentives
played an important factor in their decision to stay or leave, three participants were neutral to the
idea and one participant did not think incentives played a role.

Table 14
Organization Cultural Setting (Incentives), Moderate Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Organization – Cultural Setting
Incentives (OSI)
X

110

Incentives for teachers can be a wide variety of items in the education organizational
context. It can mean having health insurance, a salary commensurate with experience and
knowledge, bonuses for performance, or choice of classroom in a building, amongst other
incentives. Organizations may use incentives to encourage meeting performance goals
(McCreight, 2000; Wronowski, 2018). There could also be intrinsic incentives—those incentives
that are not “material” in nature, but personal.
It was clear amongst most of the participants that they were not teaching because they
expected some kind of extra incentives, but the incentives helped. For P8, incentives were
definitely encouraging. The incentives – small as they may be – made P8 feel valued by her
school leaders. P8 noted about the current principal, “she usually does these raffles where she
gives away things. She’ll do raffle tickets and you got that raffle ticket to boost the morale of the
school…And then they always do Christmas treats, gifts, Valentine’s Day, teacher appreciation.
She does bags and stuff like that…just letting them know that we appreciate you.” These are not
big incentives like salary increases, more time off, or other types of incentives, but simple
gestures to show appreciation for staff. For P8 these meant a lot. P6 concurred about the types of
incentives and how they made her feel: “We get gift cards, they do teacher of the month, staff of
the month, we’re always being provided lunch from various companies, we’re given shout-outs
through emails, so there’s a lot of incentives. We have happies in our mailboxes just coming in
to work, it doesn’t have to be a special day.” She later noted that these gestures help build
relationships as well. For P6, this was about building a supportive culture within the school.
None of the items P6 notes are costly items or salary incentives, they are simple recognitions that
help build her morale. For P1, who left UHS recently, these small gestures mattered as well, and
111

their disappearance during a previous administration coincided with the time she thought about
leaving UHS.
Only one teacher, P7, even mentioned salary as a desired incentive, and that the relative
low salaries teachers make at UHS may drive some teachers to non-education jobs; P7 used the
example of a nearby car-manufacturing plant where teachers went because they earned more. But
P7 really just wanted to see his kids succeed—kids who came from a similar background, in fact
the same neighborhood, as P7. P9 was neutral to the idea of incentives, but had this to say about
expectations on pay: “Since becoming a teacher, to stay in, when you have to find a job that you
love and not for the money? Teachers don’t get paid much anyway.” While P9 plans to leave
teaching, incentives are not among the reasons.
For most of the teachers, incentives were intrinsic: it was for the love of the children and
believing they could make an impact on their students that was the biggest incentive to do the
job. P2 said this most succinctly when asked about incentives, saying, “It had to come from
within.” P1 concurred noting, “One incentive were the people. [The] other one was the students.”
And after noting the difficulty of the job and the conditions seeming to get worse with teachers
leaving for other jobs, P7 said, “So besides wanting to be there, I guess the other, it still has to be
your heart, to like this.” Each of these participants believed incentives do play a part in teachers
staying or leaving, but the teacher participant who did not believe incentives were a factor, P5,
said about the intrinsic nature of wanting to be a teacher, and having left and come back:
The kids, for one. You’re used to 25 kids calling your name at one time, and I missed
that. And I also missed the connection that I was able to have with the kids…I did want
to work in an inner-city school so that was perfect for me. So, the kids keep me there.
I’ve developed relationships with students that I didn’t even think were possible. And I
112

really feel like, that’s where I get my greatest joy from. That’s what keeps me there, are
the kids…I feel that the compensation doesn’t match the work and the effort put into it.
Tested-Subject-Area Teachers And Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 4
Incentives were not of particular importance to TSA teachers’ decisions to stay or leave
UHS. Two thought it played a role, two did not have a strong opinion one way or the other, and
one did not think it played a role in decision-making around staying or leaving. P3, who left
UHS within the last few years and did not have a strong opinion about incentives, said in relation
to testing incentives, “The only thing that was tangible was I think something that came from the
state that dealt with state testing. I think that money they paid us because our test scores went up
that year.” So even though there was a state initiative to incentivize increased testing scores on
state tests, P3 was nonplussed by this. It played no factor in her decision to stay or leave, this
monetary incentive; her bigger issue was still the test itself.
Assumed Organizational Cultural-Setting Influence 5: Professional Development –
Southern School District and University High School Need To Provide Teachers Ongoing,
Effective, And Relevant Professional Development.
Ensuring that individuals within an organization have up-to-date knowledge and skills as
it relates to being successful in achieving the performance goals is integral to the success of the
organization. Participants were asked about the professional development (PD) they received
either through UHS, SSD, or external sources, and how it affected their thinking on whether to
remain or leave UHS. They were also asked how it was decided what PD they received and if
they had opportunities to implement their learnings within the classroom context. Through their
responses, having effective, ongoing, and relevant PD did not affect the participants’ decisions to
stay or leave teaching. Whether they received it or not, whether they were able to connect their
113

learning to the classroom or not, and if what they received improved their skills, overall, these
were not factors in decision-making.
As shown in Table 15, four of the nine respondents found it did play a role in their
decisions about staying or leaving, all four were TSA teachers (two of whom have already left
UHS, and two remain, although with one of those clear on their intent to leave). Four of the
participants did not provide much input on this question, while one teacher made clear this was
not an important issue in their thinking about staying or leaving the classroom.

Table 15
Organization Cultural-Setting (Professional Development), No Effect
Strongly
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
Moderately
Affects
Decision to
Stay or Leave
Teaching
No
Effect
Strong Effect
for Tested
Area Teachers
Organization – Cultural Setting
Professional Development
(OSPD)
X X

114

Of all the influences in this study the organizational cultural-setting for PD seemed to
matter the least to the most participants. As noted, four of the nine, when asked questions about
PD, did not have much to say about it or its connection to their desire to remain in the classroom
or not. It was a non-factor in their decisions. According to the teachers, PD was provided at the
school, by the district, and by external sources. A number of the teachers noted having to invest
in their own PD because what they felt they needed was not being provided by the district. P5
noted that while SSD did provide some PD, she took it upon herself to go the “extra mile” to
master the craft:
Personally, if you need something else, it’s up to you to seek it out and also to fund that
as well. But if you think about it, if you are a professional, you always have to figure out
how to improve on your craft. You have to take that responsibility on yourself. Maybe
the district should support it, but how much do you care as a professional to go seek out
those opportunities and be at the top of your game.
For P5 it was important for her to get better as a teacher but for P5 the source of the PD did not
seem to matter if it was about getting better at teaching. P5 does not put the whole onus on the
school or district by noting the personal responsibility.
One teacher who did not find PD to matter in their thinking on remaining or not
explained that there is always going to be a disconnect between book or academic learning for a
teacher and what happens once they hit the classroom. P7 said, “Everything that you learn in PD
and also everything that is not in the books and PD, it’s not teaching you everything in a
classroom. No book, no PD, just can make you a successful teacher in the classroom.” For P7 a
teacher is just never going to know what they really need to succeed until they are deep inside
the classroom building relationships with students and living the life of a teacher. It was
115

important for P7 to recognize and distinguish this as he was centering the students and what
happens in the students’ everyday lives rather than how PD may be framed in making the teacher
better or more able to meet academic objectives, rather than being able to blend the academic
objectives with growing students into active citizens.
For the TSA teachers, four of the five affirmed the importance of PD in relation to their
decisions to leave or remain at UHS. Therefore, this influence did have an effect for TSA
teachers. For them, when PD became overwhelmingly about testing and improving test scores
rather than general PD based on perceived needs, there was a clear need to rethink their desire to
continue teaching at UHS. P2 explicitly noted, “Then all the professional developments became
teaching to the test. That’s what I call them. Teaching to the test. Every workshop was about test
scores, and how to improve your results.” P2 went on to note how “disheartening” this was for
teachers. For P2 to call this “disheartening” was her way to connect her desire to continue
teaching with being disappointed in the tunnel-vision focus on test scores. P2, who has left UHS
recently, struggled to keep her inspiration for the work of building strong relationships with her
students and supporting them becoming active citizens. She saw a disconnect between what the
administration was demanding and what the students needed.
For P9, who does not plan to teach much longer unless she is moved from a TSA, all PD
revolved around testing, or as she noted “benchmarks.” P9 described it as,
We get monthly PDs. So whenever we’re coming up on a benchmark or a mid-term, we
meet. We meet after midterms with our [subject area] coach, and then for the district as a
whole, we would meet after, for the benchmark. We just met for benchmark one,
discussing it, and going over benchmark two, so we’ll meet again when we come back
for benchmark two. They give us the data scores…
116

P9 had a hard time even coming up with any other type of PD she may receive as every meeting
seemed to be about benchmarks. As a relatively new and younger teacher, P9 was disheartened
by this. She felt like there could be some benefit in other types of learning opportunities, but this
was not the case with the focus on testing and test scores.
In addition to the a priori themes, there were at least two other themes that emerged
through this data analysis. These will be discussed in subsequent sections.
Emergent Themes
The clearest emergent theme this data analysis revealed was that of the role tested subject
areas (or HST) had on teachers’ decisions whether to leave or remain at UHS. This was
unexpected because there were no direct questions about testing in the interview protocol, but it
came up regularly for TSA teachers and for teachers not in these subject areas. As noted, because
it was such a dominant theme, it required explicit analysis under each of the eight influences.
Thus, it will not be addressed again in this section.
Two other themes emerged from the data analysis: 1) the impact of coronavirus, and 2)
issues external to UHS that impacted students at UHS. These two themes will be dealt with in
more detail in the following sections. While important, they did not have as much presence as the
issue of HST and being in one of those tested subject areas.
Impact of Coronavirus
The world, for most people, changed seemingly overnight in March 2020 with the onset
of the coronavirus (Covid-19 or C19). The millions of infections and deaths around the world
have had a lasting impact on every measure of society from health to the economy to education.
The world for students and teachers at UHS in SSD changed overnight, as well. By the middle of
March 2020, the schools in SSD had shut down. They remained shut down for the duration of the
117

school year. In August 2020, the schools in SSD “reopened” 100% virtually. While this was the
safe route the district leaders chose, many students were ill-prepared due to not having the right,
compatible electronic devices for learning, or access to broadband for the internet. Many
teachers struggled with the same issues, or a lack of experience in teaching virtually. When the
interviews for data collection were conducted, it was during the fall of 2020, in the midst of this
all-virtual moment in UHS. Thus, an interview question was added to the protocol asking about
the impact of Covid-19 on teachers thinking about staying or leaving their teaching duties.
Of the six teachers who remain at UHS, most felt the impact of C19, but none explicitly
said they were thinking about leaving because of it. One of the teachers had made explicit their
plans to leave elsewhere in the interview, but mostly due to the impact of being in a TSA.
Teachers were impacted in the day-to-day operations of teaching, such as delivering content in
an engaging way online, or being able to connect to students in the same way they could in
person. Teachers discussed how they had to adjust their styles and thinking on student
engagement due to being 100% online. At least one of the teachers noted being able to connect
differently than they had before with students because of some of the anonymity that being
online enabled. P5 noted,
With this situation I find that I’ve been able to create even stronger or maybe even more
personal relationships with the students, because they’re able to email me when maybe
they might’ve been shy or scared to talk to me in person they’re able to shoot a quick
email or type a comment in the chat. Like the students who are right to ask questions or
answer questions in the classroom or things like that, because they can pop in and pop out
whenever they want to. Just recently I had a conversation with a student and she hadn’t
been to class in about three weeks. And she popped in and she popped in earlier before
118

the rest of the class, and I was able to talk to her and ask her what was going on. And she
opened up to me and I don’t know if that conversation would have happened if we were
in person. I know that through this, I’ve been able to develop closer relationships with my
students.
P5 saw the benefit for this student. Whereas before the pandemic, had this student missed this
much time, it is likely there would not have been this private moment to find out what was going
on. In fact, it is likely a truancy officer would have been sent to the student’s house, missing the
opportunity for a deeper empathetic approach that P5 was able to take. This will likely allow P5
to build a trusted relationship with this student in the long-term.
Still, there were also negative aspects of the impact as well. While most of the teachers
felt the administration was doing what they could to hold things together in a bad situation for
everyone, it was still hard to understate that this pandemic hit everyone, including the teachers.
P9 said, “Now that Covid has hit us and we’re stuck, it’s just…I’m handling it the best that I can,
in my own way, but no, no. When I see kids, they just can’t, you can’t log in, you just can’t do it,
and it’s just like, I understand. I’ve never taken off so many days, so early, as I have since the
school year started.” P9 is clearly struggling with having to be her best every day for the
students, but simply not being able to. Taking days off at a higher rate than before shows the
stress and anxiety – amongst other emotions – that P9 is clearly going through. P9 is unable to
get up the energy and motivation necessary to do the job every day. But that is not why P9 plans
to leave teaching. So, while elsewhere in the same state and throughout the nation teachers are
leaving at higher numbers during the pandemic (Rowe, 2021), it has not directly led to any of the
teachers studied in this analysis from UHS to do the same.

119

External School Environment for UHS Students
This emergent theme is loosely about all the things that happen outside of school that
may impact what happens in school. For UHS this meant some common themes as noted by the
teachers about the bad economic situation of UHS students and the community. This could have
also meant not getting support at home from a parent, parents, or legal guardian. It could also be
about the various mental-health stressors the students with lower SES may experience on a day-
to-day basis—even if they may never say as much. None of these factors, although raised
regularly throughout the study, led to teachers leaving UHS. In fact, as noted in the discussion
about “intrinsic incentives,” the issues noted in prior sections may have led to a greater
likelihood of staying at UHS. Teachers identified with their students for having come from
similar or the same background, so they were not going to leave teaching at UHS simply because
things were not “easy” outside of the school setting. While it was not surprising that they did not
leave – as the national literature seems to back up this notion that teachers from similar
backgrounds as their students are less likely to leave their students (Kokka, 2016) – it was useful
to notice it as a factor in how teachers saw their complex roles in relation to their students. When
teachers noted identifying with the students because they came from the same or similar
community, this may be both an internal incentive or even a motivating force, but it was also
acknowledging a deeper understanding of the “external” environment in which the students live
away from UHS. P7, having come from the UHS community, summed it up this way,
I can relate to every aspect of the kids are coming from. With a low-income school
district, a lot of our kids need more support from the teachers and others, because
honestly, a lot of kids don’t get it at home. A lot of our kids do not see their parents until
120

either when they’re leaving for work or coming to school, they’re at home by themselves.
I had a few kids, that if I didn’t take them home, they couldn’t be in the program.
P7 is not blaming the parents or the students. P7 is showing empathy for the situation and noting
how the teachers have to fill gaps that are often left when other social safety nets or networks are
not enabled. Or how teachers often have to go above and beyond to ensure some students have
extracurricular opportunities that may be limited by circumstances beyond their control. P3
struggled to even describe what her students went through away from the school building when
she said, “My kids, they have so many troubles. I can’t even find the words to even say the
things that the students I taught deal with…” P3’s struggle can be attributed to the complexity of
issues her students faced that P3 felt no ability to intervene on or prevent, and this clearly hurts
P3. P3, who had left UHS recently, also discussed in the interview all the mental health and
counseling supports the students should have, because she knew all the various traumas the
students faced outside the classroom impacted what happened in the classroom. While the issues
P3’s students faced outside of school did not contribute to her leaving UHS, it may have
contributed to her feeling of not having the right kind of support at UHS to serve them as they
need, which did help lead to her leaving UHS.
P2 was even more explicit about what teachers face in the classroom from students whose
needs are not met outside the classroom. They noted, “…Because you’re going to have some girl
who was sick, because she was pregnant. You’ve got to deal with that. Another who needed an
insulin shot, and somebody else who was hungry. They wanted to know, did you have something
to feed them with? The students in SSD are really transient, move from school to school…A kid
in SSD will get off the bus empty-handed.” P2 is describing symptoms of poverty (transient,
empty-handed, hunger) to dissect why it is difficult for students at UHS to be successful,
121

academically or otherwise. P2 is not stating these issues as passing blame, but stating facts that
the students face, while also lamenting P2’s (and other teachers’) inability to really get at the
core issues impacting their students.
Conclusion
The results from the data analysis in this chapter suggest that most of the motivational
and organizational influences examined in this study do have a strong effect or moderate effect
in a teachers decision to remain or leave UHS. Three of the influences strongly affected teachers
decisions to stay or leave UHS, including both motivational influences examined – utility task
value (professional goals-alignment with UHS goals) and self-efficacy (confidence in one’s
effectiveness as a teacher) – and one of the organizational influences (cultural model or having a
trusted relationship between teachers and administration at UHS). Four organizational cultural-
setting influences were found to moderately affect decisions to stay or leave UHS: autonomy,
resources, onboarding/mentoring, and incentives. One organizational cultural-setting influence,
PD, was not considered that important. For teachers in tested subject areas – a subcategory of
teachers that emerged as an important factor in this study – all influences were found to
moderately or strongly affect decisions to stay or leave UHS, except for organization cultural
settings for incentives.
In the next chapter this study will provide practical policy and practice recommendations
based on the results and findings of this analysis, particularly focused on the MO influences that
were found to strongly affect a teacher’s decision to stay or leave UHS.

122

Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation, and Evaluation
This study sought to understand teacher retention at one high school in a Deep-South,
predominately Black, low-income school district. The organization studied for this gap analysis
was University High School (UHS), a high school within SSD. The SSD is considered the only
“urban” school district in the state in which it resides. It is the second-largest district in the state
and it serves approximately 24,000 students. More than 90% of the students would be classified
as “low-income,” as the whole district is a Title 1 district. More than 95% of the approximately
600 students at UHS were Black as of 2018–19. UHS is in the lowest-income part of the city in
which it resides. The mission of the SSD is to be an urban district that is innovative and provides
a quality education to every student. The goals of SSD are to: 1) increase academic and
performance achievement, 2) provide a safe school climate, and 3) maintain fiscal integrity and
accountability. SSD believes there are five characteristics of high-performing schools: 1)
academic success, 2) effective principal leadership, 3) effective teaching, 4) active parent and
community engagement, and 5) scholar and adult recognition. UHS has a mission to “graduate
students who are college or career ready by creating a challenging, supportive, and safe learning
environment in partnership with families and the community.” This gap analysis focused on
teacher retention at UHS, specifically addressing the questions:
1. What are the teacher motivation influences related to remaining a teacher in UHS for at
least three years?
2. What are the organizational influences related to achieving and maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention rate in UHS by August 2022?
3. What are the recommended motivation and organizational solutions?
123

Research questions one and two were addressed in chapter four, and the following sections will
focus on the third question.
Proposed Recommendations for Strongly Affected Influences
Meeting this mission of UHS requires ensuring that the teachers of UHS are committed to
the same mission, as they are integral to its success and sustainability. Based on the findings
from chapter four and the motivational and organizational influences found to strongly affect a
teacher’s decision to remain or leave UHS, the following section will focus on proposed
recommendations to strengthen teachers’ decisions to remain. In the following pages, the
recommendations for each influence that evidence suggested “strongly affects” a teacher’s
decision to stay or leave are discussed along with strategies and action steps to meet the
recommendations. This is followed by a short section that provides a plan for evaluating the
recommendations implemented at the school level, ideas for future research, and a conclusion of
this study.
The recommendations address three influences that, based on teacher interviews, strongly
affected teacher retention at UHS, and one emergent theme that did as well. These influences and
theme are
1. Motivation Utility Value – Teachers Need To Perceive Being Employed At UHS In SSD
As In Alignment With Their Professional Goals.
2. Motivation Self-Efficacy – Teachers Need To Feel Confident In Their Ability To Be
Effective In Their Practice As Teachers.
3. Organizational Cultural-Model Influence 1 – UHS Needs To Cultivate A Culture Of
Trust Between Administration And Teachers.
124

4. Emergent Theme – HST: Being A TSA Teacher Strongly Affects Teachers’ Decisions To
Leave Their Position.
Table 16 provides an overview of the influences and their recommendations, to be
discussed in further detail in later sections.

Table 16
Summary of Influences with Strong Effect and Their Recommendations to Address
Influence Recommendation
1. Motivation Utility Value – Teachers
Need to Perceive Being Employed at UHS
in SSD as in Alignment With Their
Professional Goals.

1.1 Early-employment alignment of
professional goals with goals of UHS.
1.2 Provide clearly articulated career-
pathway options for teachers at UHS.
2. Motivation Self-Efficacy – Teachers
Need to Feel Confident in Their Ability to
Be Effective in Their Practice as Teachers.

2.1 Provide clear opportunities for teacher
agency within UHS.
2.2 Provide clearly articulated options of
professional and classroom support for
teachers when they are “struggling.”

3. Organizational Cultural–Model
Influence 1 – University High School Needs
to Cultivate A Culture of Trust Between
Administration and Teachers.

3.1 Lead administrators need to spend
time building relationships with early-
tenured teachers.
3.2 Administrators should be morale and
culture leaders.
4. Emergent Theme – HST: Being a TSA
Teacher.

4.1 SSD should reduce testing hours for
high-stakes tests.
4.2 UHS should reduce test-prep days for
HSTs.
4.3 UHS should do a cultural and morale
assessment of the impact of testing in school
environment.

125

Recommendation 1.1: Early-Employment Alignment of Professional Goals With Goals of
University High School
Kokka (2016) examined long-term teachers in a similarly situated school in a district like SSD.
Most of the teachers were people of color, as were the students. Most of the teachers came from
the same or similar community, and in noting their cultural awareness and acceptance of the
students, there was a clear alignment in wanting to see the students succeed, much as they
succeeded from similar circumstances. Those teachers saw their long-term retention in teaching
at the school in line with the student outcomes desired by the school and district. This is just one
example of how UHS can be thinking about ensuring alignment between teacher and school
goals. Strategies and action steps for this recommendation are based around the teachers and the
administration being in alignment regarding goals. This happens through some introspection for
the teacher, but also clear understanding of where UHS is heading and how it wants to get there
as an institution. This can also be baked into a recruitment strategy per the Imazeki (2005) and
Kokka (2016) findings. Imazeki (2005) wrote that there was a difference in recruiting depending
on the racial makeup of the teacher, given that she found white teachers were more likely to
leave when their students were mostly students of color. Imazeki (2005) and Kokka (2016) noted
the importance of these recruitment strategies focused on teachers from the same or similar
community and/or racial or ethnic background. Regular check-ins between the teacher (at least
three times yearly: beginning of school year, middle, and end) should allow space for this
ongoing alignment work. The teacher must clearly understand where UHS is heading, while
UHS must work to understand the professional goals and desires of the teacher.
This could be a resource- and capacity-intensive recommendation—mostly due to the
time it will take. Teachers come into the profession with some sense of what they want to do and
126

where they want to head, and schools often have mission/vision/goals statements that lay out
short- and long-term goals. For this recommendation, UHS and the teachers should build on
these existing resources and add to them as necessary. A questionnaire for teachers should be
robust enough to understand the teacher’s perspective on how they enter UHS and what their
goals are, but also specific enough for clear actions and activities. The only financial resources
utilized in this recommendation should be staff time to build the questionnaire, conduct check-
ins, creating/culling/compiling resource artifacts (documents), and following through.

Table 17
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 1.1 Goal
Alignment
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
1. Assessment of Teacher’s
professional goals,
including short-term and
long-term goals.

Fall 2021 and ongoing • UHS
Administration
• Teacher
• SSD Human
Resources (create
assessment)
2. Check-ins on meeting
goals at beginning, middle,
and end of each school
year.

Fall 2021 and ongoing • UHS
Administration
• Teacher
3. Clear layout of UHS short-
term and long-term
objectives—academically,
socially, and otherwise for
teachers and school.

Winter 2021–22 and ongoing • UHS
Administration
• SSD Human
Resources

127

Recommendation 1.2: Provide Clearly Articulated Career-Pathway Options for Teachers
at University High School
It is important for teachers, early in their tenure, to see clear pathways for advancement
as an educator. This could mean many things: into teacher leadership positions, administration,
or other supportive careers in education. New teachers may not realize the opportunities within
the sector. With UHS administrators and teachers there should be a mutual creation of potential
pathways, along with systems in place to move along those pathways, with regular checks of
progress. If teachers can see a clear pathway for career growth at UHS, they are more likely to
stay for the long term. Natale et al. (2013) suggest looking at other professions in order to help
“professionalize” teaching with clearly articulated career pathways. While there may be many
routes into teaching, such as alternate or emergency licensure, or programs like Teach For
America, new teachers need to see the profession as a career with opportunities for advancement.
Important to the context of UHS in SSD, Natale et al. (2013) suggest these opportunities can be
both horizontal and vertical, as not every teacher may want to be a principal, but they may want
more non-classroom opportunities to show and share their craft (p. 27). Horizontal could be
something like part-time teaching plus building-based servant-leadership opportunities or senior-
teacher models, for example, while vertical would be the traditional teacher à administration à
principal à district-level leadership, for example.
This should not be a resource- and capacity-intensive recommendation. The only
financial resources would be staff time and potentially the creation or compiling of the artifacts.
SSD likely has many resources available that can be culled together to create something specific
for UHS. The reviews and checks on the pathways can be conducted in conjunction with the
check-in meetings as part of the first recommendation.
128

Table 18
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 1.2 Career-
Pathway Options
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
1. Document various career
pathways for teachers
including teacher
leadership, administration,
or other.

Fall 2021 • UHS
Administration
• Teacher
• SSD Human
Resources
2. Support teachers in
identifying pathways they
want during regular check-
ins, with flexibility to
change over time.

Fall 2021 and ongoing • UHS
Administration
• Teacher
• SSD Human
Resources

Recommendation 2.1: Provide Clear Opportunities for Teacher Agency Within University
High School
Teachers not only want opportunities to build their careers but also fulfill personal
agency – self-efficacy – in fulfilling those careers. Self-efficacy is the internal belief that the task
or goal can be accomplished successfully (Rueda, 2011). Gonzalez et al. (2017), in their study of
an East Texas school district, noted about school leadership and teacher self-efficacy, “Leaders
who valued teacher input and sought their feedback on matters of curriculum and planning were
more apt to increase teacher self-efficacy. School leaders who were more demanding and sought
to single out failures or low scores, often in an accusatory way, decreased teacher self-efficacy”
(p. 526). Much agency comes from the feeling of being in some control of one’s personal growth
and effectiveness, from knowing what questions to ask to whom to improve practices, to having
opportunities to lead within their professional setting, to simply being asked their opinion about
129

contributing factors to their workplace academic, social, and cultural environment. These
activities may all lend themselves to building personal agency among a teacher and support their
long-term self-efficacy within UHS. It is important to build a baseline of what opportunities may
be available to a teacher to do as such. Gonzalez et al. (2017) suggest that administrators who are
more open to teacher input on activities like curriculum construction and testing will increase the
morale in their buildings. And according to Wronowski (2018), teachers who have a voice in an
integrated leadership model are most likely to stay in their schools. These types of opportunities
will go a long way in forging real and clear opportunities for teacher agency in UHS, while
boosting morale.
This should not be a resource- or capacity-intensive recommendation. The financial
resources would be staff time and potentially the creation or compiling of the artifacts. By
building collaboration between UHS administrators and the teachers, agency and the opportunity
for self-efficacy is built into the process from the outset, as well as another relationship
opportunity.

130

Table 19
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 2.1 Teacher
Agency
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
1. Checklist of specific
opportunities for teachers to
contribute to UHS culture and
climate (academic, social, etc.).
This may be in decision-making
or general involvement.
Fall 2021 • UHS Administration
• Teacher
2. Checklist or document
with specific opportunities for
teachers to play leadership roles
within UHS.

Fall 2021 • UHS Administration
• Teacher

Recommendation 2.2: Provide Clearly Articulated Options of Professional and Classroom
Support for Teachers When They Are “Struggling”
Jug et al. (2019) noted in their study on medical education that “learning is at the heart of
feedback” and that it must be personalized (p. 244). Teachers struggling to believe in their own
effectiveness need multiple opportunities for this personalized feedback and constructive
criticism for their own learning (Jug et al., 2019). If done in a professional way this should not
deter a teacher’s confidence, but enhance it, with suggestions for mutually agreed-upon
improvements (Helfeldt et al., 2009). It should be clear to a teacher who to go to within UHS,
when and how, and for what kind of feedback. An administrator may not always be the best for
this; it could be another teacher; it could be students. Reitman and Karge (2019), studying
veteran teachers in California and their early-career types of support that encouraged them in the
teaching profession, found six areas of support as important to their retention: “(a) individual
131

relationships, (b) pedagogical knowledge, (c) teacher perception of perceived competence, (d)
mentoring, (e) professional learning, and (f) reflection” (p. 11). The teachers in this study
highlighted the need for at least five out of these six areas (sans pedagogical knowledge). The
types of support early-years teachers (and all teachers) should get in UHS should touch on each
of these areas. Having clear guidance to provide these supports, such as a 360-degree feedback
platform from peers, administrators, and students will be helpful, as well as having clear
guidance on who should provide what kinds of supports and when.
This could be a resource- and capacity-intensive recommendation. The only financial
resources would be staff time and potentially the creation or compiling of the artifacts. By
building collaboration between UHS administrators and the teachers, trust can be enhanced for
more supportive and less punitive feedback, and administration needs to accept that sometimes
teachers may just not know what they do not know.

Table 20
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 2.2 Support for
“Struggling” Teachers
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
Create 360-degree platform for
feedback/support, initiated by
teacher or other.

Winter 2021–22 and ongoing UHS Administration
Teacher
SSD Human Resources
Document providing scope of who
should provide what kind of
support and when, and how.
Fall 2021 UHS Administration
Teacher
SSD Human Resources

132

Recommendation 3.1: Lead Administrators Need to Spend Time Building Relationships
With Early-Tenured Teachers
When administrators have strong relationships with their teachers, they are more likely to
have trust in their abilities and decision-making skills. This trust is part of what Wronowski
(2018) notes as the teacher “empowerment” strategy within the organization of a school—that
schools with strong practices of teacher empowerment have better retention numbers in high-
needs schools. At any stage in a teacher’s career, it is important to have a good working
relationship with one’s administrators, and it is especially important early on. It is incumbent
upon administrators to focus on the culture of trust in their buildings (Fisher, 2011; Simon &
Johnson, 2013). This will allow for the best outcomes for all stakeholders. Trust can be built in
many ways: verbally, non-verbally; directly, indirectly; one-to-one, in groups; amongst peers, or
amongst internal hierarchies (Fisher, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2013).
There are many activities that can be utilized as well, including trust-building exercises
and personal storytelling. Cleverley-Thompson (2018) wrote about the importance of storytelling
as a leadership skill that builds trust and can help in other skills of communication. Anderson and
Mack (2019) studied digital storytelling as it relates to positive identity development, particularly
for Black youth. They saw storytelling as a means to build their own narratives in a society that
often does not value their narratives. For teachers, this connection between storytelling and
building their own professional identity is a way to get to better understand one’s colleagues, to
understand where they come from, where they want to go, and who they are. It is an opportunity
to build their own narrative of who they are as a teacher (Anderson & Mack, 2019). This
technique is often missed in professional settings aiming to focus on concrete goals, but it can go
a long way to build trust, to understand “where someone is coming from” at any moment. A
133

teacher should not only see or hear from their leadership when something is wrong or has gone
wrong. Trust between the administration and its teachers is vital in order to achieve goals
(Fisher, 2011; Simon & Johnson, 2013). In order to build this trust, teachers need to believe
administrators have their best interests, plus their students, at heart.
This should not be a resource- or capacity-intensive recommendation—but it could be a
time-intensive recommendation. The financial resources would be staff time and potentially the
creation or compiling of the activities; a consultant may also require financial resources. Check-
ins can be combined with the check-ins under previous influence recommendations, while trust-
building activities can be done during staff meetings. It may take a consultant to provide ideas on
trust-building activities or how to do storytelling that gets below surface-level relationships.
Table 21
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 3.1 Relationship
Building
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
Regular, non-punitive, check-ins
with teachers.
Fall 2021 and ongoing UHS Administration
Teacher
1-to-1 and group trust-building
exercises.
Fall 2021 and ongoing UHS Administration
Teacher
Shared narrative/storytelling
between teachers and
administration
Fall 2021 and ongoing UHS Administration
Teacher
Potential consultant

134

Recommendation 3.2: Administrators Should Be Morale and Culture Leaders
In their study of teacher perception of principal leadership practices, Sanchez et al.
(2020) found there were many attributes that principals should maintain to produce a positive
school climate, including having a vision, enabling those around them, and celebrating successes,
amongst other practices. As such, administrators are the key morale and culture bearers within a
school building, setting the example for their staff. To the points Sanchez et al. (2020) were
making, teachers’ pay close attention to how administrators act with their peers and are also
searching for a sense of fairness in how administrators deliberate complicated issues in the
school. By modeling good behavior for their teachers, administrators can go a long way toward
being strong leaders (Sanchez et al., 2020). It is not inherent that administrators know how to do
this, so they may need some support, while also offering space for mutual peer-learning and
leadership opportunities for teachers. Simon and Johnson (2013) note the importance of school
leadership in whether a teacher decides to continue or discontinue their employment. Autonomy,
involvement in decision-making, communication, clear guidance, and timely support or
interventions are aspects that allow teachers to believe their administrators are working on a
common goal together. These aspects of a school culture can help build trust amongst everyone.
Fisher (2011) implies that having trust in leadership can help reduce teacher stress and burnout,
and Gonzalez et al. (2017) make the link between teacher morale and reduced burnout.
This should not be a resource- or capacity-intensive recommendation. The financial
resources would be staff time and potentially the creation or compiling of the activities. There
may also be a need for an external consultant to develop ideas and strategies around morale and
cultural exemplars.

135

Table 22
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 3.2
Administrators as Morale and Culture Leaders
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
Administrators model trusting
relationships in UHS, built
through action/activity guidance
for administration.
Winter 2021–22 and ongoing UHS Administration
Potential Consultant

Administrators provide clear,
positive opportunities for peers
to learn from one another, and
their leadership.
Winter 2021–22 and ongoing UHS Administration
Potential Consultant

Recommendation 4.1: Southern School District Should Reduce Testing Hours for High-
Stakes Tests
Some high-stakes tests may be state- or district-mandated within SSD. District-mandated
tests are supposed to serve as an instructional function, while state tests are an accountability
function (Bass & Canter, 2018). But what often happens, particularly in low-income school
districts such as SSD, is that district tests are mostly used as prep for state tests. State tests do not
contribute to actual improved, targeted instruction, so when district tests are used similarly, the
purpose of assessment as a tool for monitoring learning becomes moot (Bass & Canter, 2018).
Bass and Canter (2018) suggest conducting “an audit of all standardized testing occurring
throughout the district to collect information on the types of tests administered, how much time
they require, and the purposes they serve” (p. 26). Conducting this type of audit in SSD will help
inform the reduction in testing time in the district and UHS.
136

HSTs – and the culture surrounding them – have had a negative effect on the morale at
UHS and can lead to teachers leaving. The Glossary of Education Reform (2014) defines HSTs
as:
any test used to make important decisions about students, educators, schools, or districts,
most commonly for the purpose of accountability—i.e., the attempt by federal, state, or
local government agencies and school administrators to ensure that students are enrolled
in effective schools and being taught by effective teachers. In general, “high stakes”
means that test scores are used to determine punishments (such as sanctions, penalties,
funding reductions, negative publicity), accolades (awards, public celebration, positive
publicity), advancement (grade promotion or graduation for students), or compensation
(salary increases or bonuses for administrators and teachers)
In short, HSTs are any test that may impact a student’s ability to graduate on time, be
tied to school-accountability rankings, or have some other negative impact should the HST not
be performed well. In order to address this issue, there may have to be a policy solution, rather
than just recommended activities. This is partially an SSD issue to resolve, given the need to
follow state and federal law, as well as local practice. First, it is important to know how many
hours of HSTs there are each school year and for each grade level. Second, once the hours are
clearly defined, it is important to identify which are unnecessary. Third, even students not in
HSTs are impacted by them, as are non-TSA teachers, as the schools tend to “shut down” during
HST periods because there is a heightened concern surrounding the tests and their administrative
scrutiny. Thus, it is important to understand the full impact of HSTs on UHS (and other schools),
not just from the actual test perspective. Finally, the school board should set a maximum number
of HST hours per year in accordance with state and federal law.
137

To carry out the audit and to eventually make a policy recommendation regarding testing
hours in SSD and UHS could be a resource- and capacity-intensive area. The financial resources
would be staff time to conduct the review and draft recommendations and resources related to
superintendent and board-level discussions and bringing in community and teacher input. It is
important to recognize the importance of community, student, and teacher input in this area, as
they are the most important stakeholders in understanding the impact of HSTs in SSD (and
UHS). Their input will be vital in this process.

Table 23
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 4.1 Reduce
High Stakes Test Hours
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
SSD should review (audit) the
number of district and state
secondary HST testing hours.
Spring 2022 SSD Superintendent
SSD Schoolboard
SSD Testing
Coordinator

Identify which HSTs are
unnecessary in accordance with
district, state, and federal law.
Spring 2022 SSD Superintendent
SSD Schoolboard
SSD Testing
Coordinator
Legal Counsel
Teachers
Students
Community Members
Review process of HSTs and how
they are administered in district
buildings, including UHS.
Spring 2022 and ongoing SSD Superintendent or
Designee
SSD Testing
Coordinator
UHS Administration
UHS Teachers and Staff
UHS Students
UHS Community
Set maximum testing hours per
school year.
Summer 2022 SSD Superintendent
SSD School Board
138

Recommendation 4.2: University High School Should Reduce Test-Prep Days for High
Stakes Tests
Bass and Canter (2018), in their study on testing and test-prep, also found that low-
performing (and low-income) school districts, such as SSD, “prioritized test-prep over content
instruction for at least 25% of their instructional year” and that this was built into district pacing
guides (p. 23). This means districts similarly situated to SSD are shooting themselves in the foot,
as, according to Bass and Canter (2018),
Shortening the instructional year is extremely counterproductive because students are
unlikely to grasp all of the new concepts in the time allotted, and even the best students
are unlikely to understand the new concepts at any depth. Furthermore, students who
struggle academically need more instructional time, not less. The hard truth is that review
of content that students did not have the time to learn in the first place will have little
effect.
Bass and Canter (2018) go on to recommend a reduction in the overreliance on test-prep, as it is
too costly to otherwise important instructional time.
At UHS, in addition to the HSTs and the actual days and hours of implementation, there
are many days of test-prep. In Bass and Canter’s analysis (2018), low-income school districts
similar to SSD use a quarter (25%) of their school calendar on test-prep. The test-prep days are
just as big an issue – if not bigger – than the HSTs because there is a lot of pressure on teachers
and administrators to spend an inordinate amount of time in preparation, rather than teaching
new content (Bass & Canter, 2018). UHS should review all components of HSTs from the test
days and hours to the test-prep days, and the impact on non-testing students in the building. UHS
should then set a maximum number of test-prep days per school year.
139

The financial resources would be staff time to compile data and review on HSTs and prep
days, and any financial resources to bring in community and teacher input. It is important to
recognize the importance of community, student, and teacher input in this area, as they are the
most important stakeholders in understanding the impact of HST prep in UHS. Their input will
be vital in this process.

Table 24
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 4.2 Reduce
High Stakes Test-Preparation Days
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
UHS reviews how HSTs are
conducted in UHS, including
impact on non-testing students.

Spring 2022 SSD Testing
Coordinator
UHS Administration
UHS Teachers and Staff
UHS Students
UHS Community

Set maximum HST prep days per
school year.

Summer 2022 SSD Testing
Coordinator
UHS Administration
UHS Teachers and Staff
UHS Students
UHS Community

140

Recommendation 4.3: University High School Should Do a Cultural and Morale
Assessment of the Impact of Testing in School Environment
Testing mandates have an impact on whether teachers decide to stay or leave the
profession. This was highlighted through the experiences related to the old federally mandated
NCLB (now replaced with the ESSA) in the analysis Smith and Kovacs (2011) conducted of a
district similar to SSD (mid-sized, Southern, high portion of low-income students and students of
color). They noted that 86% of the teachers surveyed felt pressure to improve test scores.
According to Smith and Kovacs (2011), faced with this pressure, plus the reduced time for PD
and instruction in non-tested subjects, teachers were more likely to leave the profession than
under previous iterations of the law, and 38% were unlikely to encourage friends to become
teachers. Teachers felt the standards made them feel devalued of their expertise, and that their
training and skills were underappreciated, while they felt more isolated from their peers. Smith
and Kovacs (2011) found all of these factors led to an increasing dissatisfaction with the
profession, increasing the likelihood of leaving. These experiences Smith and Kovacs describe
are similar to that of the small subset of participants in this study, particularly those in tested
areas. Issues of being “underappreciated” or “devalued” or not wanting their friends to become
teachers are culture and morale issues as much as anything else.
Along with the very direct impact of the HSTs and test-prep days, there is a cultural and
morale aspect to their implementation within UHS. This could be from the shutting down of all
activities – even those unassociated with testing – to the highly pressurized environment in the
building, with most official rhetoric focusing on test scores and performance. It could also be in
pulling non-TSA teachers or staff into testing roles that are outside of their job descriptions. It is
the feelings of devaluation and underappreciation that Smith and Kovacs describe (2011). It may
141

also be the morale that affects a school building when the community knows the performance is
or was poor in a previous year or test iteration. Gonzalez et al. (2017), in discussing the impact
of HST on teacher retention in an East Texas school district, recommended, “The ability to
identify factors that are associated with high-stakes testing which can create higher levels of
teacher stress and impact on self-efficacy negatively can assist school administrators in
improving teacher morale. Improving teacher morale can reduce teacher burnout, which can then
improve teacher retention efforts” (p. 528). While not explicitly stated as stress, the teachers in
this study implied the stress that HSTs cause them, and the effect on their morale, which leads to
burnout. There are many morale and cultural aspects of testing that impact UHS, and these need
to be understood and addressed.
This could be a resource- and capacity-intensive recommendation. The financial
resources would be staff time in conducting the assessment and potentially the cost of a
consultant to help with (or conduct) the assessment on the cultural and morale impact in UHS,
disseminate it, and train administrators in understanding and utilizing it. It is imperative that
students, teachers, and communities are part of the design and input of this assessment.

142

Table 25
Summary Action Steps, Timeframe and Staff Responsibility for Recommendation 4.3 Testing
Culture and Morale Assessment
Action Steps Initiate Responsibility
UHS to conduct general culture and
climate assessment of impact of
HSTs on students, teacher, and
school.
Spring 2022 SSD Testing
Coordinator
UHS Administration
UHS Teachers and Staff
UHS Students
UHS Community
Potential Consultant

Administrators should identify
ways HSTs drive work in UHS,
including, but not limited to,
how resource, PD, autonomy
(other influences, etc.) are all
driven by HSTs, even if not
teaching in the area.
Spring 2022 and ongoing SSD Testing
Coordinator
UHS Administration
UHS Teachers and Staff
Potential Consultant

Evaluation Plan
Evaluation is a vital part of understanding if recommended solutions or interventions are
effective, and if they are working as drawn up (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). There are also
many types of evaluation, including, but not limited to, goal-based, theory-driven, utilization-
focused, and developmental evaluation (Patton, 2017). Patton also examines “principles focused
evaluation.” For the purposes of this study, this principles-focused evaluation, as described in the
following sections, will be utilized in deeper depth.
First, it should be noted that given that the research focuses on obtaining a 90% teacher-
retention rate at UHS by August 2022 (the 2022–23 school year), the most direct way to know if
the recommendations worked is if the 90% standard was achieved. The evaluative pieces noted
143

in subsequent sections will be key in determining progress on efforts to reach the 90% mark and
maintain it once achieved.
Second, it is important to understand that for the nine recommendations offered to
address the four influences determined to most strongly affect a teacher’s decision to stay or
leave teaching at University High School (UHS), there are multiple ways to evaluate each
particular recommendation. For the purposes of this section it is important to break these into
three categories of evaluation: 1) recommendations that are already evaluative in their nature (i.e.
assessments or audits, particularly recommendations in 1.2, 4.1, and 4.3), 2) recommendations
that are clearly visible policy changes that can be observed and evaluated based on the extent to
which they are or are not implemented (particularly recommendations 4.1 and 4.2), and 3) those
recommendations that will be framed using Patton’s interpretation of Paulo Freire’s evaluative
approach vis-à-vis principles-focused evaluation. It is this last category of evaluation that will be
the focus here.
Recommendations Using Principles-Focused Evaluation
Patton (2017) examined Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” to better understand
“how and what evaluation teaches” (p. 49). This allowed Patton to identify “Freirean
pedagogical principles and evaluating their relevance and applicability to evaluation” (p. 50). For
Patton (2017), principles-focused evaluation looks at “1) whether principles are clear,
meaningful and actionable, 2) whether they are actually being followed, and 3) whether they are
leading to actual results” (p. 50).
In “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” Freire (1970) was studying adult literacy in a poor, rural
part of Brazil. He was attempting to understand how these adult learners engage in processes that
included raising their own critical consciousness. Through these processes Freire uncovered such
144

ideas as learner-centered pedagogy, building off the learners own lived knowledge, and the idea
that learners are not just receptacles (trash cans) of information to be dumped, but producers of
knowledge and information. For Patton, these types of pedagogical practices are how he
determined Freirean’s principles-focused evaluation approach. Patton (2017) came up with 10
Freirean principles, which are:
1. Use Evaluative Thinking to Open Up, Develop, and Nurture Critical Consciousness
2. Consciousness Resides in Communities of People, Not Just Individuals
3. Critical Consciousness Pedagogy Must Be Interactive and Dialogical
4. Integrate Reflection and Action
5. Value and Integrate the Objective and Subjective
6. Integrate Thinking and Emotion
7. Critical Consciousness Pedagogy Is Co-Intentional Education Among Those Involved in
Whatever Roles
8. Critical Consciousness Is Both Process and Outcome, Both Method and Result, Both
Reflection and Action, Both Analytical and Change-Oriented
9. All Pedagogy Is Political
10. Critical Pedagogy Is Fundamentally and Continuously Evaluative
These principles will be applied to the recommendations that are mostly focused on what
administrators can be doing differently (or continuing if well practiced), rather than the teachers,
or in concert with the teachers. It is clear in the analysis that administrators (i.e. school leaders)
are key drivers of motivational and organizational success and without their clear commitment to
making UHS a supportive place for teacher growth and success, teachers will decide to leave.
While an examination of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of evaluation,
145

“reaction, learning, behavior, and results” (p. 21) can be useful, the recommendations in this
study are not based in programmatic or training activities, but in culture and practice shifts. This
means that more nuanced questions need to be asked of the participants in evaluation to better
understand how and why those shifts may – or may not – happen. Thus, Patton’s principle-
focused framework allows for the building of those questions. Not every principle will apply to
every recommendation. Table 26 provides guidance on what principles can be used for what
recommendation and the types of questions that can be asked of administrators and teachers in
evaluating the success of the recommendation or providing further recommendations for
improvement. The list of questions is not meant to be exhaustive. For the purposes of this
analysis the reference to “critical consciousness” can be thought of for both teachers and
administrators. For teachers, critical consciousness is about agency, the efficacy needed to link
their lived experiences as teachers within UHS to the valuation of their own voice within UHS.
For the administrators, critical consciousness could be building better understandings of how
their behavior or actions impact their surroundings—more specifically, the culture and morale at
UHS.

146

Table 26
Remaining Recommendations, Freirean Principles, & Evaluative Questions
Recommendation Applicable Freirean Principles Evaluative Questions (non-
exhaustive list)
1.1 Early-employment
alignment of
professional goals
with goals of UHS.

P1 Use Evaluative Thinking to
Open Up, Develop, and Nurture
Critical Consciousness
P3 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Must Be Interactive
and Dialogical
P4 Integrate Reflection and Action
P7 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Is Co-Intentional
Education Among Those
Involved in Whatever Roles
P8 Critical Consciousness Is Both
Process and Outcome, Both
Method and Result, Both
Reflection and Action, Both
Analytical and Change-Oriented
P10 Critical Pedagogy Is
Fundamentally and Continuously
Evaluative

Teachers:
1. What are my
professional goals?
2. What do I need to do to
achieve those goals?
3. Does UHS support these
goals?
4. Do I get regular
feedback on these goals?
5. Am I co-creating the
goals?

Administrators:
1. Do I facilitate regular
conversations about goal
alignment between UHS and
teachers?
2. How do my actions
influence perceptions on
teacher goal attainment?
3. How does school culture
influence teachers’ ability to
meet their goals in alignment
with UHS goals?
4. How do I/we actively
course-correct misalignment?

147

Recommendation Applicable Freirean Principles Evaluative Questions (non-
exhaustive list)
2.1 Provide clear
opportunities for
teacher agency
within UHS.
P1 Use Evaluative Thinking to
Open Up, Develop, and Nurture
Critical Consciousness
P2 Consciousness Resides in
Communities of People, Not Just
Individuals
P3 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Must Be Interactive
and Dialogical
P4 Integrate Reflection and Action
P7 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Is Co-Intentional
Education Among Those
Involved in Whatever Roles
P8 Critical Consciousness Is Both
Process and Outcome, Both
Method and Result, Both
Reflection and Action, Both
Analytical and Change-Oriented

Teachers:
1. How do I fit in at UHS?
2. Is my voice heard in
decision making? If so, how?
3. Do I have the autonomy
to make decisions based on
what I/we believe to be the
best for me and/or my
students?
4. Am I confident that I
can disagree with decisions
and ideas without negative
repercussions?

Administrators:
1. How do I support an
atmosphere where teachers
feel able to speak up and
voice their opinions at UHS?
2. How do my actions
reflect strong listening and
guidance, and the ability to
“get out of the way” as
needed?
3. How do I facilitate
conversations where teachers
are comfortable speaking their
minds—good, bad, ugly, or
wonderful?

148

Recommendation Applicable Freirean Principles Evaluative Questions (non-
exhaustive list)
2.2 Provide clearly
articulated options
of professional and
classroom support
for teachers when
they are
“struggling.”
P1 Use Evaluative Thinking to
Open Up, Develop, and Nurture
Critical Consciousness
P2 Consciousness Resides in
Communities of People, Not Just
Individuals
P3 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Must Be Interactive
and Dialogical
P4 Integrate Reflection and Action
P5 Value and Integrate the
Objective and Subjective
P6 Integrate Thinking and Emotion
P7 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Is Co-Intentional
Education Among Those
Involved in Whatever Roles
P8 Critical Consciousness Is Both
Process and Outcome, Both
Method and Result, Both
Reflection and Action, Both
Analytical and Change-Oriented
P10 Critical Pedagogy Is
Fundamentally and Continuously
Evaluative

Teachers:
1. Where and whom do I
go to when I’m
struggling/need support?
2. Who helps identify and
nurture my strengths and
weaknesses? How so?
3. How do I integrate
critique into practice?
4. How do I support my
peers?

Administrators:
1. How do I approach
“struggling” teachers, or
teachers in need of guidance?
Do I help create “safe” or
“brave” spaces?
2. How do my actions
contribute, or not, to teachers
feeling supportive?
3. How do I build/support
non-judgmental and non-
punitive feedback
opportunities?

149

Recommendation Applicable Freirean Principles Evaluative Questions (non-
exhaustive list)
1.1 Lead
administrators need
to spend time
building
relationships with
early-tenured
teachers.

P1 Use Evaluative Thinking to
Open Up, Develop, and Nurture
Critical Consciousness
P3 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Must Be Interactive
and Dialogical
P4 Integrate Reflection and Action
P6 Integrate Thinking and Emotion
P7 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Is Co-Intentional
Education Among Those
Involved in Whatever Roles
P8 Critical Consciousness Is Both
Process and Outcome, Both
Method and Result, Both
Reflection and Action, Both
Analytical and Change-Oriented
P10 Critical Pedagogy Is
Fundamentally and Continuously
Evaluative

Teachers:
1. What do I want from my
relationships with
administrators? What do I
need?
2. What do meaningful
professional relationships look
like? What do they feel like?
3. How do I communicate
with my administrators? Do I
trust they will listen and hold
my ideas/needs/thoughts in
confidence?

Administrators:
1. How deliberate am I in
spending relational time with
new teachers? What are some
things I do (or don’t do)?
2. Am I co-creating ideas
and actions with teachers?
3. How much time do I
spend on relationships rather
than processes or academic
outcomes?
4. Are there opportunities
I/we’ve created for critical
feedback of leadership?

150

Recommendation Applicable Freirean Principles Evaluative Questions (non-
exhaustive list)
1.2 Administrators
should be morale
and culture leaders.
P2 Consciousness Resides in
Communities of People, Not Just
Individuals
P3 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Must Be Interactive
and Dialogical
P4 Integrate Reflection and Action
P7 Critical Consciousness
Pedagogy Is Co-Intentional
Education Among Those
Involved in Whatever Roles
P8 Critical Consciousness Is Both
Process and Outcome, Both
Method and Result, Both
Reflection and Action, Both
Analytical and Change-Oriented
P10 Critical Pedagogy Is
Fundamentally and Continuously
Evaluative

Teachers:
1. What do I expect out of
my administrators as school
culture leaders? Actions?
Ideas?
2. What do I expect out of
my administrators as school
morale leaders? Actions?
Ideas?

Administrators:
1. How do I model my
expectations for teachers?
2. How do I identify when
UHS culture is good, bad, or
otherwise? What do I/we do?
3. How do I identify when
UHS morale as high, low, or
otherwise? What do I/we do?
4. How do I reflect on
what it means to be a culture
and/or morale leader in UHS?

Integrating these questions, and others that teachers and administrators may themselves develop,
into regular self-reflective and relationship-building opportunities will support achieving the
recommendations provided, and ultimately reaching the goal of a 90% retention rate of certified
teachers at UHS.
Future Research
While this was a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the experiences of a subset of
teachers from a particular school, UHS, in SSD, there are substantive areas of research that could
further and deepen the findings of this gap analysis. Future research could focus on a larger
subset of teachers from the district, across multiple high schools, to understand if the issues faced
were consistent on a larger scale. Another area that requires more research is the broader social
151

and emotional impact of high-stakes tests on teachers. Much of the current research on the
impact of HST focuses on the impact on students. That this research was not structured around
questions related to the impact of these tests on teacher decisions to remain or leave UHS, yet it
was the clearest and largest emergent theme of the study, suggests that it is a huge area of
opportunity in terms of future research. Testing and test-prep had clear impacts on UHS’s culture
and morale, and that of the individual participants. It would be helpful to know if this is a larger
issue and, if it is, making it generalizable for broader analysis within the American educational
context.
Along these lines of more broadly understanding the impact of HST, it would be helpful
to conduct further research on the disparate racial impact it may have on things like student
outcomes, student-teacher trust and relationships, teacher-administrator trust and relationships,
school district expectations, school culture and climate, and more. For example, in schools made
up mostly of Black students and Black educators, much like UHS, are there similar patterns of
teacher retention linked to HST? Is it different than in predominately white schools? What about
the culture and climate of the school buildings? In schools made up of mostly Black students, is
HST leading to not just teacher attrition but student pushout? Further research can help get to
many of the answers and potential solutions to reduce disparate racial impacts that HST have, not
just accountability measures, but on school climate and teacher retention.
Conclusions
This gap analysis has been conducted to answer what the teacher MO influences that can
help UHS achieve a 90% teacher-retention rate by August 2022 (or the school year of 2022–23),
and to provide some recommendation solutions to the influences that had the strongest effect on
retention. Through this analysis, it was found that there were four core influences that had the
152

strongest effect on teacher decision-making in staying or leaving UHS. These were: 1) teachers
need to perceive being employed at UHS in SSD as in alignment with their professional goals, 2)
teachers need to feel confident in their ability to be effective in their practice as teachers, 3) UHS
needs to cultivate a culture of trust between administration and teachers, and 4) the emergent
theme of HST. Being a TSA teacher strongly affects teachers’ decisions to leave their position.
The recommendations provided to address the influences were a mix of organizational audits or
assessments, shifting of practices from the leadership levels at UHS, relationship building
amongst staff, leaders, and peers, policy, and practice changes, and “Freirean-based principles-
focused” evaluation (Patton, 2017).
In 2018 and 2019 thousands of teachers walked out, went on strike, and made demands of
their elected and appointed leaders from statehouses to district offices (Blanc, 2020). Many of
these protests happened in states similar to the one in which SSD and UHS reside: conservative
“red” states, beginning with West Virginia, then spreading to places like Oklahoma, Arizona,
Kentucky, and North Carolina, only later to end up in more “progressive” places like Los
Angeles, Chicago, Denver, and Oakland (Blanc, 2020). The states, like the one UHS exists in,
are “right-to-work” states, meaning teachers often are not allowed to do things like collectively
bargain, let alone legally strike—teachers at UHS in SSD cannot do either. While public
perception of the protests in 2018–19 may have focused on demands for higher salary, there was
plenty of proof that teachers were also stopping work to raise concerns about other issues such as
workplace conditions and resources for their students. For example, in Little Rock, Arkansas,
teachers protested racial segregation, and in Indiana, one of the teachers’ demands was an end to
over-testing (Blanc, 2020).
153

None of the teachers interviewed for this study talked about the teacher protests of 2018
and 2019, and there were no public discussions of a walkout in SSD or the state in which it
resides during those years. Still, it was clear, much like the teachers who walked out all over the
country, that the teachers at UHS (and the ones who left) in SSD have a fundamental similarity
that runs through the influences: they are seeking a voice, agency through self-efficacy, in order
to have the best chance at success for themselves and their students at UHS. They want a clear
future in the profession, support from their leaders, trust in their leaders, and they want to be
more in control of fundamental practices such as testing and assessment. Understanding this will
go a long way toward keeping teachers at UHS for the long haul.

154

References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, K. M., & Mack, R. (2019). Digital storytelling: A narrative method for positive
identity development in minority youth. Social Work with Groups, 42(1), 43-55.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition. Longman.
Anthony, K. V., Dana Franz, A., & Brenner, D. (2017). Understanding the nature of the teacher
shortage in Mississippi. The Mississippi Economic Review, I, 24-31.
http://www.mississippi.edu/urc/downloads/mer_volume1.pdf
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five school
districts: A pilot study. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497176.pdf
Bass, A., & Canter, R. (2018). Understanding District and State Testing (pp. 1-68, Rep.).
doi:https://3fsbma43eimx1wle65323xcc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/74/2020/02/Complete-Testing-Report-4-23_for-web.pdf
Blanc, E. (2020). The red for ed movement, Two years in. New Labor Forum, 29(3), 66–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796020950308
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
155

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of
school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research
Journal, 48(2), 303–333.
Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention.
Politics & Policy, 36(5), 750–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00133.x
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-45.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Cleverley-Thompson, S. (2018). Teaching storytelling as a leadership practice. Journal of
Leadership Education, 17(1), 132-140.
Cowan, J., Goldhaber, D., Hayes, K., & Theobald, R. (2016). Missing elements in the discussion
of teacher shortages. Educational Researcher, 45(8), 460–462.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16679145
Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the commission reports. The coming crisis in teaching.
The Rand Corporation.
Eccles, J. C. (2010). Expectancy value motivational theory. Education.com
Evans, C. (2017). Principals’, Assistant Principals’, and Teachers’ Perceptions of Key Factors
Influencing Teacher Attrition and Retention. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2015117489/
Fisher, M. (2011). Factors influencing stress, burnout, and retention of secondary teachers.
Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1-36.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London, UK: Penguin Random House.
156

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th anniv ed.). Bloomsbury.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45-56.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Glossary of Education Reform (2014). High-stakes test definition. The glossary of education
reform. https://www.edglossary.org/high-stakes-testing/.
Gonzalez, A., Peters, M., Orange, A., & Grigsby, B. (2017). The influence of high-stakes testing
on teacher self-efficacy and job-related stress. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(4),
513-531, DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2016.1214237
Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years:
Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007–08 Beginning Teacher Longitudinal
Study (NCES 2015-337). U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Hancock, C., & Scherff, L. (2010). Who will stay and who will leave? Predicting secondary
English teacher attrition risk. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 328–338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110372214
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w8599.pdf
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage.
Helfeldt, J. P., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., Foster, E., & Carter, N. (2009). An urban
schools–university partnership that prepares and retains quality teachers for “high need”
schools. The Teacher Educator, 44(1), 1–20, DOI: 10.1080/08878730802520050
157

Helfeldt, J. P., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Scott, C. (2015). Full-time teaching
internships: A public school-university partnership designed to increase teacher retention
in urban area schools. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(2), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.15640/10.15640/jehd.v4n2
Hodgson, K. W. (2013). Why should they stay? A social network analysis of teacher retention.
University of Southern California.
Hughes, G. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics,
organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational
Research, 105(4), 245–255. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2011.584922
Imazeki, J. (2005). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 24(4),
431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.07.014
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Shortages: Organizational analysis. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription.
NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650208663103
Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2011). Recruitment, retention and the minority teacher shortage.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage, Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 30–33.
Jacobson, S. L. (1988). The distribution of salary increments and its effect on teacher retention.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 178–199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X88024002006
158

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Jug, R., Jiang, X. S., & Bean, S. M. (2019). Giving and receiving effective feedback: A review
article and how-to guide. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.
https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/143/2/244/64770/Giving-and-Receiving-
Effective-Feedback-A-Review.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd
Edition). Brett Koehler Publishers.
Kokka, K. (2016). Urban teacher longevity: What keeps teachers of color in one under-resourced
urban school? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 169–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.014
Ladd, H. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned
and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–
261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711398128
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard
educational review, 84(1), 74-84.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher
turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McCreight, C. (2000). Teacher attrition, shortage, and strategies for teacher retention. U.S.
Department of Education.
159

Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mobley, E., Dougall, R., Everts, S., & Ray, T. (2011). A study of urban secondary novice school
teachers’ perceptions of factors that impact teacher retention. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing. http://search.proquest.com/docview/860764921/
Murphy, P. DeArmond, M., & Guin, K. (2003). A national crisis or localized problems? Getting
perspective on the scope and scale of the teacher shortage. Education Policy Analysis
Archives.
Natale, C. F., Bassett, K., Gaddis, L., & McKnight, K. (2013). Creating sustainable teacher
career pathways. http://researchnetwork. pearson, com/wp-content/uploads/CSTCP-21
CI-pk-final-WEB.pdf.
O'Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (2016). Equality and quality in US education: Systemic problems,
systemic solutions. Policy Brief. Education Policy Center at American Institutes for
Research.
Olsen, B., & Anderson, L. (2007). Courses of action: A qualitative investigation into urban
teacher retention and career development. Urban Education, 42(1), 5–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293923
Papay, J. P., Bacher-Hicks, A., Page, L. C., & Marinell, W. H. (2017). The challenge of teacher
retention in urban schools: Evidence of variation from a cross-site analysis. Educational
Researcher, 46(8), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17735812
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2017). Pedagogical principles of evaluation: Interpreting Freire. New Directions
for Evaluation, 2017(155), 49-77.
160

Reitman, G. C., & Karge, B. D. (2019). Investing in teacher support leads to teacher retention:
Six supports administrators should consider for new teachers. Multicultural Education,
27(1), 7-18.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from
panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Romero, L. S. (2015). Trust, behavior, and high school outcomes. Journal of American
Administration, 53(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2013-0079
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
Rowe, K. (2021, January 14). Some Jackson-area school districts seeing slowed teacher hiring,
high turnover amid pandemic. Clarion-Ledger.
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2021/01/15/jackson-area-schools-see-high-
teacher-turnover-amid-covid-19-pandemic/6552334002/
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.)
SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Matching the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Sanchez, J. E., Paul, J. M., & Thornton, B. W. (2020). Relationships among teachers’
perceptions of principal leadership and teachers’ perceptions of school climate in the high
school setting. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-21.
161

Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D., & Stinebrickner, T. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility.
Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.08.006
Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. The
Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 81-88.
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/27542134
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Dissertation
Success, LLC. http://dissertationrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/
limitationscopedelimitation1.pdf
Simon, N., & Johnson, S. (2013). Working paper: The project on the next generation of teachers.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6210/6fb22387ad72a41d26403ec6851b2f0fd71c.pdf
Smith, J., & Kovacs, P. (2011). The impact of standards-based reform on teachers: The case of
“No Child Left Behind.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 201–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.539802
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching?
Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute.
UNESCO. (2012). UNESCO strategy on teachers (2012-2015).
Watlington, E., Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Felsher, R. (2010). The high cost of leaving:
An analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 22–37.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.0.0028
Whipp, J., & Geronime, L. (2017). Experiences that predict early career teacher commitment to
and retention in high-poverty urban schools. Urban Education, 52(7), 799–828.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915574531
162

Wronowski, M. (2018). Filling the void: A grounded theory approach to addressing teacher
recruitment and retention in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 50(6), 548–
574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713608

163

Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Current Teachers
Research Question KMO Influence Interview Questions
What is the teacher
motivation influences
related to remaining a
teacher at UHS for at
least three years?

M-V: Teachers need to
perceive being
employed at UHS as in
alignment with their
professional goals.
1. Tell me about your professional
goals.
2. How do you see your
professional goals aligning with
your work at the school, if at
all? With the district, if at all?

What is the teacher
motivation influences
related to remaining a
teacher at UHS for at
least three years?

M-S: Teachers need to
feel confident they are
making a positive
contribution to
improving student
outcomes.
3. How confident do you feel in
your ability to improve your
students’ academic outcomes?
Where do you feel more or less
confident?
4. For those areas you feel less
confident, where might you go
(or how might you go) about
building those abilities?

What are the
organizational influences
related to achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention
rate at UHS by August
2022?

O-M: UHS needs to
cultivate a culture of
trust between
administration and
teachers.

5. As a teacher what does a
trusting professional setting
look like to you?
6. If I was new to your school,
what would you tell me about
the relationship/s between
teachers and school
administrators? Teachers and
the district?
7. In what ways do administrators
build or break a culture of trust
in their building? Do you have
an example?

What are the
organizational influences
related to achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention
rate at UHS by August
2022?

O-S: UHS needs to
provide teachers a
certain level of
autonomy of decision-
making ability within
the classroom setting.

8. If you were my first-year
teacher-mentor, what would
you tell me about the kinds of
decisions I can make in my
classroom setting? And what
about decisions I cannot make
without prior approval?
9. How do you feel about your
current level of decision-
making autonomy in your
classroom?

164

What are the
organizational influences
related to achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention
rate at UHS by August
2022?

O-S: SSD needs to
provide teachers with
the resources necessary
for them to succeed
within the classroom
setting.
10. To what extent do you have the
resources you need to succeed
in your classroom?
11. What other resources would
help you succeed in your
classroom?
12. For resources you do not have,
how would you access those
resources? How, if at all, does
the school help you obtain those
resources? How about the
district?
What are the
organizational influences
related to achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention
rate at UHS by August
2022?

O-S: SSD needs to have
a strong onboarding and
mentoring process for
new teachers within
their schools.

13. What kind of support did you
receive in your first year at this
school from the administration?
14. How did your school “onboard”
you, if at all? How did the
district “onboard” you, if at all?

What are the
organizational influences
related to achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention
rate at UHS by August
2022?

O-S: SSD needs to
provide a strong
incentives package.
15. What kind of incentives exist
for teachers at your school or in
the district that make you want
to stay, if any? What would you
want as an incentive that may
not already exist at your school
or at the district?

What are the
organizational influences
related to achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher retention
rate at UHS by August
2022?

O-S: SSD needs to
provide ongoing,
effective and relevant
professional
development to teachers.
16. What kind of ongoing
professional development have
you received at your school (or
from the district), if any?
17. Do you feel it is aligned with
what you need?
18. Typically, after you receive
professional development, are
you able to utilize what you
have learned?
Impact of Covid-19 Please explain the impact of Covid-19 has had on your
desire to remain teaching, if any.

Note. Acronyms for table: Motivation – Task Value (M-V), Motivation – Self-Efficacy (M-S),
Organizational – Cultural Model (O-M), Organizational – Cultural Setting (O-S)
165

APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol for Past Teachers
Research Question KMO Influence Interview Questions
What is the teacher
motivation influences
related to remaining a
teacher at UHS for at
least three years?

M-V: Teachers need to
perceive being
employed at UHS as in
alignment with their
professional goals.
1. Tell me about your professional
goals. Are you still a teacher or
interested in being one again?
2. How did you see your
professional goals aligning with your
work at the school you were at, if at
all? And with the district?

What is the teacher
motivation influences
related to remaining a
teacher at UHS for at
least three years?

M-S: Teachers need to
feel confident they are
making a positive
contribution to
improving student
outcomes.
3. How confident did you feel in
your ability to improve your students’
academic outcomes? Where did you
feel more or less confident?
4. For those areas you felt less
confident, where might you have
gone (or how might you have gone
to) about building those abilities?

What are the
organizational
influences related to
achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher
retention rate at UHS
by August 2022?

O-M: UHS needs to
cultivate a culture of
trust between
administration and
teachers.

5. As a teacher, what does a
trusting professional setting look like
to you?
6. If I was new to the school, what
would you have told me about the
relationship/s between teachers and
school administrators there? Teachers
and the district?
7. In what ways do administrators
build or break a culture of trust in
their building? Do you have an
example from your time at the
school?

What are the
organizational
influences related to
achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher
retention rate at UHS
by August 2022?

O-S: SSD needs to
provide teachers a
certain level of
autonomy of decision-
making ability within
the classroom setting.

8. If you were my first-year
teacher-mentor, what would you have
told me about what kinds of decisions
I could make in my classroom setting
at the school? And what about
decisions I could not make without
prior approval?
9. How did you feel about your
level of decision-making autonomy in
your classroom during your last year
there?

166

What are the
organizational
influences related to
achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher
retention rate at UHS
by August 2022?

O-S: SSD needs to
provide teachers with
the resources
necessary for them to
succeed within the
classroom setting.
10. To what extent did you have the
resources you needed to succeed in
your classroom?
11. What other resources would
have helped you succeed in your
classroom?
12. For resources you did not have,
how would you access those
resources? How, if at all, did the
school help you obtain those
resources? The district?
What are the
organizational
influences related to
achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher
retention rate at UHS
by August 2022?

O-S: SSD needs to have
a strong onboarding
and mentoring process
for new teachers
within their schools.

13. What kind of support did you
receive in your first year at this
school from the administration? From
the district?
14. How did the school (or district)
“onboard” you, if at all?
What are the
organizational
influences related to
achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher
retention rate at UHS
by August 2022?

O-S: SSD needs to
provide a strong
incentives package.
15. What kind of incentives existed
for teachers at the school that support
them staying there, if any? At the
district? What would you have
wanted as an incentive that would
have encouraged you to stay at your
school that was not already there?

What are the
organizational
influences related to
achieving and
maintaining a 90%
certified teacher
retention rate at UHS
by August 2022?

O-S: SSD needs to
provide ongoing,
effective and relevant
professional
development to
teachers.
16. What kind of ongoing
professional development did you
receive at your school (or from the
district), if any?
17. Did you feel it is aligned with
what you need?
18. Typically, after you received
professional development, were you
able to utilize what you have learned?
Impact of Covid-19 Please explain the impact of Covid-19 has had on your desire to
leave teaching, if any.

Note. Acronyms for table: Motivation – Task Value (M-V), Motivation – Self-Efficacy (M-S),
Organizational – Cultural Model (O-M), Organizational – Cultural Setting (O-S)
167

Appendix C: Information Sheet
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me virtually and provide information relevant to my
dissertation study. I feel fortunate to interview you, knowing how busy teachers can be. I
appreciate the time you have set aside today to answer some of my questions. The interview
should last approximately one hour. Does that time commitment still work for you?
Before we get started, I wanted to provide you with an overview of what we will be
talking about today and answer any questions you might have about participating. My study is
looking at what motivational or organizational issues may cause a teacher to stay at UHS or
leave UHS. My research will include interviewing a number of current teachers at your school,
and some who have left within the last three years. Today, we will be exploring some of the key
reasons why you, as a teacher here, may feel motivated to keep teaching here, or potentially why
you would leave. We will also look at what organizational – such as administrative or resource –
issues may cause you to think about staying or going. I am the Principal Investigator (PI) for this
study, and I am working with a faculty advisor at the University of Southern California, USC.
Do you have any questions about the purpose of the study itself?
Everything we discuss today will be treated as strictly confidential. All of the findings for
my study will be reported in the aggregate and/or using pseudonyms. I will not be using the
actual district name, school name or your name. When I report an actual quote in the study, it
will be anonymous and identified in the form of “a respondent,” or “a teacher from the school
(the pseudonym).” No names will ever be associated with the findings. Additionally, no one will
ever see the transcripts of this conversation. The audio recordings will be deleted when the study
is completed. Do you have any questions about the interview?
168

If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have
concerns or suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than me about the study, please
call (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu. You can reference IRB # UP-20-00776.
The last couple of things that I would like to cover include the logistics of the interview
process. I plan to record our virtual interview on my phone recorder so that I can accurately
capture what you share. The recorder helps me focus on our conversation and not on taking
notes. Do I have your permission to record the interview? If at any time you wish to turn off the
recording you can ask me to. Your participation in all aspects of data collection is completely
voluntary. You may skip questions or end the interview at any time. Also, I will be providing
you a $25 gift card to local food vendor. You will get this card regardless of completion of the
interview. Whenever the interview is done I will ask you the best way to get this gift card to you.
May I have your permission to get started?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

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

PDF

Assessing the needs of teachers when creating educational technology professional development for an urban charter school district: an innovation study

PDF

TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices

PDF

The impact of school racial climate on the retention of teachers of color

PDF

A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers

PDF

Advancing retention strategies at a historically Black university

PDF

Welcoming and retaining expatriate teachers in an international school

PDF

Understanding teacher burnout through a lens of hope in high-poverty schools

PDF

Minority Reserve Officer Training Corps officer candidate recruitment and retention: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Retention rate of online students in the associate's degree program in addiction education counseling: a gap analysis

PDF

A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

PDF

Understanding the needs of primary school teachers operating in international crisis response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia…

PDF

Coaching to increase retention in online degree completion programs

PDF

Increasing the number of petroleum engineering students in the United Arab Emirates: an improvement model

Asset Metadata

Creator Oppenheim, Jed Hoffman (author)

Core Title Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2021

Publication Date 07/06/2021

Defense Date 07/06/2021

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

Tag administrative leadership,black students,Deep South,high stakes testing,low-income school district,OAI-PMH Harvest,school culture,subject area testing,teacher motivation,teacher retention,teacher self-efficacy,trusting relationships,urban school

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Chung, Ruth (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email jedopp@gmail.com,jhoppenh@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15276665

Unique identifier UC15276665

Identifier etd-OppenheimJ-9707.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-OppenheimJ-9707

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Oppenheim, Jed Hoffman

Type texts

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

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

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