RIC06259 Staying or going? Factors that influence ... · staffing patterns only compound the educational difficulties already faced by many students in rural, remote and urban disadvantaged

Suzanne Rice 1 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

RIC06259

Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach

Suzanne Rice Faculty of Education

University of Melbourne Abstract: Schools that have been traditionally hard to staff are facing increasing issues in attracting and retaining teachers, and the pattern of new graduates accepting positions in such schools, only to leave for more desirable locations once they have gained experience, is likely to be exacerbated by teacher shortages. Such staffing patterns only compound the educational difficulties already faced by many students in rural, remote and urban disadvantaged schools, and are likely to further increase inequalities in educational outcomes. If schools in disadvantaged settings are to improve student outcomes, they need to be aware of how best to attract and retain the teachers likely to have a strong positive impact on students. This project surveyed over 900 Victorian primary and secondary teachers, identifying the factors that most influenced more effective teachers in their decisions to move towards, stay within or move away from a school, a system and the teaching career itself. Introduction: Popular understandings and discourse concerning teacher shortages in Australia are often framed in very general terms: as with other forms of skilled work, Australian society is “running short” of teachers and a teaching qualification is sometimes depicted by the media as a passport to ongoing, secure work. Research suggests, however, that the reality is much more nuanced: rather than a general shortfall, teacher shortages are defined by subject area, geography and teaching level, and are likely to continue to be so in the foreseeable future (MCEETYA, 2004; Victorian Department of Education and Training, 2005).1

1 In particular, Australian shortages are apparent and likely to increase mostly at the secondary level in the areas of maths, science, technology and LOTE, assuming student: teacher ratios remain constant. Some recruitment difficulties for primary schools in the fields of LOTE and special education are also becoming apparent (MCEETYA, 2004).

Suzanne Rice 2 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

If teachers prefer some teaching locations to others, it is inevitable that any teacher shortages will impact principally on the least favoured locations, as teachers in high demand opt for positions in the most preferred settings. Research conducted in Australia and other developed countries such as the United States concerning teacher preferences for schools confirms both the anecdotal and the intuitive: the least favoured locations are schools in rural and remote settings, together with urban schools catering for large numbers of students from impoverished homes, and those from ethnic and language minority backgrounds (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook and Barkanic, 1998; Watson and Hatton, 1995a; Watson and Hatton, 1995b; Thomson, 2002; Haycock, 2000; Claycomb and Hawley, 2000; Beaudin, 1998; Ingersoll & Rossi, 1995; Falch and Strom, 2005; OECD, 2005). Schools in these settings are likely to bear the brunt of any shortages, and may be forced to “make do” with teachers who are poorly qualified or even unqualified to teach the subjects they are allocated (Haycock, 2000), a situation that is already relatively common in parts of the United States (OECD, 2005; Ingersoll, 2002)2. Even where teachers are fully qualified, transfer patterns and preferences mean that students in hard-to-staff schools are more likely to be taught by teachers with relatively few years of experience (Hatton and Watson, 2002; OECD, 2005; Ingersoll, 2002). The departure of these teachers to more favoured settings on gaining some experience results in very high levels of turnover in some settings (Welch, Helme and Lamb, forthcoming; NSW Public Education Council, 2005) and creates enormous problems in building a shared learning culture (Thomson, 2002; Watson, 1992). Sadly, it is these schools where student outcomes are already relatively poor. Students in remote and rural settings, and those in disadvantaged urban schools tend to achieve, on average, poorer results in standardised tests than middle-class urban students (Cresswell and Underwood, 2004). Secondary schools in these settings also tend to have lower retention rates, and the low-achieving and low SES students often pooled in these schools have poorer rates of articulation to work and further study (Lamb et al, 2004; Ainley, 1998; Ainley and McKenzie, 1999; Lamb and McKenzie, 2001; Rumberger, 1983, cited in Levin, 1996). The long-term impact of these differences on students’ lives is likely to be profound, especially as educational qualifications become more and more essential to securing well-paid work, and avoiding the twin paths to casualised “McJobs” and ongoing unemployment. The capacity of hard-to-staff schools to reduce these gaps in educational outcomes, if forced to rely increasingly on less qualified and capable staff in a time of teacher shortages, appears severely limited. It seems likely, then, that the specific teacher shortages Australia is facing are already impacting most heavily on those schools least able to bear further educational disadvantage, and will further increase inequalities of outcome. As Preston notes,

Teacher shortages are never evenly spread – they affect most severely those schools that are generally hard-to-staff, and they usually occur most severely in those subject specialisations that are tight at the best of times. Some schools will never feel the damaging effects of a shortage,

2 Ingersoll (2002) does argue that out-of-field teaching is more strongly related to school management decisions and school size, rather than teacher shortages per se. His research has focused on U.S. schools, however, and the extent to which these findings apply to school systems in other countries is unclear.

Suzanne Rice 3 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

however severe – in fact such schools may benefit in the competition for status, teachers and students if other schools are experiencing the disruption and inadequate teaching that results from shortages of competent, qualified teachers. Students in hard-to-staff schools are usually already disadvantaged – by the very factors that make the school unattractive to teachers and thus hard-to-staff.

(Cited in Martinez, 2005, p.95) Further, these inequalities are likely to be exacerbated by growing skills shortages in other fields and a subsequent buoyant job market, as there is evidence that teacher resignation rates increase with opportunities for employment outside teaching (Burke, 1994). A significant body of research has sought to examine teacher mobility, retention and decisions regarding where to teach (e.g. Beaudin, 1998; Boe, Barkanic and Leow, 1999; Billingsley, 1993; Hatton and Watson, 2002; Krei, 2000; Whitener et al, 1997; Falch and Strom, 2005). While much of this research has shed light on the factors influencing teachers to change schools or to leave teaching altogether, teachers have mostly been examined as an undifferentiated group, equally able to offer students engaging and productive educational experiences. In the light of the staffing contexts and inequities outlined above, it is apparent that simply attracting any teacher to a less-favoured school setting is only part of the problem. If the most disadvantaged schools are to have any hope of improving the educational and social outcomes of their students, they need to be able to attract those teachers most likely to have a positive impact on student learning. Further, attracting such teachers achieves little if these schools are unable to retain them for a reasonable period of time. Yet there appears to be little research examining those factors that drive more effective teachers to choose a particular school in which to teach, nor on the factors that push them to leave, nor those that might hold them at a school. This study sought to address this issue by examining the decisions and the motivating factors teachers identified concerning their school and career choices, but through the prism of teacher effectiveness, contrasting the decisions of more and less effective teachers. This was done in the hope of providing insights that might facilitate policy reforms to assist the least favoured schools to attract – and retain – those teachers most likely to improve student learning outcomes. Of the findings from the project, this paper discusses factors that draw effective teachers to a school, and those likely to hold them there. Methodology and sampling: The study surveyed 919 part-time and full-time teaching staff in three regions of Victoria. Because schools in different areas experience different staffing problems (Boylan et al, 1993; Boe, Bobbitt, Cook and Barkanic, 1998; Ingersoll and Rossi, 1995; Victorian Department of Education and Training, 2005), three contrasting regions were targeted. These were:

1. The eastern metropolitan region (EMR) of Melbourne. This is the wealthiest school region in the state. Levels of education amongst the adult population are high, as are average incomes. Parent participation levels in schools are

Suzanne Rice 4 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

among the highest in the state (Department of Victorian Communities, unpublished tables, 2005). While the Victorian government does not keep data on levels of teacher turnover in schools, a number of principals in EMR contacted regarding participation in the project commented that turnover in their schools was far too low, creating professional staleness.

2. The northern metropolitan region (NMR) of Melbourne. This is one of the most disadvantaged metropolitan regions in the state. Levels of education amongst the general population are relatively low, as are average incomes, and levels of unemployment are high in many parts of the region. The region also has numerous schools with large numbers of children from non-English speaking backgrounds.

3. The Loddon Mallee (Greater Bendigo) (LMR) region of Victoria. This is a rural region situated around 3 hours’ drive from Melbourne. As with many rural areas, there is a mixture of socio-economic backgrounds amongst students: there are some sections of the region that rate as very disadvantaged, others are more middle class (Vinson, 2004). Compared to many metropolitan locations, there are relatively few non English-speaking background students. In some parts of the region, unemployment and poverty levels are high.

The sample included both primary and secondary teachers and teachers from government, Catholic and independent schools. The distribution of participating schools is shown in Table 1: Primary Secondary Total Government 24 18 42 Catholic 7 5 12 Independent3 5 5 Total 59 Table 1: Schools participating in the study by education level and sector There were 205 primary participants and 714 secondary; 352 of the total sample were men (38%) and 567, women (62%). Men were more heavily represented in the secondary sample. An eight-page survey was developed which sought information from teachers on a range of matters. In particular, the survey sought to elicit two major strands of information. The first was information that might facilitate differentiation between more and less effective teachers on the basis of current knowledge about the beliefs and attitudes that characterise more effective teachers. The second strand examined information on both direct and indirect factors influencing teachers’ decisions on where to teach. The instrument was trialled three times before implementation and refined in response to feedback from trial participants. Factors influencing teachers’ decisions: The literature indicates that teachers move towards and away from schools for reasons that may be personal (e.g. family demands), professional (e.g. a promotion), or a combination of both, and they may also be transferred involuntarily by their employer 3 All participating independent schools were combined primary/secondary.

Suzanne Rice 5 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

(Maclean, 1992; Beaudin, 1998; Boe, Barkanic and Leow, 1999).4 Based on this research, a set of twelve items was developed tapping into reasons why teachers transferred to their current school. Responses were on a yes/no basis, and teachers could tick yes for as many items as they felt appropriate. The twelve reasons were:

1. “I was attracted by this school’s reputation”; 2. “I was unhappy at my previous school”; 3. “I moved to fit in with my partner’s work”; 4. “I wanted a school close to home”; 5. “This school is close to my children’s school”; 6. “I gained a promotion at this school”; 7. “I was placed in excess at my previous school”; 8. “I/we bought a house or moved to a rented property in this area”; 9. “The students at this school are more rewarding to teach”; 10. “My previous school was closed/merged”; 11. “I wanted to teach somewhere with a really innovative approach to education”;

and 12. “I care for a relative/friend who lives near the school”.

Space was also provided for participants to add any reasons they felt were not covered in the list. To explore possible factors that might retain teachers in a school, participants were also asked, “How important would each of the following factors be in your decision to STAY in a school?”5. They were given the following eight items, and asked to respond with, “not at all important”, “important” or “very important”.

1. “More class-free time for planning and reflection or study”; 2. “Better targeted professional development”; 3. “Improved promotion prospects”; 4. “A change in school leadership”; 5. “Improved school facilities”; 6. “A more selective intake of students”; 7. “A curriculum more suitable for the students in this school”; and 8. “Changes in my responsibilities”.

For the last item, participants were given space on the survey form and asked to specify the nature of changes in responsibilities that might induce them to stay on in a school. Identifying the effective teacher: The methodological issue most central to the study was determining how to distinguish within a large group, using a survey instrument, between more and less effective teachers. The teacher effectiveness literature is complex and the term 4 The focus of this study was on educational, professional and personal factors influencing teachers’ mobility decisions. This is not to say that pecuniary factors, that is, salary increases or decreases, do not impact on these decisions, and work by educational economists such as Hanushek provides insights in this respect that should be considered in conjunction with these findings. 5 Emphasis in the original survey.

Suzanne Rice 6 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

contested6, but there are a number of factors known to be associated with increased teacher effectiveness. These include adequate pre-service coursework (Darling-Hammond, 2000), teachers’ literacy skills and verbal abilities (OECD, 2005) and years of teaching experience (Rice, 2003; Murnane et al, 1991).7 Other factors are also linked to teacher effectiveness, including teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. The literature indicates that effective teachers are more likely to hold strong teacher efficacy beliefs, especially self-efficacy beliefs (Gibbs, 2003; Ashton and Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk, 2001). They also demonstrate a commitment to care, are oriented towards their own learning and improvement, and are enthusiastic about their work (Patrick, Hisley and Kempler, 2000, Stronge, 2002; Hargreaves, 2003; Peart and Campbell, 1999). Drawing on this literature, the survey instrument incorporated a set of items designed to differentiate between teachers in terms of each of these attitudinal and belief constructs. An effective teacher was deemed in this study to be one who demonstrated confidence in their own capacity and the capacity of teaching in general to impact on students’ learning, was committed to their own professional growth, showed great enthusiasm for teaching, and operated within a framework of care and concern for others. The related items were used to construct two teacher effectiveness scales, one for primary participants and one for secondary.8 Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scales were .717 and .761 respectively, and corrected item-total correlations were all above 0.3. Z-scores for responses to each item were added to give each participant a teacher effectiveness score. The comparisons between the most effective and least effective groups discussed below were carried out using participants from one half a standard deviation above and one half a standard deviation below the mean on this score. The groups were roughly equivalent to the top and bottom quartiles for each sample. The composition of the groups is indicated in Tables 2a and 2b:

6 Some researchers and theorists, such as Muijs, Campbell, Kyriakidis and Robinson (2005) and Friedman and Kass (2002), have argued for a more differentiated approach to teacher effectiveness, one that moves beyond the classroom to incorporate the broad range of tasks and roles teachers fulfil. They have noted that teacher effectiveness has usually been defined in the research in terms of capacity to produce better-than-expected results with students in tests of skills in mathematics and their native tongue. Such a definition necessarily overlooks, for example, the teacher who creates outstanding relationships with the parent community, or the one who effectively mentors inexperienced staff. While these are important and valid arguments, the current study was based largely, though not exclusively, on research which defines teacher effectiveness according to the capacity to produce better-than-expected student learning outcomes, because improving these outcomes for the most disadvantaged students was seen as central to creating a more positive future for them. 7 With both pre-service training and years of experience, the relationship is not linear: increased training and experience appear to improve teacher effectiveness, but only up to a point, after which performance levels off. 8 There is now considerable evidence that, in a number of important ways, primary and secondary teachers frequently differ in their attitudes towards and beliefs about education, as well as along other dimensions such as job motivation (see, for example, Hargreaves, 1994; O’Donnell and Woolfolk, 1991; Archer, 1999). Because these differences have been encountered by many researchers, the data from this project were explored to determine the nature and strength of any differences between the two groups. Preliminary analysis of the data confirmed reasonably strong differences in the patterns of responses given by primary teachers and secondary teachers, patterns which suggested that the two groups of teachers tend to hold different perspectives on education, teaching and their schools. For this reason, it was decided prior to more substantive analysis to separate the data into a primary teacher database and a secondary teacher database, so that differences between the two groups’ educational outlooks would not obscure patterns in the data.

Suzanne Rice 7 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

N As percentage of primary

sample Primary most effective teachers 54 26.3% Primary least effective teachers 65 31.7% Table 2a: Primary most and least effective teacher numbers and percentages N As percentage of

secondary sample Secondary most effective teachers 187 26.2% Secondary least effective teachers 205 28.7% Table 2b: Secondary most and least effective teacher numbers and percentages It is important to note that, for the sake of brevity, participants in the high effectiveness group will be referred to as the “most effective teachers” and those in the low effectiveness group as the “least effective teachers” in this paper, but the assumption is not that every teacher in the first group is outstanding, nor every teacher in the latter group, poor; rather, it is assumed that highly effective teachers are more likely to be found in the first group, and will be much less common in the second group. FINDINGS: Reasons for transferring to this school from another school9: For both the primary and secondary samples, there were differences in responses between the most and least effective groups. As illustrated in Figure 1, the most effective primary teachers were four times more likely than the least effective to indicate that they gained a promotion at this school (p=.00). In contrast, while none of the most effective group had been placed in excess at their previous school, seventeen per cent of the least effective group had been (p=.02). The most effective teachers were almost twice as likely to say that they wanted to teach somewhere with a really innovative approach to education, a finding that was close to significance at the .05 level (p=.055). There were no differences between the primary teacher groups for the items focusing on personal reasons (a partner’s move, buying a house in the area etc.).

9 There was a smaller number of respondents to this section of the survey, as those teachers holding their first appointment did not complete this section. The sub-sample of primary teachers with high and low teacher effectiveness scores who answered this question was 80, while for secondary teachers the sub-sample of teachers with high and low teacher effectiveness scores who answered this question was 249.

Suzanne Rice 8 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Promotion In excess Innovation

Most effectiveLeast effective

Figure 1: Primary teachers’ reasons for transferring to their schools, by teacher effectiveness score As can be seen in Figures 2a and 2b, there were also major differences between the most and least effective teachers in the secondary sample. As with the primary teachers, the proportions of responses to the personal items (e.g. moving house into the area) were similar for the two groups, but differences emerged on more professionally-oriented items. The most effective teachers were almost twice as likely as the least effective teachers to indicate that they were attracted by the school’s reputation (p=.00), were four times more likely to say that they wanted to teach somewhere with a really innovative approach to education (p=.00), and were more than twice as likely to say they had transferred to accept a promotion (p=.01).

Suzanne Rice 9 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Promotion Reputation Innovation

Most effective Least effective

Figure 2a: Secondary teachers’ reasons for transferring to their schools, by teacher effectiveness score Further, the least effective secondary teachers were nearly six times more likely to have been placed in excess at their previous school, and were also more than five times more likely to say that they were at this school because their previous school had closed or merged.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

In excess School closed/m erged

Most effective Least effective

Figure 2b: Secondary teachers’ reasons for transferring to their schools, by teacher effectiveness score Space was also provided for teachers to indicate any reasons for their transfer into their current school not covered by the options provided. The responses reflected the differences noted above. The most effective teachers in both the primary and

Suzanne Rice 10 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

secondary samples were more likely to mention reasons that focused on their educational role: the opportunity to work in a different educational setting, the need for a change to renew their professional energies, or even to work with a particular principal they admired. This is not to say that personal factors did not play a part – these teachers also mentioned factors such as the desire to reduce travel time, or a change in family situation altering work priorities – but differences in proportion when compared to the least effective teachers were obvious. In contrast, the least effective teachers mentioned personal factors and involuntary transfer factors more frequently: wanting to move from part-time to full-time work, the end of a contract, or simply the need for a job. Amongst the least effective secondary teachers, non-educational reasons (personal reasons or involuntary transfer) accounted for 77 per cent of responses, compared to 46 per cent for the most effective teachers. For the primary teachers, non-educational reasons constituted 40 per cent of responses for the most effective teachers, but 77 per cent of responses for the least effective teachers. The most effective teachers also tended to combine the personal and the educational more frequently; for example, one highly effective teacher mentioned wanting to move closer to a partner, along with the desire to teach their subject at senior secondary level.10 In summary, the most effective teachers, in their movements towards a school, appear to be driven more by professional factors associated with the work of teaching, although these are considered in conjunction with personal factors such as family needs. Promotion opportunities clearly play an important role in the movement of the most effective teachers, and the type of school setting and role are central to their decision-making. In contrast, the least effective appear to be driven more by factors extraneous to teaching, such as school closures or the need for an ongoing rather than temporary position. Holding factors: Reasons for remaining in a school: As noted earlier, attracting effective teachers to less-favoured schools will have little impact if it is not possible to retain them in those schools. For this reason, the role of various factors in holding teachers within a school setting was explored. In the primary sample, there were no differences between the two groups on the importance given to improved school facilities, professional development, a more selective intake of students and a more suitable curriculum. There were differences on the items, “A change in school leadership” and “More class-free time for planning and reflection or study” that were close to significance at the .05 level, with the most effective teachers seeing a change in school leadership as more important than the least effective teachers, while the least effective group placed more importance on class-free time. The major difference in holding factors between the two groups was for the item, “Improved promotion prospects”: fifty-five percent of the least effective group rated this as important or very important, but seventy-eight per cent of the most effective group (p=.02). This is consonant with previous findings that the most effective

10 It should be noted that where a teacher cited both educational and non-educational responses, their answer was counted once in each category.

Suzanne Rice 11 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

primary teachers had been attracted to their school much more often by a promotion opportunity. Amongst the secondary sample, there were again marked differences between the most and least effective groups. The least effective teachers placed much more importance on a more selective intake of students (p=.00), while the most effective teachers gave greater importance to the items, “A curriculum more suitable for the students in this school” (p=.03) and, “Better targeted professional development” (p=.02). As with reasons for transferring, the most effective teachers, both primary and secondary, tended to focus on improving professional and educational factors (e.g. curriculum), while the least effective tended to see the students as the problem, seeking a “better” student cohort, or more time away from them11. It was noteworthy that in both the primary and secondary samples, there was no difference between the level of importance given by the most and least effective groups to the final item, “Changes in my responsibilities”. However, an examination of their qualitative responses to this item was revealing. In both the primary and secondary samples, there was a much stronger emphasis by the most effective teachers on increased responsibilities. Typical responses included, “Opportunity to extend myself”, “I need a position that is more challenging and intellectually stimulating” and, “Involvement with curriculum development”. In contrast, teachers ranking low on the teacher effectiveness scale were much more likely to desire decreased responsibilities. They gave responses such as, “Less dealing with curriculum change”, “Just work in the classroom” and, memorably, “If I was able to take more rest and get paid more, I would stay”. While these differences were not absolute – some highly effective teachers wanted fewer responsibilities, and some less effective teachers wanted more – the differences in proportions in each group were striking. Amongst the most effective primary teachers, seventy-five per cent sought increased responsibilities, compared with twenty-five per cent of the least effective teachers. For secondary teachers, sixty-three per cent of the most effective sought more responsibilities, compared to twenty-seven per cent of the least effective. Discussion: In contrasting the factors mentioned by the most and least effective teachers in their decision-making about where to teach, a number of differences are evident. The first is the much greater importance given to professional factors – those intrinsic to the work itself – by the most effective teachers. This is particularly clear in some of the qualitative responses given: the desire to teach a particular subject, teach at a given level, extend their skills or work in a particular school culture were factors that clearly attracted the most effective teachers to a school more often than their less effective colleagues, and were more likely to hold them there.

11 It is worth noting that in another section of the survey, participants were asked about the degree to which certain factors contributed to student failure at their school. Amongst secondary teachers, there were negative correlations between the teacher effectiveness score and scores on items attributing failure to students’ attitudes or abilities (-.179 and -.173, p=.00 in both cases). In other words, the higher the teacher effectiveness score, the lower the tendency to blame the students.

Suzanne Rice 12 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

The opportunity to make a difference, often, though not always, through the avenue of promotion was another theme that emerged in the responses of the most effective groups. Clearly promotion was important to them, and they sought out opportunities to work at a higher level and implement change. Qualitative responses indicated that they felt a need to use their expertise, and some sought opportunities to mentor more inexperienced teachers or implement new programs. These differences were also evident in the current positions held by the most and least effective teachers: while there were no significant differences in mean age or experience between the groups, the least effective teachers were much more likely to be experienced but in a non-promotional position (experienced teacher/experienced teacher with responsibility) than the most effective teachers, who were much more likely than their less effective colleagues to be found in promotion positions: leading teacher and assistant principal. Figure 3 illustrates current position by teacher effectiveness level for the primary sample.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Beginningteacher

Experiencedteacher

Exp tchr withresponsibility

Leadingteacher

Assist. Prin.

Most effectiveLeast effective

Figure 3: Primary teachers’ current position at their school, by teacher effectiveness level. These patterns were also evident in the secondary teacher sample, with the most effective teachers disproportionately represented in promotion positions, and the least effective in non-promotion positions.12 As can be seen in Figure 3, although proportions of the most and least effective teachers at the beginning teacher level are about the same, proportions diverge beyond this, suggesting that it is not the case that

12 The patterns also suggest that mechanisms for selecting teachers into promotion positions in Victorian schools work reasonably well, insofar as they appear generally to be selecting more effective over less effective teachers.

Suzanne Rice 13 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

the most effective teachers are simply at a given stage in their career; rather, the most and least effective teachers follow different career paths, with the most effective teachers seeking out opportunities to lead. Another driving factor in the decisions of the most effective teachers was the need for change, challenge and growth evidenced in both their quantitative and their qualitative responses.13 This is evident in their nomination of greater, rather than fewer, responsibilities as a factor that may hold them in a school, but also in the preference of both primary and secondary highly effective teachers to teach in a school with a really innovative approach to education. Highly effective secondary teachers’ emphasis on better targeted professional development as a means to hold them in a school is also in keeping with the desire for professional growth and challenge. In contrast, the least effective teachers are striking in the emphasis they place on non-professional factors extraneous to the work of teaching: needing a job, wanting to teach close to home, and having a contract expire are the types of reasons that appear to dominate their decisions to teach in a given setting. While the most effective teachers are also driven by such factors, they appear to feature less prominently in their thinking, and extraneous factors are often mentioned in combination with professional ones: the need for a setting that matches family demands, but also one with a dynamic principal, the need for a position on returning from interstate, together with a chance to modernise the maths curriculum. In short, the least effective teachers appear to be more often looking for a job, any teaching job, while the most effective teachers are seeking a given role, a given opportunity, a particular setting that allows them to contribute and to make changes for the better. It could also be argued that the most effective teachers are further characterised by a more proactive stance towards their work, and the least effective teachers, by a more passive stance. Both quantitative and qualitative data for the least effective teachers emphasised reasons for moving that centred on the actions of others in their lives: principals, family and so on. This more passive, reactive approach of the least effective teachers was also evident in other sections of the data not discussed in this paper. This difference between the two groups of teachers may also explain one of the more puzzling results of the analysis: that secondary teachers in the least effective group were four times more likely to have moved to their current school because their previous school had closed or merged. Initially, a correlation was run between school size and the teacher effectiveness score, as this result suggested that perhaps more effective teachers prefer larger schools with greater curriculum breadth and opportunities for leadership. However, no correlation was found14, and t-test for independent groups between the most and least effective teachers did not find a significant difference between the mean school size for the two groups. But the difference in approach noted above suggests another explanation. School closures and mergers do not happen suddenly: the process usually takes a minimum of one year, often longer. It seems probable that the more proactive highly effective teacher, on learning that their school is likely to close, sets about finding another position in an

13 It should be noted that this may be in part a function of the definition of teacher effectiveness selected for the study, and its realisation in the teacher effectiveness scales constructed, as both emphasised the willingness to try out new ideas and engage in professional growth. 14 There was, however, a correlation between school size and teacher effectiveness score for the primary sample, suggesting that more effective primary teachers may gravitate towards larger schools.

Suzanne Rice 14 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

appropriate location in keeping with the type of role they would like, and the educational philosophy to which they subscribe. In their own minds, they may see themselves as seeking their current school, and their previous school’s closure is only incidental to the move, or they leave the school before it closes. In contrast, the least effective teacher, perhaps lacking the confidence to seek out a new position, may tend to remain until closure “happens” to them, and they accept whatever job the school system offers them subsequently. Policy implications: The findings from the study suggest a number of factors that will need to shape policy if education systems are to draw the most effective teachers towards hard-to-staff schools in greater numbers, and hold them there. The desire of these teachers for opportunities to shape and influence their schools, particularly through attaining leadership positions in schools, suggests that one means of improving the ability of less-favoured school locations to attract and retain better teachers may be to increase the proportion of leadership positions they offer, relative to more advantaged schools. For this to work, funding would need to be tied specifically to positions, rather than provided as general finances that could, for example, be spent on facilities rather than staffing. In contrast to calls to increase salary in general for teachers working in disadvantaged settings, the findings of the study indicate that using funds to increase positions of responsibility may have a much greater educational impact. The fact that both primary and secondary teachers in the most effective group had clear ideas on the type of roles and work they wished to take on is also suggestive. Most current staffing systems operate almost entirely from the employer’s perspective, whether the system staffs schools at a local or a more central, bureaucratised level. Positions are advertised, and potential employees apply. The findings from the study suggest that systems and schools need to explore means by which more power in this process is given to the teacher as potential employee to negotiate concerning role requirements. If, for example, disadvantaged schools advertised leadership positions in broad general terms, but allowed for a large degree of negotiation between applicants and the school management on the actual content of that role, effective teachers may well be attracted for the reasons outlined above. The strong commitment of these teachers to their own learning also suggests that another means education systems might consider to attract these teachers to hard-to-staff schools could be to offer payment or subsidy of course fees for postgraduate educational qualifications to teachers willing to accept a position in such a school. Subsidised courses would be linked to school need, thus helping the school to increase its own effectiveness through staff knowledge, while allowing the teacher the personal benefit of building their skills and qualifications. So, for example, a hard-to-staff primary school might offer a classroom teacher position with a fee subsidy for a postgraduate diploma in student welfare attached. Such an initiative would also have the advantage of attracting or retaining younger effective teachers, who may not yet be ready for a promotion, and for whom a leadership position might not yet be a viable incentive.

Suzanne Rice 15 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

Lastly, the findings have implications for the role of innovation in disadvantaged schools. Teese (2006) has already contended that innovation is unlikely to occur in the most successful schools, as they have the strongest interest in maintaining the status quo, given that they benefit so much from it. He argues instead that systems should work to transform the role of the most disadvantaged schools into “engines for innovation”, sites in which new ideas to engage students and transform pedagogies and curricula can be developed and implemented. One further advantage of creating centres for innovation in disadvantaged areas would be that the schools might then have a greater chance of attracting those teachers likely to do the most to improve students’ learning. All this, of course, requires the political will and commitment to provide the differential resources needed to implement such changes, on behalf of those students whose parents have the fewest resources to agitate for change in the first place. But failure to do so is to risk further student disenchantment and disengagement, entrenched inequality and ultimately, social fragmentation. e-mail: [email protected] to 31st October, 2007. REFERENCES: Ainley, J. and McKenzie, P. (1999). The influence of school factors. In Dusseldorp J. (ed.) Australia’s Young Adults: The Deepening Divide. Sydney: Dusseldorp Skills Forum. Ainley, J. (1998). School participation, retention and outcomes. In Dusseldorp, J. (ed.) Australia’s Youth: Reality and Risk. Sydney: Dusseldorp Skills Forum. Archer, J. (1999). Teachers’ Beliefs about Successful Teaching and Learning in Mathematics. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, 29th November to 2nd December, 1999. Viewed on 13th July, 2006 at http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/arc99491.htm Ashton, P.T. and Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement. N.Y.: Longman. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. N.Y.: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Beaudin, B. (1998). Teacher Interdistrict Migration: A Comparison of Teacher, Position, and District Characteristics for the 1992 and 1997 Cohorts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13-17, 1998.

Suzanne Rice 16 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

Billingsley, B.S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: a critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education 27(20), 137-174. Boe, E.E., Barkanic, G. and Leow, C. (1999). Retention and Attrition of Teachers at the School Level: National Trends and Predictions. Data Analysis Report no: 1999-DAR1. Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking and Management.

Boe, E.E., Bobbitt, S.A., Cook, L.H. and Barkanic, G. (1998). National Trends in Teacher Supply and Turnover for Special and General Education. Pennsylvania University, Philadelphia: Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy. Boylan, C., Sinclair, R., Smith, A., Squires, D., Edwards, J., Jacob, A., O’Malley, D. (1993). Retaining teachers in rural schools: satisfaction, commitment, and lifestyles. In Boylan, C. and Alston, M. (eds.), Rural Education Issues. Wagga Wagga, Australia: Centre for Rural Social Research and Society for Provision of Education in Rural Education. Burke, G. (1994). Teachers: employment in the 1980s and 1990s. In F. Crowther, B. Caldwell, J. Chapman, G. Lakomski and D. Ogilvie (Eds.), The Workplace in Education: Australian Perspectives. Sydney: Edward Arnold. Claycomb, C. and Hawley, W. (2000) Recruiting and Retaining Effective Teachers for Urban Schools: Developing a Strategic Plan for Action. ERIC document ED 451, 147. Viewed on 23rd November, 2006 at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/25/e0.pdf Cresswell, J. and Underwood, C. (2004). Location, Location, Location: Implications of Geographical Situation on Australian Student Performance in PISA. ACER Research Monograph No. 58. Viewed on 16th October, 2006 at http://www.ozpisa.acer.edu.au/documents/RM58PISALocation.pdf Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(1) http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Viewed 16th February, 2006. Falch, T. and Strom, B. (2005). Teacher turnover and non-pecuniary factors. Economics of Education Review, 24(6), 611-631. Friedman, I. and Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: a classroom organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(6), 675-686. Gibbs, C. (2003). Explaining effective teaching: self-efficacy and thought control of action. Journal of Educational Enquiry 4(2). Viewed 16th February, 2006 at http://www.literacy.unisa.edu.au/jee/Papers/JEEVol1No2/Paper1.pdf Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London: Cassell.

Suzanne Rice 17 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Hatton, N. & Watson, A. (2002). School Staffing: Linking Quality with Equality. Submission to the Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education, Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. Submission Number RTTE 20. Viewed 22nd November, 2006 at http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/reviews/teaching_teacher_education/submissions_1_25.htm Haycock, K. (2000). No more settling for less. Thinking K-16, 4(1), 3-12. Ingersoll, R. & Rossi, R. (1995). Which Types of Schools Have the Highest Teacher Turnover? Issue Brief. Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Research. Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-of-field Teaching, Educational Inequality and the Organization of Schools: An Exploratory Analysis. Research report published by the Centre for the Study of Teaching Policy, Washington. Accessed at http://www.ctpweb.org/ on 20th October, 2006, 12:20 p.m. Krei, M.S. (2000). Teacher Transfer Policy and the Implications for Equity in Urban School Districts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000. Lamb, S. & McKenzie, P. (2001). Patterns of Success and Failure on the Transition from School to Work in Australia. LSAY Research Report No. 18, Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Lamb, S., Walstab, A., Teese, R., Vickers, M. and Rumberger, R. (2004). Staying on at School: Improving Student Retention in Australia. Report prepared for the Queensland Department of Education and the Arts. Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Melbourne. Viewed on 17th October, 2006 at http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/retention/studentretention.pdf Levin, H. (1996). Economics of school reform for at-risk students. In E. Hanushek & D. Jorgenson (eds), Improving America’s Schools: The Role of Incentives. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Martinez, K. (2004). Mentoring new teachers: Promise and problems in times of teacher shortage. Australian Journal of Education 48(1), 95-108. Maclean, R. (1992). Teachers’ Careers and Promotion Patterns: A Sociological Analysis. London: Falmer Press. Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2004). Demand and Supply of Primary and Secondary School Teachers in Australia. Viewed on 10th October, 2006 at http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/-DAS_teachers-PartsA-d.pdf

Suzanne Rice 18 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

Muijs, D., Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L. and Robinson, W. (2005). Making the case for differentiated teacher effectiveness: an overview of the research in four key areas. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 16(1), 51-70. Murnane, R., Singer, J., Willett, J., Kemple, J., and Olsen, R. (1991). Who Will Teach? Policies That Matter. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. New South Wales Public Education Council (2005). New South Wales Public Schools: Building a Strong Foundation. Viewed on 27th October, 2006 at https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/reports_stats/pec/report.pdf O’Donnell, A. and Woolfolk, A. (1991). Elementary and Secondary Teachers’ Beliefs about Testing and Grading. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (99th, San Francisco, CA). ERIC clearinghouse SP033963. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: Author. Patrick, B, Hisley, J. and Kempler, T. (2000). What’s everybody so excited about? The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 217-236. Peart, N. and Campbell, F. (1999). At-risk students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(3), 269-284. Rice, J.K. (2003). Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes. Washington: Economic Policy Institute. Stronge, J. (2002). Qualities of Effective Teachers. Alexandria, Vancouver: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Teese, R. (2006). Condemned to innovate. Griffith Review, autumn. Viewed on 31st October, 2006 at http://www3.griffith.edu.au/01/griffithreview/past_editions.php?id=301 Tschannen-Moran, M and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(7), 783-805. Thomson, P. (2002). Schooling the Rustbelt Kids: Making the Difference in Changing Times. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Victorian Department of Education and Training (2005). Teacher Supply and Demand Report 2005. Viewed on 20th October, 2006 at http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/hr/recruit/advert/Teacher_Supply_and_Demand_in_Victoria_2005.pdf Vinson, T. (2004). Community, Adversity and Resilience Report. Viewed on 16th February, 2006 at http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/jss/document/VICpcode.pdf/

Suzanne Rice 19 Staying or going? Factors that influence effective teachers’ decisions on where to teach.

Watson, A. (1992). Our teachers never come back after Christmas: Teacher satisfaction, the community and school improvement. Set 1 (11). Watson, A. and Hatton, N. (1995a). Staffing of Schools: Quality and Equality. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education conference, Hobart, November, 1995. Watson, A. and Hatton, N. (1995b). Teacher placement and school staffing. In L.W. Anderson (ed). International Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher Education. Oxford: Pergamon. Welch, A. Helme, S. and Lamb, S. (2007). Rurality and inequality in education: The Australian perspective. In R. Teese, S. Lamb and M. Duru-Bellat (eds), Education and Equity: International Perspectives on Theory and Policy. Dortrecht: Springer Publications, pp.271-293. Whitener, S. D. and others (1997). Characteristics of Stayers, Movers and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994-1995. Washington: National Centre for Education Statistics.