What Predicts the Mobility of Elementary School
Leaders?
An Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Colorado
Motoko Akiba
University of Missouri-Columbia
Robert Reichardt
Alliance for Quality Teaching
Denver, Colorado
Citation: Akiba, M., Reichardt, R.,
(2004, April 24). What Predicts the Mobility of Elementary School
Leaders? An Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Colorado.
Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 12(18). Retrieved [Date] from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n18/.
Abstract
While many studies have reported the predictors of teacher
attrition, we know little about what predicts the attrition of
school leaders. Using the Colorado state data on elementary
school principals’ and assistant principals’ career
paths from 1999 to 2001 and school achievement-level data, we
addressed two research questions: 1) How do the age-specific
attrition rates differ by gender and race? and 2) What other
conditional factors are associated with the attrition of school
leaders? We found that female and minority groups generally had
higher attrition rates at age 40 or younger and at age 56 or older
than male and non-minority groups. Our data also indicated that
school size and salary increase were associated with the attrition
of both male and female leaders. Large schools were more likely
to have higher rates of school leader attrition, and the leaders
who expected relatively higher salary increases by transferring
were more likely to leave their schools. Lower school achievement
predicted higher attrition of female leaders only. These findings
have important implications for policy-makers when they plan and
implement strategies for preventing high attrition rates of school
leaders. |
Introduction
Recent reports and statistics have shown that many schools and
districts are experiencing high attrition rates of school
principals and superintendents (Cunningham & Burdick, 1999;
National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1998; U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). In the time of systemic
educational reform, stable leadership is crucial in order for the
leaders to effectively provide a rich environment for improving
student learning (Useem, Christman, Gold, & Simon, 1996).
Given the empirical evidence on the important role of principal
leadership to improve students’ academic performance,
particularly of low achievers (Andrews & Soder, 1987;
Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982; Zigarelli, 1996), frequent
turnover of school leaders would pose a serious challenge for
implementing systemic educational reform.
Despite such possible negative consequences, we know little
about what explains school leaders’ attrition. While it has
been argued that school leader attrition is caused by retirement
of the baby boomer generation and those who leave
education-related positions, studies have found that most
attrition of educators is due to their transferring from one
school to another (Ingersoll, 2001; U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2002). The increasing pressure under current
educational reform to improve student achievement using the
accountability system has been discussed as an important factor
that discourages qualified candidates from taking leadership
positions (Adams, 1999; Cooley & Shen, 2000; Copland, 2001).
Naturally, such pressures on school leaders would encourage those
who are serving challenging schools to move to other schools if
given the chance.
In this study, we utilized the Colorado Department of Education
data on elementary school principals’ and assistant
principals’ career paths from 1999 to 2001, which include
the information on their backgrounds, working conditions and state
standard-based test scores in reading and writing for
fourth-graders on the Colorado State Assessment Program (CSAP)
from 1999 to 2002. The research questions we addressed are: 1)
How do the age-specific attrition rates differ by gender and race?
and 2) What other conditional factors are associated with the
attrition of school leaders?
This study represents the first attempt to empirically examine
the factors associated with school leaders’ attrition. The
factors associated with educators’ transferring have often
been investigated by economists who applied labor market theory
(Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001). In this study, we address
this important policy question based on the analytical models
developed from labor market theory. In the following sections, we
will identify what the past studies have found about the major
predictors of educators’ attrition.
Related Literature
Attrition Due to Moving and Leaving the Profession
Most researchers have focused on attrition due to the departure
of educators pursuing other noneducational jobs or retirement, or
“leavers” (Bobbitt, Leich, Whitener, & Synch,
1994; Chapman & Hutcheson, 1982; Greenberg & McCall, 1974;
Hafner & Owings, 1991; Haggstrom, Darling-Hammond, &
Grissmer, 1988; Heyns, 1988; Miech & Elder, 1996; Murnane,
1987; Murnane, Singer, & Willett, 1988; Rumberger, 1987;
Schlecty & Vance, 1981, 1983). However, attrition can be also
understood as the mobility of teachers and school administrators
who leave their positions to assume other teaching or
administrative positions in the same district or other districts,
or “movers” (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Barkenic, &
Maislin, 1998; Grissmer & Kirby, 1987, 1992; Hanushek et al.,
2001; Ingersoll, 2001; Murnane, 1981; Rollefson & Broughman,
1995).
Researchers have placed less emphasis on this aspect of
attrition because it does not affect the overall shortage of
educators, unlike leavers. Nevertheless, studies have found that
most attrition of educators is due to their moving from one school
to another (Ingersoll, 2001; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2002). In addition, from the perspective of school effectiveness,
it is important to consider the attrition rates of educators
regardless of whether they quit their jobs or moved to other
schools. High rates of attrition at a school level mean
employment instability, which affects the productivity of the
organizational functions.
Predictors of School Leaders’ Attrition
The only study that examined the factors influencing the
leadership mobility was conducted by Ehrenberg, Chaykowski, and
Ehrenberg (1988). Using the 1978-83 panel data from more
than 700 New York State superintendents and their districts, they
tested the hypothesis that a district’s high educational
performance and low school-tax rates, as the indicators of its
success, were associated with superintendents’ mobility to a
high-paying position elsewhere. The data suggested that
low school-tax rates but not achievement were significantly
associated with their mobility. There have been no studies that
examined the factors associated with the turnover of school
leaders: principals and assistant principals.
Economic theory argues that individuals find work by choosing
among alternative employment opportunities instead of attempting
to maximize their own abilities. When applied to school leaders
this suggests that the decision of whether to remain at a school
or move to another principal position or occupation is a function
of the working conditions at that school and of other
opportunities. The other opportunities include other school
leadership positions, other positions within the education system,
and positions outside of the education system. Alternative
opportunities for employment will vary depending upon regional
labor markets (Murnane & Olsen, 1989, 1990). The
attractiveness of any given job is partially a function of
individual taste and partially a function of individual factors
such as age and gender, and investments in a given career, such as
education.
Predictors of Teacher Attrition
While no study exists that has investigated the predictors of
school leader attrition, the cumulative findings on the
predictors of teacher attrition over the past two decades
would provide insight. The studies on teacher attrition have
found that a teacher’s demographic and professional
characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, subject area, and
performance level); working conditions (student characteristics,
class size, existence of teacher union, district expenditures, and
school decision-making system); and alternative opportunities
(trajectory toward promotion, salary) are significantly associated
with their decision to move or leave.
The relationship between age and teacher attrition has been
found to form a U-shaped curve—younger teachers have high
rates of attrition, but the rates decline through the mid-career
period, yet increase again as teachers approach retirement age
(Bobbitt et al., 1994; Boe et al., 1998; Grissmer & Kirby,
1987, 1992, 1997; Hafner & Owings, 1991; Murnane et al., 1988;
Murnane, Singer, Willett, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991). Higher
attrition rates are especially distinct among young women who are
most likely to leave their teaching jobs to engage in full-time
child rearing. They are more likely than older women and men of
all ages to leave teaching for a period of time and then return to
the classroom (Murnane, 1987; Murnane & Olsen, 1989, 1990;
Murnane et al., 1988; Murnane et al., 1991).
In addition, special-education teachers and teachers whose
specialty is in science (especially chemistry and physics) and
mathematics are more likely to produce high rates of turnover
(Bobbitt, Leich, & Cook, 1997; Grissmer & Kirby, 1987,
1992; Murnane, 1987; Murnane & Olsen, 1989, 1990; Murnane et
al., 1988; Murnane et al., 1991). Higher scores on the National
Teacher Examination (NTE) is another factor associated with a
greater likelihood of leaving a teaching job. Murnane, Singer,
and Willett (1989) found that white teachers with high NTE scores
are more likely to leave teaching after only a few years and are
less likely to return than are white teachers with low NTE
scores.
Teachers’ working conditions, measured by student,
school, and district characteristics, are other major factors that
predict teacher turnover. Based on the data on Texas teachers,
Hanuschek, Kain, and Rivken (1999, 2001) found that student
characteristics are more important predictors of teacher turnover
than salaries. Except for African American teachers, the typical
Texan teacher appears to favor high-achieving, non-minority
students. African American teachers also favor high-achieving
students but systematically move toward schools with higher
concentrations of black students (see also Carroll, Reichardt,
& Guarino, 2000; Greenberg & McCall, 1974; Theobald,
1990).
Examining the effects of class-size characteristics on teacher
turnover rates, Mont and Rees (1996) found that larger class size,
larger number of classes taught, and the higher percentage of
class time spent in areas outside a teacher’s certification
area were significantly associated with the higher turnover rates
of high school teachers. Ingersoll (2001) found that teachers are
more likely to leave their schools with the negative working
conditions that include excessive class size, lack of
administrative support, and a low level of teacher
decision-making. Less district expenditures on instructional
staff and low district salaries (Theobald & Gritz, 1996) and
the presence of teacher unions (Eberts, 1987; Rees, 1991) are
other predictors of a teacher’s decision to leave his or her
school district.
Finally, researchers have found that the indicators of later
career opportunities are also important predictors of teacher
turnover. Based on the data on New York State teachers, Brewer
(1996) found that male teachers are sensitive to both the
availability of administrative posts and expected administrative
rewards when making decisions to quit (see also Murnane et al.,
1988, 1989). Higher salaries are also associated with greater
retention of teachers (Baugh & Stone, 1982; Murnane &
Olsen, 1989, 1990; Murnane et al., 1989; Murnane et al., 1991;
Rumberger, 1987; Schlecty & Vance, 1981, 1983; Theobald &
Gritz, 1996); the teachers earning more tend to stay in teaching
longer than those earning less. The effect of increased salaries
from old job to new job is especially significant factor for
beginning teachers to leave their schools (Murnane et al.,
1991).
Leadership Attrition and School Achievement
The increasing pressure in current educational reform to
improve school achievement under accountability systems has been
discussed as an important factor that discourages educators’
pursuit of leadership positions (Cooley & Shen, 2000; Copland,
2001). In addition, accountability systems may also discourage
school leaders from applying for positions at low-achieving
schools because of the intensive responsibility and potential risk
associated with the difficulty of making progress in student
achievement.
However, little evidence is available to explain the
relationship between current accountability systems and school
leaders’ attrition. While we do not have any data on the
indicators of accountability systems, this study will provide
important information on the association between school
achievement and leader turnover, which later studies on the
effects of accountability systems can build upon. If we find that
more leaders are moving out of low-achieving schools than
high-achieving schools, two explanations are possible: 1) School
leaders feel that the responsibility produced by the
accountability system is excessive and are deciding to move to
other schools and/or 2) the district replaced the school leader
with another leader as a result of school restructuring. Our data
are unable to verify either of the explanations, but the
information on the association between leader attrition and school
achievement level would guide future studies that have data on
accountability systems.
Methods
Data
The data were collected from the Colorado Department of
Education (CDE). The data include the information on all
educators who have been employed by Colorado school districts from
1999 to 2001. By merging the data from each year, we can identify
the career path of educators over the three years, including
leaving education-related positions, and transferring from one
school to another. We selected the data on principals and
assistant principals in elementary schools only. Note 1 The
data comprise information on 714 principals and assistant
principals in 694 elementary schools in 94 districts. Note 2
Of the school leaders in the sample, 64 percent of them were
female and 19 percent were of an ethnic minority
(African-American, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian). The mean
age was 48.
Analysis
We conducted two sets of analyses in order to address each of
our research questions. To examine our first questions on the age
group–specific attrition rates by gender and race, we
compared the attrition rates of male, female, minority, and
non-minority school leaders by seven age categories: 35 or
younger, 36 to 40 years old, 41 to 45 years old, 46 to 50 years
old, 51 to 55 years old, 56 to 60 years old, and 61 or older.
In order to address our second question, the predictors of
school leader attrition, we used multiple logistic regression
analysis with the dependent variable of whether the school leader
left to take another education-related position between 2000 and
2001. Based on the past research on teacher attrition, we
included the indicators of school leaders’ demographic and
professional characteristics; working conditions; and alternative
opportunities and the labor market as the predictors of school
leader turnover. We have also included school achievement level
as a predictor.
Variables
The variables used in the second sets of analyses are
summarized in the following.
Dependent variable
- Movement: dichotomous variable of whether the leaders moved
from their schools to other schools within or outside their school
districts (1 = yes, 0 = no).
Independent variables
- Leaders’ demographic and professional
characteristics:
- Minority: the minority status of the leader.
African-American, Hispanic, and Native American leaders were coded
as 1, the others as 0.
- Age: dummy variables of the age group of 35 or younger and the
age group of 51 or older, with the age group between 35 and 51 as
the reference variable. Seven percent were 35 or younger, and 42
percent were 51 or older.
- Education level: dummy variables of master’s degree (or
specialist degree) and doctorate degree, with bachelor’s
degree as the reference variable. Eighty-four percent possessed a
master’s degree or specialist degree, and 9 percent
possessed a doctorate.
- Working conditions:
- Poverty level: percentages of students receiving a free or
reduced lunch program. They varied from 0 percent to 95 percent,
with a mean of 33 percent.
- Percentage of minority students: the percentages of
African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students. They
varied from 1 percent to 99 percent, with a mean of 33
percent.
- Interaction of poverty and minority: interaction term of
poverty level and percentage of minority was included because of
the strong correlation between these variables.
- School size: dummy variables of large schools (i.e., 600 or
more students) and small schools (400 or fewer students), with the
middle-size schools, between 400 and 600, as the reference
variable. Twenty-eight percent were coded as large
schools, and 31percent were coded as small
schools.
- School location: Note 3 Dummy variables of city and rural
schools, with the suburban school as the reference variable.
Thirty-four percent of schools were coded as city, and 22 percent
of schools were coded as rural.
- School achievement level Note 4: the average percentages
of fourth-graders who achieved at or above proficient level in
standardized reading and writing tests in 1999, 2000, and 2001 in
the schools where the leaders worked in 2000.
- Instructional expenditure per student: the district’s
instructional expenditure per student. The expenditures varied
from $3,166 to $6,168, with a mean of $4,064.
- Administrative expenditure per student: the district’s
administrative expenditure per students. The expenditures varied
from $347 to $1,867, with a mean of $540.
- Alternative opportunities and labor market:
- Annual salary difference between 2000 and 2001: the salary
change in units of $1,000 from old to new position for those who
moved to another school; and the salary change based on the same
job for those who stayed in the same school. The change varied
from -28 to 35, with a mean of 5.
- Number of administrative positions: the number of principals
and assistant principals within the district where the leaders
moved to in 2001.
- Five Colorado labor markets: four dummy variables (the regions
North, West, South, and Metro), with Pikes Peak as the reference
region.
Results
Before we move to the results from the analyses that addressed
our two research questions, we will note that we also examined
what types of career paths constitute the rates of school leader
attrition at a given school level. Figure 1 shows that the
percentage of principals and assistant principals who left their
schools between 1999 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2001. Three
different types of career paths are presented here: 1) those who
left education-related jobs or moved to other states, 2) those who
moved to schools in other districts, and 3) those who moved to
schools in the same district.
Figure 1. Attrition of School Leaders: Percentage of principals and assistant principals who left their schools
during 1999-2001
Approximately 26 percent and 23 percent of elementary school
principals and assistant principals quit their schools between
1999 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2001, respectively. For the
1999–2000 data, 8 percent left their education jobs or moved
to other states, 5 percent moved to schools in other districts,
and 13 percent moved to schools in the same district. Between
2000 and 2001, 9 percent left their education jobs or moved to
other states, 4 percent moved to schools in other districts, and
10 percent moved to schools in the same district.
A common belief regarding the turnover of school leaders is
that it is explained mainly by the retirement of the baby boomer
generation. However, this graph shows that the percentage of
those who left (which includes those who retired) does not explain
most of the school leader attrition. Indeed, only 6 percent of
those who left their education job or moved to other states were
age 60 or older in 1999, and only 11 percent of the population
were in this age group in 2000. Therefore, contrary to
conventional wisdom, the major part of school attrition is
explained not by retirement but by those who move to other
schools.
Figure 2: Attrition Rate of School Leaders by Gender and Minority Status
Note: The attrition rate of minority leaders who are at 61 or
older is not available due to the small sample size (N=5).
Analysis 1: The age-specific attrition rates by gender and
race
Figure 2 shows through seven age categories the percentage of
principals and assistant principals who left their schools between
2000 and 2001: 35 or younger, 36 to 40 years old, 41 to 45 years
old, 46 to 50 years old, 51 to 55 years old, 56 to 60 years old,
and 61 or older. The four lines indicate the separate attrition
rates of female, male, minority, and non-minority leaders. We can
see the general patterns of U-curved attrition rates, with
35-or-younger and 61-or-older categories being the highest.
However, we can see differences between female and male, and
non-minority and minority groups. The attrition rates of female
leaders and minority leaders are generally higher than those of
male leaders and non-minority leaders, except at middle-age stages
between 46 and 55.
Female and minority leaders especially have higher attrition
rates at age 35 or younger (about 30 percent and 40 percent) than
male (25 percent) and minority leaders (20 percent). Likewise, at
age 56 to 60, female and minority have higher attrition rates
(about 40 percent and 35 percent) than male (about 18 percent) and
non-minority (25 percent). Higher female attrition rate is
probably associated with the fact that younger females are more
likely to leave their positions due to child rearing. However,
due to the lack of past studies, we do not know what factors
explain the distinctively higher attrition rate of the minority
group compared to that of the non-minority groups. Future studies
explaining such differences are needed. Higher attrition rates of
female and minority leaders at age 56 or older than of male and
non-minority leaders in that age group indicate that female and
minority leaders are more likely to retire earlier than their
counterparts. Female leaders and minority leaders may be more
oriented toward their families and less inclined to prolonged
professional careers after retirement age.
Analysis 2: What predicts the school leader attrition?
Given the different rates of school leader attrition, it is
important to understand what factors predict principals’ and
assistant principals’ decisions to leave their schools.
From Figure 1, we can see that the major part of the school leader
attrition is explained by those who moved to other schools within
or outside their districts. Therefore, we excluded these leavers,
whose major reasons for leaving may be different from those who
moved to other schools. Figure 2 shows that there is a gender
difference in the attrition rates of school leaders. Based on the
possible differences between gender on the predictors of school
leaders’ moves, we analyzed the predictors of school leader
movement separately for females and males.
The results of multiple logistic regression analysis of the
predictors of school leader turnover during 2000 and 2001 are
presented in Table 1. As we can see, none of the indicators of
leaders’ demographic and professional characteristics were
significantly associated with either female or male leaders’
movements except a master’s/specialist degree for female
leaders. Female leaders who hold a master’s degree or a
specialist’s degree were less likely to move to other
schools than those holding only a bachelor’s degree.
Table 1
Predictors of Principal/Assistant Principal Turnover by
Gender
| |
Female |
Male |
| Sample Size |
|
465 |
260 |
| Leaders’ demographic and
professional characteristics |
Minority |
-.093a
(.367b) |
.185 (.605) |
| 35 or younger |
.178 (.510) |
.800 (.575) |
| 51 or older |
.075 (.284) |
.118 (.460) |
| MA/Specialist |
-.737
(.438)† |
.064 (.838) |
| Ph.D. |
-.128 (.595) |
.644 (1.047) |
| Working Conditions |
Poverty |
-.033 (.024) |
.032 (.033) |
| Minority (Students) |
-.012 (.022) |
-.009 (.040) |
| Poverty X Minority c |
.001 (.000) |
-.001 (.001) |
| Large School |
.924 (.313)** |
.794
(.478)† |
| Small School |
-.485 (.861) |
.347 (1.024) |
| City |
-.060 (.439) |
.941 (.602) |
| Rural |
.142 (.453) |
.068 (.662) |
| Instructional expenditure per student |
.001 (.001) |
.000 (.001) |
| Administrative support per student |
.002 (.001) |
-.002 (.002) |
| School Achievement |
99-01 CSAP scores d |
-1.365 (.562)* |
1.039 (.821) |
| CSAP scores X Poverty |
-.002 (.017) |
-.023 (.020) |
| CSAP scores X Minority |
.029 (.019) |
-.018 (.024) |
| Alternative opportunities and labor
market |
Salary difference |
.054
(.031)† |
.075 (.031)* |
| School leader positions |
-.001 (.002) |
-.004 (.004) |
| North |
.026 (.571) |
-1.578
(.833)† |
| South |
.227 (1.006) |
-.537 (1.346) |
| West |
-.396 (.828) |
-.360 (.876) |
| Metro |
-.463 (.587) |
-.113 (.806) |
| Cox & Snell R2 |
|
.07 |
.14 |
Note: ** p< .01 * p< .05 † p <.10
Dependent variable is whether or not the school leaders left
their schools during 2000 and 2001 (1=yes, 0=no).
a Multiple logistic regression coefficients.
b Standard error.
c The interaction term of poverty and minority was
included because of the high correlation between these
factors.
d The mean of standardized 4th grade
reading and writing scores in 1999, 2000, and 2001.
An indicator of working conditions, the dummy variable of large
school was significantly associated with both female and male
leaders’ movements from their schools: They were more likely
to leave large schools than middle-size schools. Contrary to past
research findings on teacher movement (Hanuschek et al., 1999;
2001), the poverty level and the percentage of minority students
were independent from school leaders’ movement to other
schools. School location and district expenditures on instruction
and administration were also not significantly associated with
school leader turnover.
In terms of alternative opportunities for the leaders, the
salary difference between their new and old positions was
significantly associated with transfers to other schools for male
and female leaders: Those who had large increases in their
salaries from 2000 to 2001 were more likely to move. For both
female and male leaders, the number of school leader positions
within their districts was not significantly associated with
whether they left their schools to take other education-related
positions. Colorado labor markets within the state were also
independent from leader turnover, with one exception: Male leaders
were less likely to move from the North region.
Finally, school achievement level, measured by the average
standardized percentage of fourth-graders achieving at or above
proficient level in reading and writing, was significantly
associated with female leaders’ transfers from their
schools, while there was no significant relationship between
school achievement level and male leaders’ movements.
Female leaders were more likely to leave low-achieving schools.
One standard deviation increase, approximately 20 percent of
students achieving at or above average indicates the decrease in
the probability of school leaders leaving their schools by about
30 percent in the case of female leaders. Note 5 This
achievement variable explains about 2 percent of the total
variance for female leaders in the rates of attrition based on
transferring schools. There was no significant interaction effect
between achievement level and poverty and between achievement
level and percentage of minority students.
This analysis revealed that school achievement level is an
important predictor of the turnover of female leaders but not of
male leaders. Although the size of the effect is moderate, this
finding has significant policy implications for schools and
districts that are considering effective retention
strategies.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study represents the first systematic attempt to identify
the predictors of school leaders’ movement to other schools.
Findings from this study can be summarized as follows.
- The retirement of the baby boomer generation is not the major
factor contributing to the attrition rates of school leaders.
Rather, moving to other schools, within or outside districts,
accounts for a major part of school leader attrition.
- Attrition rates by gender and race indicate that female and
minority leaders are more likely to leave their schools at age 35
or younger and at age 56 or older than male and non-minority
leaders at the same ages.
- Both female and male leaders are more likely to move when
there is an expected increase in compensation for transferring to
another education-related position.
- Both female and male leaders are more likely to leave large
schools than middle-size and small schools.
- School achievement level is significantly associated with
female leaders’ movements to other schools but not with male
leaders’ movements. Female leaders are more likely to leave
low-achieving schools than high-achieving schools.
The analysis shows that more principals and assistant
principals left their positions because they took other positions
in education, rather than because they retired or found
non-education-related positions. This indicates that if
policy-makers address the reasons for leader attrition, there is a
great possibility of lowering the attrition—unlike the
situation of retiring school leaders, in which what policy-makers
can do is quite limited. The majority of studies on school
personnel attrition have focused on the people who left their
education-related jobs elsewhere altogether, and little is known
about what predicts the attrition explained by movement from one
school to another. Therefore, it is important to understand the
reasons why school leaders leave their schools to take other
education-related jobs, in order to achieve an equal and effective
distribution of school leaders among schools.
Attrition rates by gender and race indicate that female and
minority leaders are more likely to leave their schools at age 35
or younger and at age 56 or older than male and non-minority
leaders at the same ages. Higher attrition rates of female
leaders compared to that of male leaders can be explained by
maternity leave, the same reason for higher attrition rates of
female teachers than male teachers in past studies. Orientation
toward family of female leaders may also explain the early
retirement reflected in their higher attrition rates. More
studies are needed to understand why minority leaders are more
likely to leave at a younger age and to retire early compared to
non-minority leaders.
Male and female leaders are more likely to leave their schools
when they expect a higher-paying position in education.
Importance of salary increase as a factor contributing to school
transfers has been explained in past studies on teacher turnover
(Brewer, 1996; Murnane et al., 1988, 1989). At least one
researcher has pointed out that male teachers are more sensitive
to monetary incentives than female leaders (Brewer, 1996). The
argument is supported by this study on leadership movement: The
effect of salary difference was larger on male leaders than on
female leaders. However, the significant level of salary
difference effects for both male and female leaders may indicate
that such gender difference effects may be smaller among school
leaders than among teachers.
Large schools tend to lose school leaders more than middle-size
and small schools do. It is difficult to discover the actual
reason for these relationships; however, factors not examined in
this study that are associated with large schools may be
contributing to this relationship. For example, school leaders
may prefer small schools because of their capacity to build close
relationships with faculty and students. More studies are
necessary in order to fully understand the association between
school size and leaders’ decisions to leave their
schools.
We observed significant effects of school achievement on female
leaders’ movements, but school achievement was independent
from male leaders’ movements. The data indicate that female
leaders are more likely to leave low-achieving schools. Two
explanations are possible for the relationship between school
achievement level and female leader movements. One is that female
leaders decide to leave low-achieving schools because of the
challenges they face in establishing leadership. Another is that
they are replaced by other leaders by the district as a result of
school restructuring or for school improvement. Our data do not
allow us to identify which explanation is more plausible, although
the first explanation is more likely given the uncommonness of
whole schools being restructured.
In either case, it is likely that female leaders are facing
more difficulties in low-achieving schools than male leaders.
This may be explained by the gender disadvantage in establishing
effective leadership within a male-dominated leader community.
Organizational socialization research has revealed the nature of
the socialization process that teaches a person the knowledge,
values, and behaviors required of those filling a role within a
particular organization (Monane, 1967). When a school as an
organization expects conventional white male leadership, female
and minority leaders struggle to lead because of the misalignment
between their personal traits and the conventional leadership role
expectations the school has. The stress female and minority
leaders experience in enacting leadership due to lack of
organizational support has been well-documented (Ortiz &
Marshall, 1988; Valverde, 1980)
Given such a disadvantage in establishing effective leadership,
female leaders may try to avoid low-achieving schools, which pose
additional challenges to female leaders. Under the accountability
system, which demands improved student learning, the level of
challenges female leaders face to be effective leaders in
conventional organizational culture is especially enhanced.
Policy-makers and educators need to be aware of the gender
disadvantages female leaders experience and should provide support
to avoid having to lose capable female leaders.
While our results have significant policy implications based on
the analyses of the statewide longitudinal data, our data possess
limitations. First, this study utilized the data on elementary
school principals and assistant principals only. Studies focusing
on middle school or high school leaders may produce different
results due to the differences in student population, school size,
and organizational goals based on the students’
developmental stages.
Second, our data is limited to one state. While our results
may be reasonably applied to elementary schools in other states
that are similar to Colorado, we need to be cautious about
applying the results to states with different demographic and
school system characteristics. Studies utilizing nationally
representative data on the attrition of school leaders are
needed.
Lastly, more information on the organizational environment of
schools and on characteristics of school leaders is necessary, in
order to understand the comprehensive picture of what predicts
school leaders’ movements from one school to another. The
quality of school leaders—such as their levels of interest
in and orientation toward professional development, advancement,
and promotion; the nature of their educational visions and goals;
and the degree to which they support standardized testing systems
would be important factors needing to be examined. In addition,
information such as the nature of a school’s decision-making
system (i.e., the level of teacher involvement in
decision-making); the level of shared values among teachers; the
level of teacher professionalism in subject matter, in the case of
middle schools; and agreement with and support for standardized
testing systems would significantly enhance the data capacity to
examine what working conditions predict school leaders’
movements.
Despite these limitations, the findings from this study provide
important policy-relevant information. The fact that the major
part of attrition rates are explained by movement rather than
retirement indicate that policy-makers and practitioners need to
pay attention to principals’ and assistant principals’
movements to other schools in addition to retirement when
designing and implementing policies to solve their high attrition
rates. We need to be also aware that because female and minority
leaders are more likely to leave at age 35 or younger and at age
56 or older, they should be provided enough support to overcome
any possible challenges they are experiencing when they decide to
leave their schools.
The data suggest that limited monetary compensation is a
crucial factor that needs improvement in order to keep qualified
elementary school principals and assistant principals.
Policy-makers should also understand the gender differences in the
predictors of leadership turnover. Schools and districts need to
provide support for school leaders, especially female leaders, to
use their leadership effectively so that student achievement can
improve and that the challenges in low-achieving schools can be
overcome.
Notes
This study was conducted while the authors were at
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). We
would like to thank Dr. Zoe Barley, Dr. Helen Apthorp, and Dr.
Kerry Englert for their valuable comments on the earlier
manuscript and support of this study.
- The data on
elementary schools only were selected because the
data included the largest number of schools and leaders compared
to middle schools and high schools, allowing us to have enough
statistical power in the analysis. We defined K-5 and K-6 schools
as elementary schools.
- The data did not
allow us to separate principals and assistant
principals. Therefore, we chose the population of principals and
assistant principals and defined them as school
leaders.
- Schools were
assigned to one of three different
locales—urban, suburban, or rural—using locale codes
contained in the 2000–01 National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) for schools. In this
study, the six locale codes in the CCD were combined into three
more general locales: urban, suburban, and rural. Schools
classified as urban had NCES-assigned locales of large central
city or mid-size central city. Schools classified as suburban had
NCES-assigned locales for urban fringe to large city or mid-size
city. Schools were classified as rural if they had NCES-assigned
locales for large town, small town, or rural.
- All the
percentages on achievement used in this study were
standardized based on the equation (school percentage at and above
proficient) – (state mean percentage at and above
proficient) / (the standard deviation of the school percentage
within the state). This was done in order to standardize the
percentage across different subject levels and grade levels.
- A logit
estimation procedure was used to interpret the
logistic regression coefficients based on the following
equation:
P = exp (L1) / [1+exp(L1)] – exp
(L0) / [1+exp(L0)]
where P is the increase in the probability of the school
leaders leaving their schools when X increases one unit.
L0 is the logit before the unit change in X,
and L1 is the logit after the unit change in X.
References
Adams, J. P. (1999). Good Principals, Good
Schools. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29(1),
8-11.
Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987).
Principal Leadership and Student Achievement. Educational
Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.
Baugh, W. H., & Stone, J. A. (1982).
Mobility and Wage Equilibrium in the Educator Labor Market.
Economic of Education Review, 2(3), 253-274.
Bobbitt, S., Leich, M., & Cook, L. (1997).
Whither didst thou go. journal of special education, 30,
371-389.
Bobbitt, S., Leich, M., Whitener, S., &
Synch, H. (1994). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and
leavers: Results from the teacher follow up survey, 1991-1992.
Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Boe, E., Bobbitt, S., Cook, L., Barkenic, G.,
& Maislin, G. (1998). Teacher Turnover in eight cognate
areas: National trends and predictors. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania, Center for Research and Evaluation in
Social Policy.
Brewer, D. J. (1996). Career Paths and Quit
Decisions: Evidence from Teaching. Journal of Labor Economics,
14(2), 313-339.
Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., & Guarino, C.
(2000). The Distribution of Teachers among California's School
Districts and Schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Chapman, D., & Hutcheson, S. (1982).
Attrition from teaching careers: A discriminant analysis. The
American Education Research Journal, 19, 93-105.
Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2000). Factors
Influencing Applying for Urban Principalship. Education and
Urban Society, 32(4, Aug), 443-454.
Copland, M. A. (2001). The myth of the
superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7, March),
528-533.
Cunningham, W. G., & Burdick, G. R. (1999).
Empty Offices. American-School Board Journal, December,
25-30.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Green, J. (1994).
Teacher quality and equality. In P. Keating & J. I. Goodlad
(Eds.), Access to Knowledge. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Eberts, R. W. (1987). Union-Negotiated
Employment Rules and Teacher Quits. Economics of Education
Review, 6(1), 15-25.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Chaykowski, R. P., &
Ehrenberg, R. A. (1988). Determinants of the Compensation and
Mobility of School Superintendents. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 41(3), 386-401.
Greenberg, D. H., & McCall, J. J. (1974).
Teacher mobility and allocation. journal of human resources,
9(4), 480-502.
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1987).
Teacher attrition: The uphill climb to staff the nation's
schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1992).
Patterns of attrition among Indiana teachers, 1965-1987.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1997).
Teacher turnover and Teacher quality. teachers college record,
99(1), 45-56.
Hafner, A., & Owings, J. (1991). Careers
in teaching: following members of the high school class of 1972 in
and out of teaching (NCES Report No. 91-470). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hammond, L., &
Grissmer, D. W. (1988). Assessing teacher supply and
demand. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Hanuschek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S.
G. (1999). Do higher salaries buy better teachers? Paper
presented at the Annual meetings of the American Economic
Association, New York.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S.
G. (2001). Why Public Schools Lose Teachers. Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Heyns, B. (1988). Educational defectors: a first
look at teacher attrition in the NLS-72. Educational
Researcher, 17, 24-32.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher Turnover,
Teacher Shortages, and the Organization of Schools: Center for
the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities.
New York: Harper-Collins.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J.
(1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program
improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52,
309-339.
Miech, R., & Elder, R. (1996). The service
ethic and teaching. Sociology of Education, 69,
237-253.
Monane, J. H. (1967). A sociology of human
systems. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.
Mont, D., & Rees, D. (1996). The influence
of classroom characteristics on high school teacher turnover.
Economic Inquiry, 34, 152-167.
Murnane, R. J. (1981). Teacher mobility
revisited. Journal of Human Resources, 16(1), 3-19.
Murnane, R. J. (1987). Understanding teacher
attrition. Harvard Educational Review, 57(2), 177-182.
Murnane, R. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1989). The
Effects of Salaries and Opportunity Costs on the Length of Stay in
Teaching: Evidence from Michigan. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 71(2), 347-352.
Murnane, R. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1990). The
Effects of Salaries and Opportunities Costs on the Length of Stay
in Teaching. journal of human resources, 25(1),
106-124.
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J.
B. (1988). The career paths of teachers: implications for teacher
supply and methodological lessons for research. Educational
Researcher, 17(5), 22-30.
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J.
B. (1989). The influences of salaries and "opportunity costs" on
teachers' career choices: evidence from north carolina. Harvard
Educational Review, 59(3), 325-346.
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., Willett, J. B.,
Kemple, J., & Olsen, R. (1991). Who will teach?: Policies
that matter. (Vol. Harvard University Press).
National_Association_of_Elementary_School_Principal
s. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for
opening in the principalship? An exploratory study.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Ortiz, F. I., & Marshall, C. (1988). Women
in educational administration. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook
of research on educational administration (pp. 123-142). New
York: Longman.
Papa, F. C., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J.
(2002). The Attributes and Career Paths of Principals:
Implications for Improving Policy. Albany: University at
Albany, SUNY.
Rees, D. (1991). Grievance Procedure Strength
and Teacher Quits. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
45(1), 31-43.
Rollefson, M., & Broughman, S. (1995).
Teacher supply in the United States: Sources of newly hired
teachers in public and private schools, 1988-1991. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Rumberger, R. (1987). The impact of salary
differentials on teacher shortages and turnover: The case of
mathematics and science teachers. Economics of education
review, 6, 389-399.
Schlecty, P., & Vance, V. (1981). Do
academically able teachers leave education? The North Carolina
Case. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 105-112.
Schlecty, P., & Vance, V. (1983).
Recruitment, selection and retention: The shape of the teaching
force. Elementary School Journal, 83, 469-487.
Theobald, N. D. (1990). An Examination of the
Influence of Personal, Professional, and School District
Characteristics on Public School Teacher Retention. Economics
of Education Review, 9(3), 241-250.
Theobald, N. D., & Gritz, R. M. (1996). The
Effects of School District Spending Priorities on the Exit Paths
of Beginning Teachers Leaving the District. Economics of
Education Review, 15(1), 11-22.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002).
Occupational Outlook Handbook 2002-2003 (Vol. 2002).
Useem, E., Christman, J. B., Gold, E., &
Simon, E. (1996). Reforming Alone: Barriers to Organizational
Learning in Urban School Change Initiatives. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association, New York
City.
Valverde, L. A. (1980). Promotion socialization:
the informal process in large urban districts and its adverse
effects on non-white and women. Journal of Educational Equity
and Leadership, 1, 36-46.
Zigarelli, M. A. (1996). An empirical test of
conclusions from effective schools research. The journal of
educational research, 92(2), 103-110.
About the Authors
Motoko Akiba
Research Assistant Professor
202 Hill Hall
University of Missouri-Columbia
Phone: (573) 884-3730
Fax: (573) 885-5714
Email: akibam@missouri.edu
Motoko Akiba is a research assistant professor of Educational
Policy in the department of Educational Leadership and Policy
Analysis at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Dr.
Akiba’s research program focuses on the identification of
effective school conditions that improve learning and
health-related behaviors of K-12 students from high-poverty
communities.
Robert Reichardt, PhD
Executive Director, Alliance for Quality Teaching
1410 Grant St. Suite 105-B
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-839-8400
Fax: 303-861-1501
robert@qualityteaching.org
www.qualityteaching.org
Robert Reichardt is Executive Director of the Alliance for
Quality Teaching, a non-profit organization that works to improve
teacher quality in Colorado through research, networking, and
advocacy. Prior to working at the Alliance , Robert was a Senior
Researcher at Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning.
|
