University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Principal Leadership Influences Teacher Retention in Schools Identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
An Evaluation Study
by
Deborah L. Lindgren

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Deborah L. Lindgren
ii
Dedication
To God, who makes all things possible. Thank you for the strength, perseverance, and
grit to complete this study.
To my husband, Jeff, who always believed in me, encouraged me, and supported me.
You are the string to my kite, and without you, this dissertation would never have gotten off the
ground and taken flight. Thank you for your everyday sacrifices that made this project possible.
You know me and love me, and that makes me rich beyond measure. We’re far from the shallow
now…
To my grown children Bryan and Christen Joy, no accomplishment will ever compare to
the honor and joy of raising you. Thank you for being proud of me, believing in me, and loving
me unconditionally.
To Kayla and Eric, I always wanted four children. Thank you for marrying in and
making our family complete. Thank you also for your faith, love, and making me a Grandma!
To my grandchildren Kennedy and Miriam (and all future grandchildren), you fill my
heart with inexpressible joy. May all your teachers have supportive principals, so they are truly
empowered to provide you and all students the best education possible.
Lastly, to all teachers, thank you for creating equitable learning for all students, changing
lives, and creating new futures. May you always have principals that support you!

iii
Acknowledgments
It has been an honor and privilege to have the opportunity to be a doctoral student in the
University of Southern California’s Organizational and Leadership Program at the Rossier
School of Education. Maya Angelou once said, “Do the best you can until you know better.
Then when you know better, do better.” Thank you to all the professors in the OCL Program,
especially Dr. Kim Ferrario, Dr. Anthony Maddox, Dr. Raquel Sanchez, Dr. Courtney Malloy,
and Dr. Kenneth Yates, for your invaluable input and encouragement. Because of you, I know
better and can do better.
To my dissertation committee, this study would not have been possible without your
guidance. Dr. Ekaterina Moore, thank you for challenging me to think critically, define my
goals, and find my voice. Thank you, Dr. Maria Ott, for your commitment to my success, your
invaluable feedback, and ongoing encouragement. Dr. Grissom, thank you for welcoming me
into your office at Vanderbilt University and being one of the first to discuss my research topic
with me. Your input and research on K-12 education and principal leadership have been
invaluable to this project. To Dr. Brady, thank you for all your edits, suggestions, and making
me a better researcher and writer.
Thank you to my colleagues and friends in Cohort 9. I could not imagine a more
talented, supportive, and dedicated group of professionals to walk with on this journey (Thank
you, Obioma Ude, and Caroline Gray for your unfailing support).
To the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, The Office of
System and School Improvement, and The Association of Washington School Principals, thank
you for believing in this study. You made this project possible.
Lastly, thank you Becca, you were there from the very beginning!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ...................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................................... 3
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................................... 5
Related Literature........................................................................................................................ 7
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 8
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................. 9
Stakeholder Group for the Evaluation Project ............................................................................ 9
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals.................................................................................. 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 11
Methodological Framework ...................................................................................................... 14
Definitions................................................................................................................................. 15
Organization of the Project ....................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 18
Review of the Literature ........................................................................................................... 18
Teacher Turnover in Low-Performing Schools .................................................................... 18
Teacher Turnover Rates ........................................................................................................ 19
Teacher Turnover Impacts Student Learning ....................................................................... 20
Low-Performing Schools Have Less Qualified Teachers ..................................................... 21
Principal Leadership Influences Teacher Turnover .............................................................. 23
Principal Preparation Programs are Antiquated .................................................................... 24
Principals Do Not Effectively Implement Teacher Retention Strategies ............................. 25
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ..................................... 26
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ................................................................. 29
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................... 29
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 34
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 39
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 44
v
Conclusion of Literature Review .............................................................................................. 47
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 49
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 49
Participating Stakeholder .......................................................................................................... 49
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale............................................................................... 50
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................................... 50
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................... 51
Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 51
Survey Procedures .................................................................................................................... 53
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 54
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 55
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 57
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ 60
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 60
Determination of Assets and Needs .......................................................................................... 63
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes............................................................................ 64
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes ............................................................................ 68
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes ...................................................................... 71
Summary of Validated Influences ............................................................................................ 76
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 83
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................ 83
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................................. 84
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................... 85
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 86
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................................. 87
Recommendation #1: Knowledge ......................................................................................... 87
Recommendation #2: Motivation ......................................................................................... 90
Recommendation #3: Organization ...................................................................................... 93
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 100
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................. 102
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................ 103
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................ 106
vi
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................ 111
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................................... 111
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................................... 115
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 116
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 117
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 118
References ................................................................................................................................... 120
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 139
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 143
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 148
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................. 152
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................. 153

vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Performance ................11
Table 2: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment ........................33
Table 3: Motivation Influences and Motivational Assessment ......................................................38
Table 4: Organizational Influence and Organizational Assessment ..............................................43
Table 5: Survey Demographics regarding years of principalship ..................................................61
Table 6: Survey Demographics regarding grade levels principal oversees ...................................62
Table 7: Survey Demographics regarding student populations .....................................................62
Table 8: Survey Demographics regarding participants gender identification ...............................63
Table 9: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by Data ......................................................76
Table 10: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by Data .....................................................77
Table 11: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by Data .....................................................78
Table 12: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .........................................88
Table 13: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .........................................91
Table 14: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations ...................................95
Table 15: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ......................103
Table 16: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................104
Table 17: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..........................................................105
Table 18: Components of Learning for the Program ...................................................................110
Table 19: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .....................................................111
Table A1: Survey Items ...............................................................................................................139
Table D1: Representation of State Educational Service Districts in Survey Data ......................152
Table E1: Results of Chi-square Test of Independence ...............................................................153
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................45

Figure 2. Principals’ factual knowledge: Effective strategies for retaining teachers ....................64

Figure 3. Principals’ factual knowledge: How role contributes to increasing teacher retention ...65

Figure 4. Principals’ conceptual knowledge: How to implement teacher retention strategies ......66

Figure 5. Principals’ metacognitive knowledge: When to use specific teacher retention
strategies ............................................................................................................................68

Figure 6. Principals’ motivational utility value: Implementing teacher retention strategies .........69

Figure 7. Principals’ motivational attribution: Teacher retention is influenced by the amount
of effort applied..................................................................................................................70

Figure 8. Principals’ motivational self-efficacy: Implementing teacher retention strategies ........71

Figure 9. Organization cultural model: Changing existing teacher retention practices .................72

Figure 10. Organization cultural model: Creating a culture of trust ..............................................73

Figure 11. Organization cultural setting: Providing support to increase teacher retention ...........74

Figure 12. Organization cultural setting: Providing principals time to learn teacher retention
strategies ............................................................................................................................75

Figure 13. Plan Do Study Act Cycle (PDSA) ..............................................................................114
Figure B1. Qualtrics® Survey .....................................................................................................143
Figure E1. Washington State’s Educational Service Districts .....................................................152

ix
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the assets and needs that influence Washington
State principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support ability to meet the
organizational goal to increase teacher retention. Previous studies suggest principal leadership is
the most important factor for retaining teachers (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013; Burkhauser,
2016). However, no empirical studies have provided a complete understanding of the
performance gaps in principal leadership that lead to increased teacher retention from the
perspective of the principals. Applying the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008), a
systematic analysis evaluated the degree to which principals believe they have the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences needed to increase teacher retention. Quantitative
survey data from 192 K-12 Washington State principals in schools identified for Comprehensive
and Targeted Support was collected to identify performance gaps. The study found procedural
knowledge, motivational self-efficacy, and the organizational cultural model and cultural setting
were gaps that inhibit principals’ ability to implement teacher retention strategies linked to
increased teacher retention. Using the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick, 2016), evidence-based recommendations, including an integrated implementation
and evaluation plan, were presented. The study is a step in understanding principal knowledge,
motivation, and organizational supports needed to help increase teacher retention.
Keywords: comprehensive and targeted support schools, principal leadership, teacher
turnover, teacher retention strategies

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Teachers are quitting their jobs at the fastest rate on record (Hackman & Morath, 2018).
Every year, 450,000 public school teachers leave their job (Berg & Donaldson, 2005; Carlson,
2012). Over the past two decades, the percentage of teachers leaving the field has increased
dramatically (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Research has long found that low-
performing schools (Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support) experience
even higher rates of teacher turnover (Simon & Johnson, 2015). As such, the teacher turnover
rate in low-performing schools is almost 50% higher than in schools on average (Carver-Thomas
& Darling-Hammond, 2017). Most of these schools lose over half of their teaching staff every
three to five years (Allensworth et al., 2009; Ingersoll, 2003). Research suggests that teachers
are the most important contributing factor for increasing student learning, academic achievement
growth from year to year, and student success (Brown & Wynn, 2009). Moreover, ongoing,
high teacher turnover rates in low-performing schools result in a lack of quality teachers and
instruction (Brown & Wynn, 2009).
Given the severity of the problem, researchers have explored the factors that contribute to
high teacher turnover and found teacher working conditions have the greatest effect (Boyd et al.,
2011; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012; Ladd, 2011). Studies suggest the main contributing work
condition is the effectiveness of the school principal (Johnson et al., 2005). Specifically, the
quality of support teachers report receiving from their principals as the key factor for teacher
turnover. (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2011; Ewing & Manuel, 2005;
Griffith, 2004; Grissom, 2011; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll, 2003; Ladd, 2011; Stockard &
Lehman, 2004). A large body of research consistently links effective principal leadership with
2
lower rates of teacher turnover (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Grissom, &
Bartanen, 2019; Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012). Principals matter when it comes to a
teacher’s perceptions of principal effectiveness (Burkhauser, 2017).
To analyze principal effectiveness, The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center
for Education created The Schools and Staffing Survey which uses teacher-level responses on
statement characteristics of principal performance: principal shares a clear vision, the principal is
supportive and encouraging, principal recognizes a job well done, and principal enforces school
rules and backs up the teacher when needed (NCES, 2008; NCES, 2012). Other researchers have
identified additional effective principal retention strategies, the principal’s ability to
acknowledge teachers (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017), provide feedback and
leadership opportunities (Deneen & James, 2011), as well as, respect, recognition, and care
(Berry, 2004). Similarly, trust is also related to teacher job satisfaction and low teacher turnover
(Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011). Teachers report that if they were to receive just two of these
teacher retention strategies, they would stay twice as long (Deneen & James, 2011).
Principals play an essential role in school factors that contribute to a teacher’s attitudes
about their profession (Brown & Wynn, 2009) and are in the best position to influence teacher’s
working conditions (Burkhauser, 2017). Deneen & James (2011) state that principals have the
power to improve teacher retention rates, yet, make little to no effort to do so. Moreover,
principals that lack effective leadership characteristics tend to be concentrated in low-performing
schools, which have the largest number of disadvantaged students (Grissom, 2011). Yet,
principals in low-performing, disadvantaged schools have a more positive effect on teacher job
satisfaction than in schools on average (Grissom, 2011). Studies consistently highlight that
effective principal leadership is associated with teacher job satisfaction (Stockard & Lehman,
3
2004), and correlated with and predictive of the reason teachers leave low-performing schools
(Melvin, 2011).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is the primary state agency
charged with overseeing K-12 public education in Washington State. The mission of OSPI is to
transform K-12 education into a system that is centered on closing opportunity gaps and is
characterized by high expectations for all students and educators. OSPI does this by developing
equity-based policies and supports that empower educators, families, and communities (OSPI,
2018). OSPI works with the state’s 295 school districts comprised of 2,300 schools (848 of these
schools are identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support) to administer basic education
programs and implement education reform on behalf of the 1,127,493 students enrolled.
Washington State has 65,310 classroom teachers. 27.3% of Washington State teachers are
“Inexperienced Status” with fewer than or equal to five years of teaching experience (OSPI
Report Card, 2018). Close to 50% of all beginning teachers work in low-performing schools
(Elfers, Plecki, & Van Windekens, 2017). Moreover, 8.8% of Washington State K-12 principals
are inexperienced with fewer than or equal to five years of experience. 49.4% of students met
Math Standards, and 59% met English Language Arts Standards (ELA). The 4-year graduation
rate for students on average is 80%. For the state’s disadvantaged, low-performing students, the
4-year graduation rate drops to 72%. 47% of the state’s students qualify for Free or Reduced-
Price Meals (OSPI Report Card, 2018).
OSPI created a Consolidated Plan for the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA), which became fully operational in the 2017-18 school year. ESSA replaced No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and allows Washington State to determine what measures will be
4
taken to improve schools. Washington State’s ESSA Consolidated Plan focuses on
accountability, emphasizing student populations that have been historically marginalized and
underserved. The Consolidated Plan addresses opportunity gaps in the current education system
and works to promote equitable access and opportunity for all Washington State students (ESSA
Consolidated Plan, 2018). The new ESSA accountability model measures help differentiate
between schools, allowing for more transparency and inclusion.
Washington School Improvement Framework (WSIF) subgroups and historically
marginalized student populations in low-performing schools in need of additional support are
now identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support under the new unified threshold of
performance. WSIF uses a combined multiple measures approach to differentiate schools. The
Individual components in the WSIF are referred to as measures. The measures in the WSIF are
English Language Arts (ELA) Proficiency, ELA Growth, Math Proficiency, Math Growth,
Graduation Rate, English Learner Progress, Dual Credit, 9
th
Graders on Track, Regular
Attendance (OSPI Report Card, 2018). Within each of these individual measures, there is a 1-10
scale where schools are evenly distributed based on their results. Each school in Washington
State will have a 1-10 score that corresponds to each measure. Results are then spread into
deciles for each of the measures; approximately 10% of schools will have a one, 10% of schools
will have a two, etc. For example, a school whose math proficiency falls in the fourth decile
(between the 31
st
and 40
th
percentile), will receive a four for the mathematics measure. Within
the WSIF and using the ESSA index score, the lowest-performing five percent of all schools are
identified as Comprehensive Support Schools (115 schools). The score that a school receives at
the top of the 5% of schools is used as the threshold for all schools in the state. All student
groups in all schools across the state are expected to meet this threshold. If a school does not
5
meet this threshold, it is considered identified for Targeted Support (to be identified for Targeted
Support, one or more student groups must be below the cut score less than or equal to 48.9%). A
Targeted School will be identified for Comprehensive Support if subgroups do not demonstrate
growth over a three-year period (OSPI Consolidated Plan, 2018). OSPI provides schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support three years of support to meet the state’s
accountability criteria.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
To fulfill its mission, OSPI needs equity-based policies and supports that empower and
retain teachers (OSPI, 2018). As such, OSPI must evaluate principal leadership to understand
the knowledge, motivational, and organizational assets and needs of Washington State Principals
in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support in order to effectively implement
teacher retention strategies that lead to increased teacher retention.
Effective principal leadership is critical for increasing teacher retention. Principals
strongly shape the working conditions for teachers and are the primary influence on a teacher’s
decision to stay (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2008; Burkhauser, 2016). Moreover, effective
principal leadership is critical to student, teacher, and school success, especially in schools
identified for Targeted and Comprehensive Support (Wallace Foundation, 2009).
Organizational Performance Goal
OSPI’s Organizational Performance Goal was established under the Consolidated ESSA
Implementation Plan approved by the Department of Education on January 16, 2018. The state-
level strategy includes developing, improving, and implementing mechanisms to effectively
recruit and retain teachers by providing training and support for principals (ESSA Consolidated
Plan Title II, Part A). The ESSA Consolidated Plan went into effect during the 2017-18 school
6
year. Comprehensive Schools have up to three years to meet criteria. As such, the
organizational performance goal is: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their principal leadership skills and
knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). For OSPI
to be in compliance with and fulfill the ESSA Consolidated Plan, an evaluation of principal
knowledge, motivation, and organization assets and needs to effectively implement teacher
retention strategies was studied to determine any gaps. From there, professional learning
opportunities for principals was created and can be implemented to help increase teacher
retention. Title II, Part A allows OSPI to reserve up to four percent of reserved funding to be
allocated to local education agencies for state-level activities and professional development to
support principals, school leaders, and teachers. Three percent of the four percent will go to
principals to provide funding to train principals and fund professional learning. One percent of
the four percent of state funds allocated for principal improvement will go directly to recruiting
and retaining teachers. It is Washington State’s Legislature’s responsibility to provide financial
supports to recruit and retain educators (OSPI, 2018).
OSPI is committed to providing supports to schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support for three years to help them meet the state’s accountability criteria (OSPI,
2018). During the three years, OSPI will monitor the impact of the school’s Comprehensive or
Targeted Plan to determine if the school is on a trajectory of success. If a Comprehensive School
does not meet criteria within three years, the district will be required to conduct a comprehensive
analysis to diagnose the reasons why (Targeted Support schools are not required to conduct a
comprehensive analysis). The analysis will examine previous school improvement efforts,
programs, initiatives, instructional practices, staffing, and systems development. It will also
7
include an assessment of the leadership capacity and competency at the school and district levels.
OSPI will then work with the district to provide focused on-site technical assistance and
professional principal learning opportunities (OSPI, 2018).
Related Literature
Numerous studies suggest teacher turnover rates have been significantly increasing (Brill
& McCartney, 2008; Carroll, 2007; Ingersoll, 2003) and are the highest in low-performing
schools (Hanushek, Kain & Riviken, 2001). Teacher turnover is present in a high proportion of
the schools where students would most benefit from experienced teachers (Grissom, 2011).
When teachers leave low-performing schools, there is a direct negative impact on students.
Teacher turnover is detrimental and adversely affects student learning and achievement (Boyd,
Grossman, Hammerness, Lankford, Loeb, Ronfeldt, & Wyckoff, 2012; Ronfeldt, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2013). Moreover, teacher turnover is disruptive to instructional cohesiveness, and
further disadvantages the students most in need of quality instruction ( Boyd et al., 2005:
Hanushek et al., 2004; Scafidi et al., 2005). As a result, students are left being taught by less
effective teachers (Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012). The by-product is a disproportionately
high amount of not as well prepared, inexperienced, new teachers who are substantially less
effective, replacing teachers who leave (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). Just as there is a
direct adverse effect on student learning when teachers leave low performing schools, equally
important are teachers leaving low performing schools due to dissatisfaction with principal
support.
Overall, teachers need principals who can cast a clear vision, are encouraging,
acknowledge teacher accomplishments, provide regular feedback, enforce school rules, and
provide opportunities for leadership (Deneen, & Catanese, 2011). Close to half of the teachers
8
surveyed reported experiencing less than two of these teacher retention strategies (Deneen, &
Catanese, 2011). Teachers who experienced two or more of these teacher retention strategies
said they planned to continue teaching at their low-performing schools up to six years longer
than teachers who did not experience these supports from their principal (Deneen, & Catanese,
2011). As such, studies suggest that higher rates of teacher turnover result from principals not
implementing effective teacher retention strategies (Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012). Almost
half of the teachers surveyed reported that their school principal made little to no attempt to
retain them (Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012). This problem continues to occur because there
are no policies in place to hold principals accountable for improved teacher retention practices
(Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012). Studies consistently show that policies and professional
development geared toward improving principal leadership can be an effective method for
increasing teacher retention (Boyd et al., 2011). Just as effective principal leadership is essential
to the retention of teachers, principals need to be better prepared to implement teacher retention
strategies.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate Washington State principals in K-12 schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support to assess their knowledge, motivation, and organizational
assets and needs related to effectively implementing teacher retention strategies that lead to
increased teacher retention. For OSPI practices to align with their mission to develop equity-
based policies and supports that empower and retain educators, OSPI first needs a systematic
method for evaluating principals to determine the gaps that impede implementation of effective
teacher retention strategies in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support.
Without an evaluation of the principal’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and
9
needs regarding effectively implementing teacher retention strategies, principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will not be able to align their practice with
OSPI’s mission and goal to increase teacher retention. Failure to evaluate the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational assets and needs will continue to result in ongoing high rates of
teacher turnover in the very schools that would benefit the most.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholders include The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI),
the governing body over all K-12 education in Washington State. OSPI works with principals
across the state to help administer basic education to more than one million students. The second
stakeholder is all Washington State principals in the 848 K-12 schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support. OSPI works in collaboration with the state’s principals in
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support to achieve OSPI’s performance goal:
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support will improve their leadership qualities skills and knowledge and increase teacher
retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Stakeholder Group for the Evaluation Project
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder group focus for this study will include all Washington State principals
in the 848 K-12 schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The efforts of the
stakeholder will contribute to the achievement of the Stakeholder goal: By the 2020-21 school
year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase
teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). Research shows, principals, hold
unequaled positions of power, as the only individual within the school empowered and
10
responsible for managing and supervising the entire school (Buckner, 2009). Effective principal
leadership is a critical factor for increased teacher retention. Principals are in powerful positions
to coordinate the entire school operation, implement teacher retention strategies, and are of
critical importance in helping OSPI achieve its mission.
The risk to OSPI if the stakeholder goal is not achieved, is an inability to accomplish the
organization’s mission and organizational performance goal: By the 2020-21 school year,
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their
leadership qualities skills and knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated
Plan Title II, Part A). Moreover, there will be a continued high rate of teacher turnover in
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. Currently, there are no statewide
strategies in place for increasing teacher retention in Washington State K-12 Schools. Also,
there are no compliance procedures in operation. Since the performance goal is new for the
organization and the stakeholder, the current performance gap is 100%.

11
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is
to transform K-12 education to a system that is centered on closing opportunity gaps and is
characterized by high expectations for all students and educators. OSPI does this by
developing equity-based policies and supports that empower educators.
Organizational Performance Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support will improve their leadership qualities skills, and knowledge and increase teacher
retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Stakeholder Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which OSPI is meeting its
organizational performance goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their leadership qualities skills and
knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). The
analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and needs related to the
stakeholder’s achieving their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated
Plan Title II, Part A). The analysis begins by evaluating Washington State principals in K-12
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support assets and needs in the area of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports needed to implement teacher retention
strategies effectively. The first four (of seven) retention strategies used the Schools and Staffing
12
Survey, and its Teacher Follow-Up Survey: (1) principal is encouraging and supportive (Carver-
Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006); (2) principal shares a
clear vision; (3) principal enforces school rules and backs teacher up when needed; and (4)
principal acknowledges a job well done (NCES, 2012). Studies suggest three additional
retention strategies also contribute to increased teacher retention: (5) principal creates a culture
of trust; (6) principal provides leadership opportunities; and (7) principal provides regular
feedback (Deneen, & Catanese, 2011; Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011).
Regarding the seven teacher retention strategies, numerous studies suggest that teacher
turnover decreases when teachers feel supported (Allen, 2000; Darling & Hammond, 2003;
Feiman-Nemser, 2003; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Hughes et al., 2015). When teachers feel
supported, they take more ownership and are more committed to the organization (Bentein et al.,
2005).
An additional retention strategy is the ability of principals to share a clear vision with
their teachers. Effective school leaders share a clear vision and use their influence to achieve
school goals. Principals are effective leaders only to the extent that they can accomplish this
(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Studies suggest that sharing a clear vision helps people find a sense
of identity within their work (Leithwood et al., 2004). As such, a key element of leadership is
helping a group of people develop shared understandings regarding the organization’s goals and
purpose (Hallinger & Heck, 2002).
Similarly, a retention strategy linked to increased retention is upholding school rules.
Teacher turnover is lower in schools where principals consistently enforce the school rules. Yet,
only 56% of 400,000 teachers surveyed strongly agree that their principal enforces school rules
and backs them up when needed (NCES, 2012). Moreover, teacher turnover is lower when
13
principals acknowledge teacher accomplishments. 76% of teachers who decide to stay in their
school, respond that their principal recognizes a job well done (NCES, 2012).
Trust is also related to teacher job satisfaction and low teacher turnover (Tickle, Chang,
& Kim, 2011). Trust is a state in which individuals are willing to make themselves vulnerable to
others and take risks with confidence that the leader will respond in a positive way (Forsyth et
al., 2011). Principals cannot be effective leaders if they have not created a culture of trust. Trust
increases performance and improves communication, relationships, and decisions (Covey, 2009).
As such, trust is a vital component of a reliable relationship and enhances cooperation (Van
Maele & Van Houtte, 2015).
Research also shows that principals can't carry out the role of leadership on their own
(Leithwood et al., 2004). The role of shared leadership involves people at all levels rather than
only the leader at the top (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003). Studies suggest that providing
opportunities for shared leadership is a benefit to both the individual and the organization.
Shared leadership reduces the chances of errors resulting from the limited information available
to only a single individual. Also, the organization can benefit from individual employee
strengths. Moreover, it more accurately reflects the distribution of responsibilities and helps
develop leadership skills and the capacity of individuals (Elmore, 2000).
Teachers rate principals strongly who create a culture of inquiry, welcome questions,
discuss problems, and provide assistance, guidance, and solutions (Brown & Wynn, 2009).
Principals are in a position to provide valuable feedback to teachers (Buckner & McDowelle,
2000) and are responsible for establishing effective communication (Blasé & Kirby, 2000;
Whitaker, 2003).
14
As such, effective principals have the power to create a positive school culture that
increases teacher retention (Brown & Wynn, 2007; Carlson, 2012; Hughes et al., 2015). It is
critical for principals to understand and evaluate their performance regarding teacher retention.
For this study, principal implementation of teacher retention strategies was systematically
evaluated to focus on knowledge assets and needs; factual, metacognitive, procedural, and
conceptual. The study then evaluated motivation assets and needs; self-efficacy, attributions,
and utility value. Lastly, the study evaluated organization assets and needs; cultural settings and
cultural models as they relate to increasing teacher retention.
The questions that guided the evaluation study that addresses the knowledge, motivation,
and organization assets and needs of Washington State principals in schools identified for
Targeted and Comprehensive Support were the following:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
2. What are the motivation assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
3. What are the organization’s assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to
achieve their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
Methodological Framework
The methodological framework used for this study is The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis. This framework is a systematic, analytical method and adapted for needs’ analysis to
15
identify assets and needs regarding principal knowledge, motivation, and organization
influencers and implementing effective teacher retention strategies in Washington State Schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs were generated based on related literature.
The project employed quantitative data gathering and analysis. The stakeholders
(Washington State principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support)
current performance was assessed using Qualtrics ® online survey, literature review, and content
analysis. Research-based solutions were recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive
manner. A quantitative study is an appropriate methodological approach for addressing the
problem of practice as it provides less measurement deviation and reveals critical elements that
advance the research outcome (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A quantitative study also tests for
objective theories by examining the relationships between the variables (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). This approach is consistent with the research need for illumination and comprehension of
the problem of lack of effective principal leadership influencing teacher retention in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support, as well as the needs and assets related to
principals increasing teacher retention. Moreover, the quantitative methodological approach
emphasizes consciously measuring specific variables to answer theory directed research
questions and hypotheses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and involves the use of statistical
methods to reveal relationships between two variables using numbers and statistics (McEwan &
McEwan, 2003).
Definitions
Comprehensive Schools: The lowest-performing 5% of schools in Washington State.
16
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): In 2015, Congress passed Every Student Succeeds Act, the
replacement for No Child Left Behind. ESSA provides more support to low-performing schools.
ESSA became fully operational in the 2017-18 school year.
ESSA Consolidated Plan: Focuses on accountability that focuses on student sub-groups that
have been historically underserved, by addressing opportunity gaps in the education system and
promoting equitable access and opportunity for all students.
Low-Performing Schools: Lowest 10% of schools under NCLB.
Principal: The highest-ranking administrator in an elementary, middle, or high school,
responsible for the overall operation of their school.
Principal Effectiveness: Principals that exhibit the seven principal performance measures as
identified on the 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey and literature review.
Survey Items: Questions or statements that make up the online survey and are used to collect
information.
Targeted Schools: Schools with three or more student subgroups below the cut score less than or
equal to 48.9%. A Targeted School will be identified for Comprehensive Support if subgroups
do not demonstrate growth over a three–year period.
Teacher Retention: Teachers who stay in their current school.
Teacher Turnover: The departure of teachers from their teaching job.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the influence of principal
leadership on teacher retention in low-performing schools (Schools identified for Comprehensive
and Targeted Support). The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial
17
concepts of gap analysis adapted to needs analysis, were introduced. Chapter Two provides a
review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of teacher turnover in
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support, the impact of teacher turnover on
student learning, low-performing schools having less qualified teachers, effective principal
leadership impact on teacher turnover, principal preparation programs, and principal retention
strategies will be addressed. Chapter Three reviews the research design for this study, as well as
methodology regarding the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four
assesses and analyzes the data and findings. Chapter Five provides solutions based on data and
literature for addressing the needs and closing the performance gap, as well as recommendations
for an implementation and evaluation plan.

18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the influence of principal leadership
on teacher retention in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The review
begins with general research on teacher turnover in low-performing schools. The literature
review continues with research presenting the impact teacher turnover has on student learning,
followed by a discussion on low-performing schools having less-qualified teachers. Building
upon this information, the review examines the influence of principal leadership effectiveness on
teacher turnover, antiquated principal preparation programs, and an in-depth discussion on
research-based teacher retention strategies shown to increase teacher retention in low-performing
schools. Following the general research literature, the review turns to the Clark & Estes (2008)
Gap Analysis Framework.
Teacher Turnover in Low-Performing Schools
Teacher turnover rates are the highest in low-performing schools (Hanushek, Kain &
Riviken, 2004). Teachers in low-performing schools are 50% more likely to leave the profession
compared to their counterparts in higher-performing schools (Ingersoll, 2003). These high
teacher turnover rates account for roughly 10,000 teachers leaving our nation’s 50 largest low-
performing schools every year (Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012).
Effective principal leadership is vital for teacher retention. Research suggests that when
principals implement teacher retention strategies, teachers stay up to six years longer (Deneen &
James, 2011). Research shows that a lack of adequate principal leadership support is the main
reason teachers leave low-performing schools (Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2011; Ewing & Manuel, 2005; Griffith, 2004; Grissom, 2011; Ingersoll, 2001;
19
Ingersoll, 2003; Ladd, 2011; Stockard & Lehman, 2004). Studies also suggest teacher’s
perception of principal leadership effectiveness in low-performing schools is less positive
compared to higher-performing schools and that a lack of satisfaction with principal leadership is
the main influencer on a teacher’s decision stay or leave (Boyd et al., 2011).
Teacher’s perception of their principal’s leadership has been identified as the main
predictor of their reason for leaving (Ladd, 2011). These associations are even greater in schools
that serve primarily low-performing, historically marginalized students, where teacher's
perceptions of principal leadership determine teacher turnover more than any other school
climate factor (Kraft et al., 2016). Contrastingly, effective principal leadership has been shown
to relate to a lower probability that a teacher will leave a low-performing school (within their
first year). Similarly, effective principal leadership is associated with a higher degree of job
satisfaction (Grissom, 2011). Thus, there is substantial research demonstrating principal
leadership has the most significant impact on teacher turnover in low-performing schools (Jacob,
Vidyarthi & Carroll, 2012).
Teacher Turnover Rates
A large body of research shows teacher turnover rates are the highest in low-performing
schools (Boyd et al., 2005, 2011b; Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006; Hanushek et al., 2004;
Scafidi, Stinebrickner, & Sjoquist, 2003; Useem & Neild, 2002). These schools have difficulty
retaining teachers and lose a larger percentage of teachers compared to higher-performing
schools (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). As such, 50% of teachers leave low-performing
schools within their first five years (McKinney, Berry, Dickerson, & Campbell-Whately, 2008).
These increasingly high teacher turnover rates in low-performing schools are a paramount
problem (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003), directly affecting student learning outcomes. Studies
20
suggest the best teachers are also the most likely to leave low-performing schools (Henke, Chen,
& Geis, 2000). Low-Performing schools with more experienced teachers encounter turnover
rates almost 80% higher than schools on average (Carver-Thomas, & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
A large body of evidence shows of teachers that stay in the profession, most transfer out of low-
performing schools to schools with higher levels of student academic achievement (Boyd,
Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007;
Scafidi, Stinebrickner, & Sjoquist, 2007). Researchers have long noted the difficulty in finding
highly qualified teachers in schools that serve larger percentages of low-performing student
populations (Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014). As such, there is an overabundance of research that
suggests the most effective and qualified teachers in low-performing schools are the most likely
to leave (Allenswoth et al., 2009: Boyd et al., 2005; Goldhaber & Hansen, 2009).
Teacher Turnover Impacts Student Learning
High teacher turnover in low-performing schools negatively impacts student learning.
When teachers leave low-performing schools, it adversely affects student academic achievement
and success and is deleterious and disruptive to the learning process (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2005; Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014; Guin, 2004). Studies show that low-performing
schools with consistently higher teacher turnover rates have lower student learning and
achievement. Research shows that experienced, high-qualified teachers help low-performing
students close the achievement gap (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). As evidenced by student
test scores dropping from 6% to 8.3% of a standard deviation when 100% of teacher turnover
occurred compared to years with zero teacher turnover (Loeb, Ronfeldt, & Wyckoff, 2012).
Moreover, the impact of teacher turnover has lasting negative impacts on students across all
grade levels (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). Teacher turnover has been shown to have the
21
strongest negative effect on schools with a high percentage of low-performing students
(Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013), as these students require additional academic support
(Watlington, Shockley, Guglielmino, & Felsher, 2010). High teacher turnover in low-
performing schools affects the very students most in need of academic support and help (Guin,
2004). The result is an ongoing teacher equity gap, the “dearth of well-qualified teachers for
those who need them most.” (Quality Counts, 2003).
Low-Performing Schools Have Less Qualified Teachers
Ongoing studies continue to show that students in low-performing schools experience a
revolving door of less-experienced and less-qualified teachers (Ingersoll, 2001; Borman &
Dowling, 2008; Simon & Johnson, 2015; Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005; Hanushek, Kain, &
Rivkin, 2004). These high rates of teacher turnover result in a disproportionately high
percentage of beginning teachers, shown to be considerably less effective than their more
experienced counterparts (Rivkin, Kain, & Hanushek, 2005; Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006).
As a result, low-performing schools fill teacher gaps with a disproportionately large percentage
of less experienced and less qualified teachers (Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013; Haycock,
2000; Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005). The result is a direct disadvantage to low-
performing schools.
The effectiveness of teachers increases over the first few years of a teacher’s career,
enabling a new teacher to become an effective teacher capable of implementing quality
instruction (Luczak & Loeb, 2013). It takes time for new teachers to learn an unfamiliar
curriculum and be brought up to speed on instructional materials and programs so school
progress can be made. School programs and classes must continually start over with new
teachers. As a result, student progress and academic success are continuously impeded
22
(Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013). When teachers leave, the school struggles to make progress
because new teachers lack the knowledge, skills, and experience needed to effectively implement
new instructional materials and programs. Moreover, it is more difficult to fill teacher vacancies
in low-performing schools with qualified teachers (Boyd et al., 2011). Therefore, when teachers
leave low-performing schools, the schools are left with less qualified teachers (Haycock, 2000).
This is problematic because new teachers tend to be less effective than experienced
teachers (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigor, 2005; Grissom, 2011; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005).
The result is a decline in student academic achievement (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). Less
qualified teachers lack the pedagogical knowledge needed to help low-performing students
succeed (Kopetz, Lease, & Warren-Kring, 2006) and tend to perform more poorly (Hanushek,
Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). Qualified teachers help reduce the academic gap of low-performing
students (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). High teacher turnover in low-performing schools is
also problematic because less-qualified teachers do not stay long enough to develop the
pedagogy, skills, and experience needed to become high-quality teachers that students in low-
performing schools desperately need (McKinney, Berry, Dickerson, Campbell-Whately, 2007).
This results in students in low-performing schools consistently being taught by more unqualified,
uncertified, and less experienced teachers (Berry, 2008; Kopetz, Lease, & Warren-Kring, 2006;
McKinney, Berry, Dickerson, Campbell-Whately, 2007).
Students in low-performing schools are more likely to suffer as a direct result of high
teacher turnover compared to students who do not attend low-performing schools (Berry, 2004).
There is significant research to support that ongoing disruption to educational instructional
continuity results in negative instructional cohesion and comprehensive programs (Guin, 2004),
23
negatively impacting student learning (Allensworth et al., 2009; Balu et al., 2009; Boyd,
Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006; Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
Principal Leadership Influences Teacher Turnover
Principal leadership influences teacher retention in low-performing schools. Studies
show teacher turnover is lower in schools led by high-quality principals (Herman et al., 2017).
Recent research conducted on prospective teachers found that the number one quality teachers
look for and what matters most to teachers in school characteristics is effective principal
leadership (Simon & Johnson, 2015), mentoring, and support (Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014).
Moreover, amongst both beginning and experienced teachers, the greatest predictor (by far) for a
teacher’s decision to stay or leave was their perceptions of their school’s principal’s leadership
(Simon, & Johnson, 2015). Research suggests that teachers in low-performing schools with
disadvantaged students report principal leadership as less positive (Grissom, 2011).
Similarly, teachers in low-performing schools report they do not receive adequate
principal support and leave when a principal is not respectful and democratic (Petty, Fitchett, &
O’Connor, 2012). This is a significant problem since teacher satisfaction with school
administration is directly associated with a lower probability that the teacher will leave the
school within a year (Grissom, 2011). Not only is teacher dissatisfaction with principal support
linked to higher teacher turnover rates, but the amount of principal support teachers receive is a
key element in a teacher’s decision to stay or leave (Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006).
Studies show principals that provide teachers with more support and autonomy experience lower
levels of teacher turnover (Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006). Effective principal leadership
is the catalyst for improving low-performing schools (Leithwood, et, al., 2004). Today’s
principals need to be better prepared to lead today’s teachers.
24
Principal Preparation Programs are Antiquated
As concerns about teacher turnover in low-performing schools continue to escalate,
studies inevitably turn to the quality of the preparation of principals. Principals admit they need
to be better prepared for their jobs (Hess & Kelly, 2007). 85% of principals surveyed identify a
major problem is the lack of professional development to improve principal leadership skills
(DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Similarly, 67% of today’s principals report the
characteristics of typical postgraduate principal leadership programs are out of touch with the
realities of what it takes to be a principal in today’s schools (Hess & Kelly, 2007). Studies
suggest that universities are ineffective in preparing principals (Nicholson & Leary, 2001), and
many principals report dissatisfaction with their training as too impractical, theoretical, and
irrelevant for today’s experiences (Nicholson & Leary, 2001). Studies also show considerable
consistency that the curriculum principals are taught in a sample of the nation’s 31 principal
preparation programs is out of balance. The majority of courses focus on theory and lack actual
practice (Bottoms et al., 2003). Future principals need opportunities working with actual school
leadership teams if they are to gain the needed experience to have the skills to investigate gaps
and be able to solve them (Bottoms et al., 2003). 1,200 national university and college principal
preparation programs have been proven to have weak standards and low-quality degrees (Archer,
2005).
Similarly, many principal preparation programs have been deemed ineffective in
instructional materials, class content, and equipping today’s principals to effectively lead
teachers (Hess & Kelly, 2007). Some of our nation’s leading universities' principal preparation
programs have been found to be “inadequate to appalling” (Levine, 2005). These statistics are a
direct result of many of the nation’s principal preparation programs not incorporating leading
25
and current research. Moreover, they continue to offer courses and utilize instructional materials
that are irrelevant and outdated (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003). For example, two-thirds of
principals report principal preparation programs are out of touch and do not adequately prepare
them to lead (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003). Moreover, teachers rate principals that invest
in university courses as less effective (Grissom, & Harrington, 2010).
Outdated principal preparation programs result in principals in low-performing schools
lacking the leadership skills needed to retain qualified teachers. Lastly, on the job principal
professional development opportunities have been limited to infrequent training that focuses
primarily on administrative, compliance, and operational duties. What is missing in our
education system is reliable principal leadership preparation development programs (Bottoms et
al., 2003). Without them, disparities in leadership and implementation of retention strategies
will continue to occur. The result is a significant educational equity concern, especially since
principals with less effective leadership skills tend to be concentrated in schools with the greatest
number of low-performing and disadvantaged students (Grissom, 2011).
Principals Do Not Effectively Implement Teacher Retention Strategies
Predominantly, principals do not implement teacher retention strategies (Jacob, Vidyarthi
& Carroll, 2012). Principals are in the best position as the school leader to implement teacher
retention strategies and make a positive impact on teacher retention (Brigs, Cheney, Davis, &
Moll, 2013). However, research reveals that principals make very little, to no attempt at all to
retain teachers in low-performing schools. Similarly, there are no systems or principal
evaluations in place to hold principals accountable to retain teachers (Jacob, Vidyarthi, &
Carroll, 2012). Moreover, school districts do not make it a priority to hold principals responsible
for increased teacher retention (Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012). The primary retention
26
strategy for most principals and districts is not having any strategy (Jacob, Vidyarthi, & Carroll,
2012).
Retaining teachers in low-performing schools must become a principal’s top leadership
priority and the most important thing he or she does. Principals have a direct effect on the
quality of instruction and student learning through their ability to retain teachers (Harris,
Rutledge, Ingle, & Thompson, 2010). Principals have a responsibility to retain teachers.
Otherwise, the stakes for students in low-performing schools are too high (Watkins, 2005).
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
The structure used for this study is the Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Framework (KMO) developed by Clark and Estes (2008). For an organization to fulfill its
mission, it is essential that a systematic analysis of performance gaps in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences be analyzed for adjustments to be made (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The gap analysis framework allows for an evaluation of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influencers that hinder or enhance principals in schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support ability to achieve their performance goal: By the 2020-
21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will
improve their leadership qualities skills and knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA
Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). Through this process, a comprehensive statewide plan of
professional development and learning can be developed, providing principals the opportunity to
learn, practice, and implement effective teacher retention strategies.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework takes knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers and breaks them down into specific fundamental elements. For
example, knowledge influencers are identified as factual, procedural, metacognitive, and
27
conceptual (Krathwohl, 2002). Motivation is comprised of many different constructs. However,
for this study, the analysis will focus on the principal’s utility value, attributes, and self-efficacy
regarding their ability to effectively implement teacher retention strategies. Lastly,
organizational influencers are studied to ensure principals have the needed cultural settings and
cultural models support to learn and effectively implement teacher retention strategies.
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to guide and bound a study of research based
on assumptions, beliefs, and theories (Maxwell, 2013). It is constructed and guides data
collection and analysis. The foundation of the Conceptual Framework comes from empirical
literature, theoretical literature, personal experience, and thought experiments. In short, it is the
concepts and theories that inform the study (Maxwell, 2013). The function of the framework
also guides the design of research questions, methods, and validity regarding the problem of
practice; principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support. Although potential independent knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influencers have previously been mentioned that contribute to the problem of
practice, Rocco & Plakhotnik (2009) state that a conceptual framework not only describes the
individual potential influencers but is also used to study and map the interactions between the
influencers. Therefore, the conceptual framework for this study demonstrates the key
components, concepts, and variables, as well as the assumed relationships among them based on
supportive literature relevant to the phenomenon of the study. All facets of the research study
are affected by the conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As such, anything that
does not fit into the study or context was excluded. Similarly, everything in the conceptual
framework aligns with the research problem, purpose, and questions.
28
A review of relevant literature reveals the interaction between the stakeholders’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational context is critical to achieving the organizational
goal. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) was specifically chosen for
this study as it is the governing agency over Washington State's K-12 public education system.
Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support were chosen as
stakeholders based on leading research demonstrating principal effectiveness is predictive of the
reason teachers leave schools (Melvin, 2011). These choices are intentional and significant. If
we have the right influencers, the stakeholders will be able to achieve their goal, and if anything
is missing, stakeholders will not be able to achieve their performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Research shows that accomplished teachers will not work for weak principal leaders
(Berry, 2005). This is a problem because if principals do not have the factual and procedural
knowledge on effective leadership strategies for retaining teachers in low-performing schools,
they will lack the motivational self-efficacy needed to believe they are capable of effectively
implementing teacher retention strategies. Similarly, if principals lack the motivational utility
value needed to implement teacher retention strategies in low-performing schools, they will not
gain the procedural knowledge needed to know how to effectively apply teacher retention
strategies. Knowledge influencers have been chosen because the literature suggests they are the
most critical and relevant to this evaluation study.
Research reveals that state departments of education (the organization) should provide
principals in low-performing schools educational opportunities that increase their knowledge and
reduce barriers that impede quality professional development (Moore, & Kochan, 2013). OSPI’s
cultural setting and cultural model influences principals in schools identified for Comprehensive
and Targeted Supports ability to gain factual and procedural knowledge, as well as the
29
motivational utility value and self-efficacy needed to achieve the stakeholder’s performance
goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Research shows that effective principal growth in leadership is characterized by the principal’s
ability to develop and implement new innovations and strategies and implement new knowledge
and skills (Zepeda, Parylo, & Bengtson,2013). If principals do not gain the factual and
procedural knowledge on how to effectively implement teacher retention strategies, they will not
have the motivational self-efficacy to do so, and teacher turnover will continue to increase.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
This literature review synthesis focuses on the integration of knowledge and motivation
influences relevant to OSPI’s ability to achieve their Stakeholder Performance Goal: By the
2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge is at the heart of learning (Mayer, 2011). It is our stored experiences and tells
us how to attain our goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is also our understanding of the what, how,
why, and when. There are four types of knowledge that affect the stakeholder's ability to attain
their performance goal: 1) Factual, 2) Conceptual, 3) Procedural, and 4) Metacognitive
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Principals must master the factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge to have the tools needed for the what and how of teacher retention strategies and the
metacognitive knowledge to understand when and why to implement a specific teacher retention
strategy and when to change course for a more effective approach.
30
To acquire the “how-to” skills and strategies needed for K-12 Washington State
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support to increase teacher
retention, principals need information, job aids, and training. Principals in low-performing
schools also need the opportunity for guided practice and the chance to apply new knowledge
and skills along with specific positive feedback during practice to help effectively implement a
successful comprehensive teacher retention initiative (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge Influencer 1. Factual
Factual knowledge informs us about our world and the environment (Mayer, 2011). It
refers to knowledge that is domain-specific as well as what an individual must know to be
familiar with, understand, and be able to solve problems within an organization (Rueda, 2011).
Principals hold significant influence over a teacher’s decision to stay or leave (Jacob, Vidyarthi,
& Carroll, 2012). Therefore, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support need factual knowledge (the what) on effective teacher retention strategies. To assess
principal knowledge, survey items that measure factual knowledge will be administered.
Knowledge Influencer 2. Conceptual and Procedural
Knowledge is conceptual and procedural. Procedural knowledge refers to knowing how
to do something. It is the specific skills, techniques, and methodologies needed to successfully
accomplish goals. Information processing concentrates on the internal cognitive processes
during learning, such as attention, perception, processing, storage, and recall (Rueda, 2011). As
such, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support must receive
structured procedural training that is presented in the same sequence as it would be applied on
their job as the building principal. Research shows when principals receive structured procedural
training presented in the same sequence that would be used on their job, they improve their
31
conceptual knowledge and are more successful in goal attainment (Tobias & Fletcher, 2000).
Studies also suggest that urban principals in low-performing schools have the power, authority,
and position to impact school culture and teacher retention, yet lack the procedural knowledge to
do so (Kelley, Thorton, & Daugherty, 2005). Therefore, it is essential that principals learn
effective teacher retention strategies to create positive environments, develop trust, communicate
openly, and promote effective feedback, which has all been shown to increase retention (Kelley,
Thorton, & Daugherty, 2005). Similarly, principals need to learn effective procedures for
creating a shared mission, which has been shown to contribute to increased teacher retention
(Hamilton, 2007).
Conceptual knowledge refers to the knowledge of, or understanding of concepts, theories,
models, principles, classifications, and categories (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is
learned through experiences, hearing, observing, etc. Conceptual knowledge focuses on
regrouping big concepts and highlights the relationships between concepts.
School principal preparation programs across the country exemplify principals' need for
conceptual knowledge, as they are notorious for providing low-quality programs that do not
provide conceptual knowledge or prepare today’s principals for solving our nation’s current
teacher retention problems. Research shows the majority of principal preparation programs at
leading universities across the country range from “inadequate to appalling” (Childress, Elmore,
& Grossman, 2006). As a result, today’s principals do not have the understanding of best and
leading practices for teacher retention strategies combined with the conceptual understanding
that increased teacher retention results in increased student learning. What is needed are well
developed professional development opportunities that prepare principals with the knowledge
32
and skills to solve current and future teacher retention issues. To assess principal knowledge,
survey items that measure conceptual and procedural knowledge will be administered.
Knowledge Influencer 3. Metacognitive
Metacognitive knowledge refers to an individual’s awareness regarding their own
cognitive abilities and processes. This type of knowledge allows individuals to know the “when”
and the “why.” Metacognitive knowledge is a significant influencer in the ability to problem-
solve and possess the ability to take into account the conditional and contextual aspects of a
situation (Rueda, 2011). As such, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support need to have an awareness of their own knowledge of the most effective
research-based strategies and influences for retaining teachers. Similarly, they need to know
they possess the knowledge to understand the advantages of increasing retention and which
strategic methods to implement in solving problems related to teacher retention within the
construct of their school. A significant correlation has been found between principals being
critical thinkers, knowing how and when to implement situational leadership, and having the
awareness they are responding correctly and adjusting correctly to divergent issues that support
teacher retention (Hamilton, 2007). Research shows principals that know they are implementing
effective leadership methods leads to higher levels of teacher motivation and retention
(Sylvestor, 2017). Principals must have an understanding of how their leadership behaviors
impact teacher perceptions of job satisfaction and retention (Kelley, Thorton, & Daugherty,
2005). To assess principal knowledge, survey items that measure metacognitive knowledge were
administered.

33
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Influence Assessment

Organizational Mission
The mission of the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is to
transform K-12 education to a system that is centered on closing opportunity gaps and is characterized
by high expectations for all students and educators. OSPI does this by developing equity-based
policies and supports that empower educators.
Organizational Global Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State Schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Stakeholder Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State Schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge Type
Declarative, i.e., factual,
conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support
know the most effective strategies for
retaining teachers.
Factual Quantitative Survey
(Likert scale: strongly
disagree- strongly agree)
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support
know how to effectively implement
teacher retention strategies.
Procedural Quantitative Survey
(Likert scale: strongly
disagree- strongly agree)
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support
need to know how their role as a principal
relates to increasing teacher retention.
Conceptual Quantitative Survey
(Likert scale: strongly
disagree- strongly agree)

Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support
know how to evaluate when to use
specific teacher retention strategies; why,
and when to adjust.
Metacognitive

Quantitative Survey
(Likert scale: strongly
disagree- strongly agree)
34
Motivation
Motivation is the process by which an activity is initiated and maintained (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002), in order to achieve the desired goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). There are three
common motivational influences that contribute to a principal’s ability to achieve the
performance goal and retain teachers in low-performing schools: (1) utility value, (2)
attributions, and (3) self-efficacy. To address the stakeholder’s motivational problems, assumed
motivational influences were examined.
Utility Value
Utility value refers to the usefulness one ascribes to a project or activity in relation to
attaining a future goal (Rueda, 2011). Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support need to see the value and importance of increasing teacher retention. If
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support value teacher retention,
positive emotions that promote skill-building, creativity, and performance goal commitment will
result. Positive emotions linked to increasing teacher retention can play an integral part in
performance goal attainment. Utility value directly affects the effort, persistence, and the
accomplishment of long-term goals (Lord, Klimoski, & Kanfer, 2002). The more an individual
places value on an activity, i.e., increasing teacher retention, the more they will persist and
engage in it (Rueda, 2011). To assess principal utility value, survey questions that measure value
were administered.
Attributions
Attribution theory provides a way of understanding motivation. It investigates
motivation and how an individual’s perceptions about why situations happen and then relates
those perceptions to future motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Rueda (2011) states that
35
attributions are the beliefs one ascribes to the reasons for their failure or success of a task as well
as the amount of control they believe they have in affecting the outcome. Attributions answer
the question of why some individuals respond differently to the same situation, why some
individuals fail when others succeed, and the amount of control they have affecting that outcome
(Rueda, 2011). Attributions do not have to be accurate to be believed. Therefore, it is important
that individuals believe that failure is not fixed and can be controlled with increased effort as
opposed to individual ability. This will more likely result in sustained persistence in achieving
their goal (Rueda, 2011). Attributions are a motivational influence that will directly affect
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support beliefs regarding their
success or failure for increasing teacher retention. People want to understand their environment,
why particular situations occur, and be able to connect those beliefs to future success and
motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Weiner’s attribution model considers three
dimensions that affect outcomes; stability, locus, and control (Weiner, 2005). The model shows
that individuals are affected by their prior experience and knowledge, and these differences
affect the attributions individuals make (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Thus, whatever
principals in Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support perceive as the cause
of low-teacher retention in their school will affect their future motivation. For example, if a
group of principals in Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support fail at
retaining teachers and base the failure on their own lack of abilities, they will have a different
level of motivation in future teacher retention efforts compared to principals who attribute their
failure to unstable, external events outside of their locus of control (Anderman & Anderman,
2006). To be successful, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support must believe the ability to increase teacher retention is a result of their own effort.
36
When leaders link positive results to their own effort, research suggests this will lead to
increased future motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). It is important that the principal
believes his or her success is perceived to be internal (based on their own behavior), controllable
(success related to own effort, not ability), and unstable (controllable over a long-term effort).
Principals that believe attribution success in retaining teachers is due to internal, controllable,
and unstable causes because of their sustained effort and its impact have increased pride and self-
worth. To ensure long-term positive effects on principal motivation and learning, principal
attributions must be increased through comments, corrective feedback, and praise (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). To assess principal motivational attributions, survey questions that measure
attributions were administered.
Self-Efficacy
Perceived self-efficacy involves a person’s beliefs and judgments regarding their
capabilities to attain a goal (Bandura, 1997), are differentiated, and linked to recognizably
different domains of functioning (Bandura, 2006). Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted support need self-efficacy to have confidence in their ability to
retain teachers. Similarly, they need to believe that they possess the ability to make a positive
contribution in the long run in the retention of teachers. A mastery training experience that
demonstrates a principal’s ability to effect personal change in the area of teacher retention will
produce transformational self-efficacy beliefs across various domains of responsibility (Bandura,
2006). Research shows the outcomes people expect to achieve are determined by their
judgments on how well they will successfully fulfill the given task (Bandura, 2006). Individuals
who believe they are capable and effective have better results in goal attainment and achieve
more than their counterparts who hold a pessimistic view of their commitment, effort, and ability
37
(Bandura, 1997). Although there is no all-purpose measure to determine self-efficacy (Bandura,
2006), survey questions that measure self-efficacy were administered.

38
Table 3
Assumed Motivational Influences and Motivational Influence Assessment

Organizational Mission
The mission of Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is
to transform K-12 education to a system that is centered on closing opportunity gaps and is
characterized by high expectations for all students and educators. OSPI does this by
developing equity-based policies and supports that empower educators.
Organizational Global Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State Schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan
Title II, Part A).
Stakeholder Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State Schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan
Title II, Part A).
Motivational Indicator(s)
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivational Influence Assessment
Quantitative
Utility Value - Principals need to see the value in
implementing teacher retention strategies in
Schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support.
Likert-scale Survey item (strongly
disagree-strongly agree)
Attributions - Principals in Schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support should
believe that teacher retention is directly
influenced by the amount of active choice,
persistence, and mental effort they apply.
Likert-scale Survey item (strongly
disagree-strongly agree)
Self-Efficacy - Principals in Schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
believe they are capable of effectively
implementing teacher retention strategies.
Likert-scale Survey item (strongly
disagree-strongly agree)
39
Organizational Influences
This literature review synthesis focuses on the integration of organizational influences
relevant to the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (OSPI)
ability to achieve their Stakeholder Performance Goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support increase teacher retention (ESSA
Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Organization
The previous sections outlined the knowledge and motivational influences related to
principals effectively implementing teacher retention strategies. However, the organization itself
also influences the stakeholder’s ability to achieve the Stakeholder Performance Goal; by the
2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). This section describes
the role OSPI plays in addressing organizational performance gaps.
Many organizations are built and maintained on long-held traditions, policies, and
values. Organizational influences can either facilitate or impede both individual and
organizational goals (Rueda, 2011). Educational organizations are very complex structures in
which one aspect of the system is linked directly to another (Rueda, 2011), and have their own
unique culture that unavoidably affects all efforts to improve performance. Moreover, many
organizations tend to neglect to investigate the influences and barriers to improvement, such as
deeply held values and cultural hindrances (Kezar, 2011). Similarly, all effective performance
improvement is dependent on taking into consideration organizational cultural models and
cultural settings (Clark & Estes, 2008). The organizational culture is considered the most
40
important aspect of the work process because it underscores how employees work
collaboratively to accomplish organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Cultural models and cultural settings are reciprocal in nature; they are a dynamic and
interactional process (Rueda, 2011). Organizational cultural models and settings are often the
last things to change unless the organization is able to identify the influences needed to make a
change. Unfortunately, many employee’s responses to the need for improvement is to attempt
more of the same types of cultural behaviors. Therefore, to solve a performance problem
effectively, an organization must discontinue current practices, and work to understand the
organizational cultural influences contributing to the problem (Langley et al., 2009)
Cultural Model Influence
Organizations are characterized by their cultural models (Rueda, 2011). A cultural model
denotes an organization’s plans, practices, and procedures (Kezar, 2011). It is a shared
cognitive, behavioral, and affective understanding of how the world works or should work. It
includes shared experiences, events, and environments and is comfortable and familiar
(Gallimore, & Goldenberg, 2001). It is usually invisible and goes unnoticed by those in the
organization (Rueda, 2011). OSPI’s cultural model has a direct influence on Washington State
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support’s ability to increase
teacher retention. It is important that the organization realizes improvement is not a mechanical
process, and that people’s individual motivations concerning the change are taken into
consideration (Langley et al., 2009). Focusing on changing the organization without focusing
directly on supporting employees is destined for failure (Langley et al., 2009). The organization
needs to create a model that demonstrates a long-term commitment to helping principals in low-
41
performing schools foster a general acceptance and willingness to change the existing culture of
teacher retention practices (Grissom, 2011). The organization needs to create a cultural model
that encourages and supports the importance of teacher retention. Otherwise, principals in low-
performing schools will not change their current teacher retention strategies and will fail to see
the usefulness in attaining the goal (Rueda, 2011). To assess assumed organizational cultural
model influences, survey questions were administered to evaluate the principal’s willingness to
change existing teacher retention practices.
Cultural Setting Influence
Cultural settings can be defined as the who, what, where, when, and why of the
organization’s routines (Rueda, 2011). A cultural setting is shaped by two or more people
working together on a shared goal. It is the social structure of the work environment (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). Principals today, experience a multiplicity of tasks they are expected to
complete from administrative duties, increased test scores, jurisdictional policies, challenges, and
responsibilities (Pollock, Wang, & Hauseman, 2015). OSPI needs to prioritize time for
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support to participate in
ongoing professional development opportunities that increase teacher retention. Studies show
that principals that have developed leadership traits that are democratic and respectful retain
teachers who report more job satisfaction (Bogler, 2001). Research suggests that principals in
low-performing schools need enough time from their administrative responsibilities in order to
have time to learn and implement researched-based teacher retention strategies (Shaw &
Newton, 2014). Studies continue to show that principals in low-performing schools need more
advanced pedagogical and disciplinary expertise than what is typically received in preparation
programs (Hill, & Gillette, 2005). Thus, principals specifically need OSPI to provide clearly
42
defined goals, resources, and time devoted to creating a cultural setting of professional
development, mentoring, and support. Goals and resources must be rooted in a deep
understanding of the social and structural inequalities of power and culture that students in low-
performing schools deal with, and as a result, teachers daily navigate (Hill, & Gillette, 2005).
Principals play a primary role in teacher retention, and as a result, the organization’s cultural
setting must better support principals and recognize the role principals play in teacher retention
(Wood, 2005). To assess assumed organizational cultural setting influences, survey questions
were administered to measure principal’s willingness to change existing teacher retention
practices.

43
Table 4
Assumed Organization Influence and Organizational Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is
to transform K-12 education to a system that is centered on closing opportunity gaps and is
characterized by high expectations for all students and educators. OSPI does this by
developing equity-based policies and supports that empower educators.
Organizational Global Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their leadership qualities skills and
knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Stakeholder Goal
By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State Schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan
Title II, Part A).
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
have a general acceptance to change existing
teacher retention practices (Grissom, 2011).
Likert Scale Survey to reveal principals in
schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support willingness to change
existing teacher retention practices
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
create a culture of trust between principals and
teachers in order to increase teacher retention.
Likert Scale Survey to reveal if principals in
schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support create a culture of trust
with their teachers
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to provide clearly
defined resources, guidance, and support,
devoted to increasing teacher retention in
schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support.
Likert Scale Survey to determine if
principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support have
the resources, guidance, and support needed
to increase teacher retention
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need
enough time from administrative
responsibilities in order to have time to learn
and implement teacher retention strategies
(Shaw & Newton, 2014).
Likert Scale Survey to determine if
principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support have
enough time from administrative
responsibilities to learn and implement
retention strategies
44

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework represents knowledge, motivational, and organizational
elements that influence the principal's ability to effectively implement teacher retention strategies
in Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The conceptual framework’s
purpose is to provide structure and outline theories and concepts relevant to the study (Maxwell,
2013).

45

Organization
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Cultural Model & Cultural Setting:
Cultural Model Influence: Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to have a general
acceptance to change existing teacher retention practices.
Cultural Setting Influence: Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need clearly defined resources,
guidance, and support devoted to increasing teacher retention.

By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State Schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA
Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Stakeholder
Washington State Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support
Knowledge:
Factual: Principals need to know the most effective strategies for
retaining teachers.
Procedural: Principals need to know how to effectively apply
teacher retention strategies.
Metacognitive: Principals need to evaluate when to use specific
teacher retention strategies, why, and when to adjust.
Conceptual: Principals need to know how their role contributes
to increasing teacher retention.
Motivation:
Utility Value: Principals need to see the value in implementing
teacher retention strategies.
Self-Efficacy: Principals need to believe they are capable of
effectively implementing teacher retention strategies.
Attributions: Principals should believe that low teacher retention
is due to their own efforts.
46
The Conceptual Framework Figure 1. represents how the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influencers interact with each other. The large blue circle in the figure represents
the organization, The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and how its
cultural setting influences the stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation; Washington State
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need enough time from
their administrative responsibilities to have time to learn and implement researched-based
teacher retention strategies. The green circle represents the stakeholders (Washington State
Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support). OSPI is the
governing agency over K-12 public education. The stakeholders are inside the organizational
structure because they are directly influenced by the organization’s cultural setting and cultural
model. OSPI must provide principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support with the factual knowledge needed to know the most effective strategies for retaining
teachers, and the procedural knowledge to know how to effectively apply teacher retention
strategies, and the conceptual knowledge to know how their role as principal contributes to
teacher retention.
Principals need the motivation to have the utility value necessary to implement teacher
retention strategies and the self-efficacy to believe they can. Thus, the stakeholder resides within
the organization because their knowledge and motivation are directly influenced by the
organization. The blue arrow represents the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(OSPI) working in collaboration with the state’s principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support to achieve the performance goal within the yellow box; by
the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support will increase teacher retention.
47
Principal leadership preparation is currently inadequate and contributes to a lack of
preparedness (Stevenson, 2006). Principals need pedagogical expertise and mentorship to meet
the retention needs of today’s teachers in low-performing schools for students to be academically
successful in school, college, and the workforce (Hill, & Gillette, 2005). A lack of principal
support and implemented teacher retention strategies are the main reason teachers leave schools
(Petty, Fitchett, & O'connor, 2012). Structural (organizational) inequalities must be addressed,
or high teacher turnover will continue in low-performing schools, resulting in continued
inequalities of educational opportunities for historically marginalized students (Warren, 2005).
OSPI must be a culture that supports principals learning the factual and procedural knowledge
needed for implementing effective teacher retention strategies that directly influence the
motivational utility value and self-efficacy needed to effectively implement teacher retention
strategies in order to achieve the goal; by the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention. If principals
in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support do not have a supportive
organizational cultural setting and model, then factual and procedural knowledge, and the utility
value and self-efficacy motivation needed to implement teacher retention strategies will not
improve, and teacher retention will not increase.
Conclusion of Literature Review
A general review of the current literature consistently reveals that teacher turnover rates
are highest in low-performing schools (Ingersoll, 2003). Also, retaining teachers in low-
performing schools is a significant problem and has a direct negative effect on student learning
and achievement (Boyd et al., 2005; Engel et al., 2014; Guin, 2004). The result is an ongoing
48
high rate of students in low-performing schools being taught by less qualified teachers
(Lankford, Loeb, & Wycoff, 2002).
Principal leadership has been shown to be the leading influencer of high teacher turnover
in low-performing schools, identifying it as the most important factor for leaving (Lankford,
Loeb, & Wycoff, 2002). The literature demonstrates that the nation’s principal preparation
programs are outdated, inadequate, and irrelevant in preparing today’s principals to manage and
support teachers (Archer, 2005; Farkas et al., 2003; Hess & Kelly, 2007; Levine, 2005).
Research also suggests that principals do not implement teacher retention strategies as a
result of knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps. Principals in low-performing schools
need to have the motivation to see the value in implementing teacher retention strategies and the
self-efficacy to believe they are capable of effectively implementing the strategies (Zepeda,
Parylo, & Bengtson, 2013). Lastly, most organizations do not prioritize time for principals in
low-performing schools to learn and implement new strategies and demonstrate a commitment to
support, acceptance, and willingness amongst principals to change existing practices (Moore, &
Kochan, 2013).

49
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which OSPI is meeting its
organizational performance goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their leadership qualities skills and
knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). Chapter
three reviews the quantitative research design, sampling survey recruitment criteria, and
rationale, and addresses the survey instrumentation processes, data collection, and data analysis.
The section includes an overview of the study’s reliability and validity as well as limitations,
delimitations, and ethical considerations. Guiding this study’s design are the following research
questions:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs that influence the principal’s ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
2. What are the motivation assets and needs that influence the principal’s ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
3. What are the organization’s assets and needs that influence the principal’s ability to
achieve their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
Participating Stakeholder
The participating stakeholder of focus for this study are the Washington State principals
in K-12 schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The 848 schools identified
50
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support have been identified under the ESSA Consolidated
Plan.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
For this study, the criterion used for the participants chosen included principals working
in the 848 K-12 Washington State schools identified for Targeted and Comprehensive Support.
The rationale for this decision was based on the need to identify the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational gaps for principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support to effectively implement teacher retention strategies resulting in increased teacher
retention. The survey was confidential (a survey link was emailed to participants).
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The survey was administered in collaboration with the Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction’s Office (OSPI) of School and Student Improvement (OSSI), and with The
Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP). OSSI provides supports to schools and
districts that have been identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. OSSI works
collaboratively with researchers and state school districts to create coordinated, regionalized, and
responsive support and improvement. AWSP exists to support principals and the principalship in
the education of all students and has been a leading voice in education for decades, representing
principals. As such, AWSP supports its members by advocating for them, providing professional
development and leadership programs, and communicating information to keep every principal
informed, engaged, and connected (AWSP, 2019). AWSP also supports principals, assistant
principals, and principal interns across the state through mentoring, professional learning, legal
guidance, and more. Utilizing OSSI and AWSP to help disseminate the survey helped guarantee
51
a sufficient response rate since the agencies are tasked with governing K-12 education and
principal support.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
For this study, the quantitative online survey Qualtrics® was used to collect the data.
The benefit of using Qualtrics® is that it has been shown to accelerate and improve the survey
research process (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The main advantage of using an online
quantitative study is the findings can be extended to a larger target population group. Also,
according to Creswell & Creswell (2017), quantitative research methods focus on carefully
measuring a set of specific variables designed to answer research questions.
Quantitative methods infer evidence of the hypothesis through the measurement of
variables that result in numeric outcomes (Field, 2013). Due to the large number of participants
in this study, a quantitative data collection was the most efficient and appropriate instrumentation
method. The population group for this study (K-12 principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support) was determined by the Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction’s Office of Student and School Improvement (OSSI). OSSI is responsible for
identifying Comprehensive and Targeted Support Schools. The quantitative research design for
this study, measured survey item responses that align with the conceptual framework and
research questions (see Appendix A).
Surveys
An online survey is the instrument of choice for this research project. The internet has
revolutionized how surveys can be administered (Schonlau et al., 2002). Studies suggest the
strengths of using an online survey are that a large geographic area can be reached, a large group
can be surveyed, and a large database of respondents can participate (Schonlau et al., 2002).
52
Online surveys also result in a reduction of barriers for participants such as time and space and
provide respondents the luxury of taking the survey wherever they are, and at whatever time is
most convenient for them (Crawford, McCabe, & Pope, 2005).
The purpose of using a survey is to provide answers to research questions regarding
variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A survey provides a confidential collection of statistical
data. For this research project, the 848 Washington State principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support were invited to participate in a survey containing response
items designed to assess principal’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational support needs
and assets regarding the implementation of teacher retention strategies. Survey-based responses
asked, for example, if principals know effective teacher retention strategies, are confident in their
abilities to effectively implement teacher retention strategies, and have the support needed from
the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to promote a culture that increases teacher
retention (knowledge, motivation, and organizational survey items were included to ensure all
constructs of the conceptual framework were addressed). The survey consisted of 40 questions,
with each item measuring only one factor seeking to be captured.
Survey items are designed to reduce cognitive load. Reducing cognitive load is a critical
component to reducing comprehension challenges and response errors (Lenzner, Kaczmirek, &
Lenzner, 2010). Also, respondents tend to be most willing to answer well-designed questions
that provide appropriate response options (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). As such, the response
items are in alignment with the item stem. Many respondents prefer to answer closed-ended
questions that make it easy to locate a response option (Robinson, & Leonard, 2018). Therefore,
the survey utilized a Likert-scale instrumentation design to assess principal knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support on a rating scale of 1 to 6 where 1 is “Strongly Disagree”
53
and 6 is “Strongly Agree.” A variety of survey responses should be incorporated for data
collection (Fink, 2013). Therefore, as well as ordinal survey items, demographic survey items,
nominal, ratio, and interval data items were also included.
Survey Procedures
The survey was administered in collaboration with the Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI), the Office of School and Student Improvement (OSSI), and The Association
of Washington School Principals (AWSP). It is critical that researchers comprehend the
willingness and ability of respondents to participate in the study before survey design and
implementation (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). According to Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansick
(2004), participants must be willing to accurately respond to survey questions. To encourage
participation and monitor the response rates, surveys were sent out using a four-phase process.
The first notification was sent out in the OSSI newsletter to all K-12 principals informing them
of the study and that principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
would be receiving the Qualtrics® online survey in 3-5 days (see Appendix B). The second
notification was emailed to all K-12 principals in Schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Schools 5 days after the newsletter and included a link to the online Qualtrics® survey.
The third email notification went out to all survey non-respondents seven days after the first
survey invitation and included the survey link. The fourth email notification with the third
survey invitation went out to all non-respondents seven days later. In total, the entire process
took four weeks. The rationale for this process aligns with Creswell & Creswell (2017), who
recommends a four-week process for survey completion (see Appendix C).

54
Data Analysis
The first step in analyzing data is making it more understandable (Alkin, 2017). As such,
to show how the responses are distributed accurately, six-point Likert scale survey items were
used to provide a numerical representation of survey results used for analysis. The simplest way
for using indexes to describe the data is to measure central tendency; mean, median, and mode
(Salkind, 2016). The central tendency was one measure used to organize the data. Other
measures varied based on the scale of measurement. Nominal demographic data measured the
frequency, percentage, and mode. Interval data collected measured the percentage, frequency,
mode, median, mean, and range. Ordinal data was also collected to measure percentage,
frequency, mode, and median. Lastly, the Chi-Square test of independence was used to
determine if there was a significant relationship between novice princpals (principals with 1-3
years experience) as compared to more experienced princpals (4 or more years of experience).
Chi-Squared tests of independence are recommended when using Likert surveys for data
collection.
Moreover, to determine if an influence was an asset or need, a statistically common and
valid threshold of 51% was used. As such, any identified gaps, 51%, or more, as determined by
principals’ responses, were considered an asset. Identified gaps of 50% or below, as determined
by principals’ responses, were considered a need.
Dirty data can significantly influence findings. Data cleaning involves editing the data
set to prepare it for analysis and includes deleting data that is incomplete (Vogt & Johnson,
2015). Data collecting must use “clean data,” which ensures that data collected can be used by
other researchers and result in the same findings (Fink, 2013). Therefore, all data survey
responses were double-checked for validity and missing data. Any surveys with missing data
55
were not included in the analysis. Although there were 261 (30.7%) of the 848 K-12
Washington State principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support who
started the survey, 192 principals (22.6%) completed each survey item. Therefore, all
incomplete surveys were removed.
The primary tool for quantitative data analysis for this research was Qualtrics®.
Qualtrics® helps eliminate data errors by analyzing and computing the data. Qualtrics®
includes descriptive statistical tools to analyze survey response items. Descriptive statistics are
used for a collection of data to organize and describe its characteristics (Salkind, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
Establishing validity and reliability for quantitative components are crucial in survey
instrumentation. If the instruments used for data collection are invalid or unreliable, the survey
results will be inconclusive (Salkind, 2016). Reliability refers to the extent to which a
researcher’s results can be consistently replicated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Implementing the
same instrument tools, the researcher should get the same results every time (Salkind, 2016).
Validity refers to the credibility of the researcher’s conclusions (Maxwell, 2012). To be valid,
survey instruments must measure what they are supposed to measure (Salkind, 2016). To
strengthen the validity of a study, three forms of validity should be examined: content,
predictive, and construct (Creswell, & Creswell, 2017). As such, all survey items related to the
conceptual framework and research questions regarding knowledge, motivation, and
organizational constructs needed for principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support to effectively implement teacher retention strategies to increase teacher
retention. The results provide suggested construct validity by ensuring the outcomes focus on
and provide positive, purposeful, and useful information to improve principal leadership and
56
increase teacher retention in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. To
increase the validity and reliability of the measurement tool for this study, questions were
systematically developed to measure knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports needed
for principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support to increase teacher
retention.
Similarly, to increase content validity, survey items underwent a rigorous clarification
process where they were piloted with the Association of Washington State Principals (AWSP)
Executive Board. The AWSP executive board is comprised of statewide educational leaders who
have been principals in districts across the state and represent a sampling of the principals in this
study (The executive board was not included in this study). Piloting the survey provides the
opportunity to use the measurement instruments before conducting the survey and check for
relevance with experts in the field and assess the reliability (Atieno, 2009). Moreover, reviewing
draft survey items with content experts provides valuable feedback to ensure the construction of
valid survey items (Irwin & Stafford, 2016). Piloting the survey with the AWSP Executive
Board also provided instrumentation feedback to ensure questions minimized cognitive load,
survey items were clear, concise, and easy to understand. To increase confidence in the survey,
it was administered in collaboration with the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s
Office of School and Student Improvement (OSSI) and The Association of Washington School
Principals (AWSP). OSSI provides supports to schools and districts that have been identified for
Targeted and Comprehensive Support. OSSI works collaboratively with researchers and state
school districts to create coordinated support. AWSP exists to support principals across
Washington State.

57
Ethics
When involving human participants, it is essential that the study is conducted in a manner
that is trustworthy, credible, and ethical (Merriam, 2009). The reliability and validity of the
research are contingent upon the ethics of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To protect
the participants, they must understand their participation is voluntary, confidential, and they can
discontinue their involvement at any time (Glesne, 2011). As such, the AWSP newsletter
informing principals of the study, and each consecutive email inviting principals to participate in
the survey, included a statement informing principals that their participation was voluntary,
confidential, and they can discontinue their involvement at any time.
Also, with respect to the protection of human subjects, the study included approval from
USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The goal of the IRB is to protect human research
subjects (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The IRB ensures the participants are provided the
information needed to understand the conditions and inherent features of the study, as well as
what their involvement necessitates (Krueger & Casey, 2009).
As a program supervisor for the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(OSPI), the researcher has not worked in any capacity with OSSI or AWSP. Although the
researcher is a member of AWSP, it is solely to gather information regarding AWSP policies,
procedures, and guidelines as they relate to this research project. The researcher does not
currently, nor has ever been a school principal, and therefore does not utilize any of AWSP’s
services, hold any leadership roles, or have any interest or voice in the results of this project as it
relates to OSSI or AWSP. The researcher chose OSSI and AWSP to collaborate with since they
have the potential to work and communicate with all state principals, have access to state
principals and AWSP membership contact information, and provide neutral third parties to help
58
with the distribution of the study. Thus, the researcher does not have any power or the potential
to make OSSI or AWSP members feel coerced or pressured.
Although the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is the governing agency
over K-12 public education, the researcher’s department (student support-barriers to education)
has not, does not, and will not be working with OSSI or AWSP in any capacity. The Office of
System and School Improvement (OSSI) within OSPI is committed to closing the opportunity
gap by working collaboratively with educational partners (one of which is AWSP), researchers,
and districts to create coordinated, regionalized, and responsive support and improvement model
for Washington schools. OSSI provides leadership, technical assistance, and resources to
schools and districts.
There did not exist any potential confusion by members of OSSI or AWSP because the
researcher does not hold a dual role in either organization. As such, there was no pressure for
Washington State principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted support to
feel their decision to participate in the study had the potential to affect their job performance,
evaluation, or participation. When the researcher does not hold any position of power over
participants, principals will not feel they have to submit and participate (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Lastly, regarding conducting ethical research, deception is wrong, whether it be a form of
deliberate commission or omission (Glesne, 2011), and was not used at any time in this study to
mislead participants to gain data.
To address assumptions and biases in data collection, analysis, and reporting activities,
the researcher conducted an online structured quantitative Likert-Scale survey. Surveys allow
the researcher to consider potential issues such as choosing a secured and confidential data
59
collection method, sampling, as well as ethical and bias issues before conducting data collection
(Salmons, 2015).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Limitations of using online surveys are the inability to clarify or confirm information
collected. Surveys do not collect personal identifying information allowing for follow-up
questions. Online surveys also make it difficult to ensure that respondents are answering
accurately (Robinson & Leonard, 2018). As such, online surveys can create uncertainty
regarding the validity of the data and participants, and concerns regarding the implementation
and analysis of the data set (Wright, 2005). Lastly, survey response rates tend to be low (Fowler,
2009) with declining numbers in years. As such, the average online response rate is only 21%
(Sax, Gilmartin, & Bryant, 2003).
Delimitations
The delimitations of using an online survey include accessibility to participants in various
demographic locations, the ability to include difficult to reach participants, standardized and
controlled data collection, and protection from data being lost (Baron & Healey, 2002; Lefever,
Dal, & Matthiasdottir, 2007). According to Robinson and Leonard (2018), online surveys can
also be used to effectively collect an extensive set of specific information from a large sample
pool of the population being studied. As such, the researcher was able to invite all 848 K-12
Washington State principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support to
participate in the study within a short time frame for response collection.

60
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this research study was to evaluate the degree to which OSPI is meeting its
organizational performance goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their leadership qualities skills and
knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). This study
utilized The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework (2008) to identify the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influence gaps. The questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
2. What are the motivation assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
3. What are the organization’s assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to
achieve their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
Participating Stakeholders
All 848 principals in Washington State K-12 schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support were invited to participate in the study. 192 principals (22.6%) in K-12
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support completed every survey item. All
incomplete surveys were removed. As such, data analysis was only conducted on the 192
completed surveys. Regarding the descriptive analysis of the sample group as shown in Table 5:
seven years is the mean amount of years for being a principal, seven years is the median, and
61
four years is the mode. As shown in Table 6, 13.0% of principals work in Pre-K schools, 54.7%
in elementary schools, 37.0% in Middle Schools (Jr. High), and 24.0% in High Schools. As
shown in Table 8, 56.8% of the principals identify as women, 43.2% identify as male, and 0%
prefer not to answer. Regarding school student enrollment size, as shown in Table 7, 17.7% of
schools have less than 250 students enrolled, 39.6% have 251-500 students, 28.6% have 501-750
students, and 14.1% of schools have more than 750 students enrolled. Moreover, the 192
participating principals represent all nine of Washington State’s Educational Service Districts
(see Appendix D).
Table 5
How many years have you been a principal?
Years a
Principal
Percentage Responses
1 4.7% 9
2 7.3% 14
3 7.8% 15
4 10.9% 21
5 5.7% 11
6 7.3% 14
7 6.8% 13
8 5.2% 10
9 5.2% 10
10 6.3% 12
11 3.6% 7
12 4.7% 9
13 3.6% 7
14 4.2% 8
15 3.6% 7
62
16 2.6% 5
17 1.6% 3
18 1.0% 2
19 2.1% 4
20 1.6% 3
21 1.0% 2
23 0.52% 1
25+ 2.6% 5
Total 100.0% 192

Table 6
Select all the grade levels that you oversee in your role as principal.
Grade Levels Percentage Responses
Pre-K 13.0% 25
Elementary School 54.7% 105
Middle School/Jr. High 37.0% 71
High School 24.0% 46

Table 7
How many students are enrolled at your school?
Number of
Students
Percentage Responses
Less than 250 17.7% 34
251-500 39.6% 76
501-750 28.6% 55
More than 750 14.1% 27
Total 100% 192

63
Table 8
To which gender do you most identify?
Gender Percentage Responses
Female 56.8% 109
Male 43.2% 83
Prefer not to answer 0% 0
Total 100% 192

Determination of Assets and Needs
The data presented in this chapter help identify assets and needs between the
organization’s goal to increase teacher retention and principal’s perceptions and beliefs regarding
influences that create barriers to achieving the goal. Assets and needs were determined by gaps
in principals’ perceptions and beliefs regarding knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. To determine if an influence was an asset or need, a statistically common and valid
threshold of 51% was used. As such, principal majority responses 51% and above were used to
detect significant influence assets. Principal responses 50% or below, were determined to be
influence needs. A systematic analysis of the performance gaps was achieved using the Clark
and Estes Gap Analysis (2008).
The Gap Analysis was performed to evaluate the degree to which principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support believe they have the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences needed to increase teacher retention. All needs
represent areas requiring appropriate solutions. All identified need solutions and performance
improvement programs required to address the root cause of the performance problems will be
presented in Chapter 5. The sources of data for this study included survey response items
64
reported from the Washington State 192 K-12 principals in schools identified for Comprehensive
and Targeted Support. Data sources were triangulated for this study through principal survey
responses to ensure the responses match with previous data and current literature.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The findings for knowledge causes seem to corroborate teacher concerns regarding
principal leadership, and further analysis may confirm this. Likert-scale survey items were used
to assess the assumed knowledge influences affecting principals' ability to increase teacher
retention in Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. Factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive influences were evaluated, and needs and assets identified.
Figures 3 through 6 illustrate the findings for factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge influences.
Factual Knowledge
Influence 1. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
know the most effective strategies for retaining teachers in their school.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 2, survey item 15 shows that 73% of principals agree to
strongly agree that they know effective strategies for supporting teachers in their school.
Figure 2. Distribution of Likert scale responses to factual knowledge survey question 15
regarding principals need to know the most effective strategies for retaining teachers.

Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 1. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
know how their role contributes to increasing teacher retention.
1.0%
2.6%
2.1%
21.4% 51.6% 21.4%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q15. I know effective strategies
for supporting teachers in my
school.
65
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 3 survey item 11, 50% of principals agree to strongly
agree that they know how their role as a principal relates to the organization’s goal to increase
teacher retention
Figure 3. Distribution of Likert scale responses to factual knowledge survey question 11
regarding principals need to know how their role contributes to increasing teacher retention.

Procedural Knowledge

Influence 1. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
know how to effectively implement teacher retention strategies.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 4 survey item 24, 65.7% of principals agree to strongly
agree they have conversations with their teachers about the goals of the school that result in
teachers owning and seeking to achieve them. As shown in survey item 17, 3.6 % of principals
never have conversations with their teachers about the goals of the school, 10.9% have
conversations twice a year, 28.6% quarterly, 40.6% monthly, and 16.1% weekly.
As shown in Figure 4 survey item 27, 68.8% of principals agree to strongly agree they are
personally involved in providing all their teachers shared and distributed leadership
opportunities. The findings in survey item 40 seem to confirm this as 66.1% of principals report
providing monthly or weekly distributed leadership opportunities.
Regarding enforcing school rules, as shown in Figure 4, survey item 25, 77.5% of
principles agree to strongly agree they always enforce school rules. Also, as shown in survey
item 29, 60.7% of principals agree to strongly agree that they can always find a way to enforce
school rules and back their teachers.
2.1%
9.4% 12.5% 26.0% 30.7% 19.3%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q11. I know how my role as
a principal relates to the
organization's goal to
increase teacher retention.
66
Regarding principals acknowledging all their teachers’ accomplishments, as shown in
Figure 4 survey item 39, 56.6% of principals acknowledge all their teacher’s accomplishments
monthly, or weekly.
As shown in Figure 4 survey item 41, 29.2% of principals provide specific positive or
corrective feedback to every teacher at their school monthly, and 15.1% weekly. Also, as shown
in survey item 37, 28.9% of principals coach every teacher in their school and provide the
supports they need quarterly 28.9% monthly and 8.9% report weekly.
Lastly, as shown in Figure 4 survey item 23, 33.3% of principals agree or strongly agree
that all their teachers share their feelings, worries, and frustrations with them.

1.0%
2.6%
30.7% 49.0% 16.7%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q24. I have conversations
with my teachers about the
goals of the school, that result
in teachers owning and
seeking to achieve them.
3.6%
10.9% 28.6% 40.6% 16.1%
Never Once a Year Twice a Year Quarterly Monthly Weekly
Q17. I have conversations
with my teachers about the
goals of our school.
1.0%
3.6% 26.6% 50.0% 18.8%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q27. I am personally
involved in providing all my
teachers shared and
distributed leadership
opportunities.
2.6%
5.7% 8.3% 17.2% 43.2% 22.9%
Never Once a Year Twice a Year Quarterly Monthly Weekly
Q40. All teachers at my
school are provided shared
and distributed leadership
opportunities.
67

Figure 4. Distribution of Likert scale responses to procedural and conceptual knowledge survey
questions 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 regarding principals need to know how to
effectively implement teacher retention strategies.

Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 1. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
know how to evaluate when to use specific teacher retention strategies, why, and when to adjust.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 5 survey item 22, 66.2% of principals agree to strongly
agree they often reflect on their own emotions, beliefs, strengths, and needs related to increasing
teacher retention. Also, as shown in survey item 36, 84.4 % of principals report that their
1.0%
0.5%
3.1%
2.6%
5.2%
3.7%
29.8%
15.7%
47.1%
62.3%
13.6%
15.2%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q29. I can always find a way
to enforce school rules and
back my teachers.
Q25. I always enforce
school rules.
2.1%
1.0%
0.5%
4.2%
3.1%
7.3%
22.1%
20.3%
13.1%
33.7%
31.3%
22.5%
28.9%
29.2%
34.6%
8.9%
15.1%
22.0%
Never Once a Year Twice a Year Quarterly Monthly Weekly
Q37. I coach every teacher in
my school and provide the
supports they need.
Q41. I provide specific positive
or corrective feedback to every
teacher at my school.
Q39. I acknowledge all my
teacher’s accomplishments.
1.0%
7.3% 15.1%
43.2% 28.6% 4.7%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q23. All my teachers share
their feelings, worries, and
frustrations with me.
68
teachers participate in anonymous surveys about their effectiveness in creating a culture of trust
from once a year to weekly.

Figure 5. Distribution of Likert scale responses to metacognitive knowledge survey questions 22
and 36 regarding principals need to know how to evaluate when to use specific teacher retention
strategies, why, and when to adjust.

Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The findings for motivation causes seem to corroborate teacher concerns regarding
principal leadership, and further analysis may confirm this. Likert-scale survey items were used
to assess the assumed Motivation influences affecting the principal’s ability to increase teacher
retention in Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. Utility value,
Attributions, and Self-Efficacy influences were evaluated to identify needs and assets. Figures 7
through 9 illustrate the findings for each motivation influence.
Utility Value
Influence 1. Principals need to see the value in implementing teacher retention strategies
in Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 6 survey item 32, 91.7% of principals agree to strongly
agree they value increasing teacher retention. Also, as shown in survey item 21, 71.3% of
principals report they agree to strongly agree that they make a conscious effort to increase
teacher retention at their school. The findings are further supported, as shown in survey item 26,
1.0%
4.2%
6.3% 22.4% 44.3% 21.9%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q22. I often reflect on my
own emotions, beliefs,
strengths, and needs related to
increasing teacher retention.
15.6% 65.1% 15.1% 2.6%
1.6%
Never Once a Year Twice a Year Quarterly Monthly Weekly
Q36. My teachers participate
in anonymous surveys about
my effectiveness in creating a
culture of trust.
69
where 65.1% of principals agree to strongly agree that they make a conscious effort to
acknowledge every teacher’s accomplishments. Similarly, as shown in survey item 28, 68.8% of
principals agree to strongly agree they are personally involved in providing all their teachers
shared and distributed leadership.

Figure 6. Distribution of Likert scale responses to utility value survey items 21, 26, 28, and 32
regarding principals need to see the value in implementing teacher retention strategies.

Attributions
Influence 1. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support should
believe that teacher retention is directly influenced by the amount of active choice, persistence,
and mental effort they apply.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 7, 58.3% of principals agree to strongly agree that teacher
retention is influenced by the amount of effort they apply to retain teachers.
1.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.6%
1.6%
0.5%
3.6%
2.1%
4.2%
26.6%
31.3%
21.9%
7.3%
50.0%
52.1%
47.9%
46.4%
18.8%
13.0%
23.4%
45.3%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q32. I value increasing
teacher retention.
Q21. I make a conscience
effort to increase teacher
retention at my school.
Q26. I make a conscience
effort to acknowledge every
teacher’s accomplishments.
Q28. I am personally
involved in providing all my
teachers shared and
distributed leadership
opportunities.
70

Figure 7. Distribution of Likert scale responses to attribution survey question 33 regarding
principals’ need to believe teacher retention is directly influenced by the amount of active
choice, persistence, and mental effort they apply.

Self-Efficacy
Influence 1. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
believe they are capable of effectively implementing teacher retention strategies.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 8 survey item 34, only 4.7% of principals agree to strongly
agree that teacher retention is fixed and cannot be controlled with increased effort. Moreover, as
shown in survey item 16, 59.4% of principals agree to strongly agree that they are confident in
their current ability to increase teacher retention at their school. However, as shown in survey
item 31, only 33.3% of principals agree to strongly agree they are confident that they are
effectively implementing teacher retention strategies.
Moreover, regarding survey item 31, a statistically significant relationship was found
between novice principals (principals with 1-3 years experience) compared to experienced
principals (principals with 4 or more years of experience). 39.5% of novice principals responded
they somewhat disagree to strongly disagree they are confident they are effectively implementing
teacher retention strategies. Whereas only 18.1% of experienced principals reported they
somewhat disagree to strongly disagree, they are confident they are effectively implementing
teacher retention strategies χ2 (5) = 17.87, p = .00311 (see Appendix E).
2.6%
3.6%
35.4% 42.2% 16.1%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q33. Teacher retention is
influenced by the amount of
effort I apply to retain
teachers.
71

Figure 8. Distribution of Likert scale responses to attributions survey questions 16, 31, and 34
about principals’ belief that they are capable of effectively implementing teacher retention
strategies.

Results and Findings for Organizational Causes
The findings for organizational causes seem to corroborate teacher concerns regarding
principal leadership, and further analysis may confirm this. Likert-scale survey items were used
to assess the organizational influences affecting the principal’s assets and needs related to
increasing teacher retention in Schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The
organization’s cultural model and cultural setting influences were evaluated to identify needs and
assets. Figures 9 through 13 illustrate the findings for each organizational influence.
Cultural Models
Influence 1. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
have a general acceptance to change existing teacher retention practices.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 9 survey item 18, 16.7% of principals agree to strongly
agree their organization reviews teacher retention strategies to determine effectiveness.
Similarly, survey item 5 shows, 38.6% of principals agree to strongly agree their organization
3.1%
1.6%
37.5%
7.8%
3.1%
38.0%
11.5%
5.2%
19.8%
44.3%
30.7%
2.6%
28.1%
40.6%
2.1%
5.2%
18.8%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q34. Teacher retention is fixed
and cannot be controlled with
increased effort.
Q16. I am confident in my current
ability to increase teacher retention
at my school.
Q31. I am confident that I am
effectively implementing teacher
retention strategies.
72
has clearly identified recommended strategies and goals for increasing teacher retention.
Moreover, as survey item 8 shows, only 25.5% of principals agree to strongly agree that they are
satisfied with the training, resources, and support their organization provides them to help
increase teacher retention at their school.

Figure 9. Distribution of Likert scale responses to organizational cultural model survey
questions 5, 8, and 18 regarding principals need to have a general acceptance to change existing
teacher retention practices.

Influence 2. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
create a culture of trust between principals and teachers in order to increase teacher retention.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 10 survey item 12, 39.1% of principals agree to strongly
agree their organization supports them by providing training, resources, and support needed to
build a culture of trust with their teachers. Similarly, as shown in survey item 9, 37.5% of
principals agree to strongly agree their organization provides training, resources, and guidance to
them on how to support teachers.
8.3%
5.7%
15.2%
22.4%
17.2%
20.4%
17.7%
10.9%
25.1%
26.0%
27.6%
22.5%
21.9%
31.8%
14.1%
3.6%
6.8%
2.6%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q18. My organization reviews
teacher retention strategies to
determine effectiveness.
Q5. My organization has clearly
identified recommended
strategies and goals for
increasing teacher retention.
Q8. I am satisfied with the
training, resources, and support
my organization provides me to
help increase teacher retention
at my school.
73

Figure 10. Distribution of Likert scale responses to organization cultural model survey questions
9 and 12 regarding principals need to create a culture of trust.

Cultural Setting
Influence 1. The organization needs to provide clearly defined resources, guidance, and support,
devoted to increasing teacher retention in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support.
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 11 survey item 6, 33.4 % of principals agree to strongly
agree their organization supports them by providing the training, resources, and support needed
for increasing teacher retention. Also, regarding the implementation of teacher retention
strategies, as shown in survey item 13, 42.7% principals agree to strongly agree their
organization provides the training, resources, and support needed to be able to provide all their
teachers with shared and distributed leadership opportunities. Also, as shown in survey item 19,
32.3% of principals agree to strongly agree their organization provides the training, resources,
and support needed to create ongoing, two-way feedback loops with their teachers. Also, as
shown in survey item 20, 40.1% of principals agree to strongly agree their organization provides
the training, resources, and support needed to be able to confidently enforce school rules. As
shown in survey item 14, 54.1% of principals agree to strongly agree their organization provides
the training, resources, and support needed to share a clear vision and school goals with their
6.3%
5.2%
8.3%
12.0%
14.6%
15.1%
33.3%
28.6%
28.6%
29.7%
8.9%
9.4%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q12. My organization supports
me by providing the training,
resources, and support needed to
build a culture of trust with my
teachers.
Q9. My organization provides me
training, resources, and guidance
on how to support teachers.
74
teachers. Lastly, as shown in survey item 17, 19.2% of principals agree to strongly agree they
have enough time from administrative responsibilities to acknowledge every teacher’s
accomplishments.

Figure 11. Distribution of Likert scale responses to organization cultural setting survey
questions 6, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 regarding the organization needs to provide clearly defined
resources, guidance, and support, devoted to increasing teacher retention.

Influence 2. Principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need
enough time from administrative responsibilities in order to have time to learn and implement
teacher retention strategies.
12.5%
2.6%
8.3%
5.2%
3.6%
8.3%
18.8%
8.9%
7.3%
12.0%
14.1%
15.1%
19.8%
9.4%
9.9%
17.2%
8.3%
14.1%
29.7%
25.0%
34.4%
33.3%
31.3%
29.2%
16.1%
41.1%
32.3%
27.6%
33.3%
27.1%
3.1%
13.0%
7.8%
4.7%
9.4%
6.3%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q6. My organization provides
me training, resources, and
support needed to help
increase teacher retention.
Q13. My organization provides me
the training, resources, and support
needed to be able to provide all my
teachers with shared and distributed
leadership opportunities.
Q19. My organization provides me
the training, resources, and support
needed to create ongoing, two-way
feedback loops with my teachers.
Q20. My organization provides
me with the training, resources,
and support needed to be able to
confidently enforce rules.
Q14. My organization provides
me the training, resources, and
support needed to share a clear
vision and school goals with my
teachers.
Q17. I have enough time from
administrative responsibilities to
acknowledge every teacher’s
accomplishments.
75
Survey findings. As shown in Figure 12 survey item 7, 12.0% of principals agree to strongly
agree that they have enough time from administrative responsibilities to learn and apply
strategies linked to increased teacher retention. Moreover, as shown in survey item 10, 13.6% of
principals agree to strongly agree their organization provides them time to learn and practice
teacher retention strategies. Lastly, as shown in survey item 30, 16.6% of principals agree to
strongly agree they have enough time from administrative responsibilities to look out for the
personal welfare of every teacher at their school.

Figure 12. Distribution of Likert scale responses to organization cultural setting survey
questions 7, 10, and 30 regarding principals need enough time from administrative
responsibilities in order to have time to learn and implement teacher retention strategies.

13.5%
10.4%
13.5%
22.9%
22.9%
24.0%
17.7%
23.4%
16.7%
29.2%
29.7%
33.9%
15.6%
11.5%
9.9%
1.0%
2.1%
2.1%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Q7. I have enough time from
administrative responsibilities to
learn and apply strategies linked
to increased teacher retention.
Q10. My organization provides
me time to learn and practice
teacher retention strategies.
Q30. I have enough time from
administrative responsibilities to
look out for the personal welfare
of every teacher at my school.
76
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 9, 10, and 11 show the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences for this study
and their determination as an asset or need.
Table 9
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need
Factual: Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support know
the most effective strategies for retaining
teachers.
Asset
Conceptual: Principals in schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
know how their role contributes to increasing
teacher retention.
Need
Procedural: Principals in schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
know how to effectively implement teacher
retention strategies.
Need
Metacognitive: Principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support know how to evaluate when to use
specific teacher retention strategies; why, and
when to adjust.
Asset

77
Table 10
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need
Utility Value: Principals need to see the
value in implementing teacher retention
strategies in Schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support.
Asset
Attributions: Principals in Schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
should believe that teacher retention is
directly influenced by the amount of active
choice, persistence, and mental effort they
apply.
Asset
Self-Efficacy: Principals in Schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
need to believe they are capable of effectively
implementing teacher retention strategies.
Need

78

Table 11
Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organizational Influence Asset or Need
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
have a general acceptance to change existing
teacher retention practices (Grissom, 2011).
Need
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to
create a culture of trust between principals
and teachers in order to increase teacher
retention.
Need
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to provide clearly
defined resources, guidance, and support,
devoted to increasing teacher retention in
schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support.
Need
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need
enough time from administrative
responsibilities in order to have time to learn
and implement teacher retention strategies
(Shaw & Newton, 2014).
Need

Summary
This chapter presented the analysis of data findings from the survey, designed to answer the
study’s three research questions. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework,
this study sought to evaluate principals’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
affecting the organization’s ability to achieve its goal to increase teacher retention in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support.
79
Research question one evaluated the assumed knowledge influences to determine the
assets and needs influencing principals’ ability to increase teacher retention. Regarding
conceptual knowledge, as shown in Table 9, principals need to know how their role contributes
to increasing teacher retention. However, only 50% of principals responded they agree to
strongly agree that they know how their role as a principal relates to the organization’s goal to
increase teacher retention. As such, conceptual knowledge is a need.
Factual knowledge, as shown in Table 9, is determined to be an asset, with 73% of
principals responding that they agree to strongly agree that they know the most effective
strategies for retaining teachers. However, studies suggest that leaders may be subject to
overrating their own knowledge. Power leads to overconfidence in the accuracy of a leader’s
knowledge and leads to underperformance (Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012).
The findings of this study suggest this. For example, regarding procedural knowledge,
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support need to know how to
effectively implement teacher retention strategies. However, as shown in Figure 4, principals
lack procedural knowledge for three of the seven teacher retention strategies. First, only 44.3%
of principals responded that they provide specific positive or corrective feedback to their
teachers monthly or weekly. Current research suggests leaders should provide meaningful
feedback at least once a week (Clifton & Harter, 2019). Also, only 16.1% of principals report
they provide weekly feedback to teachers. Research also suggests teachers need meaningful
feedback based on an understanding of their strengths. Without ongoing effective feedback
between the principal and teacher, the real success of goals and performance metrics is left to
chance (Clifton & Harter, 2019). Secondly, only 37.8% of principals report they coach every
teacher in their school and provide the supports they need. Thirdly, only 33.3% of principals
80
responded that all their teachers share their feelings, worries, and frustrations with them (the
principal creates a culture of trust). As such, procedural knowledge is a need.
Lastly, regarding metacognitive knowledge, as shown in Table 9, principals need the
knowledge to know how to evaluate when to use specific teacher retention strategies, why, and
when to adjust. The findings show 66.2% of principals report they agree to strongly agree that
they often reflect on their own emotions, beliefs, strengths, and needs related to increasing
teacher retention. As such, metacognitive knowledge is an asset.
Research question two evaluated the assumed motivation assets and needs as determined
by data that influence principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
ability to increase teacher retention. As shown in Table 10, motivational influences utility value,
and attributions are determined to be an asset. This is supported by 91.7% of principals
responding they agree to strongly agree that they value increasing teacher retention, and 71.3%
of principals responding they agree to strongly agree that they make a conscious effort to
increase teacher retention at their school. Similarly, regarding attributions, 58.3% of principals
agree to strongly agree teacher retention is influenced by the amount of active choice,
persistence, and mental effort they apply. However, regarding self-efficacy, only 33.3% of
principals agree to strongly agree they are confident that they are effectively implementing
teacher retention strategies. Moreover, a statistically significant relationship was found between
novice and experienced principals. 39.5% of novice principals (1-3 years experience) responded
they somewhat disagree to strongly disagree that they are confident they are effectively
implementing teacher retention strategies compared to 18.1% of experienced principals. As
such, motivational self-efficacy assumed influence is a performance need.
81
Research question three evaluated the assumed organizational assets or needs as
determined by data that influence principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support ability to increase teacher retention. As shown in Table 11, organizational
influences are determined to be performance needs. All effective performance improvement is
dependent on taking into consideration organizational cultural models and cultural settings
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Research suggests that an organization’s culture has a direct and
measurable impact on performance (Clifton & Harter, 2019). A noteworthy finding is a strong
relationship between the organization’s cultural model influences and the organization’s cultural
model needs. For example, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support need to have a general acceptance to change existing teacher retention practices.
However, only 16.7% of principals agree to strongly agree that their organization reviews
teacher retention strategies to determine effectiveness. Principals also need to create a culture of
trust between principals and teachers in order to increase teacher retention. However, only
39.1% of principals agree to strongly agree their organization supports them by providing
training, resources, and support needed to build a culture of trust with their teachers.
Moreover, there is a strong relationship between the organization’s cultural setting
influences and the organization’s cultural setting needs. For example, the organization needs to
provide clearly defined resources, guidance, and support, devoted to increasing teacher retention.
However, only 33.4 % of principals agree to strongly agree their organization supports them by
providing the training, resources, and support needed for increasing teacher retention. Lastly,
principals need enough time from administrative responsibilities in order to have time to learn
and implement teacher retention strategies. However, only 12.0% of principals agree to strongly
agree that they have enough time from administrative responsibilities to learn and implement
82
teacher retention strategies. Lastly, only 16.6 principals agree to strongly agree they have
enough time from administrative responsibilities to look out for the personal welfare of every
teacher at their school. The findings of this study show the organization needs a cultural model
and cultural setting that leads to increased teacher retention. According to Clifton & Harter
(2019), an organization’s culture has a direct and measurable impact on performance outcomes.
This study suggests the same findings. As such, the organization's cultural model and cultural
setting assumed influences are both performance needs.
In summation, the identified influence gaps of this study represent conceptual knowledge,
procedural knowledge, motivation self-efficacy, and organizational cultural model and cultural
setting needs, that if addressed, may help the organization achieve its goal to increase teacher
retention.
Chapter 5 includes a discussion of proposed solutions and recommended performance
improvements for each knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence need based on
empirical evidence. Chapter 5 will further discuss the implications of these findings, limitations
of the research, and recommendations for future research.

83
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 4 presented the reports and findings from data collected through a survey to
answer the study’s research questions by identifying knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting the organization’s performance goal to increase teacher retention in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences determined to be performance needs are addressed in Chapter 5.
Chapter 5 identifies recommendations based on current knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources needed to improve the organization’s ability to increase teacher
retention in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The recommendations
presented in this chapter are based on influences evaluated during data collection and statistical
data analysis. Similarly, the recommendations are organized by the categories of influence
performance needs, i.e., Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization. Integrated implementation
and evaluation recommendations are also presented using the New World Kirkpatrick Model
framework (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The recommendations, implementation, and
evaluation plans are interlinked and designed to work together to reduce or eliminate knowledge,
motivation, and organizational performance gaps. Finally, this chapter discusses the limitations
of the study and recommendations for future research.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is the primary agency charged
with overseeing K-12 public education in Washington State. The mission of OSPI is to
transform K-12 education into a system that is centered on closing opportunity gaps and is
characterized by high expectations for all students and educators. OSPI works with the state’s
295 school districts comprised of 2,300 schools (848 are identified for Comprehensive or
84
Targeted Support) to administer basic education programs and implement education reform on
behalf of the 1,127,493 students enrolled. Washington State has 65,310 classroom teachers.
27.3% of Washington State teachers are “Inexperienced Status” with fewer than or equal to five
years of teaching experience (OSPI Report Card, 2018).
OSPI created a Consolidated Plan for the implementation of The Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA), which became fully operational in the 2017-18 school year. ESSA replaced No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and allows Washington State to determine what measures will be
taken to improve schools. Washington State’s ESSA Consolidated Plan focuses on
accountability, emphasizing student populations that have been historically underserved. The
Consolidated Plan addresses opportunity gaps in the current education system and works to
promote equitable access and opportunity for all Washington State students (ESSA Consolidated
Plan, 2018). OSPI has implemented the law and under ESSA identified schools that qualify for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support. The new ESSA accountability model measures are
included to help differentiate between schools, allowing for more transparency and inclusion.
Washington School Improvement Framework (WSIF) subgroups and historically marginalized
student populations in low-performing schools in need of additional support are now identified
Organizational Performance Goal
OSPI’s Organizational Performance Goal was established under the Consolidated ESSA
Implementation Plan approved by the Department of Education Jan. 16, 2018. The state-level
strategy includes developing, improving, and implementing mechanisms to effectively recruit
and retain teachers by providing training and support for principals (ESSA Consolidated Plan
Title II, Part A). Under The ESSA Consolidated Plan, Comprehensive Schools have up to three
years to meet criteria. As such, the organizational performance goal is: By the 2020-21 school
85
year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their
leadership qualities skills and knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated
Plan Title II, Part A
OSPI is committed to providing supports to schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support to help them meet the state’s accountability criteria (OSPI, 2018). During the
three years, OSPI will monitor the impact of the school’s Comprehensive or Targeted Plan to
determine if the school is on a trajectory of success. If a Comprehensive School does not meet
criteria within three years, the district will be required to conduct a comprehensive analysis to
diagnose the reasons why (Targeted Support schools are not required to conduct a
comprehensive analysis). The analysis will examine previous school improvement efforts,
programs, initiatives, instructional practices, staffing, and systems development. This will also
include an assessment of the leadership capacity and competency at the school and district levels.
OSPI will then work with the district to provide focused on-site technical assistance and
professional principal learning opportunities (OSPI, 2018).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholders include The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI),
the governing body over all K-12 education in Washington State. OSPI works with principals
across the state to help administer basic education to more than one million students. The second
stakeholder are Washington State principals in K-12 schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support. OSPI works in collaboration with the state’s principals in schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support to achieve OSPI’s performance goal; by the 2020-21
school year, principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will
86
improve their leadership qualities skills and knowledge and increase teacher retention. (ESSA
Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A).
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
The goal of the organization is that by the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their leadership skills and
knowledge and increase teacher retention (see Table 1).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which OSPI is meeting its
organizational performance goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will improve their leadership qualities skills and
knowledge and increase teacher retention (ESSA Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). The
evaluation focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed influences related
to the organization’s goal to increase teacher retention. The analysis began by evaluating
Washington State principals in K-12 schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support
assets and needs in the area of knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports needed for
the implementation of strategies to increase teacher retention.
For this study, principal implementation of the seven identified teacher retention
strategies was systematically evaluated to focus on knowledge assets and needs: factual,
metacognitive, procedural, and conceptual. The study also evaluated motivation assets and
needs: self-efficacy, attributions, and utility value. Lastly, the study evaluated organizational
assets and needs: cultural setting, and cultural model as they relate to increasing teacher
retention.
87
As such, the questions that guided this study addressed the knowledge, motivation, and
organization assets and needs of Washington State principals in schools identified for Targeted
and Comprehensive Support are the following:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
2. What are the motivation assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to achieve
their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
3. What are the organization’s assets and needs that influence the principals’ ability to
achieve their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation #1: Knowledge
Regarding Research Question 1: What are the knowledge assets and needs that influence
the principals’ ability to achieve their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
The knowledge influences presented in Table 12 is a representation of the project’s
identified knowledge influences asset and needs. Based on theoretical principles, Table 12
represents the conceptual and procedural knowledge influences as needs based on the most
frequently considered knowledge influences for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. This has been
supported through survey items, the literature review, and Clark and Estes (2008), who states
that the acquisition of knowledge is necessary before attempting to apply it. As such, as
88
indicated in Table 12, conceptual and procedural knowledge influences are needs and have a
high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal.
Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Identified
Knowledge Influence
Priority

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Conceptual:
Principals need to
know how their role
contributes to
increasing teacher
retention.
Yes Conceptual knowledge is
increased through
experiences, hearing,
observing, etc. (Rueda,
2011).

Provide principals with
specific on the job skills,
techniques, strategies, and
methodologies (Clark et al.,
2008).

Procedural
Principals need to
know how to
effectively
implement teacher
retention strategies.
Yes Procedural knowledge is
increased when
employees engage
in training that provides
demonstrations, guided
practice, and feedback
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide training with sequence,
e.g., steps in the procedures and
rehearse information learned.
Provide opportunities for
learned knowledge to be
practiced until it is automated
(Rueda, 2011).

Conceptual knowledge solutions and description of needs. Regarding Research
Question 1, the findings of this study indicate that only 50% of Washington State principals in
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support have the conceptual knowledge
needed to know how their role as principal contributes to increasing teacher retention.
Conceptual knowledge is increased through experiences, hearing, observing, etc. (Rueda, 2011).
A recommendation grounded in information processing theory has been selected to close this
conceptual knowledge gap. Principals need to be provided specific on the job skills, techniques,
strategies, and methodologies (Clark et al., 2008).
Procedural knowledge solutions and description of needs. The results of this study
show procedural knowledge is a need. Principals lack the procedural knowledge needed to
effectively implement teacher retention strategies. A recommendation grounded in information
89
processing theory has been selected to close this procedural knowledge gap. As such,
principals need specific on the job skills, techniques, strategies, and methodologies (Clark et al.,
2008). Rueda (2011) found that cognitive psychology focuses on the internal mental processes
and structures that include intricate thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving, and
concentrates on cognitive processes during learning such as attention, perception, processing,
storage, and recall. This would suggest that providing principals with sequenced information in
a diagram with integrated print and providing procedural knowledge would support their
learning. Procedural knowledge includes strategic knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
When principals receive structured procedural training presented in the same sequence that will
be used on their job, their knowledge improves, and they are more successful in achieving goals
(Tobias & Fletcher, 2000). The first recommendation then is to provide principals printed and
visual information on each of the seven identified teacher retention strategies along with
meaningful learning experiences that relate new information to previous experiences. Moreover,
learners should have opportunities for distributed practice (learning strategy, where the practice
is broken down into several short sessions) and be encouraged to think about the “why” and
“when” new information can be applied (Rueda, 2011).
Principals admit they need to be better prepared for their jobs (Hess & Kelly,
2007). What is missing in our education system is reliable principal leadership preparation
development programs (Bottoms et al., 2003). Principals need opportunities working with actual
school leadership teams if they are to gain the needed experience to have the skills to investigate
gaps and be able to solve them (Bottoms et al., 2003). The evidence affirms the recommendation
to provide principals professional development in the form of printed material, procedural
training, meaningful learning, and distributed practice.
90
Recommendation #2: Motivation
Regarding Research Question 2: What are the motivation assets and needs that influence
the principals’ ability to achieve their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
The motivation influence in Table 13, represent the identified self-efficacy motivation
influence and need based on the most frequently mentioned motivation influences to achieving
the stakeholders’ goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in Washington State Schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention. Survey
response items are supported by the literature review and review of motivation theory. Clark and
Estes (2008) suggest that there are three indicators of motivation in task performance: mental
effort, choice, and persistence. Rueda suggests (2011) that mental effort is the work needed to
generate new learning and knowledge, choice (the act of deciding to choose one activity over
another), and persistence (the commitment to pursue an activity over time in the face of
distraction). As teacher retention is lowest in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support, the assumed influence, as supported by the findings, suggests principal self-efficacy is
lacking to effectively implement teacher retention strategies. As such, as indicated in Table 13,
self-efficacy is a need and has a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 13 also
shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.

91
Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Identified Motivation Influence

Priority

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy: Principals need
to believe they are capable of
effectively implementing
teacher retention strategies.

Yes Self-efficacy is
increased as
individuals succeed in
a task (Bandura,
1997).

Modeling and
feedback increase
self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006).

Provide aids that will
help learners achieve
their goals (Clark,
2005).

Provide focused
instruction to help
people develop
individual self-efficacy
to increase performance
(Pintrich, 2003).

Self-Efficacy solutions and description of needs. Regarding Research Question 2, the
findings indicate a gap in the principal’s self-efficacy needed to increase teacher retention, as
evidenced by only 33% of principals being confident that they are effectively implementing
teacher retention strategies needed to increase teacher retention. Moreover, 39.5% of novice
principals (3 years or less experience) are not confident they are effectively implementing
teacher retention strategies as compared to 18.1% of experienced teachers. As such,
motivational self-efficacy assumed influence is a performance need.
Recommendations rooted in behavioral and social cognitive theories have been selected
to close this motivational gap. Bandura (2000) suggests there are three approaches for
developing self-efficacy in leaders: guided mastery, cognitive mastery, and self-regulatory
practices. Moreover, Pajares (2006), found that providing feedback and modeling increases self-
efficacy. This would suggest that providing principals guided mastery, cognitive mastery, and
self-regulatory practices combined with a demonstration of how to implement teacher retention
strategies and then providing feedback on their performance would increase their self-efficacy.
92
Similarly, research shows that focusing on instruction helps individuals develop self-
efficacy and increase performance (Pintrich, 2003). This would suggest that providing focused
corrective feedback on a faulty strategy, highlighting past successes, and projecting genuine
expectations will increase self-efficacy (Clark & Estes, 2008). The recommendation is for the
organization to provide demonstrations with opportunities for practice and feedback on how to
effectively implement teacher retention strategies. This combination of modeling, practice, and
frequently targeted feedback within formal and informal organizational activities such as
training, principal district meetings, and state principal conferences may strengthen self-
efficacy.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that beliefs are nearly everything. Self-efficacy increases
as individuals succeed in a task (Bandura, 1997). Principals in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support need self-efficacy to have confidence in their ability to
increase teacher retention. Similarly, they need to believe they possess the ability to make a
positive contribution in the long run in the retention of teachers. A mastery training experience
that demonstrates a principal’s ability to effect personal change in the area of teacher retention
will produce transformational self-efficacy beliefs across various domains of responsibility
(Bandura, 2006). This suggests that when an individual has a positive belief regarding their
ability to accomplish something, they are more likely to pursue the goal and increase
performance.
Moreover, principals need to believe they possess the ability to make a positive
contribution in the long run in the retention of teachers. A mastery training experience that
demonstrates a principal’s ability to effect personal change in the area of teacher retention will
produce transformational self-efficacy beliefs across various domains of responsibility (Bandura,
93
2006). From a theoretical perspective, then, it would appear that increasing self-efficacy in
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase
performance and increase teacher retention.
Recommendation #3: Organization
Regarding Research Question 3: What are the organization’s assets and needs that influence
the principals’ ability to achieve their goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention?
The organization influences in Table 14 represent the complete list of identified organization
influences to achieving the stakeholder’s goal: By the 2020-21 school year, principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will increase teacher retention (ESSA
Consolidated Plan Title II, Part A). The organization influences are also supported by the
literature review, as well as the review of organization and culture theory. Clark and Estes
(2008) suggest that organization and stakeholder goals are often not achieved due to a lack of
resources. There are two constructs that make up the organizational culture: cultural models and
cultural settings.
Cultural models include aspects such as the beliefs and values shared by individuals in
groups (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). These shared mental schemas are expressed through
cultural practices and are usually invisible and go unnoticed by individuals within the group
(Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings are visible activities in which the performance occurs
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). They are where the organization’s policies and practices are
enacted and include the who, what, where, when, and why of an organization’s social context
(Rueda, 2011). For the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s structure to achieve
its mission and goals, both resources and processes and cultural models and cultural settings
94
must align. As such, as indicated in Table 14, the organizational influences have a high
probability of being validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal.
Table 14 also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.

95
Table 14
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Identified Organization
Influence
Priority

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization needs to have
a general acceptance to change
existing teacher retention
practices.
Yes Cultural Models
improve and produce
intended results when
leaders focus on the
climate of their
organizations
(Schneider, Brief, &
Guzzo, 1996).

Provide a model that
demonstrates a long-term
commitment to helping
principals in low-
performing schools foster
a general acceptance and
willingness to change the
existing culture of teacher
retention practices
(Grissom, 2011).

Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization needs to
create a culture of trust
between principals and
teachers in schools identified
for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support.
Yes Cultural Models
improve, and teacher
turnover decreases
when there is a culture
of trust between
principals and teachers
(Tickle, Chang, &
Kim, 2011).

Provide training that
focuses on ways to build
sustained trust between
principals and teachers
(Guzzo, 1996).
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to
provide clearly defined
resources, guidance, and
support, devoted to
increasing teacher retention.

Yes Cultural Settings
improve when the
organization’s cultural
setting better supports
principals and
recognizes the role
principals play in
teacher retention
(Wood, 2005).

Provide a compelling
goal, solid processes and
procedures resources, and
the provision of training
and support (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Provide Plan-do-study-act
(PDSA).

Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to
provide principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive
and Targeted Support enough
time from administrative
responsibilities to learn and
practice effective teacher
retention strategies.
Yes Cultural Settings
improve when
management is
continually renewing
an organization's
direction, structure, and
capabilities to meet
everchanging needs
(Moran & Brightman,
2000).

Provide principals enough
time from administrative
responsibilities to have
time to learn and
implement researched-
based teacher retention
strategies (Shaw &
Newton, 2014).

96
Cultural Model influence 1. Solutions and description of needs. In regard to
Research Question 3, findings indicate a gap in the organization’s cultural model needed to
increase teacher retention. This is evidenced by only 16.7% of principals agreeing that their
organization reviews teacher retention strategies to determine effectiveness. Missed
implementation of teacher retention strategies leads to increased teacher turnover (Deneen &
James, 2011). A recommendation rooted in cultural and social constructs that drive
stakeholder’s behavior in organizations has been selected to close this organizational
gap. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) indicate that organizational change can take hold and
create intended results when organizational leaders focus on the culture of the organization and
the intended change. As such, organizational change will occur when the people within change
(Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). This suggests, as Grissom (2011) recommends, that
providing a model that demonstrates a long-term commitment to helping principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support (low-performing schools) will help nurture a
general acceptance and willingness to change the existing culture of teacher retention practices.
The recommendation is for the organization to discontinue current teacher retention practices and
create a new model. Kezar (2001) states that disruption and growth both contribute to
organizational change and a new cultural model. As such, to solve the performance gap
effectively, the organization must discontinue current practices, and work to understand the
organizational cultural influences (Langley, Moen, Nolan, Nolan, Norman, & Provost, 2009).
The organization needs to create a culture that supports increasing teacher retention with policies
and practices that are aligned and communicated from the organization with stakeholders, and
organizational performance will increase (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of teacher retention
in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted support, OSPI’s cultural model has a
97
direct influence on principals effectively implementing teacher retention strategies.
Organizational climate can facilitate intended change and must be fostered (Schneider, Brief &
Guzzo, 1996). It is important that the organization realizes improvement is not a mechanical
process, and that people’s individual motivations concerning the change are taken into
consideration (Langley et al., 2009). To change the culture, the organization must focus directly
on supporting employees (Langley, Moen, Nolan, Nolan, Norman, & Provost, 2009). As such,
the findings support the organization’s needs to change existing teacher retention practices.
Cultural Model influence 2. Solutions and description of needs. In regard to
Research Question 3, findings indicate a gap in the organization’s cultural model needed to
increase teacher retention. This is evidenced by only 39.1% of principals agreeing that their
organization supports them by providing the training, resources, and support needed to build a
culture of trust with their teachers. Berbarry & Malinchak (2011) state that people do not leave
organizations; they leave people. Trust is a basic need for followers (Rath & Conchie, 2009).
Allensworth et al. (2009) found that the presence of a positive, trusting working relationship
between principals and teachers is the most influential organizational factor for why teachers
leave low-performing schools. The missing culture of trust between principals and teachers
leads to increased teacher turnover (Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011). A recommendation rooted in
cultural and social constructs that drive stakeholder’s behavior in organizations has been selected
to close this organizational gap. Schneider, Brief & Guzzo (1996) suggest that an organization
must create a culture for sustainable change to occur. To increase the likelihood that creating a
culture of trust will take root, the organization needs to provide training that focuses on ways to
build sustained trust between principals and teachers (Guzzo, 1996). This suggests that
principals need learning opportunities to understand how to create and embrace a culture of trust.
98
The recommendation is for the organization to develop learning, mentoring, and practice
opportunities for principals to ensure they have the resources needed to build trust with their
teachers.
According to Rath & Conchie (2009), the leader that supports an individual’s need for
trust has the greatest positive influence on them. To increase trust between principals and
teachers, the organization needs to renew the organization’s direction to instruct principals on
how to better serve the needs of teachers. Moran & Brightman (2000) state that organizational
leaders can drive behavior and align these behaviors with the desired change. As such, it appears
that the literature would support the necessity of creating trust between principals and teachers.
Cultural Setting Influence 1. Solutions and description of needs. Regarding
Research Question 3, findings indicate a gap in the organization’s cultural setting needed to
increase teacher retention. For example, only 33.4% of principals believe their organization
provides clearly defined resources, guidance, and support, devoted to increasing teacher
retention. Principals play a primary role in teacher retention (Deneen & James, 2011). As such,
the organization’s cultural setting must better support principals and recognize the role principals
play in teacher retention (Wood, 2005). A recommendation rooted in cultural and social
constructs has been selected to close this organizational gap. Clark and Estes (2008) state that
adequate policies, processes, and the availability of needed resources reduce barriers that impede
organizational change. This suggests the recommendation for successful change, incorporate as
Clarke & Estes (2008) suggest for organizational change, is the organization needs a compelling
goal, solid processes, and procedures to reach the goal, resources, and the provision of training
and support.
99
Miller & Lee (2014) suggest that performance and goal attainment increase when
mitigating barriers and obstacles are removed. Clark and Estes (2008) state that when work
processes are efficient and effective, resources and support are provided, organizational goals
can be achieved. In the case of principals, missing clearly defined goals, faulty processes, and
inadequate resources, and support has high implications for increased teacher turnover. This
mirrors the position of Hess & Kelly (2007), suggesting that principals admit they need to be
better prepared. Bottoms et al., (2003) also suggest that principals need opportunities working
with actual school leadership teams if they are to gain the needed experience to have the skills to
investigate gaps and be able to solve them. As such, it appears that the literature would support
the necessity for providing principals clearly defined resources, guidance, and support, for the
benefit of increasing teacher retention.
Cultural Setting Influence 2. Solutions and description of needs. In regard to
Research Question 3, findings indicate a significant gap in the organization’s cultural setting
needed to increase teacher retention. This is evidenced by only 12% of principals reporting they
have enough time away from administrative responsibilities to learn and practice teacher
retention strategies. The missed opportunity to learn and implement retention strategies leads to
continued high rates of teacher retention in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted
Support (Deneen & James, 2011). A recommendation rooted in cultural and social constructs
has been selected to close this large organizational gap (Langley et al., 2009). Amp & Provost
(2009) indicate that when considering organizational changes, it is important to consider changes
to how work and activities get done. Shaw & Newton (2014) have suggested that principals
need enough time from administrative responsibilities in order to have time to learn and
implement researched-based teacher retention strategies. The recommendation is for the
100
organization to provide principals additional time to learn teacher retention strategies outside of
their daily responsibilities. Clark & Estes (2008) recommend that individuals should have more
control over how they do their job. For example, principals can receive training, work with
mentors, and observe successful principals implementing retention strategies.
Buckingham & Coffman (1999) state that focusing on the people experiencing the change
rather than the change itself is the key to success and sustainability. In the case of teacher
retention, principals need time to learn and implement strategies. The organization needs to
foster an atmosphere that allows for individuals to be able to test and practice the new changes
while generating feedback regarding performance (Rath & Conchie, 2009). Higher teacher
retention rates result from principals implementing effective teacher retention strategies (Jacob,
Vidyarthi, & Carroll, 2012). As such, it appears the literature would support the necessity for
providing principals time away from administrative responsibilities to learn teacher retention
strategies to increase retention.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The integrated implementation and evaluation plan was developed using the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (2016). The identified gap influences in combination with the evidence-
based recommendations are presented within the constructs of this model. Prior to the
recommendations being implemented, it is vital to incorporate an evaluation of the
recommendation plan. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state there are three reasons to
implement an evaluation plan: (a) the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing
work behaviors, (b) the identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation,
and (c) the emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with
implementation strategies. The Kirkpatrick model suggests that evaluation plans begin with the
101
organization’s goals and work backward (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This reverse order
of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of four levels of training and
evaluation: (4) Results, (3) Behavior, (2) Learning, and (1) Reaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
Level 4 is the first step of the evaluation and indicates the degree to which the desired
outcomes occur as a result of the implemented recommendations, support, and evaluation. Level
3 describes the critical behaviors required to determine the degree to which desired outcomes are
being met, evaluated, and applied post-training. Level 2 assess principals’ learning by measuring
their knowledge, skills, attitudes, self-efficacy, and commitment necessary to implement the
changes. Level 1 evaluates the principals’ and teachers’ reactions to the desired behavior,
including the principals’ engagement and teachers’ satisfaction. Utilizing the New World
Kirkpatrick Model Framework for recommendation implementation and evaluation will allow
the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to measure the success of the desired
outcomes and provide ongoing support during implementation and evaluation phases. Designing
the implementation and evaluation plan this way, forces connections between the immediate
solutions and the larger goal, as well as soliciting proximal “buy-in” to ensure success
(Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016), suggest this necessitates knowing the organization is
evaluating level 4 results (the degree that outcomes are achieved), as well as the leading
indicators (measurements of success through monitoring observations and measurements to
ensure critical behaviors are on track). In order to measure the degree to which the targeted
outcomes are occurring as a result of the implementation, two types of leading indicators will be
used, internal and external. The internal outcomes will measure teacher retention in schools
102
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support, compliance with principals implementing
teacher retention strategies, and teacher satisfaction regarding the principal’s implementation of
retention strategies. The external indicators will measure principal participation and state-level
teacher retention in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support. Surveys,
structured interviews, and focus groups are also tools that can be used to monitor performance
and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 results refer to the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of training
and is the first step in evaluation (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). Leading indicators are
used to ensure the training is on track to create the desired outcomes and meet expectations.
Table 15 identifies the Level 4 Results and Leading Indicators in the form of internal and
external outcomes, metrics, and methods. There are two external outcomes and three internal
outcomes that will result from the proposed training, support, and recommendation plan. The
external outcomes are (a) increased teacher retention and (b) principal participation in
implementing teacher retention strategies. There are three internal outcomes (a) principal
compliance with implementing teacher retention strategies (b) increased teacher satisfaction with
principals implementing retention strategies, (c) increased teacher retention in schools identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support.

103
Table 15

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Organization increases teacher
retention in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support.
Washington
State Report Card 2021
OSPI state-mandated
reporting
100% Principal participation in the
implementation of teacher retention
strategies
Principal Perceptions Monthly District Reports
Internal Outcomes
100% principal compliance
implementing teacher retention
strategies
A checklist developed
by OSPI (OSSI),
AWSP, and WA State
Principals
A monthly report from
principals. Short Term
Observations (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016)
Increased teacher satisfaction with the
principal's implementation of retention
strategies
The number of teacher
complaints. Positive /
negative feedback from
supervisors.
Teacher Surveys (compare
annual survey results)
Monthly reports to the
district—feedback during
principal meetings.
Principals increase teacher retention in
schools identified for Comprehensive
and Targeted Support.
Teacher Turnover
District Data 2021
District Reporting to OSPI

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The New World Kirkpatrick model (2016), refer to critical
behaviors as the highest priority behaviors that stakeholders’ groups will have to (consistently)
perform to achieve targeted outcomes. Table 16 shows the key behaviors that principals will
have to demonstrate to achieve the outcomes they learned during training when they are back on
the job. The required drivers need to include a system of improvement through continuous
performance monitoring and reinforcement of critical behaviors. Identifying critical behaviors
will result in the achievement of Level 3 results. As such, Table 16 identifies the four critical
104
behaviors principals need to focus on: (a) conduct weekly meetings that include direct reports to
document project status and required actions, (b) participate in ongoing learning, (c) engage in
communities of practice, and (d) identify any shortcomings in the implementation of the seven
retention strategies.
Table 16

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Conduct weekly
meetings that
include direct
reports to document
project status and
required actions.
Checklist of seven
teacher retention
strategies
implementation,
challenges, and
successes
Principal checklist
submitted to direct report.
Weekly
2. Follow-up
principal
learning modules.
Self-Learning Self-monitoring Monthly
3. Communities of
Practice for
principals.
Action Learning Observation Quarterly
4. Identify any
errors in retention
strategies
implementation.
The number of major
corrections made by
Supervisor.

Supervisor will monitor
the application
looking for errors,
omissions, or feedback
from other reviewers
regarding retention
strategies implementation.
During the first
90 days after
training - after
that, monthly so
long as
previously
successful.

Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) refer to required drivers as the
processes and systems that monitor, reinforce, encourage, and reward behavior. Principals in
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support require the support of their direct
supervisors and the organization in order to reinforce what they have learned in training and to
encourage them to apply what they have learned accurately and timely. Drawing from the
105
knowledge, motivation, and organization recommendations, Table 17 identifies the influence
methods necessary to support critical behaviors of principals, the timing and frequency of the
method, and the critical behaviors that will be supported through reinforcing, encouraging, and
rewarding outcomes. Multiple required drivers will be utilized to support principals, including
job aids, ongoing check-ins, coaching by experts, and rewards in the form of district and state-
level recognition.
Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported

Reinforcing

Job Aid, including a work review checklist for
implementation of seven retention strategies
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
On the job training (OJT), including Executive Modeling Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Job Aids, including a glossary of teacher retention practices
and different types of activities
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
Team meetings to establish goals and time frames Monthly 3
Team meeting to troubleshoot collaboratively and for
additional training.
Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4
Technology-messages Weekly 1, 2,
Encouraging

Coaching: Feedback and coaching from Supervisor. Ongoing 2, 3, 4
Mentoring: Collaboration and peer modeling during
principal meetings.
Weekly 2, 3, 4
Rewarding

District and state-level recognition in meetings, conferences,
and on organization webpage when teacher retention
increases at building and district levels
Yearly 1

Monitoring. Four strategies can be used to ensure that the required drivers occur: a)
106
the supervisor can create opportunities at district and state-level meetings to share success
stories; b) two months after training, the supervisor can ask course participants to self-report
their confidence and self-efficacy in implementing teacher retention strategies, c) the supervisor
can assess the performance of the learner monthly, and d) frequent quick checks can help the
organization monitor progress and make adjustments if results do not match expectations at that
time.
Organizational support. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction can
help ensure the required drivers occur by implementing the following three strategies: (a) support
the principals’ critical behaviors by promoting a model that demonstrates a long-term
commitment to helping principals foster a general acceptance and willingness to change the
existing culture of teacher retention practices, (b) promote a culture of trust between principals
and teachers by providing training, mentoring, and practice opportunities for principals to learn
and implement the seven teacher retention strategies; support teachers, recognize teacher
accomplishments, share a clear vision, provide regular and useful feedback, enforce school rules,
build a culture of trust, and provide opportunities for shared leadership, and (c) provide each
principal with compelling goals, solid processes and procedures to reach the goals, resources,
and the provision of training and support.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) description of Level 2 Learning refers to the degree
to which the learners gain the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment
as determined by their training participation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s Model includes a
variety of activities into the training that test the learner’s knowledge. To evaluate skill requires
the learner to do or demonstrate something and should be performed in as real an environment as
107
possible. As such, assessing attitude requires evaluating if principals value implementing teacher
retention strategies on the job. Moreover, confidence, and commitment to perform new skills in
the workplace are built through high-quality instruction and training that provide multiple
opportunities to practice the skills, ask questions, and collaborate on expectations (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Learning goals. Principals must possess specific knowledge, skills, and motivation to
achieve the Level 3 critical behaviors listed in Table 17. Following the implementation of the
recommended solutions, principals will be able to:
1. Describe the seven strategies for retaining teachers (Factual Knowledge).
2. Classify and interpret the seven types of teacher retention strategies (Factual Knowledge).
3. Apply the seven teacher retention strategies (Procedural Knowledge).
4. Explain how increasing teacher retention increases student learning (Conceptual
Knowledge).
5. Explain the role of the principal in implementing the seven teacher retention strategies
(Procedural Knowledge).
6. Generate a plan to implement the seven teacher retention strategies (Procedural
Knowledge).
7. Value implementing the seven teacher retention strategies (Motivation Value).
8. Attribute their success and failure of teacher turnover to their own efforts (Motivation
Attributions).
9. Feel positive about implementing teacher retention strategies (Motivation Value).
10. Believe they can effectively implement teacher retention strategies (Motivation Self-
Efficacy).
108
11. Apply teacher retention strategies to detect errors in an application (Metacognitive
Knowledge).
12. Plan and monitor their work (Metacognitive Knowledge).
Program. The learning goals listed in the section above will be actualized with
participation in a training program for principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and
Targeted Support that explores an in-depth implementation of the seven teacher retention
strategies. The principals will study a broad range of topics pertaining to increasing teacher
retention. The program is blended, consisting of seven e-learning modules (one module for each
of the seven retention strategies), and one face-to-face modeling and application
workshop. Each e-learning module will be an hour-long, and the face-to-face workshop will be
three hours long. As such, the total program duration is 9 hours.
During the asynchronous e-learning modules, principals will be provided a job aid of key
terms and references to the text of best and leading practices and applications, as well as a chart
of different types of teacher retention strategies application processes. An additional job aid will
include a decision flow chart for retention strategies application and program review. The job
aids will be demonstrated on video using authentic retention strategies applications and
scenarios. Key terms will also be defined with examples and non-examples provided. The video
will pause periodically to allow learners to check their understanding. Following the
demonstrations, the principals will be provided an opportunity to practice using the job aids and
receive feedback from the learning management system (OSSI & AWSP), peer review, and the
instructor. The demonstrations, practice, and feedback approach will also be used to train
principals in strategic planning of implementing retention strategies for time management
purposes.
109
During the synchronous in-person workshop, the training focus will be on applying what
the principals have learned asynchronously to authentic applications in principal training groups,
role-playing, discussions, and peer modeling that includes teaching back to one
another. Trainers, supervisors, and lead instructors will also discuss the value and benefits of
effectively implementing teacher retention strategies. Similarly, principals will also model how
to strategically schedule their work calendars and use of time to ensure teacher retention
strategies are implemented within the school year.
Components of learning. According to the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016), there
are five elements of learning: (1) knowledge, (2) skills, (3) attitude, (4) confidence, and (5)
commitment. These elements are supported by the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
(2008). Demonstrating factual knowledge is often necessary as a precursor to applying the
knowledge needed to solve the problem of increasing teacher retention. As such, it is important
to evaluate principals’ learning for factual, metacognitive, conceptual, and procedural knowledge
being taught. It is also important that the principals have motivation as a driving force for them
to value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills in the
workplace. Principals must also have the confidence that they can be successful in applying their
knowledge and skills to increase teacher retention and be willing and committed to using them
on the job. As such, Table 18 also lists the evaluation methods and timing that will be utilized
for these components of learning.

110
Table 18
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Factual Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple-choice
responses.
In the asynchronous portions of the course
during and after video demonstrations.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair,
think, share” and other individual/group
activities.
Periodically during the in-person workshop
and documented via supervisor observation
feedback and reports.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the asynchronous portions of the
course using scenarios with multiple-choice
response items.
Periodically in the asynchronous portions
of the course at the end of each
module/lesson/unit.
Demonstration in groups
using job aids and feedback to successfully
perform teacher retention strategies and skills.
During the workshops
Individual application of the skills with
authentic teacher retention applications.
At the end of the workshop
Post-program assessment questions about
confidence and commitment
Post-program evaluation
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions of the value of implementing
teacher retention strategies on the job.
During the workshop
Reflective pre- and post-test assessment
response item.
After the course
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Multiple Choice Check for understanding Quiz Following each module/lesson/unit in the
asynchronous portions of the course.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshop
Create an individual action plan. During the workshop
Pre and post-training assessments After asynchronous and in-person training

111
Level 1: Reaction. Level 1 reaction evaluates the principals’ perceptions of the training. Level
1 is the simplest to evaluate and the most familiar level to learning professionals (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 1 also includes the degree to which the learners find the training to be
favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 19
identifies the methods and tools that will be used to measure principals’ reactions and their level
of engagement during training.
Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data analytics in the Learning Management System Ongoing during the asynchronous
portion of the course
Completion of online modules/lessons/units Ongoing during the asynchronous
portion of the course
Observation by instructor/facilitator During the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Relevance
Brief check-in with principles via online survey and
discussion (ongoing)
After every module/lesson/unit and
the workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Customer Satisfaction
Brief check-in with principles via online survey and
discussion (ongoing)
After every module/lesson/unit and
the workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) refer to the time immediately preceding program implementation as providing a higher
rate of evaluation forms. Delayed timing refers to waiting a few days, weeks, or months after
training, with the intent to gather more objective feedback. Thus, during the asynchronous
112
portion of the online course, learning analytics tools will be utilized in the learning management
system (LMS) to collect participant data regarding module start, duration, and completions. This
collected data will indicate participant engagement with the course material. The LMS will also
administer brief surveys after each learning module asking the learner to indicate the relevance
of the material to their job performance and their overall satisfaction with the content and
delivery of the online course.
For Level 1, During the in-person principals' workshop, the instructor will conduct
periodic check-ins with the learners, asking the participants about the relevance of the course
content to their work and the organization, delivery, and learning environment. Level 2 will
include checks for understanding among principals by using discussion groups in responding to
questions and scenarios drawn from the content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. An evaluation instrument
contains methods for gathering program data to ensure meaningful and useful analysis can be
performed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As such, approximately six weeks after the
implementation of the training on the seven teacher retention strategies, and then again at 15
weeks, school district superintendents will administer a survey. The survey will contain open
and Likert-scaled items using the Blended Evaluation approach to measure, from the principal’s
perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1). Principal’s knowledge, skills,
attributions, self-efficacy, and utility value, and commitment applying their training regarding
implementation of the seven teacher retention strategies (Level 2). Degree principals apply what
they learned during the training back on the job, and a review process with support from their
school district superintendent and peers (Level 3). Lastly, the teacher’s satisfaction regarding
113
their building principal’s ability to successfully implement the seven teacher retention strategies
(Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
Level 4 results are the reason the training happens (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). They are the degree to which the targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and
provided support (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As such, the Level 4 indicators will be
cohesive and will result in useful and meaningful data that will measure the extent to which
principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support achieve the objectives
and goals after training solutions are implemented. Using leading external indicators, teachers
working in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support will have the opportunity
to provide feedback responses to the critical behaviors (seven retention strategies) that principals
have performed. Approximately 90 days after the implementation of the training for principals,
and then again at the end of the school year, the school district superintendent will administer a
survey containing open questions and Likert-scale response items using a Blended Evaluation
approach to measure the teacher’s satisfaction regarding their building principal’s ability to
successfully implement the seven teacher retention strategies. This evaluation feedback will also
be used to create revisions to address any gaps for principal training the following year
Assessment Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of the recommended plan is to provide principals in a school identified
for Comprehensive and Targeted Support the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
supports needed to increase teacher retention. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state the
importance of evaluating if the program is meeting organization expectations by using data
during the training process to make ongoing adjustments as needed. As such, the program
114
evaluation must provide solid evidence for future decision making (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Four criteria should be considered for evaluation. First, is the data relevant, next is it
compelling, is it credible, and lastly, is it efficient. The evaluation must analyze the outcomes
directly related to the organization’s program goals. The findings should include clear
recommendations based on data and analysis (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
As shown in Figure 13, a fundamental concept of process improvement and evaluation is
the PDCA Cycle. The key concept for every program cycle is to first “Plan” what you are going
to do, then “Do” it. Next, “Check” the results. Lastly, based on the outcomes, “Act” on the
findings to adjust the plan for the next cycle (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The “Check”
step is critical, and also aligns with the New Kirkpatrick Model. The results must be assessed to
ensure the process is working and improving (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

Figure 13. Plan Do Study Act Cycle (PDSA)
115
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
All methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses. Using the Clark and
Estes (2008) framework for this study proved to be a strength. The framework allowed the
researcher to step beyond the common and outdated practice of viewing common management
practices such as paying and training employees and expecting them to perform effectively as
best practices. As stated by Clark and Estes (2008), it is highly important to gather input from
individuals to understand their perceptions regarding barriers that impede their ability to close a
gap and achieve a goal. The strength of the Clark and Estes Framework is that it provides a
framework where people are viewed as capital, and the investment in people brings positive and
profitable results for the organization. Thus, focusing on the principal’s knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences needs and assets concerning achieving the organization’s goal to
increase teacher retention, will result in improved principal’s skills and increased teacher
retention.
Moreover, the KMO framework provided the ability to study the performance of both the
individual (principal) and the organization (OSPI). Similarly, the benefit of using the Clark and
Estes Framework is that it provides statistical data that can be used to provide specific training
deliberately targeted at the root cause of each gap. Moreover, the framework provides a guide
for ongoing program assessment, monitoring, and progress for achieving the goal. Lastly, the
resources require time; financial, human, and social to use the framework to solve the
organization's problem are small compared to the benefits it produces, reliability, validity,
stakeholder participation, completeness, and achievement of the organization’s goal. The
disadvantage of using the KMO framework to understand the performance of individuals and
116
organizations is that our individual and collective understanding of science is imperfect. As
such, we do not completely understand performance research and development.
Limitations and Delimitations
Maxwell (2013) states that limitations provide transparency of the study, communicate
the study’s scope, and provide clarity of the study. One of the limitations of this online
quantitative study was the survey’s inability to clarify or confirm information collected. The
survey did not collect personal identifying information allowing for follow-up questions. Also,
online surveys make it difficult to ensure that respondents are answering accurately (Robinson &
Leonard, 2018). As such, the online survey creates uncertainty regarding the validity of the data
and participants (Wright, 2005). Moreover, since OSPI is the governing body over all K-12
education for Washington State, principals may have been apprehensive answering completely
honestly. An additional limitation was the lack of open-ended questions in the survey. Adding a
few open-ended questions would have allowed participants to share something unexpected,
resulting in more in-depth data. Thus, the survey only provides a picture of the data set.
Lastly, regarding principals’ ability to assess their leadership, studies suggest that there
are significant differences in leader’s self-awareness and their ability to accurately self-assess
their leadership performance. High performing leaders demonstrate more self-awareness and
more accurately assess their own behaviors (Church, 1997). As such, many principals in schools
identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support may not possess the knowledge and skills
needed to accurately self-identify their needs and assets (especially novice principals).
Delimitations are components of the study the researcher can control. The researcher
chose to study principal leadership and its influence on teacher retention in an attempt to provide
a deeper understanding of what principals need to successfully implement teacher retention
117
strategies in hopes of increasing teacher retention. According to Schumacher and McMillan
(1993), some studies that are sensitive in nature, should most likely not be done by an outside
investigator. The position of the researcher as an educator with almost two decades of teaching
experience and nearly a decade of that time spent teaching in a Comprehensive School has
provided a deep understanding of the needs of teachers in Comprehensive and Targeted Schools
in regard to principal leadership. The evidence-based recommendations of this study are
expected to improve principals’ skills and knowledge related to increasing teacher retention.
Moreover, utilizing a collaborative network of program implementation which includes
OSPI (state education governing agency), OSSI (state school improvement), AWSP (state
principals’ association), WSSDA (state school board directors’ association), WASA (state school
district superintendents’ association), along with local district school boards and superintendents,
will help ensure integrated program implementation and evaluation. Local school boards and
district superintendent support will be enhanced by the no-cost, data-driven principal leadership
training, resources, and program evaluation designed to increase teacher retention.
Future Research
This study evaluated the knowledge, motivation, and organization’s assets and needs that
influence the principal’s ability to increase teacher retention. The study found seven identified
influence needs: conceptual and procedural knowledge, motivation self-efficacy (statistically
significantly lower for novice principals), two organizational cultural models, and two
organizational cultural settings. These influences create barriers to the organization’s ability to
achieve its goal. Future research is warranted on this topic, as multiple knowledge and
motivation influences fell just below the 51% threshold. Follow up qualitative interviews-based
research may provide further insights.
118
Future studies are also recommended to investigate teacher turnover rates in the schools
of participating principals of this study. Does teacher retention increase in the schools of the
principals that participated in this study? This may suggest principals learn retention strategies
just from taking the survey. Research is also recommended to determine if principals that
participate in this study’s outlined training and evaluation program experience increased teacher
retention as a result of program implementation.
This study was confined to Washington State, which impacts the findings. Expanding
the scope of the research to include other states and educational agencies may further confirm the
validity of identified influences. Also, this study did not evaluate the teachers’ perceptions
regarding the principal-teacher relationship. Further research into the disconnects between
teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s leadership and principal’s perceptions of their
leadership may lead to increased teacher retention.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influences affecting the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction’s goal to increase teacher retention in schools identified for
Comprehensive and Targeted Support and to optimize the organization’s effectiveness in
achieving its mission. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences were studied and evaluated through a literature review
and survey. Based on the findings identified through data collection and analysis,
recommendations were proposed to close the knowledge, motivation, and organization influence
gaps. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model was used to create a training
program implementation and evaluation plan to help ensure expectations are successfully met.
119
This study shows that novice principals need more self-efficacy training, resources, and
supports than more experienced principals. Similarly, the findings suggest that providing
training for all K-12 principals in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted support
may be effective at increasing teacher retention. Furthermore, this study is a step in
understanding principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports needed to help
increase teacher retention. This study provides evidence that Washington State K-12 principals
in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support have barriers that influence
teacher retention decisions, and implementing retention strategies may increase teacher retention.
The implications of this case study can be used to inform the wider problem of practice
regarding teacher retention and can provide a model that can be used across the United States in
other statewide education organizations responsible for governing K-12 education to help
increase teacher retention. Moreover, the findings of this study can be used in principal
preparation programs in colleges and universities across the country, as well as principal
associations to facilitate principal education, training, and coaching that builds sustained success
for increasing teacher retention.

120
References
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176-192.
Alkin, M. C., & Vo, A. T. (2017). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. Guilford Publications.
Allen, R. (2000). When school leaders support new teachers, everybody wins.
Education Update, 42(5), 1-4
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave: teacher
mobility in Chicago public schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (1st
ed.). New York: Longman.
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. White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Archer, J. (2005). Study blasts leadership preparation: Teacher college head calls for new
degrees. Education Week, 24, 27.
Archer, J. (2005). Study blasts leadership preparation: Teachers college head calls for new
degrees. Education Week, 24, 27.
Association Washington School Principals (2019). http://www.awsp.org/inside-awsp
Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative
research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13(1), 13-38.
121
Balu, R., Béteille, T., & Loeb, S. (2009). Examining teacher turnover: The role of school
leadership. Politique américaine, (3), 55-79.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational
effectiveness. Handbook of principles of organization behavior, 2, 0011-21.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change
in the relationship between commitment and turnover: a latent growth modeling
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 468.
Berbary, D. F., & Malinchak, A. A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. Public Manager, 40(3), 55.
Berry, B. (2004). Recruiting and retaining "high quality teachers" for hard-to-staff schools.
NASSP Bulletin , 00(638), 5-28
Berry, B. (2005). Recruiting and retaining board-certified teachers for hard-to-staff schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, 87(4), 290-297.
Berry, B. (2008). Staffing high-needs schools: Insights from the nation's best teachers. Phi Delta
Kappan, 89(10), 766-771.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (2008). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do.
Corwin Press.
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational
administration quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.
122
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research. Review of educational research, 78(3), 367-409.
Bottoms, G., O'Neill, K., Fry, B., & Hill, D. (2003). Good Principals Are the Key to Successful
Schools: Six Strategies To Prepare More Good Principals.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-
achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. American economic
review, 95(2), 166-171.
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.
Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: the definitive guide to
questionnaire design--for market research, political polls, and social and health
questionnaires. John Wiley & Sons.
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2008). Principal turnover and
effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript.
Briggs, K., Cheney, G. R., Davis, J., & Moll, K. A. (2013). Operating in the Dark: What
Outdated State Policies and Data Gaps Mean for Effective School Leadership. George W.
Bush Institute, Education Reform Initiative.
Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher
retention. Politics & Policy, 36(5), 750-774.
Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2007). Teacher retention issues: How some principals are
supporting and keeping new teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 664-698.
123
Brown, K., & Wynn, S. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping: The role of the principal in
teacher retention issues. Leadership and Policy in schools, 8(1), 37-63.
Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. (2006). The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for
human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 86-94.
Buckner, K. (2009). School principal: The role of elementary and secondary school principals,
principal duties and responsibilities, principal qualifications. Education encyclopedia.
Buckner, K. G., & McDowelle, J. O. (2000). Developing teacher leaders: Providing
encouragement, opportunities, and support. NASSP bulletin, 84(616), 35-41.
Burkhauser, S. (2017). How much do school principals matter when it comes to teacher working
conditions?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 126-145.
Carlson, C. L. (2012). The profession that eats its young: The effect of principal leadership on
the survival rate of teachers. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 1(3), 48-53.
Carroll, T. G. (2007). Policy brief: The high cost of teacher turnover. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. https://nctaf.org/wp-
content/uploads/NCTAFCostofTeacherTurnoverpolicybrief.pdf
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what
we can do about it. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Chen, X., Knepper, P. R., Geis, S., & Henke, R. R. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline
1992-93 college graduates and elementary secondary school teaching as of 1997.
DIANE Publishing.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68.
124
Church, A. H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 281.
Churchill, G. A., & Doerge, R. W. (1994). Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait
mapping. Genetics, 138(3), 963-971.
Cimera, R. E., & Cowan, R. J. (2009). The costs of services and employment outcomes achieved
by adults with autism in the US. Autism, 13(3), 285-302.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clifton, J., & Harter, J. K. (2019). It's the Manager: Gallup Finds the Quality of Managers and
Team Leaders Is the Single Biggest Factor in Your Organization's Long-Term Success.
Gallup Press.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution
of novice teachers. Economics of Education review, 24(4), 377-392.
Covey, S. M. (2009). How the best leaders build trust. Leadership Now.
Crawford, S., McCabe, S. E., & Pope, D. (2005). Applying web-based survey design
standards. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 29(1-2), 43-66.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do.
Educational Leadership, 80(8), 6-13
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: a national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Education
125
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33) Retrieved December 5, 2008, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Deneen, J., & Catanese, C. (2011). Urban Schools: Crisis and Revolution. R&L Education.
Department of Developmental Services. (2008). Fact book. Retrieved from
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf
DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the
conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP bulletin, 87(634), 43-65.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related
choices. Handbook of competence and motivation, 105-121.
Elfers, A., Plecki, M., & Van Windekens, A. (2017). Examining Teacher Retention and Mobility
in Washington State. A report prepared for the Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, College of Education,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.
Engel, M., Jacob, B. A., & Curran, F. C. (2014). New evidence on teacher labor
supply. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 36-72.
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet research, 15(2), 195-
219.
Ewing, R., & Manuel, J. V. (2005). Retaining quality early career teachers in the profession: new
teacher narratives.[An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Australian
126
Teacher Education Association Conference, July 2004, Bathurst, NSW.]. Change
(Sydney, NSW), 8(1), 1.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and
principals talk about what's needed to fix public schools. Public Agenda, 6 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016.
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident
decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 117(2),
249-260.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational leadership, 60(8),
25-29.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. sage.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows
and whys of leadership, 21-47.
Fowler, F.J. (2009). Survey research methods. Survey Research Methods (4th ed.). SAGE
Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, . K. (2011). Collective trust. Why schools can’t improve.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 162-183.
127
Glesne, C. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2009). National board certification and teachers' career paths:
Does NBPTS certification influence how long teachers remain in the profession and
where they teach?. Education Finance and Policy, 4(3), 229-262.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job
satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
Grissom, J.A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? linking
principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff
environments. Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2552. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1032780408
Grissom, J. A., & Bartanen, B. (2019). Strategic retention: Principal effectiveness and teacher
turnover in multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems. American Educational
Research Journal, 56(2), 514-555.
Grissom, J. A., & Harrington, J. R. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: An examination
of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. American
Journal of Education, 116(4), 583-612.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In Second international handbook of educational
leadership and administration (pp. 653-696). Springer, Dordrecht.
Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A
review of the recent empirical literature. Review of educational research, 76(2), 173-208.
Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. education policy
analysis archives, 12, 42.
128
Hackman, M., & Morath, E. (2018, December). Teachers quit jobs at highest rate on record. The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/teachers-quit-jobs-at-
highest-rate-on-record-11545993052
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of vision,
mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In Second international
handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 9-40). Springer, Dordrecht.
Hamilton Jr., L. (2007). The relationship between perceived leadership styles of principals and
teacher satisfaction. University of Phoenix
Harris III, F., & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to
assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New directions for
student services, 2007(120), 77-84.
Harris, D. N., Rutledge, S., Ingle, W. K., & Thompson, C. (2006). When supply meets demand:
Principal preferences and teacher hiring. In annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Harris, D. N., Rutledge, S. A., Ingle, W. K., & Thompson, C. C. (2010). Mix and match: What
principals really look for when hiring teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 5(2), 228-
246.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers (Working
Paper. No. 8599). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal
of human resources, 39(2), 326-354.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The
Future of Children, 17(1), 69–86
129
Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G., & Schiman, J. C. (2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on
the quality of instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55, 132-148.
Haycock, K. (2000). Honor in the boxcar: Equalizing teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: The
Education Trust.
Herman, R., Gates, S. M., Arifkhanova, A., Bega, A., Chavez-Herreias, E. R., Han, E., ... &
Wrabel, S. L. (2017). School leadership interventions under the every student succeeds
act: Evidence review. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation
programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-274.
Hill, D. A., & Gillette, M. D. (2005). Teachers for tomorrow in urban schools: Recruiting and
supporting the pipeline. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(3), 42-50.
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school
effectiveness. American journal of education, 116(4), 491-523.
Hughes, A. L., Matt, J. J., & O'Reilly, F. L. (2015). Principal Support Is Imperative to the
Retention of Teachers in Hard-to-Staff Schools. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 3(1), 129-134.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2003) Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle University of Washington,
Center for the Study of Teaching and policy
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality?. Educational Horizons, 81(3),
146-152.
130
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Irwin, C. W., & Stafford, E. T. (2016). Survey Methods for Educators: Collaborative Survey
Development (Part 1 of 3). REL 2016-163. Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast
& Islands.
Jacob, A., Vidyarthi, E., & Carroll, K. (2012). The Irreplaceables: Understanding the Real
Retention Crisis in America's Urban Schools. TNTP.
Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why?: A
review of the literature on teacher retention. Project on the Next Generation of Teachers,
Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain
their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools:
The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their
students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39.
Kelly, S. (2004). An event history analysis of teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking, and
socially disadvantaged schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(3), 195-220.
Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of
leadership and school climate. EDUCATION-INDIANAPOLIS THEN CHULA VISTA-
, 126(1), 17.
Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century:
Recent Research and Conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume
28, Number 4 (Vol. 155). John Wiley & Sons.
131
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kopetz, P. B., Lease, A. J., & Warren-Kring, B. Z. (2006). Comprehensive urban education.
Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon
Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Shen-Wei Yee, D. (2016). School organizational contexts,
teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American
Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, J. (2009). Successful focus groups: practical guidelines for research.
Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of
planned and actual teacher movement?. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 33(2), 235-261.
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P.
(2009). The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational
performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.
Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthiasdottir, A. (2007). Online data collection in academic research:
advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574-582.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
132
Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influences student learning.
Lenzner, T., Kaczmirek, L., & Lenzner, A. (2010). Cognitive burden of survey questions and
response times: A psycholinguistic experiment. Applied cognitive psychology, 24(7),
1003-1020.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Teachers College, The Education
Schools Project
Locke, L., Spirduso, W., & Silverman, S. (2014). Proposals that work : a guide for planning
dissertations and grant proposals (6th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (Eds.). (2002). Emotions in the workplace:
Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (Vol. 7).
Pfeiffer.
Luczak, L. D. H., & Loeb, S. (2013). How Teaching Conditions Predict: Teacher Turnover in
California Schools. In Rendering School Resources More Effective (pp. 48-99).
Routledge.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Melvin, B. K. (2011). Teacher perceptions of administrative leadership practices and the impact
on retention. Fielding Graduate University.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley
& Sons.

133
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Designing your study and selecting a sample. Qualitative
research: A guide to design and implementation, 73-104.
McKinney, S. E., Berry, R. Q., Dickerson, D. L., & Campbell-Whately, G. (2007). Addressing
Urban High-Poverty School Teacher Attrition by Addressing Urban High Poverty School
Teacher Retention: Why Effective Teachers Perservere. Educational Research and
Reviews, 3(1).
Moore, S., & Kochan, F. (2013). Principals’ Perceptions of Professional Development in High-
and Low-Performing High-Poverty Schools. International Journal of Educational
Reform, 22(2), 167–181.
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Documentation for the 2003-04 Schools and
Staffing Survey. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from URL,
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007337.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Documentation for the 2011-12 Schools and
Staffing Survey. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from URL,
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass
Nicholson, B. L., & Leary, P. A. (2001). Appalachian Principals Assess the Efficiency and
Appropriateness of Their Training. Planning and changing, 32(n3&4), 199-213.
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction - Executive Services. Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction Mission Statement. Retrieved from URL,
http://www.k12.wa.us/AboutUs/default.aspx
134
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Every Student Succeeds Act Consolidated Plan.
2018 Retrieved from URL, www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/ESSA/ConsolidatedPlan.aspx
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (2016-2017). Washington State Report Card.
Retrieved from URL. Washingtonstatereportcard.dev.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction – Office of Student and School Improvement,
2018: Retrieved from URL,
http://www.k12.wa.us/OSSI/SchoolImprovement/default.aspx
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents, 5, 339-367.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks. Cal.: Sage
Publications.
Petty, T. M., Fitchett, P., & O'connor, K. (2012). Attracting and keeping teachers in high-need
schools. American Secondary Education, 67-88.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational
and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths based leadership.
135
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing Quality Survey Questions. SAGE
Publications.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120-130.
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Salant, P., Dillman, I., & Don, A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey (No. 300.723 S3.).
Salkind, N. J. (2016). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage Publications.
Salmons, J. E. (2015). Doing qualitative research online. Sage.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse
bias in web and paper surveys. Research in higher education, 44(4), 409-432.
136
Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D. L., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher
mobility. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145-159.
Scafidi, B., Stinebrickner, T., & Sjoquist, D. L. (2003). The relationship between school
characteristics and teacher mobility. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Scafidi, B., Stinebrickner, T., & Sjoquist, D. L. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility.
Economics of Education Review, 26, 145–159.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schonlau, M., Ronald Jr, D., & Elliott, M. N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mail
and the web. Rand Corporation
Schumacher, S., & McMillan, J. H. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction. New Yark, NY: HarperCollins College.
Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Organizational learning. CRC Press.
Wallace Foundation. (2009). Assessing the effectieveness of school leaders: New directions and
new processes. Retrieved from http://wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/Assessing-the-Effectiveness-of-School-Leaders.pdf
Simon, N. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we
know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1-36.
Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American educational research journal, 41(3), 681-714.
137
Stevenson, H. (2006). Moving towards, into and through principalship: Developing a framework
for researching the career trajectories of school leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration, 44(4), 408–420
Stockard, J., & Lehman, M. B. (2004). Influences on the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year
teachers: The importance of effective school management. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(5), 742-771.
Sylvester, C. (2017). Teachers’ Expectations of Educational Leaders’ Leadership Approach and
Perspectives on the Principalship: Identifying Critical Leadership Paradigms for the 21st
Century. Journal of Organizational & Educational Leadership, 2(2), 4.
Tickle, B. R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on
US public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 342-349.
Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (Eds.). (2000). Training & retraining: A handbook for business,
industry, government, and the military. Macmillan Library Reference.
Turnbull, B. J., Riley, D. L., Arcaira, E. R., Anderson, L. M., & MacFarlane, J. R. (2013). Six
districts begin the principal pipeline initiative.
Useem, E. & Neild, R.C. (2002). Teacher staffing in the school district of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia: Philadelphia Education Fund.
Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2015). Trust in school: a pathway to inhibit teacher
burnout?. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 93-115.
Vogt, W. P., & Johnson, R. B. (2015). The SAGE dictionary of statistics & methodology: A
nontechnical guide for the social sciences. Sage publications.
Waddell, J. H. (2010). Fostering relationships to increase teacher retention in urban
schools. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(1), 70-85.
138
Warren, M. (2005). Communities and Schools: A New View of Urban Education
Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.
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, 22-37.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. Handbook of competence and motivation, 73-84.
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators' roles in novice teacher
induction. American Secondary Education, 39-62.
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of
online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web
survey services. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 10(3), JCMC1034.
Zepeda, S., Parylo, O. & Bengtson, E., (2013). School Systems’ Practices of Controlling
Socialization during Principal Succession: Looking through the Lens of an
Organizational Socialization Theory. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 41(2), 143–164.

139
Appendix A
Table A1
Survey Items
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and response)
NA
Please select all grade levels that you oversee in your role as principal. (Pre-K,
Elementary School, Middle School/Jr. High, High School)
NA
How many students are enrolled at your school? (<250, 251-500, 501-750,
>750)
NA How many years have you been a principal?
NA
To which gender do you most identify? (Female, Male, Other, Prefer not to
answer)
O-CM
1 My organization has clearly identified recommended strategies and goals for
increasing teacher retention. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree,
somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CS
2 My organization provides me training, resources, and support needed to help
increase teacher retention. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree,
somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CS
3 I have enough time from administrative responsibilities to learn and apply
strategies linked to increased teacher retention. (strongly disagree, disagree,
somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CS
5 My organization provides me training, resources, and guidance on how to
support teachers. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat
agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CM
4 I am satisfied with the training, resources, and support my organization
provides me to help increase teacher retention at my school. (strongly disagree,
disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CS
6 My organization provides me time to learn and practice teacher retention
strategies. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree)
140
K-F
7 I know how my role as a principal relates to the organization’s goal to increase
teacher retention. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat
agree, agree, strongly agree)
K-MC
18 I often reflect on my own emotions, beliefs, strengths, and needs related to
increasing teacher retention. (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
K-MC
11 I know effective strategies for supporting teachers in my school. (strongly
disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
M-SE
12 I am confident in my current ability to increase teacher retention at my
school. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree,
strongly agree)
K-MC
31 My teachers participate in anonymous surveys about my effectiveness in
creating a culture of trust (Never, Yearly, Two times a year, Quarterly, Monthly,
Weekly)
M-UV
17 I make a conscience effort to increase teacher retention at my school.
(strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CM
8 My organization supports me by providing the training, resources, and support
needed to build a culture of trust with my teachers. (strongly disagree, disagree,
somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
M-S
32 I coach every teacher in my school and provide the supports they need.
(Never, Yearly, Two times a year, Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly).
O-CM
10 My organization provides me the training, resources, and support needed to
share a clear vision and school goals with my teachers. (strongly disagree,
disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CS
13 I have enough time from administrative responsibilities to acknowledge every
teacher’s accomplishments. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree,
somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CS
14 My organization reviews teacher retention strategies to determine
effectiveness. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree)
O-CM
16 My organization provides me with the training, resources, and support needed
to be able to confidently enforce rules. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat
disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
M-UV
19 All my teachers share their feelings, worries, and frustrations with me.
(strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree,
strongly agree)
141
M-SE
20 I have conversations with my teachers about the goals of the school, that
result in teachers owning and seeking to achieve them. (strongly disagree,
disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CM
9 My organization provides me the training, resources, and support needed to be
able to provide all my teachers with shared and distributed leadership
opportunities. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree)
K-P
21 I always enforce school rules. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat
disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
M-UV
22 I make a conscious effort to acknowledge every teacher’s accomplishments.
(strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree,
strongly agree)
O-CM
15 My organization provides me the training, resources, and support needed to
create ongoing, two-way feedback loops with my teachers. (strongly disagree,
disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
M-UV
23 I am personally involved in providing all my teachers shared and distributed
leadership opportunities (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree,
somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
M-SE
24 I can always find a way to enforce school rules and back my teachers.
(strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree,
strongly agree)
K-P
33 I have conversations with my teachers about the goals of our school (once a
year, twice a year, less than once a month, 2 or 3 times per month, 1-2 times per
week, almost daily).
K-P
34 I acknowledge all my teacher’s accomplishments (Yearly, Twice a year,
Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly, Almost daily).
K-P
35 All teachers at my school are provided shared and distributed leadership
opportunities (Yearly, Twice a year, Quarterly, once a month, Weekly, Almost
daily).
K-P
36 I provide specific positive or corrective feedback to every teacher at my
school. (Yearly, Twice a year, Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly, Daily).
M-SE
26 I am confident that I am effectively implementing teacher retention strategies.
(strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree,
strongly agree)
142

K-F = Knowledge-Factual
K-MC = Knowledge-Metacognitive
K-P = Knowledge-Procedural
K-C = Knowledge-Conceptual
M-UV = Motivation Utility Value
M-A = Motivation Attributions
M-SE = Motivation Self-Efficacy
O-CS = Organizational Cultural Settings
O-CM = Organizational Cultural Models

M-UV
27 I value increasing teacher retention. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat
disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
M-A
28 Teacher retention is influenced by the amount of effort I apply to retain
teachers. (strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree,
agree, strongly agree)
M-A
29 Teacher retention is fixed and cannot be controlled with increased effort.
(strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree,
strongly agree)
O-F
25 I have enough time from administrative responsibilities to look out for the
personal welfare of every teacher at my school. (strongly disagree, disagree,
somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
O-CS
30 My organization has not supported me by providing training, resources, and
support needed for increasing teacher retention. (strongly disagree, disagree,
somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree)
143
Appendix B

144

145

146

147

Figure B1. Qualtrics® Survey

148
Appendix C
Email Survey Invitations
#1 Email Survey Introduction: Sent out 3-5 Days Before Actual Survey
Greetings,
In collaboration with The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Office of System and
School Improvement (OSSI) and The Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)
research is being conducted to examine the extent to which Washington State Principals in
schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support believe they have the support and
skills to implement teacher retention strategies. Your thoughts and opinions are very important to
us and will be used to help us better serve and support you in your role. The survey should only
take 3-5 minutes, your participation is voluntary, and your responses will be confidential. All
responses will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
Please look for an email from OSSI/AWSP USC Qualtrics arriving in the next 3-5 days.
Thank you very much!
Deborah Lindgren - Researcher USC Doctoral Candidate
Office of System and School Improvement (OSSI)
Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)
#2 Email Survey Invitation: Sent out 3-5 Days After Original Survey Introduction
Greetings,
In collaboration with The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Office of System and
School Improvement (OSSI) and The Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)
research is being conducted to examine the extent to which Washington State Principals
in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support believe they have the support and
skills to implement teacher retention strategies. Your thoughts and opinions are very important to
149
us and will be used to help us better serve and support you in your role. The survey should only
take 3-5 minutes, your participation is voluntary, and your responses will remain completely
confidential. All responses will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
Please follow this link to the Survey:
Take the Survey
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4Pj7pLTyqLDNVTn?Q_DL=b4qEg1nan9dbAd7_4Pj7pL
TyqLDNVTn_MLRP_cUtVtn5NEl5tuJL&Q_CHL=email
Thank you very much for your participation!
Deborah Lindgren - Researcher USC Doctoral Candidate
Office of System and School Improvement (OSSI)
Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)
#3 Email Survey Invitation: Sent out 7 Days After 1
st
Survey Invitation
Greetings,
This is a friendly reminder that your participation in the survey is very important!
In collaboration with The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Office of System and
School Improvement (OSSI) and The Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)
research is being conducted to examine the extent to which Washington State Principals
in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support believe they have the support and
skills to implement teacher retention strategies. Your thoughts and opinions are very important to
us and will be used to help us better serve and support you in your role. The survey should only
take 3-5 minutes, your participation is voluntary, and your responses will remain completely
confidential All responses will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
Please follow this link to the Survey:
Take the Survey
150
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4Pj7pLTyqLDNVTn?Q_DL=b4qEg1nan9dbAd7_4Pj7pL
TyqLDNVTn_MLRP_cUtVtn5NEl5tuJL&Q_CHL=email
Thank you very much for your participation!
Deborah Lindgren - Researcher USC Doctoral Candidate
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Association of Washington School Principals
#4 Email Survey Invitation: Sent out 7 Days After 2
nd
Survey Invitation
Greetings,
This is a friendly reminder that your participation in the survey is very important!
In collaboration with The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Office of System and
School Improvement (OSSI) and The Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)
research is being conducted to examine the extent to which Washington State Principals
in schools identified for Comprehensive and Targeted Support believe they have the support and
skills to implement teacher retention strategies. Your thoughts and opinions are very important to
us and will be used to help us better serve and support you in your role. The survey should only
take 3-5 minutes, your participation is voluntary, and your responses will remain completely
confidential. All responses will be compiled together and analyzed as a group.
Please follow this link to the Survey:
Take the Survey
Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4Pj7pLTyqLDNVTn?Q_DL=b4qEg1nan9dbAd7_4Pj7pL
TyqLDNVTn_MLRP_cUtVtn5NEl5tuJL&Q_CHL=email
Thank you very much for your participation!
Deborah Lindgren - Researcher USC Doctoral Candidate
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Association of Washington School Principals
151
Scheduled Thank You Letter: Displayed on Qualtrics Survey Webpage following survey
completion
We thank you for your time taking this survey.
Your response has been recorded.

152
Appendix D
Table D1
Representation of State Educational Service Districts in Survey Data

Name
Number
of
Students Percent
Count of
Principals
Responding Percent
ESD 101 95,549 8.5% 16 8.3%
ESD 105 66,209 5.9% 15 7.8%
ESD 112 102,719 9.1% 21 10.9%
ESD 113 76,026 6.7% 20 10.4%
ESD 114 48,318 4.3% 9 4.7%
ESD 121 441,952 39.1% 43 22.4%
ESD 123 77,998 6.9% 15 7.8%
ESD 171 49,069 4.3% 18 9.4%
ESD 189 171,899 15.2% 35 18.2%
Total 1,129,739 100.0% 192 100.0%

Figure D1. Washington State’s Educational Service Districts

153
Appendix E
The Chi-Square test of independence was used to determine if there was a significant
relationship between two groups, novice principals’ responses (principals with 1-3 years
experience) as compared to more experienced principals’ (4 or more years of experience). The
findings of this study show a statistically significant relationship between principal experience in
response to survey question 31, “I am confident that I am effectively implementing teacher
retention strategies.”
Table E1
Results of The Chi-Square Test of Independence

Survey Responses
Novice Experienced
Strongly Disagree 2.6% 3.2%
Disagree 23.7% 3.9%
Somewhat Disagree 13.2% 11.0%
Somewhat Agree 39.5% 45.5%
Agree 18.4% 30.5%
Strongly Agree 2.6% 5.8%
χ2 (5) = 17.87, p = .00311

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

The impact of principal leadership on teacher retention in K-4 charter schools in South Los Angeles

PDF

Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study

PDF

School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The voices of teacher attrition: Perceptions of retention and turnover at an international school in Thailand

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Trending upward: an evaluation study of teacher practices in serving special needs students in a public high school

PDF

K-12 public school district principals in California: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences

PDF

A wellness paradigm to attenuate attrition

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

The role of divisional principals in teacher retention in East African international schools

PDF

Developing longevity in the K-12 principal position: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study

PDF

The 21st-century principal: the recruitment, mentoring, and retention of principals

Asset Metadata

Creator Lindgren, Deborah L. (author)

Core Title Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/06/2020

Defense Date 04/22/2020

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

Tag comprehensive and targeted support schools,ESSA,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership,teacher retention strategies,teacher turnover

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Grissom, Jason (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email debbie.lindgren@outlook.com,dlindgre@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-359958

Unique identifier UC11666306

Identifier etd-LindgrenDe-8894.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-359958 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LindgrenDe-8894.pdf

Dmrecord 359958

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lindgren, Deborah L.

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