Ingersoll was not alone in his focus on working conditions: Other researchers, working in the 1990s and 2000s, examined the influence of working conditions on job satisfaction and on teacher retention decisions alongside other factors such as salary, student enrollment trends, and personal factors such as maternity leave (Theobald, 1990; Billingsley, 1993; Kim & Loadman, 1994; Gonzalez, 1995; some 2000 citations needed). Ingersoll was by no means the only voice advocating that more attention be paid to factors within the control of administrators, yet his work, as indicated by the extensive references in the literature, has had lasting influence. Dunn (2015) explained that Ingersoll’s influence is due to his continuous work of “disproving myths”
…show more content…
In contrast, demand-side approaches reflect micro-level needs, offering policy solutions enacted at a building or district level. Both push and pull factors are policy amenable at the local level. Unlike teacher compensation, teacher qualities, and student Socioeconomic Status, building-level leadership have control over push and pull factors. Decisions, policy, and actions by school administrators, therefore, contribute to teachers staying, migrating, or leaving. Dunn (2015) explained these factors have “not been fully explored in the literature because of their relative newness” (p. 85). From her small qualitative study of three highly-effective urban high school teachers, Dunn (2015) concluded pull factors are often able to overpower push factors for teachers who contemplate whether to remain in teaching. Dunn admits her sampling is too small to make any generalizations but her study serves to highlight the emerging importance of a push and pull approach to examine teachers’ decisions to remain in or leave their …show more content…
Balu et al. (2010) noted that “not all teacher turnover is bad for schools” (201, p. 2); the goal is to retain high quality teachers, not just ensure the physical presence of a teacher in the classroom (Boyd et al., 2010; others). This means some early migration and early exit from the profession is desirable. Effective principals are committed to “strategically retaining quality teachers,” removing ineffective teachers, and developing veteran teachers (Loeb, Kalogrides, & Béteille, 2012). Ingersoll et al. (2014) noted the problems resulting from too little teacher turnover: stagnancy and lack of innovation. Carroll (2007) asserted that “the goal is not to achieve zero turnover” (p.
In contrast, demand-side approaches reflect micro-level needs, offering policy solutions enacted at a building or district level. Both push and pull factors are policy amenable at the local level. Unlike teacher compensation, teacher qualities, and student Socioeconomic Status, building-level leadership have control over push and pull factors. Decisions, policy, and actions by school administrators, therefore, contribute to teachers staying, migrating, or leaving. Dunn (2015) explained these factors have “not been fully explored in the literature because of their relative newness” (p. 85). From her small qualitative study of three highly-effective urban high school teachers, Dunn (2015) concluded pull factors are often able to overpower push factors for teachers who contemplate whether to remain in teaching. Dunn admits her sampling is too small to make any generalizations but her study serves to highlight the emerging importance of a push and pull approach to examine teachers’ decisions to remain in or leave their …show more content…
Balu et al. (2010) noted that “not all teacher turnover is bad for schools” (201, p. 2); the goal is to retain high quality teachers, not just ensure the physical presence of a teacher in the classroom (Boyd et al., 2010; others). This means some early migration and early exit from the profession is desirable. Effective principals are committed to “strategically retaining quality teachers,” removing ineffective teachers, and developing veteran teachers (Loeb, Kalogrides, & Béteille, 2012). Ingersoll et al. (2014) noted the problems resulting from too little teacher turnover: stagnancy and lack of innovation. Carroll (2007) asserted that “the goal is not to achieve zero turnover” (p.