\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[greek,ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Teacher Retention: Why They Stay}



\author[1]{Michael Kurtz}%
\author[2]{Henry St. Maurice}%
\affil[1]{Stevens Point Area Public School District}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 22, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
This quantitative study was based on national studies of teacher
retention. A survey modified from Wiegand (2003) was completed by 425
practicing teachers from four Wisconsin school districts. Perception
data were gathered from 319 participants who reportedly planned to
continue teaching at their current schools. The survey was
cross-sectional: data were collected in a short time frame. Data
analysis was conducted in five stages: 1) Background characteristics of
respondents; 2) Analysis of future plans; 3) Analysis of Likert scale
items for all teachers that plan to remain; 4) Analysis of Likert scale
items by teacher subgroups; 5) Analysis of open-ended items.

Findings showed that their decisions were influenced by gender, age,
current school teaching experience, and grade levels. Analyses of
responses found significant relationships among intrinsic motivation,
school organizational characteristics, and school climate.

This study received Exempt Review from the Edgewood College Human
Participants Review Board based on an appropriate risk/benefit ratio and
a project design wherein the risks have been minimized.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{TEACHER RETENTION: WHY THEY STAY}

by

Michael Kurtz

3341 Derby Court Plover, Wisconsin, 54467

mkurtz@pointschools.net

Henry St. Maurice

1255 Deming Way

Madison, Wisconsin, 53717

HStMaurice@edgewood.edu

\subsection*{Abstract}

{\label{abstract}}

This study was based on national studies of teacher retention. A
quantitative survey modified from Wiegand (2003) was completed by 425
practicing teachers from four Wisconsin school districts. Perception
data were gathered from 319 participants who reportedly planned to
continue teaching at their current schools. Findings from the study were
that the teacher turnover rate was higher than national averages, and
that participants' responses were influenced by gender, age, current
school teaching experience, and grade levels. Responses from
participants who reported decisions to remain showed significant
relationships to their responses on intrinsic motivation, school
organizational characteristics, and school climate.

\textbf{Keywords}: Teacher Retention; Teacher Turnover; Teacher
Attrition; Teacher Recruitment; School Improvement; Student
Achievement\textbf{Highlights}Total teacher turnover rates were higher
than national rates. Characteristics associated with teacher efficacy
were the strongest reasons to stay. Relationships with students and
colleagues influenced decisions to remain. Participants' responses were
strongly influenced by grade levels.

\subsection*{1. Introduction}

{\label{introduction}}

This study addressed teacher retention at the school level. It used a
quantitative survey of teachers who have remained in teaching positions
in Wisconsin to find their perceptions of conditions that affected their
decision to stay at their current schools. Since the early 1980s,
education research and policy in the United States has been brimming
with recommendations for improving public schools. A significant part of
the discussion revolved around the issue of teacher labor markets
(Borman \& Dowling, 2008). Teacher shortages were predicted based on
increasing student enrollments and increasing teacher retirements
(Ingersoll, 2001). The educational literature articulated the growing
concern that teacher shortages would cause the nation's school districts
to lower teacher standards, filling the increasing numbers of teacher
openings with marginally qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1984).
Concern over teacher shortages creating school staffing problems has
been the target of educational reform and policy initiatives. School
staffing problems refer to a school administration's ``inability to
adequately staff classrooms with qualified teachers'' (Ingersoll, 2001,
p. 500). The 1983 release of \emph{A Nation at Risk} called for
qualified teachers and recommended incentives for attracting outstanding
students to the teaching profession (Gardner, 1983). A 1996 report from
the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) urged
the nation to invest in quality teaching by setting a goal to provide
every student with ``competent, caring, and qualified teaching'' by the
year 2006 (p. 10). According to the report, a central strategy for
improving schools is recruiting, preparing, and retaining good teachers.
States and school districts have addressed school staffing problems
through recruitment strategies such as alternative certification
programs to allow college graduates to begin teaching without formal
education training. States and districts have also recruited teachers
from overseas, offered scholarships, financial incentives, student loan
forgiveness, housing assistance, and tuition reimbursement to aid
recruitment (Ingersoll \& May, 2012). The dominant policy approach to
school staffing problems has been teacher recruitment (Borman \&
Dowling, 2008; Ingersoll, 2001). In contrast to recruitment, policy
makers have paid relatively less attention to the role of teacher
turnover in school staffing problems (Ingersoll, 2001). However, teacher
turnover is a significant aspect behind the need for attracting new
teachers (Murphy \& DeArmond, 2003; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll \& Perda,
2010). Two major components of teacher turnover are teacher attrition
and teacher migration. Teacher attrition refers to teachers ``who leave
the occupation of teaching altogether'' and teacher migration refers to
teachers ``who transfer or move to different teaching jobs in other
schools'' (Ingersoll, 2001, p. 503). When teachers exit the profession
or migrate within or across school districts, they create vacancies that
must be filled. Higher levels of turnover increase the demand for
teachers, creating a greater need to increased supply. In other words,
teacher turnover causes teacher shortages that result in school staffing
problems. These problems are already severe in some instances. An
estimated 3.9 million new elementary and secondary teachers will be
needed for the 2008-2009 through 2020-2021 school years (Aaronson \&
Meckel, 2008). At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, schools
across the nation hired 64,000 math and science teachers. By the end of
the following year, nearly 68,000 had left or moved to other schools or
school districts (Ingersoll \& Perda, 2010). Two conditions driving the
demand for teachers are a growing number of teacher retirements and a
larger percentage of the teacher workforce composed of beginning
teachers. According to the NCTAF (2010), the teacher workforce is aging
with nearly half of the workforce at or near retirement age. Ingersoll
and Perda (2010) found that the number of U.S. teachers over age 50 has
grown 141\% from nearly 530,000 in 1988 to almost 1.3 million in 2008.
As aging teachers exit the profession, they are generally replaced with
beginning teachers (Grissmer \& Kirby, 1997). Some researchers estimated
that between 30-50\% of beginning teachers leave the profession within
the first five years (Darling-Hammond, 1997; DeAngelis \& Presley, 2011;
Grissmer \& Kirby, 1991; Ingersoll \& Smith, 2003). Replacing exiting
teachers with beginning teachers who generally have high rates of
attrition may increase overall teacher turnover rates and simultaneously
increase demand for teachers. Teacher migration adds to the complexity
of turnover. At individual-school levels, the impact of teachers
changing schools is the same as teachers leaving for other reasons. In
either case, the school has to replace the vacating teacher. After
examining population data in Illinois, DeAngelis and Presley (2011)
found that ``on average, about 40\% of schools' total loss of new
teachers each year between 1987 and 2001 was due to teachers moving to
teaching positions in other IPS'' {[}Illinois Public Schools{]} (p.
611). Using data from the 1990-1991 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)
and the 1991-1992 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), Ingersoll (2001) found
migration to represent nearly 55\% of total teacher turnover. A certain
amount of turnover is normal, inevitable, and can be beneficial
(Ingersoll, 2001) if those who are leaving are the least effective
teachers (Borman \& Dowling, 2008; Ronfeldt, Loeb, \& Wyckoff, 2013).
However, high levels of turnover can have negative financial, academic,
and organizational effects. The financial costs of teacher turnover can
be attributed to costs associated with recruitment and advertising,
hiring incentives, administrative processing, and teacher training.
According to a five-school-district study conducted by Barnes, Crowe and
Schaefer (2007), the cost of replacing a teacher ranged from \$4,366 in
Jamez Valley, New Mexico to \$17,872 in Chicago, Illinois. They
estimated the total cost of turnover for Chicago Public Schools to be
over \$86 million per year. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2005)
estimated the national cost of teacher attrition at \$2.2 billion per
year. When including migration, the Alliance determined that the
nation's schools spend approximately \$4.9 billion per year replacing
teachers. The combined costs of attrition and migration have taken a
toll on the nation's schools, but perhaps the most crucial cost is the
impact of teacher turnover on student achievement. Teacher turnover
unfavorably affects student achievement. Studies have linked high levels
of turnover to lower student performance (Guin, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek,
\& Kain, 2005; Ronfeldt, Loeb, \& Wyckoff, 2013). Exiting teachers are
usually replaced with new teachers with little or no experience
(Grissmer \& Kirby, 1997). New teachers are more likely to leave within
the first five years of teaching resulting in additional new teacher
replacements. Considering that new teachers generally take 1-5 years to
become effective (Rivkin et al., 2005), high levels of turnover can lead
to greater concentrations of inexperienced and less effective teachers.
Student achievement can be affected by teacher turnover in other ways.
Organizational costs occur when high levels of teacher turnover disrupt
the coherence of the organization impacting a school's ability to
function effectively and efficiently. Disruptions can decrease employee
morale and increase stress on employee work relationships. In a
five-school case study, Guin (2004) found that schools with high
turnover rates were ``less likely to have high levels of trust and
collaboration among teachers'' (p. 20). In addition, he found that
teacher turnover caused disruptions in school climate, disruptions in
teaching and instructional programs, and repetition of professional
development. The combined effect of organizational disruptions caused by
teacher turnover resulted in significantly lower test scores on
statewide math and English assessments. The disruptive effect of
turnover on an organization has been found to impact student achievement
even when exiting teachers are replaced with teachers who are equally
effective (Ronfeldt et al., 2013). The effects of teacher turnover may
be the most harmful to students in schools with underserved student
populations. Schools with lower student achievement, a higher rate of
minority students, and higher levels of poverty consistently have higher
rates of turnover (Borman \& Dowling, 2008; Guin, 2004; Lankford, Loeb,
\& Wyckoff, 2002). Results of correlations between school achievement
and teacher characteristics found that ``nonwhite, poor, and low
performing students particularly those in urban areas, attend schools
with lesser qualified teachers'' (Lankford et al., 2002, p.54). Finding
qualified teachers will continue to be a challenge for schools and
school districts. As predicted, student enrollments and teacher
retirements have increased over the past two decades, creating a greater
demand for teachers (Ingersoll \& Perda, 2010). However, Ingersoll and
Perda (2010) found that the nation has produced an adequate supply of
teachers, indicating that recruitment efforts have yielded results.
Still, teacher shortages exist due to an uneven distribution of teachers
for some geographic regions, school districts, and for specific subject
areas (Murphy \& DeArmond, 2003; Rice, Roellke, Sparks, \& Kolbe, 2009).
``But the largest source of hiring problems is not between states but
between schools, even within the same district'' (Ingersoll \& Perda,
2010, p. 585). These hiring problems are largely caused by teacher
turnover, leading some researchers to conclude that improving teacher
retention to reduce turnover will help schools suffering from staffing
problems while simultaneously improving school performance (Ingersoll \&
Perda, 2010; NCTAF, 2010). The research question that guided this study
was: How do teacher characteristics and organizational characteristics
relate to teachers' decisions to remain at their current schools? The
model for this study was adapted from theories and research by Ingersoll
(2001) and Ingersoll and Perda (2010) on the supply and demand of
teachers. Their model was an alternative to contemporary theory that
school staffing problems were caused by an inadequate supply of teachers
and could be solved through the recruitment of new teachers. Ingersoll
(2001) theorized that recruitment alone would not solve school staffing
problems. This study tested his conclusion that school organizations
play a significant role in reducing teacher turnover.

\subsection*{2. Method}

{\label{method}}

This study \textbackslash{}soutanalyzed teacher characteristic variables
and school organizational characteristic variables as related to
teachers' reported decisions to remain at their current schools. The
following attitudinal data were collected: teacher perceptions of
personal intrinsic motivators, personal extrinsic motivators, school
climate, and school resources as predictors of teacher retention. Of
particular interest were the perceptions of subgroups of teachers who
planned to remain at their current schools. The following subgroups were
analyzed: gender, current school teaching experience, age, and grade
level.

\subsection*{2.1 Participants}

{\label{participants}}

The population for this study was practicing PK-12 teachers in
Wisconsin. This study used a single-stage purposive sample of four
Wisconsin school districts to access the perspectives of PK-12 public
school teachers in Wisconsin schools. All districts were similar in
size. The teacher survey was completed by 425 practicing teachers during
April 2015 representing an approximate response rate of 38\%. Of the 421
participants who reported gender and ethnicity, the majority were White
(\emph{n} = 407, 96.7\%) and female (\emph{n} = 304, 72.2\%). Two
participants (0.5\%) reported American Indian or Alaskan Native, 3
(.7\%) reported Asian or Pacific Islander, zero reported Black or
African American, 4 (1\%) responded Hispanic or Latino, and 5 (1.2\%)
responded two or more races. Of the 416 participants who reported age,
51 (12.3\%) were less than 30 years of age, 266 (63.9\%) were 31 to 50
years of age, and 99 (23.8\%) were older than 51. The mean age of
participants was 42.7 years (\emph{SD} = 9.8) and the median age was
43.5. The exact age of three participants was unknown due to the
construction of the survey. Three participants reported an age of 61 or
older and are included in the 51+ category. Mean participant age and
standard deviation were calculated using an age of 61 for each of these
participants. Grade level was reported by 420 participants and
represented with 127 (30.2\%) teaching elementary, 91 (21.7\%) teaching
middle school or junior high school, and 165 (39.3\%) teaching high
school or senior high school. Thirty-seven participants (8.8\%) reported
teaching at more than one grade level. Highest degree earned was
reported by 422 participants where the majority of participants
possessed a master's degree (\emph{n}= 326, 77.3\%). Ninety-five
participants (22.5\%) held a bachelor's degree and one (.2\%) held a
doctorate. Participants averaged 16.6 years (\emph{SD} = 8.7) of total
teaching experience and 11.1 years (\emph{SD} = 8.2) of teaching
experience at their current school. Of the 424 participants who reported
total teaching experience, 46 (10.8\%) reported less than 5 years, 54
(12.7\%) reported 5-9 years, 165 (38.8\%) reported 10-19 years, and 159
(37.4\%) reported 20 or more years. Of the 422 participants who reported
current school teaching experience, 112 (26.5\%) reported less than 5
years, 94 (22.3\%) reported 5-9 years, 141 (33.4\%) reported 10-19
years, and 75 (17.8\%) reported 20 or more years.

\subsection*{2.2 Variables}

{\label{variables}}

The dependent variable of this study was a teacher's decision to stay at
his or her current school. The independent variables of this study were
variables associated with teacher characteristics and school
organizational characteristics. Teacher characteristics describe the
variables used to determine the type of teachers that are more likely to
stay (Boyd et al., 2011). Teacher characteristic variables for this
study were demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, and ethnicity),
qualifications variables (i.e., teaching experience, grade level, and
highest degree earned), intrinsic motivational variables (i.e., personal
teaching efficacy, personal connection to the school and community, and
a sense of comfort at the school), and extrinsic motivational variables
(i.e., other employment opportunities and retirement). School
organizational characteristics refer to school to school differences in
workplace conditions that may influence a teacher's decision to stay
(Borman \& Dowling, 2008; Boyd et al., 2010; Ingersoll, 2001;
Kukla-Acevedo, 2009). The school organizational characteristic variables
for this study were teacher influence (i.e., teachers' autonomy in their
classrooms and teachers' involvement in school decision making),
availability of resources (i.e., salary, instructional materials, and
facilities), teacher perceptions of workload, administrative support,
student behavior, parent involvement, staff relations, school safety,
professional growth opportunities, and school or district induction and
mentoring programs.

\subsection*{2.3 Instrumentation}

{\label{instrumentation}}

The study used a quantitative survey approach to gather information
about teachers' perceptions of conditions that affected their decisions
to remain at their current schools. The survey was cross-sectional: data
were collected in a short time frame. It contained 40 items in three
sections: backgrounds, future plans, and perceptions (Appendix B). It
included 33 items adapted or modified from the \emph{Wiegand Teacher
Retention Survey} (Wiegand, 2003), four items adapted from the
Perrachione et al. (2008) survey, and three items added by the
researcher. It was self-administered online. Statements of participants'
implied consent were included in solicitations and the instrument; both
were approved by a Human Participants Review Board.\textbf{2.4
Analysis}Data analysis was conducted in five stages: 1. Background
characteristics of respondents; 2. Analysis of future plans; 3. Analysis
of Likert-scale items for all teachers that plan to remain; 4. Analysis
of Likert-scale items by teacher subgroups; 5. Qualitative analysis of
open-ended items.

In the first stage of analysis, frequency tables were used to determine
counts and percentages of teachers by gender, age, ethnicity, total
teaching experience, teaching experience at the same school, grade
level, and highest degree earned. Means and standard deviations were
calculated for age, total teaching experience, and teaching experience
at the same school for all respondents.

The second stage of the analysis was divided into two sections. The
first section used descriptive statistics to summarize the future plans
of all respondents. A frequency table was used to display counts and
percentages of respondents who selected each of the twelve future plan
options. The second section used a chi-square test for independence to
examine cross- tabulations between teacher demographic characteristics
and teacher future plans and to examine cross-tabulations between
teacher qualification characteristics and teacher future plans. Teacher
demographics included age and gender. Teacher qualifications included
total teaching experience, teaching experience at the same school, grade
level, and highest degree earned. Future plans data were collapsed into
two categories, those who planned to return to their current

schools and those who did not plan to return to their current school.
The Pearson ?2 value was used to determine significance on tables larger
than 2 by 2 (i.e., two categories per variable). The Yates' correction
for continuity was used to determine significance on 2 by 2 tables. The
significance level was set at 95\% (\emph{p} \textless{} .05). Prior to
conducting the third and fourth stages of data analysis, internal
consistency was analyzed on the sample data for each of the four
subscales from the teacher perception scale. The subscales were
intrinsic motivators, extrinsic motivators, school climate, and school
resources. Cronbach's \selectlanguage{greek}α \selectlanguage{english}value and mean inter-item correlation value were
calculated for each subscale. Internal consistency was acceptable with
Cronbach's \selectlanguage{greek}α \selectlanguage{english}values above .7 for intrinsic motivators (\selectlanguage{greek}α \selectlanguage{english}= .76) and
school climate (\selectlanguage{greek}α \selectlanguage{english}= .85) scales and mean inter-item correlations within
the acceptable range for the two smallest scales, extrinsic motivators
(.34) and school resources (.22). Twenty-seven of the original 29 items
were retained. Two items were eliminated from the intrinsic motivators
scale in order increase the size of the Cronbach's \selectlanguage{greek}α. \selectlanguage{english}The items removed
were \emph{close to home}and \emph{similar to school attended as a
child}.

The third stage of the analysis was divided into two sections. The first
section utilized one-sample \emph{t} -tests to examine the perceptions
of teachers who planned to remain teaching at their current schools on
continuous variables within teacher characteristic and organizational
characteristic subscales. The continuous variables were measured on a
six-point Likert-type

scale ranging from 1 (\emph{strongly disagree}) to 6 (\emph{strongly
agree}). A mean value and standard deviation was calculated for each
continuous variable. Responses were ranked within each subscale
according to mean value. The mean value of each item was compared to a
neutral score value (3.5) to determine significant differences.
Cohen's\emph{d} was used to determine effect sizes. The second section
utilized paired-samples \emph{t}-tests to compare mean values of the
teacher characteristic and organizational characteristic subscales in
order to differentiate the level of importance teachers returning to
their current schools placed on each subscale construct. The
significance level for both the one-sample\emph{t}-test and paired
samples \emph{t}-test was set at 95\% (\emph{p}\textless{}.05). The
fourth stage of the analysis utilized an independent \emph{t}-test to
compare the means of continuous variables over gender and Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) testing to compare the means of continuous variables
over age, current school teaching experience, and grade level. Testing
occurred within the subscales of personal intrinsic motivators, personal
extrinsic motivators, school climate, and school resources. In addition
to Cohen's \emph{d} for effect sizes of independent
samples\emph{t}-tests, Eta-squared (\selectlanguage{greek}η\selectlanguage{english}2) was used to determine effect
sizes of the ANOVA tests. A post-hoc analysis was conducted with ANOVA
on significant items to determine where the differences among groups
occur. The Tukey HSD post-hoc test was used when equal variances were
assumed. The Games-Howel post-hoc test was used when equal variances
were not assumed. The significance level was set at 95\% (\emph{p}
\textless{} .05). The fifth stage of the analysis involved a qualitative
analysis of the responses of the two open-ended items from Section C of
the survey. All open-ended responses were analyzed using a procedure
described by Creswell (2014). Coding and categorizing themes was
validated by two independent reviewers. Responses to \emph{other
consideration that influence me to stay} were categorized into 14
themes; responses to\emph{other consideration that would influence me to
stay if it were present} were categorized into 13 themes. Frequencies
were reported for each theme and segregated by gender and grade level.

\subsection*{3. Results}

{\label{results}}

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics to summarize the future plans of
all respondents. Of the 418 participants who responded, 336 (80.4\%)
planned to remain teaching at their current school. The combined
percentage of participants who planned to continue teaching at a
different school either in the same district or a different district was
4.6\%. A total of 88.3\%, planned to continue in education either
teaching or in another capacity such as administration or school
counselor. Only 3.3\% of participants who responded planned to retire.
Teacher retirements represented approximately 17\% of all participants
who reported not planning to return to their current schools.

Twenty participants indicated future plans other than the 12 listed
options. Seven of the 20 participants were looking for jobs outside of
education in which six of the seven participants indicated that they
will likely return to their current schools next year. Four participants
were pursuing a career in education that was not included as one of the
12 listed options. Two participants responded that they would like to
stay if they could and two participants indicated that they would be
working at multiple schools. Two participants were looking for teaching
jobs outside of the state of Wisconsin and three participants were
uncertain of their plans for next year.

\textbf{3.1 Teacher characteristics \& future plans.}The chi-square test
for independence indicated a significant association between current
school teaching experience and participants' future plans, (3, \emph{n}
= 415) = 9.28, \emph{p} = .03, with a medium effect size Cramer's
\emph{V} = .15. The percentage of participants planning to return to
their current schools increases the longer they remain at their current
schools. Only 70.6\% of participants with less than five years of
current school teaching experience plan to return compared with 82.8\%
of participants with five to nine years, 84.1\% of participants with 10
to 19 years, and 85.3\% with 20 or more years of current school teaching
experience. There was no significant association between total teaching
experience and future plans, (3, \emph{n} = 417) = 4.23,\emph{p} = .24,
between grade level and future plans, (2, \emph{n} = 376) = 1.63,
\emph{p} = .44, between highest degree earned (with Yates continuity
correction) and future plans, (1, \emph{n} = 416) = .17,\emph{p} = .68,
between age and future plans, (2, \emph{n} = 409) = 3.54, \emph{p} =
.17, and between gender (with Yates Continuity Correction) and future
plans, (1, \emph{n} = 414) = .01, \emph{p} = .94.

\subsection*{3.2 Teacher Perceptions}

{\label{teacher-perceptions}}

Perception data were gathered from 319 participants who planned to
continue teaching at their current school. A one-sample \emph{t}-test
was utilized on the teacher-perception items from each of the four
subscales to determine if the mean scores were significantly different
than a neutral score value 3.5. Paired-samples \emph{t}-tests were
utilized to compare mean values of the teacher perception subscales to
differentiate the level of importance participants placed on each
subscale construct for returning to their current schools. One-sample
\emph{t}-tests indicated that all items from the intrinsic motivation
scale were statistically significant each having a mean value above the
neutral score (3.5). The highest mean value was 5.15 for the survey item
\emph{positive impact on the students' personal growth.} The second
highest mean value was 5.07 for the survey item \emph{positive impact on
student achievement.} The remaining items listed in order from highest
mean score to lowest mean score were; \emph{comfortable working at this
school} (\emph{M} = 4.98), \emph{collegial friendships}(\emph{M} =
4.96), \emph{connection to students} (\emph{M} = 4.72),\emph{feel needed
at the school} (M = 4.46), and \emph{connected to the community}
(\emph{M} = 4.43). The Cohen's \emph{d} statistic indicated a large
effect size ranging from 0.89 to 2.3 for all items except\emph{connected
to the community} which had a medium effect size (Cohen's \emph{d} =
0.78). One-sample \emph{t}-tests indicated a significant difference
between mean scores and the neutral score for all four items of the
extrinsic motivation scale though only one item, \emph{not old enough to
receive retirement benefits}, had a mean value (\emph{M =} 3.97) higher
than the neutral score (3.5) with a small effect size (Cohen's \emph{d}
= 0.27). Mean values for the other three items were below the neutral
score (3.5) and ranged from 2.04 to 2.91. The effect size for \emph{no
other teaching opportunities in another school out of the district}
(Cohen's\emph{d} = -1.16) and \emph{no other teaching opportunities in
another school in the district} (Cohen's \emph{d} = -1.06) were large.
The effect size for \emph{no other employment opportunities outside of
education} (Cohen's \emph{d} = -0.37) was small. One-sample
\emph{t}-tests indicated a significant difference between mean scores
and the neutral score for all 10 items from the school climate scale
each having a mean value above the neutral score of 3.5. The three items
with the highest mean scores were \emph{I feel respected by the
students} (\emph{M =} 5.05) with a large effect size (Cohen's\emph{d} =
1.93), \emph{I feel respected by the staff} (\emph{M=} 4.94) with a
large effect size (Cohen's \emph{d} = 1.36),\emph{and I feel safe at
this school} (\emph{M =} 4.92) with a large effect size (Cohen's
\emph{d} = 1.68). The remaining items listed in order from highest mean
score to lowest mean score were; \emph{the principal is supportive}
(\emph{M} = 4.88), \emph{there is a great deal of cooperation among
staff} (\emph{M} = 4.70), \emph{I have flexibility in planning and
teaching my curriculum} (\emph{M} = 4.58), \emph{my principal enforces
the rules and backs me up} (\emph{M} = 4.33), \emph{a unique student
program for which I am involved} (\emph{M} = 4.02),\emph{I can be
involved in decision making} (\emph{M} = 3.98), and\emph{there is
positive parent involvement} (\emph{M} = 3.84). One-sample
\emph{t}-tests indicated a significant differences between mean scores
and the neutral score (3.5) on four of the six items from the school
resources subscale. Mean values for two of the significant survey items,
\emph{good facilities} (\emph{M =} 4.59) and \emph{I have the necessary
instructional materials} (\emph{M =} 4.45) were higher than the neutral
score (3.5) with a medium effect size (Cohen's \emph{d}= .75) and a
large effect size (Cohen's \emph{d} = 0.88) respectively. Two of the
significant items, \emph{I was in an induction and mentoring program}
(\emph{M =} 2.28) and \emph{more opportunities for professional growth}
(\emph{M =} 3.06), had mean values lower than the neutral score (3.5)
with a large effect size (Cohen's \emph{d} = -.88) and a respectively
small effect size (Cohen's \emph{d} = -.30). The items\emph{I am
satisfied with my salary} and \emph{I have adequate planning time} were
not statistically significant. The results from the paired-samples
\emph{t}-tests presented in Table 2 indicated that participants
perceived intrinsic motivation and school climate conditions as stronger
reasons to remain at their current schools than extrinsic motivation and
school resource conditions. The intrinsic motivational scale mean value
was higher than all other scales and the mean value for the school
climate scale was higher than the extrinsic motivational scale and the
school resources scale.\textbf{3.4 Gender}The independent samples
\emph{t}-test identified six items as having statistically significant
differences between female and male participants' perceptions of
conditions related to their decision to remain at their current schools.
All six items had a stronger influence on female participants than male
participants with mean differences ranging from .33 to .48. The item
\emph{feel needed at this school} had the largest mean difference of .48
and was from the intrinsic motivation subscale. The item \emph{principal
support} had the second largest mean difference of .45 and was from the
school climate subscale. The remaining four items listed in order from
highest mean difference to lowest mean difference were; \emph{involved
with decision making} (mean difference = .43), \emph{principal enforces
rules and backs me up} (mean difference = .39), \emph{connection to
students} (mean difference = .38), and \emph{cooperation among staff}
(mean difference = .33). Cohen's \emph{d} ranged from 0.28 to 0.42
indicating a small effect size for all six items.

\subsection*{3.5 Current school teaching
experience.}

{\label{current-school-teaching-experience.}}

Table 3 displays ANOVA test results for significant items from the
teacher perception scale and current school teaching
experience.\emph{Collegial friendships} became a stronger reason for
participants to remain the longer participants taught at their current
school. Games-Howel tests indicated that the mean scores of participants
with less than five years of current school experience (\emph{M} =
4.55,\emph{SD} = 1.14) were lower than participants with 10 to 19 years
(\emph{M} = 5.12, \emph{SD} = 0.86) and 20 or more years (\emph{M} =
5.16, \emph{SD} = .92) of current school experience. Participants'
reported perceptions of feeling \emph{respected by students} was also a
stronger reason to remain for participants with more current school
experience. Tukey HSD tests indicated that mean scores for participants
with less than five years of current school experience (\emph{M} =
4.85,\emph{SD} = 0.82) was lower than participants with 20 or more years
(\emph{M} = 5.30, \emph{SD} = 0.72) of current school teaching
experience.\emph{Not old enough to receive retirement benefits} was a
stronger reason to remain for participants with more current school
teaching experience. Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons indicated that mean
scores for participants with less than five years of current school
experience (\emph{M} = 3.37, \emph{SD} = 1.77) were significantly
different than participants with five to nine years (\emph{M} = 4.09,
\emph{SD} = 1.73) and 10 to 19 years (\emph{M} = 4.21, \emph{SD} = 1.61)
of current school experience. However, post-hoc comparisons were not
significant for participants with 20 or more years of current school
experience. Receiving support from the principal and having adequate
planning time were stronger reasons to remain for new participants than
more experienced participants. Games-Howel tests for \emph{principal
support}indicated that mean score for participants with less than five
years of current school experience (\emph{M} = 5.16, \emph{SD} = 1.11)
was higher than participants with 20 or more years (\emph{M} = 4.44,
\emph{SD} = 1.49) of current school experience. Tukey HSD tests for
\emph{adequate planning time} indicated that mean score for participants
with less than 5 years of current school experience (\emph{M =} 3.65,
\emph{SD} = 1.55) was higher than mean score of participants with 20 or
more years of current school teaching experience (\emph{M} = 2.98,
\emph{SD} = 1.49).

\subsection*{3.6 Age.}

{\label{age.}}

Table 4 displays ANOVA test results for six significant items from the
teacher perception scale and three age categories. Participants'
reported perceptions of having a \emph{positive impact on student
achievement} and \emph{student personal growth} was an important reason
to remain for all participants but more important for older participants
than younger participants. Tukey HSD tests for \emph{positive impact on
student} achievement indicated that mean scores of participants 51 and
older (\emph{M} = 5.22, \emph{SD} = 0.78) were higher than participants
30 years old and younger (\emph{M} = 4.73, \emph{SD} = 0.67).
Games-Howel tests on the item \emph{positive impact on student personal
growth} indicated that the mean score of participants 51 and older
(\emph{M} = \emph{5.}27, \emph{SD = 0}.66) were higher than the mean
score of participants 30 years old and younger (\emph{M} =
4.94,\emph{SD} = 0.55). Having time to plan was somewhat important for
younger participants who planned to return to their current school but
was not an important reason to remain for participants 51 and older.
Tukey HSD tests indicated that mean scores of participants 30 years old
and younger (\emph{M} = 4.00, \emph{SD} = 1.37) was significantly
different than mean scores of participants 51 and older (\emph{M} =
3.25, \emph{SD} = 1.54). Three items were statistically significant for
age comparisons but were not strong reasons participants provided for
remaining. Mean scores by age category for the items \emph{no teaching
opportunities in another school out of the district} ranged from 1.76 to
2.15, \emph{professional growth opportunities} ranged from 2.61 to 3.59,
and \emph{induction program} ranged from 1.84 to 3.00.

\subsection*{3.7 Grade levels.}

{\label{grade-levels.}}

Table 5 displays ANOVA test results that indicated a significant
difference between mean scores of participants by grade level categories
and 15 items from the teacher perception scale. The mean scores of seven
items were significantly higher for elementary participants than for
high-school participants. Tukey HSD tests for the items;\emph{connection
to students} were higher for elementary participants (\emph{M} = 4.86,
\emph{SD} = 1.01) than high-school participants (\emph{M} = 4.51,
\emph{SD} = 1.06), \emph{feel safe} were higher for elementary
participants (\emph{M =} 5.12, \emph{SD} = .69) than high-school
participants (\emph{M =} 4.79, SD = .81), and\emph{respected by
students} were higher for elementary participants (\emph{M =} 5.23,
\emph{SD} = .66) than high-school participants (\emph{M =} 4.96,
\emph{SD} = .81). Games- Howel tests for the items;\emph{involved with
decision making} were higher for elementary participants (\emph{M =}
4.45, \emph{SD} = 1.04) than high-school participants (\emph{M} = 3.53,
\emph{SD} = 1.45), \emph{cooperation among staff} were higher for
elementary participants (\emph{M =} 5.09,\emph{SD} = .84) than
high-school participants (\emph{M =} 4.36,\emph{SD} = 1.21),
\emph{respected by staff} were higher for elementary participants
(\emph{M =} 5.25, \emph{SD}

= .74) than high-school participants (\emph{M =} 4.73, \emph{SD} =
1.21), and \emph{adequate planning time} was higher for elementary
participants (\emph{M =} 3.68, \emph{SD} = 1.35) than high-school
participants (\emph{M =} 3.18, \emph{SD} = 1.54).

Two items had mean scores significantly higher for elementary
participants than middle- school and high-school participants. Tukey HSD
tests for \emph{positive parent involvement} were higher for elementary
participants (\emph{M =} 4.52, \emph{SD} = 1.01) than middle-school
(\emph{M =} 3.72, \emph{SD} = 1.25) and high-school participants
(\emph{M =} 3.35, \emph{SD} = 1.17). Games-Howel tests for \emph{feel
needed at the school} was higher for elementary participants (\emph{M} =
4.79, \emph{SD} = .78) than middle-school (\emph{M} = 4.42, \emph{SD} =
1.12) and high-school (\emph{M} = 4.22, \emph{SD} =1.17) participants.
Mean scores for four items were significantly higher for elementary and
middle-school participants than for high-school participants. Tukey HSD
tests for \emph{comfortable working at this} \emph{school} was higher
for middle-school (\emph{M} = 5.23, \emph{SD} = .77) and
elementary-school participants (\emph{M} = 5.12, \emph{SD} = .89) than
high-school participants (\emph{M} = 4.81, \emph{SD} = 1.07).
Games-Howel tests for \emph{principal is supportive} was higher for
middle-school (\emph{M =} 5.23, \emph{SD} = 1.17) and elementary- school
participants (\emph{M =} 5.22, \emph{SD} = .90) than high-school
participants (\emph{M =} 4.45, \emph{SD} = 1.51), \emph{principal
enforces rules and backs me up} was higher for middle-school (\emph{M
=}4.44, \emph{SD} = 1.39) and elementary-school participants (\emph{M
=}4.89, \emph{SD} = .90) than high-school participants (\emph{M =}
3.84,\emph{SD} = 1.37), \emph{I have the necessary instructional
materials}was higher for middle-school (\emph{M =} 4.70, \emph{SD} =
1.00) and elementary participants (\emph{M =} 4.61, \emph{SD} = .90)
than high-school participants (\emph{M =} 4.18, \emph{SD} = 1.20). The
Mean scores of only one item, \emph{unique student program for which I
am involved} was significantly higher for high-school participants than
elementary participants. Tukey HSD tests revealed that mean score of
high-school participants (\emph{M =} 4.30, \emph{SD} = 1.36) was higher
than elementary participants (\emph{M =} 3.80, \emph{SD} = 1.23). Mean
scores for one item, \emph{satisfied with salary}, was higher for
middle-school participants than high-school and elementary participants.
Games-Howel tests revealed that mean scores of middle-school
participants (\emph{M =} 4.00, \emph{SD} = 1.34) was higher than
high-school participants (\emph{M =} 3.29, \emph{SD} = 1.50) and
elementary participants (\emph{M =} 3.43, \emph{SD} = 1.39).

\subsection*{3.8 Open-ended}

{\label{open-ended}}

Of the 319 participants that planned to return to their current school,
129 participants wrote at least one response to \emph{other
consideration that influence me to stay} representing 40.4\% of
participants. Some participants provided multiple responses. The total
number of responses provided by the 129 participants were 172 responses.
The top five thematic categories representing reasons participants
provided for staying at their current schools were \emph{personal or
family reasons} (32 responses), \emph{staff support} (21
responses),\emph{difficult to start over or no other options} (19
responses),\emph{salary and benefits} (17 responses), and \emph{working
with students and parents} (17 responses). Of the 319 participants that
planned to return to their current school, 108 wrote at least one
response to \emph{other consideration that would influence me to stay if
it were present} representing 33.9\% of participants. Some participants
provided multiple responses. The total number of responses provided by
the 108 participants were 148 responses. The top five thematic
categories representing reasons participants provided that would
influence them to stay at their current schools were\emph{salary and
benefits plan} (45 responses), \emph{workload} (27 responses),
\emph{respect} \emph{or valued} (15 responses),\emph{administrative
support} (11 responses), and \emph{teacher influence} (9 responses).
\emph{Salary and benefits plan} had more responses then the next two
highest thematic categories combined.

\subsection*{4. Discussion}

{\label{discussion}}

The findings for total teacher turnover from this study were higher than
the national K-12 total teacher turnover rates reported by Ingersoll
(2001). Similar to Ingersoll's findings, total teacher turnover rate for
this study included teacher migration, attrition, and retirement.
Ingersoll examined actual turnover data from the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its
supplement the Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS). Because this study used
self-reported data, however, actual total teacher turnover rate may
differ from rates reported in this study.

The results of this study indicated that teacher retirements accounted
for a largerpercentage of total teacher turnover than the national
teacher retirement percentages reported by Ingersoll (2001). Ingersoll
concluded that because teacher retirements accounted for only a small
portion of total teacher turnover, preretirement teacher turnover was a
significant cause of school staffing problems. The results from this
study support Ingersoll's conclusion because the figure for this study
was still a relatively small percentage of total teacher turnover.

The results of the future-plans analysis on teacher demographic and
teacher qualification variables indicated that only current school
teaching experience influenced participants' reported decisions to
remain at their current school. Teaching experience, age, gender, grade
level, and highest degree earned were not significant.

The lack of statistical significance for age and teaching experience
contradicted findings from previous studies. Hughes (2012) and
Kukla-Acevedo (2009) found that beginning teachers were more likely to
leave teaching than experienced teachers. Previous studies that examined
age and teacher retention reported a pattern of high attrition for young
teachers and very low attrition for mid-career teachers until a
threshold was reached where attrition rates rose sharply between age and
teacher retention (Borman \& Dowling, 2008; Grissmer \& Kirby, 1997;
Guarino et al., 2006; Harris \& Adams, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll
\& May, 2012). Though the results for the present study for teaching
experience and age were not significant, the percentage of teachers who
planned to remain increased as total teaching experience and age
increased. Less surprising was the lack of statistical significance for
a relationship between gender and teacher retention. The literature
reviewed indicated mixed results for gender and teacher retention with
some studies finding females more likely to stay than males (Harris \&
Adams, 2007; Ingersoll \& May, 2012; Watlington et al., 2004) and other
studies finding males more likely to stay than females (Borman \&
Dowling, 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll, 2001). This study found
that males and females planned to stay at about the same rate (80\%).
There was also no statistical significance between grade level and
highest degree earned with teacher retention. This finding supported
findings by Hughes (2012) as well as Ingersoll and May (2012), in
contrast to findings by Borman and Dowling (2008). However, Borman and
Dowling (2008) found that elementary teachers were only 1.02 times more
likely to leave the teaching profession than secondary teachers. The
finding of no significance for highest degree earned supported findings
by Hughes (2012) as well as Perrachione et al. (2008), in contrast with
findings by Borman and Dowling (2008), who found that teachers with
graduate degrees were only slightly more likely to leave the teaching
profession than teachers without graduate degrees. The strongest reasons
participants provided for remaining at their current schools were
intrinsic teacher characteristics associated with teacher efficacy. The
results support the findings by Perrachione et al. (2008) who found that
teachers who declared their intent to remain teaching were influenced by
teacher efficacy and working with students. The finding of a strong
relationship between teacher efficacy and participants' reported
decision to remain suggested that teacher retention may be influenced by
teachers' beliefs in their capacity to make a difference in the lives of
their students. Teacher perceptions of feeling comfortable working at a
school was a strong intrinsic teacher characteristic related to
participants' decisions to remain. The finding supports conclusions by
Wiegand (2003) who also found a strong connection between teacher
retention and teachers' feelings of comfort at a school. Although
comfort level was slightly more important for elementary participants
and middle-school participants than for high-school participants, most
participants reported needing to feel comfortable working at their
schools if they were to stay. Wiegand (2003) described comfort as unique
to each person and meeting a person's comfort needs requires getting to
know an individual teacher's desires and abilities similar to the way
that teachers and other school personnel support students by getting to
know their needs and strengths. Personal relationships teachers had with
their colleagues were reportedly strong influences on participants'
reported decisions to remain. This finding supports research by Wiegand
(2003) who found that collegial friendships had a stronger influence on
teacher retention for teachers planning to remain at their current
schools compared with teachers planning to leave. Not surprisingly,
\emph{collegial friendships} became a stronger reported reason to remain
the longer participants continued to teach at their current schools,
suggesting that friendships among colleagues appeared to grow over time.
Respect from students was the strongest organizational characteristic
related to participants' reported decisions to remain at their current
schools. The item \emph{I feel respected by students} was used to
measure the impact of positive student behavior on teacher retention.
Previous studies identified problematic student behavior as a reason for
teachers to leave their schools or leave teaching altogether (Boyd et
al., 2011; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002;
Kukla-Acevedo, 2009; Ingersoll \& May, 2012). This study found that
positive student behavior, specifically student respect, impacted
participants' reported decisions to remain at their current schools.

The item \emph{I feel respected by staff} and \emph{there is a great
deal of cooperation among staff} were also strong school climate
conditions related to teacher decisions to remain. The results supported
the findings by Boyd et al. (2011) and Inman and Marlow (2004) who found
that staff relations were related to the retention decisions of
beginning teachers.Another school climate condition that influenced
participants' reported decisions to stay at their current schools
was\emph{school safety} . Interestingly, \emph{school safety} was not a
strong variable among the reviewed studies that examined school safety
as a predictor of teacher turnover. Boyd et al. (2011) found no
relationship between school safety and first-year teacher retention
decisions in New York City and Ingersoll (2001) found that only 2\% of
teachers who were dissatisfied with teaching and left the profession
reported an unsafe environment as a reason for leaving. However,
Ingersoll (2001) found that 26\% of teachers from urban or high poverty
public schools who were dissatisfied with teaching reported an unsafe
environment as a reason for leaving. Although the literature revealed
that an unsafe environment was not a strong reason to leave, the data
from the present study indicated that a safe environment was a strong
reason to stay.

The results indicated that administrative support was an important
reason teachers provided for remaining supporting the findings from
several previous studies that found a relationship between
administrative support and teacher retention (Boyd et al., 2011; Certo
\& Fox, 2002; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll,
2001; Ingersoll, 2002; Ingersoll \& May, 2012; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).
However, the relationship between administrative support and teacher
retention varied by gender, current school teaching experience, and
grade level. Female participants and elementary participants reportedly
perceived a supportive principal as a stronger reason to remain than
male participants and high-school participants. A supportive principal
was also a reportedly stronger reason to remain for participants with
less than five years of current school experience than teachers with 20
or more years of current school experience, providing support for
research conducted by Wiegand (2003) who found that beginning teachers
wanted more support from the principal than did veteran teachers. Good
facilities and necessary instructional materials had some influence over
teacher retention decisions. The finding on instructional materials
supported the research by Ingersoll and May (2012) who found that
teachers were more likely to leave schools where the necessary teaching
materials were not generally available. The finding on facilities
supported the research by Boyd et al. (2011) who found that facilities
were related to first-year participants' reported decisions to both
leave teaching and transfer to different schools in New York City. This
study did not provide support for a relationship between teacher
induction programs and participants' reported decisions to remain. Of
importance to note is that only one item was used and the results were
based on teacher perceptions. Ingersoll and Smith (2004) used data from
the 1999-2000 SASS and 2000-2001 TFS to determine the impact of
induction programs on teacher retention for beginning teachers. Using
multinomial regression analysis to determine how different induction
supports impacted participants' reported decisions to stay, Ingersoll
and Smith (2004) found that teachers who experienced the most support
were less than half as likely to depart at the end of their first year
as teachers who received no induction support. Perhaps the results of
the present study are not entirely conclusive on the impact induction
programs may have on teacher retention because the survey item did not
address the many facets of induction programs. Satisfaction with
teaching salary was not a statistically significant reason participants
provided for returning to their current schools. Although results from
this study did not find a relationship between salary and participants'
reported decisions to stay, previous studies found a strong relationship
between dissatisfaction with salary and teachers' decisions to leave
(Borman \& Dowling, 2008; Certo \& Fox, 2002; Gonzalez et al., 2008;
Guarino et al., 2006; 2012; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002). The
qualitative analysis of the open-ended items from this study indicated
that teacher salary may influence teachers' decisions to remain over
time. The two open-ended items provided participants opportunities to
address other considerations that may be present at their schools that
influence them to stay and other considerations that may not be present
at their schools but would influence them to stay. The thematic category
that had the most responses to the item \emph{other consideration that
influences me to stay} was personal or family reasons. The strongest
thematic category that emerged in response to the item \emph{other
consideration that would influence me to stay if it were present} was
not found in the literature reviewed and is possibly unique to
Wisconsin. The thematic category was salary and benefits plan. This
theme had more responses than the themes with the second and third
highest responses combined. At the time of the survey many school
districts in the State of Wisconsin were operating without a formal or
clear compensation plan. The elimination of traditional teacher-pay
scales dates back to 2011 when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed
into law a bill commonly known as Act 10. Prior to this time, teachers
had been part of the collective bargaining of salary schedules, benefits
packages, and working conditions. Act 10 limited collective bargaining
for most public employees including public school teachers. A provision
of the bill required the termination of collective bargaining agreements
and limited collective bargaining to base wages prohibiting base wage
increases to exceed the consumer price index unless approved by
referendum (Wisconsin Budget Repair Act, 2011). The termination of
collective bargaining agreements eliminated traditional teacher salary
schedules. In responses that fit the thematic category salary and
benefits plan, participants reportedly felt stuck and uncertain of their
financial future.

\subsection*{5. Conclusions}

{\label{conclusions}}

Pre-retirement teacher turnover may lead to staffing problems for
Wisconsin schools, but there may be ways to mitigate them. First, this
study showed that school-level teacher-turnover rate evidently reduced
by nearly 50\% after participants remained at their current schools for
at least five years. Of the participants who reportedly planned to
leave, nearly half said that they planned to remain in education.
School-level teacher-turnover rates could be reduced if school leaders
could encourage new teachers to remain a little longer or persuade those
who are leaving for other schools to remain where they are. A related
way administrators may reduce teacher turnover at the school level could
be to develop school climates to support teachers' decisions to remain
at their current schools. In this study, participants who were
reportedly more likely to remain were those who responded that they made
a difference in the lives of their students, felt a sense of comfort
working within their school, felt safe at their schools, and developed
relationships with colleagues within their buildings. Administrative
support could influence organizational conditions, provide professional
development opportunities, and build positive relationships that may
improve teacher retention in their schools. District-level
administrators could provide training for school- level administrators
to improve their effectiveness at developing positive school climates
conducive to teacher retention.

Of demographic and qualification characteristics, grade level had the
strongest relationship with the reasons participants provided for
remaining. Findings by grade level provided additional insight into the
types of professional development and relationship building techniques
that would be useful at elementary-, middle-, and high-school levels.
Administrators should review these findings when evaluating and
developing retention strategies for their schools.

Qualitative analysis revealed a finding unique to Wisconsin. Several
participants indicated need for a district-wide teacher-compensation
plans. They expressed concern over low salaries, lack of pay raises, and
no clear plans for advancement. The development of clear compensation
plans for districts that do not have them should be a top priority to
improve teacher retention in their schools. The future-plans analysis
revealed that the total teacher turnover rate was higher in participant
schools than national averages, suggesting that Wisconsin schools may
struggle to adequately staff their classrooms with highly effective
teachers.

\subsection*{6. Summary}

{\label{summary}}

Providing students with highly qualified teachers is a complex challenge
for schools and school districts across the nation. This study examined
teacher retention at the school level. Participants reportedly favored
retention in preferred assignments, as well as administrative
communications and support. School leaders would do well to use these
measures to help good teachers stay.

\subsection*{References}

{\label{references}}

Aaronson, D., \& Meckel, K. (2008). \emph{The impact of baby boomer
retirements on teacher labor markets. Chicago Fed Letter 254}. Chicago,
IL: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Alliance for Excellent Education
(2005). \emph{Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and to the
states. Issue Brief}. Washington, DC: Author. Barnes, G., Crowe, E., \&
Schaefer, B. (2007). \emph{The cost of teacher turnover in five school
districts: A pilot study}. Washington, DC: National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future. Borman, G. D., \& Dowling, N. M. (2008).
Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of
the research.\emph{Review of Educational Research, 78}(3), 367-409.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., \& Wyckoff, J.
(2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention
decisions. \emph{American Educational Research Journal, 48}(2), 303-333.
Certo, J. L., \& Fox, J. E. (2002). Retaining quality
teachers.\emph{High School Journal, 86}(1), 57-75. Cohen, J.W. (1988).
\emph{Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences} (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Creswell, J. (2014).
\emph{Research design} (4th ed.). Berkeley, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond,
L. (1984). \emph{Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in
teaching.} Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). \emph{Doing what matters most: Investing in
quality teaching} . Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future.

DeAngelis, K. J., \& Presley, J. B. (2011). Toward a more nuanced
understanding of new teacher attrition. Education and Urban Society,
43(5), 598-626.

Gardner, D. P. (1983). \emph{A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform}. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Gonzalez, L. E., Brown, M. S., \& Slate, J. R. (2008). Teachers who left
the teaching profession: A qualitative understanding. \emph{Qualitative
Report, 13}(1), 1-11. Grissmer, D. W., \& Kirby, S. N. (1991).
\emph{Patterns of attrition among Indiana teachers, 1965-1987}. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corp. Grissmer, D., \& Kirby, S. (1997). Teacher
turnover and teacher quality.\emph{Teachers College Record, 99}(1),
45-56. Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., \& Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher
recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical
literature.\emph{Review of Educational Research, 76}(2), 173-208. Guin,
K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary
schools.\emph{Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12}(42). Hanushek, E.
A. \& Rivkin, S. G., (2010). \emph{Constrained job matching: Does
teacher job search harm disadvantaged urban schools?}Cambridge, MA:
National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
Harris, D. N., \& Adams, S. J. (2007). Understanding the level and
causes of teacher turnover: A comparison with other
professions.\emph{Economics of Education Review}, \emph{26}(3), 325-337.
Hughes, G. D. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school
characteristics, organizational characteristics, and teacher
efficacy.\emph{The Journal of Educational Research,} \emph{105}(4), 245.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An
organizational analysis. \emph{American Educational Research Journal,
38}(3), 499. Ingersoll, R. M. 2002. The teacher shortage: A case of
wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. \emph{NASSP Bulletin 86},(631),
16-31. Ingersoll, R. M., \& May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations,
and determinants of mathematics and science teacher
turnover.\emph{Educational Evaluation \& Policy Analysis}, \emph{34}(4),
435-464. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., \& Stuckey, D. (2014). \emph{Seven
trends: The transformation of the teaching force}. CPRE Research Report
\# RR-80. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.\emph{DOI: 10.12698/cpre.2014.rr80}Ingersoll, R. M., \& Perda,
D. (2010). Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers sufficient?
\emph{American Educational Research Journal}, \emph{47}(3), 563-594.
Ingersoll, R. M., \& Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the
teacher shortage. \emph{Educational Leadership, 60}(8), 30-33.
Ingersoll, R. M., \& Smith, T. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and
mentoring matter? \emph{NASSP Bulletin}, \emph{88}(638), 28-40. Inman,
D., \& Marlow, L. (2004). Teacher retention: Why do beginning teachers
remain in the profession? \emph{Education}, \emph{124}(4), 605.
Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of
workplace conditions in teacher mobility decisions. \emph{Journal of
Educational Research}, \emph{102}(6), 443-452. Lankford, H., Loeb, S.,
\& Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools:
A descriptive analysis\emph{. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 24}(1), 37-62. Murphy, P. J., \& DeArmond, M. M. (2003).
\emph{From the headlines to the frontlines: The teacher shortage and its
implications for recruitment policy}. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington Center on Reinventing Public Education, Daniel J. Evans
School of Public Affairs\emph{.} (ERIC Document no. ED480744). National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). \emph{What matters
most: Teaching for America's future.} Washington, DC: Author. National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2010). \emph{Who will
teach? Experience matters.} Washington, DC: Author. Perrachione, B. A.,
Rosser, V. J., \& Petersen, G. J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary
teachers' perceptions of job satisfaction and retention.
\emph{Professional Educator}, \emph{32}(2), Rice, J., Roellke, C.,
Sparks, D., \& Kolbe, T. (2009). Piecing together the teacher policy
landscape: A policy problem typology. \emph{Teachers College Record},
\emph{111}(2), 511-546. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., \& Kain, J. (2005).
Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. \emph{Econometrica, 73},
417-458 Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., \& Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher
turnover harms student achievement. \emph{American Educational Research
Journal, 50}(1), 4-36. Watlington, E. J., Shockley, R., Earley, D. L.,
\& Huie, K. K. (2004). Variables associated with teacher retention: A
multi-year study.\emph{The Teacher Educator, 40}(1), 56-66. Wiegand, C.
D. (2003). \emph{Considerations leading to the retention of K-12 public
school teachers: Why do} \emph{they stay?} (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Order No. 3112553,
University of the Pacific) Wisconsin Budget Repair Act 10 \selectlanguage{ngerman}§ 1-369 (2011)
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2008, 2018). \emph{Supply
and demand.} Madison, WI: Author.

\subsection*{Appendix A. Tables}

{\label{appendix-a.-tables}}

Table 1. Characteristics Studied\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}ll@{}}
\toprule
Teacher & Organization\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Gender & Teacher influence\tabularnewline
Ethnicity & School safety\tabularnewline
Age & Staff relations\tabularnewline
Grade level & Student behavior\tabularnewline
Highest degree earned & Administrative support\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Table 2. Future Plans\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
& Frequency & \% & Valid \% & Cumulative \%\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Teaching at this school & 336 & 79.1 & 80.4 & 80.4\tabularnewline
Teaching at another school in the district & 4 & .9 & 1.0 &
81.4\tabularnewline
Teaching at a school in another district & 15 & 3.5 & 3.6 &
85\tabularnewline
In a school counseling career & 6 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 86.4\tabularnewline
In a school administrator career & 7 & 1.6 & 1.7 & 88.1\tabularnewline
In a district administrator career & 1 & .2 & .2 & 88.3\tabularnewline
In a non-education career & 10 & 2.4 & 2.4 & 90.7\tabularnewline
Retired & 14 & 3.3 & 3.3 & 94\tabularnewline
At home with child or family member & 2 & .5 & .5 & 94.5\tabularnewline
On sabbatical or other break from teaching & 3 & .7 & .7 &
95.2\tabularnewline
Other & 20 & 4.7 & 4.8 & 100\tabularnewline
Total & 418 & 98.4 & 100 &\tabularnewline
Missing System & 7 & 1.6 & &\tabularnewline
Total & 425 & 100 & &\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\par\null

Table 3. Paired-samples \emph{t} -test Results for Four Subscale
Comparisons\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllllllll@{}}
\toprule
Pairs & Subscale Constructs & \emph{n} & \emph{M} & \emph{SD} & Mean
Diff. & \emph{df} & \emph{t}-test & \emph{p} & Cohen's
\emph{d}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
1 & Intrinsic \& & 319 & 4.82 & .62 & 2.05 & 318 & 27.91 & .000 &
1.56\tabularnewline
& Extrinsic & 319 & 2.77 & 1.03 & & 318 & & &\tabularnewline
2 & Intrinsic \& & 319 & 4.82 & .62 & .30 & 318 & 9.94 & .000 &
.56\tabularnewline
& School climate & 319 & 4.52 & .76 & & 318 & & &\tabularnewline
3 & Intrinsic \& & 319 & 4.82 & .62 & 1.26 & 318 & 30.07 & .000 &
1.68\tabularnewline
& School resources & 319 & 3.56 & .79 & & 318 & & &\tabularnewline
4 & Extrinsic \& & 319 & 2.77 & 1.03 & -1.75 & 318 & 21.67 & .000 &
-1.21\tabularnewline
& School climate & 319 & 4.52 & .76 & & 318 & & &\tabularnewline
5 & Extrinsic \& & 319 & 2.77 & 1.03 & -.79 & 318 & 10.20 & .000 &
-.57\tabularnewline
& School resources & 319 & 3.56 & .79 & & 318 & & &\tabularnewline
6 & School climate \& & 319 & 4.52 & .76 & .96 & 318 & 24.89 & .000 &
1.39\tabularnewline
& School resources & 319 & 3.56 & .79 & & 318 & & &\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\par\null

Table 4. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Current School Experience\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllll@{}}
\toprule
Dep. Var. & \emph{Subscale} & \emph{df} & \emph{F} & \emph{p} &
\selectlanguage{greek}η\selectlanguage{english}\textsuperscript{2}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Collegial friendships* & Intrinsic & 3 & 5.13** & .002** &
.06\tabularnewline
Not old enough to receive retirement benefits* & Extrinsic & 3 & 3.75**
& .012** & .04\tabularnewline
Principal is supportive* & School Climate & 3 & 3.28** & .023** &
.03\tabularnewline
Respected by students & School Climate & 3 & 3.71 & .012 &
.03\tabularnewline
Adequate planning time & School Resources & 3 & 2.81 & .040 &
.03\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

* Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch's Robust ANOVA test results

\section*{Appendix B. Survey}

{\label{appendix-b.-survey}}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image1.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/719461/articles/704418-teacher-retention-why-they-stay}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image2.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/719461/articles/704418-teacher-retention-why-they-stay}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image3.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/719461/articles/704418-teacher-retention-why-they-stay}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image4.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/719461/articles/704418-teacher-retention-why-they-stay}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image5.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/719461/articles/704418-teacher-retention-why-they-stay}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image6.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/719461/articles/704418-teacher-retention-why-they-stay}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`image7.emf`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/719461/articles/704418-teacher-retention-why-they-stay}

Table 5. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Age\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllll@{}}
\toprule
Dep. Var. & \emph{Subscale} & \emph{df} & \emph{F} & \emph{p} &
\selectlanguage{greek}η\selectlanguage{english}\textsuperscript{2}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Positive impact on student achievement & Intrinsic & 2 & 4.72 & .010 &
.03\tabularnewline
Positive impact on student personal growth* & Intrinsic & 2 & & .032** &
.02\tabularnewline
No teaching opportunities in another school out of the district* &
Extrinsic & 2 & 3.48** & .035 & .02\tabularnewline
Professional growth opportunities & School Resources & 2 & 6.01 & .003 &
.04\tabularnewline
Induction program* & School Resources & 2 & 9.66** & .00** &
.05\tabularnewline
Adequate planning time* & School Resources & 2 & 3.22** & .041** &
.02\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

* Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch's Robust ANOVA test results

Table 6. Significant ANOVA Test Results for Grade Level\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllll@{}}
\toprule
Dep. Var. & \emph{Subscale} & \emph{df} & \emph{F} & \emph{p} &
\selectlanguage{greek}η\selectlanguage{english}\textsuperscript{2}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
Comfortable working at this school & Intrinsic & 2 & 5.22 & .006 &
.03\tabularnewline
Connection to students & Intrinsic & 2 & 3.84 & .023 &
.03\tabularnewline
Feel needed at this school* & Intrinsic & 2 & 10.10** & .00** &
.05\tabularnewline
Positive parent involvement & School Climate & 2 & 30.43 & .00 &
.17\tabularnewline
Respected by staff* & School Climate & 2 & 8.40** & .00** &
.05\tabularnewline
Involved with decision making* & School Climate & 2 & 15.07** & .00** &
.09\tabularnewline
Principal is supportive* & School Climate & 2 & 12.43** & .00** &
.09\tabularnewline
Unique student program in which I am involved & School Climate & 2 &
4.21 & .016 & .03\tabularnewline
Respected by students & School Climate & 2 & 3.56 & .030 &
.02\tabularnewline
Cooperation among staff* & School Climate & 2 & 14.49** & .00** &
.08\tabularnewline
Principal enforces rules \& backs me up* & School Climate & 2 & 23.89**
& .00** & .12\tabularnewline
Feel safe & School Climate & 2 & 4.07 & .018 & .03\tabularnewline
I have the necessary instructional materials* & School Resources & 2 &
6.44** & .002** & .05\tabularnewline
Adequate planning time* & School Resources & 2 & 3.65** & .028** &
.03\tabularnewline
Satisfied with salary* & School Resources & 2 & 6.17** & .003** &
.04\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

* Equal variances not assumed. ** Welch's Robust ANOVA test results

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

