WHAT WE KNOW

Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers have long realized that teaching quality is the most important variable for the success of students.

But without supportive school environments where educators are valued, trusted and have the time and ability to collaborate to improve instruction, even the best teachers will be challenged. Policymakers have paid little attention to the working conditions in schools (Hanushek and Rivken, 2007) that are so are critical to teacher retention and student success. A growing body of research clearly demonstrates that assessing, understanding and improving teaching conditions have many benefits.

Improved Student Learning: Teachers’ success with students is facilitated by a positive school context, such as support from leadership and being in a collaborative working environment.

Several statewide studies have demonstrated that the presence of positive work environments is significantly connected to increased student achievement (Hirsch & Emerick 2007, 2006). In particular, having strong, trusting relationships—both internally and externally (Bryk and Schneider, 2002)—and supportive school leadership are essential to improving student achievement. A recent study of 88 urban public schools demonstrates the importance of communication networks for improved student achievement: in schools where teachers talked to each other the most about their jobs and where the principals did the best job of staying in touch with the community, students had noticeably higher reading and math test scores. These communication networks had a greater impact on test scores than the experience or credentials of the staff (Leana and Pil, 2006).

New teacher gains in student achievement are also found when rigorous instructional mentoring and induction are provided.

A recent study has confirmed previous findings that new teachers can accelerate their instructional growth, making them as effective as their more veteran peers in improving student outcomes, after participating in a high quality mentoring program (Strong, 2006).

Improved Teacher Efficacy and Motivation: Teachers’ perceptions of their school are their reality; therefore, teachers’ behavior and efficacy are a direct result of those views.

In a recent literature review on teaching conditions, Leithwood (2006) found that teacher efficacy is significantly shaped by teaching conditions and that burnout and teacher engagement are critical to classroom performance and job satisfaction. He notes, “What teachers actually do in their schools and classrooms depends on how teachers perceive and respond to their working conditions.”

Improved Teacher Retention: Teachers who leave schools cite an opportunity for a better teaching assignment, dissatisfaction with support from administrators and dissatisfaction with workplace conditions as the main reasons why they seek other opportunities.(NCES, 2004, Ingersoll, 2005, Marvel et al., 2006)

Teachers indicate that a positive, collaborative school climate and support from colleagues and administrators are the most important factors influencing whether they stay in a school (Hirsch & Emerick 2007, 2006a,b). Research has linked teachers’ negative perceptions of working conditions with their exit from schools. Factors such as facilities, safety, and quality of leadership have a greater effect on teacher mobility than salary (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2007). In particular, it appears that supportive school leaders who create trusting environments where educators are engaged in decision making impacts the latter group’s decisions about where to work (Hirsch & Emerick 2007, 2006a,b).

Research on new teachers specifically shows that rigorous instructional mentoring and induction programs can have a major impact on attrition, with studies showing retention rates of 88% after six years – relative to national retention rates of 56% after only five years (Strong,2005).

New Recruitment Strategies to Entice Educators to Work in Hard-to-Staff Schools: Teachers who are willing to teach in hard-to-staff schools indicate that strong supportive school leadership, an engaged community and parents, safety and working conditions are all important factors when selecting where to work.

When Alabama educators in a previous study were asked about incentives that would attract them to schools, non-financial incentives, such as guaranteed planning time and reduced class sizes, were found to be more powerful recruitment incentives than salary supplements and bonuses (Hirsch, 2006). Improving teaching conditions could also bolster the teacher supply pool because many educators who left due to poor conditions might come back if such conditions were enhanced. A recent survey of 2,000 educators from California found that 28 percent of teachers who left the profession before retirement indicated that they would come back if improvements were made to teaching and learning conditions. Monetary incentives were found to be less effective in luring them back (Futernick, 2007).

Find more detailed information on the impact of working conditions on teacher and school outcomes here. [PDF]

To help ensure that all students can learn, teachers need to work in schools designed for their success. Positive teaching conditions, where educators are supported and empowered, are essential to creating schools where teachers want to work and students can learn.

REFERENCES

• Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York. Russell Sage Foundation.
• Futernick, Ken. (2007) “A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers So All Students Learn.” Sacramento: California State University.
• Hanushek, E. and Rivkin, S. “Pay, Working Conditions and Teaching Quality.” In The Future of Children. The Brookings Institution, Vol 17, No. 1, Spring 2007.
• Hirsch, E. & Emerick, S. with K. Church and E. Fuller (2007) “Creating Conditions for Student and Teacher Success: A Report on the Kansas Teacher Working Conditions Survey.” Hillsborough, N.C.: Center for Teaching Quality.
• Hirsch, E. and Emerick S. with K. Church and E. Fuller (2007). “Teacher Working Conditions are Student Learning Conditions: A Report on the 2006 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey.” Hillsborough, N.C.: Center for Teaching Quality.
• Hirsch, E. & Emerick, S. with K. Church and E. Fuller. (2006) “Teaching and learning conditions are critical to the success of students and the retention of teachers: Final report on the 2006 Clark County teaching and learning conditions survey.” Hillsborough, N.C.: Center for Teaching Quality.
• Hirsch, E. (2006) “Recruiting and Retaining Teachers in Alabama: Educators on What It Will Take to Staff All Classrooms with Quality Teachers.” Hillsborough, N.C.: Center for Teaching Quality.
• Ingersoll, Richard M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Leithwood, K. (2006). Teacher Working Conditions That Matter: Evidence for Change. Toronto: Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.
• Leana, C. and Pil, F. (2006).“Social Capital and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Urban Public Schools.” Organization Science. Vol. 17, No. 3, May-June 2006, pp. 353-366.
• Loeb, H., Elfers A,, Knapp, M. and Plecki M. with Boatright, B.. “Preparation and Support for Teaching: Working Conditions of Teachers” Working Paper #2. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching Policy at the University of Washington, May 2004.
• Loeb, S. and Darling-Hammond, L. (2005) “How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover n California schools.” Peabody Journal of Education. Vol. 80, no. 3: 44-70.
• Marvel, J., Lyter, D.M., Peltola, P., Strizek, G.A., and Morton, B.A. (2006). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2004–05 teacher follow-up survey (NCES 2007–307). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• National Center for Education Statistics (2004, August). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results for the teacher follow-up survey, 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: Author.
• O’Day, J. (1996). “Incentives and Student Performance.” In Reards and Reform: Creating Educational Incentives That Work, Eds. S. Fuhrman and J. O’Day. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New York, NY: Longman;
• Strong. Michael (2005). Research Brief: Mentoring New Teachers To Increase Retention. New Teacher Center: Santa Cruz, CA. Ellen Moir and Susan Hanson. (2006). Beyond Mentoring: The Career Paths of Mentor Teachers. New Teacher Center: Santa Cruz, CA.
• Strong, Michael (2006.) Research Brief: Does New Teacher Support Affect Student Achievement? New Teacher Center: Santa Cruz, CA.
• Talbert, J., McLaughlin, M., & Rowan, B. (1993). Understanding context effects on secondary school teaching. Teachers College Record, 95(1), 45-68,