“Paddington Academy is a brilliant school. … But for others to benefit, Paddintgo n’s strengths – its remarkable people and methods – must be echoed elsewhere. Methods can be copied …. Remarkable people are harder to reproduce.”

The Economist editors recognize the critical fact that reproducing remarkable people is no easy feat. Many young teachers were captivated by the portrayal of Jaime Escalante’s success (Stand and Deliver), and motivated to achieve great things; in the 1990s the stories of LouAnne Johnson or Erin Gruwell motivated many more. Why, then, aren’t their more remarkable teachers?

Not every teacher is in a position, personally or organizationally, to rise to the challenge of single-handedly turning around a bad school situation. Indeed, at least in Mr. Escalante’s case, it appears that the support of at least one administrator was critical. We tend to downplay the impact of environment, timing and the serendipity of situations — just as generations of historians focused on “great men” as movers and shakers of history. We seem happy to see movies about classrooms where young adults are free, even dared to, be expressive, hardworking individuals who control their own destiny. Yet, we continually deny this same unconditional support to teachers.

A veritable host of studies has tried to model what “incentives” motivate teachers; and these routinely fall into predictable carrot and stick schemes of linking teacher pay to student test scores. However, in “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers” (p. 351) Eric Hanushek and his colleagues entertain a very different form of incentive: “An alternative to raising salaries may be addressing specific working conditions that are associated with the schools serving particular types of students.” They argue that schools in high poverty, high minority districts may have more “disciplinary problems, rigid bureaucracies” and “poor leadership.” Under such conditions, paying a lot of money isn’t likely to motivate a charismatic young teacher. But, opening up a chance for these same teachers to have more control over their own classrooms — to experiment, to fail, and to try again – might prove a powerful incentive.

Remarkable teachers are hard to reproduce – but promoting conditions that encourage teachers to be remarkable are within the policy makers’ reach. Perhaps the real question then, is “How then do we find remarkable policy makers?”

Teacher Attrition: From School Turnover to Transnational Migration

Teacher attrition has been an area of interest since (Ingersoll 2001) that teacher shortages in the US might actually be related to teachers leaving schools or the field itself, not a shortage of newly trained teachers. An analysis of the Schools and Staffing Survey (Marvell 2007) looked at “movers” and “leavers” and provided a baseline study that indicates significant turnover around the nation.  Attrition appears to be an ideal concept to develop further as it plays a role at local, state/provincial and national levels.

From an international perspective, as Peter Wallet pointed out, attrition is a factor in determining how many teachers a nation or region will need in the future.  It also raises questions about where teachers are going when they leave, i.e. are they leaving to teach in another sector, or are they leaving their home country to teach in another nation (transnational migration).  Attrition from the field (i.e. teachers leaving to work in another sector) could also potentially serve to shed light on the status of the teaching profession.  It would appear that some nations (like Japan or S. Korea) have very low attrition rates while others, like the U.S. are much higher.  When teachers leave would also be of interest, especially if linked to gender.  It may be that in some countries, female teachers may have higher rates of leaving the field upon marriage or the birth of the first child.

At the state or provincial level within a nation, a similar question would also be useful to policy makers.  Some states in the U.S. like Pennsylvania, have the reputation for being “teacher exporters.”  Given the intense demand for teachers in STEM subjects, are some states or provinces doing a better job at retaining teachers in these key areas.

Finally, at the local level, teacher turnover appears a strong candidate for development as a school level variable that could have independent effects on learning gains .  Whether leaving the field or simply moving to another school, high teacher turnover is likely to affect the morale of remaining teachers and students, as well as disrupting core organizational routines (like cross grade consultation).  Teacher effectiveness in schools with high turnover may be substantially decreased. On the other hand, if the teachers that leave are less effective than their peers, the impact may be muted (Boyd et al. 2008).

Works Cited

Boyd, Donald; Grossman, Pamela; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James. 2008 “Who Leaves?” Teacher Attrition and Student Achievement. Working Paper 23. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.  The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). “Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis.” American Educational Research Journal 38(3): 499-534.

Marvell, J. (2007). Teacher Attition and Mobility. Washington DC, US Dept of Education.

Autonomy is the mark of a professional.  We expect that doctors, engineers or police detectives should be given considerable room to exercise their judgment when they carry out their job.  This is not true for teachers in many countries, especially the U.S. in the lower and middle grades.  As early as 1969, scholars like Elliot Eisner criticized the concept, and pointed out that teachers should be engaged in developing and modifying curriculum.  The premise that teachers should be merely instruments of curriculum delivery undermines the notion of teacher autonomy and teacher efficacy as well.   Teacher efficacy is one of the few concepts that has been empirically shown to be positively related to student achievement and motivation.  If attempts to standardize the curriculum or assess teacher outcomes limit or diminish efficacy as well as autonomy, then such reforms may actually be working   to decrease overall student achievement levels.