Public Affairs Research Council
of Alabama
STATE OF ALABAMA
GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON
TEACHER QUALITY
Revised October
24, 2001*
TURNOVER AMONG 1999 NOVICE
TEACHERS
AFTER ONE YEAR OF TEACHING
An ever-expanding body of research indicates that
excellence in schools is related more directly to the performance of their
teachers and administrators than to any other factor. During fiscal year 2000, the Governor's Commission on Teacher
Quality initiated a research program focused on teaching performance and turnover
among "novice" or first-year teachers
following their initial year of service. The purposes of this research are (1) to
provide performance information for policy makers, teacher education
institutions, school systems, principals, and teachers; and (2) to inform the
efforts of the Commission to improve the Professional Education Performance
Evaluation (PEPE) system and develop pilot mentoring programs of professional
development and assistance for Alabama's teachers.
This report is the second in a series of analyses focused on teaching performance and turnover among 1999 novice teachers in the public schools of Alabama. The first, titled "Report on 1999 Professional Education Personnel Evaluation (PEPE) Scores for Novice Teachers," was published on June 30, 2000 and is available online through the State Department of Education web site. The data in that report covered 1,939 teachers who were novices in the 1998-99 school year.
This second report follows these teachers to school year
1999-2000, which was their second year of teaching. It compares the first-year performance of 1,739 teachers in this
cohort who returned to teach in the second year, with the first-year
performance of 200 teachers from this cohort who left teaching after one
year. The analysis is focused on both
turnover and performance.
The turnover analysis looks at differences in turnover rates among teachers who held various types of teaching certificates, who had varying teaching assignments in the first year, and who came from different colleges and universities. The performance comparison shows the areas of teaching competency where teachers who left the profession differed from those who stayed. This information is particularly useful to teacher education institutions because it indicates areas of difficulty for novice teachers that lead to teacher turnover. Increased preparation in these areas might help to reduce turnover and increase teacher performance. The information also is useful to the Commission in its efforts to develop pilot programs of teacher mentoring, and to superintendents and school principals who want to improve the performance of novice teachers in their schools.
Teaching performance in these reports is measured by scores
on the Professional Education Personnel Evaluation (PEPE) instrument, which
focuses on eight competencies associated with effective teaching. Attainment of these competencies is measured
in terms of 26 indicators, with evidence provided by multiple observations,
personal interviews, supervisory reviews, and documentation of professional
development activities. The evaluator
gives a numerical score ranging from 1 ("unsatisfactory") to 4
("demonstrates excellence") for each indicator, and then a holistic
score (not a simple average of indicator scores) for each competency. Competency scores
are summed to provide an overall evaluation score. Teacher evaluations are
conducted by a school administrator.
The results therefore represent a detailed description of novice teacher
performance as seen by professionals.
Turnover
Rates Among Novice Teachers After One Year
Among the 1,939 novice teachers whose 1998-99 performance
was evaluated in the first research report, 1,739 or 89.7% returned for a
second year of teaching in school year 1999-2000. The remaining 200 did not return as a teacher to any public
school in Alabama. This represents a
turnover rate after one year of 10.3% for the novice teachers hired in
1999. It seems clear that efforts
should be made to reduce this turnover rate.
The first step in such efforts is to see whether the turnover is
concentrated in certain types of teachers.
(The statewide teacher assignment database
["LEAPS"] for the 1999-2000 school year was searched to verify that
these 200 teachers had not returned to the classroom. Technically, the fact that they were no longer teaching does not
mean that they left educational employment altogether; it would be possible for
some to have moved from teaching to administrative positions. However, it seems unlikely that many would
have done so; and, in any event, this too would represent turnover in the
classroom where students are taught.)
TABLE
1 shows the turnover rate after one year among 1999 novice teachers who
held various types of teaching certificates. The
certificates are divided into six subgroups for purposes of analysis, and there
were differences from one subgroup to another.
Holders of early childhood certificates totaled 615 (31.7%)
of the 1,939 novice teachers hired in 1999.
Of these 615 novice teachers, 571 or 92.8% returned to the classroom for
a second year of teaching in 2000, while 44 (7.2%) did not return. This turnover rate was substantially lower
than the 10.3% experienced by the entire 1999 cohort of novice teachers. The turnover rate among the 362 novices who were
holders of elementary certificates also was substantially lower than the
turnover rate for the entire cohort.
On the other hand, the 26 novices who held middle school
certificates had the highest turnover among all subgroups (19.2%) after the
first year of teaching. The 543 novices
with secondary certificates also had a high turnover rate (12.3%), as did the
84 novices with special education certificates (13.1%).
It is worth asking why novice teachers certified for the
lower grades have turnover rates that are lower than novice teachers certified
for special education and for the middle and upper grades. Partial answers are available in the
performance evaluation data, as we will see later. Ultimately, the question that should be of concern is: What might be done to reduce the turnover
rates among groups of teachers where they are especially high?
TABLE 2 shows the turnover rate after one
year among 1999 novice teachers who had various kinds of teaching
assignments. Again, the striking
pattern in the table is that novice teachers who were assigned in early
childhood and elementary positions had much lower turnover rates than other
groups. The 974 novice teachers hired
into these two assignments (539 early childhood plus 435 elementary teachers) are
basically the same group as the 977 novice teachers hired with early childhood
and elementary certificates and shown in Table 1. Here, in Table 2, these novices are shown with turnover rates
after one year that are below 8%, while all but one of the other groups of
teachers had turnover rates in double digits.
The 111 novice mathematics teachers hired
in 1999 had the highest turnover rate, at 17.1%. Given the importance of mathematics to educational attainment,
turnover at such a rate is a problem that ought to be addressed.
The second-highest turnover rate among
1999 novice teachers was in teachers with special education teaching
assignments (13.8%). These are
challenging and hard-to-fill positions, and it is very costly to lose a large
percentage of new teachers after only one year of experience, requiring another
influx of new teachers in the following year.
TABLE
3 shows the turnover rate after one year among 1999 novice teachers who
graduated from Alabama’s colleges and universities. The largest group of 1999 novice teachers graduated from Athens
State University. Eight public
universities produced 100 or more novice teachers for Alabama’s public schools
in 1999; the turnover rates among these graduates ranged from 5.2% (Athens
State University) to 14.5% (Auburn University). In total, these large Alabama producers of novice teachers
contributed 61% of the novice teachers hired in 1999, and the novices they
produced were involved in 54% of the turnover experienced a year later. The composite turnover rate for this group
of teachers was 9%. The remaining
Alabama institutions contributed 31% of the novice teachers hired in 1999, and
the novices they produced were involved in 32% of the turnover. The composite turnover rate for teachers
produced in these institutions was 10%.
Educational institutions in other states produced 8% of Alabama’s novice
teachers hired in 1999, and this group comprised 14% of the total number of
novice teachers who did not return for a second year. The composite turnover rate for out-of-state graduates was 18%.
Differences in 1999 PEPE Scores Between Returning and Departing Novice
Teachers
It is important to analyze the difference in first-year
Professional Education Performance Evaluation (PEPE) scores between novice
teachers who returned for a second year of teaching and those who did not
return, to determine if performance differences were involved in turnover. The expectation would be that novice
teachers who were successful would be more likely to want to return, and that
school systems would be more likely to retain successful teachers beyond their
first year. This should mean that the
first-year PEPE scores of teachers who later decided to return would be higher
than those of teachers who later decided not return.
This is, in fact, what we see in the PEPE data from 1999,
as described below. However, it is
important at the outset to understand that the lower scores of those who later
decided to leave teaching may indicate a failure, not only of the teachers themselves,
but also of the support system that should undergird their teaching performance
and enable them to succeed. In some
cases, those who go into the teaching profession may turn out to be unsuited
for the job; but in most cases it seems reasonable to assume that the selection
process of teacher education and then of employment by a school system will
have weeded out the most unfit.
However, some of those who make it past the selection process may be
unprepared in some way for the demands of teaching, or unable to find the
assistance they seek to help them meet those demands. Their success will depend on the presence of a support system
that builds on their personal efforts to improve professionally, and on a school
that is organized to deliver that support.
The lesson that should be drawn from the discussion that follows is that
reducing the turnover of novice teachers and improving their teaching
performance is the responsibility of teacher education institutions, school
systems, principals, and school faculties, as well as the teachers themselves.
CHART
1 shows the comparison between first-year PEPE scores for the 1,739
teachers who returned for a second year in 2000, and first-year PEPE scores for
the 200 teachers who did not return in 2000.
There are eight comparisons in the chart. One is a comparison of total scores; the other seven represent average scores for functional areas of
teaching, which are termed “competencies” in the PEPE format:
- Preparation
of instruction
- Presentation
of instruction
- Assessment
of student progress
- Classroom
management
- Creation
of a positive learning climate
- Written
and oral communication
- Professional
responsibilities
In every competency area,
as well as in total, 1999 novice teachers who later returned for a second year
of teaching scored higher on the four-point PEPE scale based on their Year 1 evaluation than
their peers who did not return. The
difference in total scores amounted to 5% (an average of 3.12 for returning
teachers, versus 2.96 for teachers who did not return), which was typical of
the range of differences for most of the competency areas. However, in classroom management the
teachers who remained scored 10% higher than those who departed (3.11 versus
2.81), creating the biggest difference between the two groups of teachers. This indicates a clear relationship between
turnover and competency in classroom management, for this cohort of novice
teachers.
TABLE
4 compares first-year PEPE scores for the 1,739 returning and 200
departing novice teachers, divided into certification subgroups. For each subgroup, the table shows the
difference in total PEPE scores and the competency area in which the difference
was greatest. In all certification
subgroups, the returning teachers had higher scores, although the difference
within the special education subgroup was very small. For all certification subgroups except special education and
middle school, classroom management was the competency area in which the
difference between returning and departing teachers was greatest. In the middle school subgroup, the greatest
difference was in preparation of instruction; in the special education
subgroup, the greatest difference was seen in the development of a positive
learning climate.
TABLE
5 compares first-year PEPE scores for the 1,739 returning and 200
departing novice teachers, divided into teaching assignment subgroups. For each subgroup, the table shows the
difference in total PEPE scores and the competency area in which the difference
was greatest. In all teaching
assignment subgroups, the returning teachers had higher scores, although the
differences were small for the special education and art/music subgroups. Classroom management was the competency area
showing the greatest difference between returning and departing novice
teachers, for all teaching assignment subgroups except art/music, elementary,
and language arts. In the elementary
subgroup, the biggest difference was in preparation of instruction; in
art/music, it was in presentation; and in language arts, it was assessment of
student progress.
TABLE
6 compares first-year PEPE scores for the 1,739 returning and 200
departing novice teachers, divided into the subgroups based on the college or
university from which teachers graduated.
For each educational institution except those with fewer than two
departing novice teachers, the table shows the difference in total PEPE scores
between returning and departing teachers and the competency area in which the
difference was greatest. For all
institutions, returning teachers had higher PEPE scores than departing
teachers. In a majority of
institutions, classroom management was the competency showing the greatest
difference between returning and departing teachers; however, in a few cases
other factors showed a wider difference.
APPENDIX 1 contains detailed comparisons for returning versus departing novice
teachers by teacher education institution.
Conclusion
Improving teaching quality is the best -- and perhaps only
-- route to better schools for Alabama.
Reducing teacher turnover and improving professional competency as measured
on the PEPE instrument are two obvious steps toward achieving the goal of
improved teacher quality. The data
presented in this report suggest that there is a relationship between turnover
and professional competency; specifically, the data suggest that improving
competency in classroom management (and, to a lesser extent, other competency
factors measured by PEPE) can help to reduce the rate of turnover for novice
teachers.
State policy makers, deans of education in Alabama's
universities, school superintendents, principals, and school faculties should
concern themselves with providing education, training, and support to students
and novice teachers that will increase their competency in classroom management
and other factors, so that teaching performance will increase and teacher
turnover will decrease in Alabama's schools.
In particular, it appears that:
·
Colleges of education should consider placing greater
emphasis on actual classroom experience in teacher education programs, as a way
to improve the classroom management skills of their graduates.
·
The Governor's Commission on Teacher Quality should pursue
its pilot mentoring programs with an understanding that classroom management
and certain other competency areas appear to be strongly related to teacher
turnover, and therefore deserve great attention by mentors.
·
Superintendents and principals should investigate ways to
organize their schools to provide more support to novice teachers.
