October 2007 — Features

Print this article

Click here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal

Help Wanted

by Susan Brooks-Young

BYTESIZE

All reports from the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, including the recent June study, can be found here.

As early as 2002, Carroll wrote in an NCTAF report: "Our inability to support high-quality teaching in many of our schools is driven not by too few teachers coming in, but by too many going out….We need to balance our efforts to prepare high quality teachers with strong strategies to support good teaching in our schools." In January 2003, NCTAF published "No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children," launching a series of projects and studies focused on teacher turnover. The commission’s most recent report, "The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School Districts: A Pilot Study," was released in June.

Carroll hopes that this latest study will capture school leaders’ full attention, because he says it "uses actual school district data. Earlier attempts to nail down the costs [associated with teacher attrition] used formulas based on industry standards for attrition. Although the resulting estimated costs of teacher attrition were alarmingly high, policymakers discounted the figures." The June report is based on information from five districts: Chicago Public Schools, Milwaukee Public Schools (WI), Granville County Schools (NC), and Jemez Valley Public Schools and Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools in New Mexico. The study sites were selected to include a broad range of demographic factors spanning two large urban districts, a countywide suburban district, and two small rural districts.

The report presents several key findings:

  1. The costs of teacher turnover are substantial. The estimates for the cost of replacing just one teacher ranged from $4,366 (Jemez Valley) to $17,872 (Chicago).
  2. Teacher turnover costs can be identified, calculated, and analyzed. These include but are not limited to: recruitment and advertising; incentives (such as signing bonuses); administrative processing; and training for new hires.
  3. Teacher turnover undermines at-risk schools. In both Milwaukee and Chicago, higher teacher turnover was correlated to schools where performance is low and poverty rates are high. The turnover means these schools expend scarce dollars on training new staff each year.
  4. At-risk schools could recoup funds by investing in teacher retention. An up-front investment in effective induction and support programs for teachers produces significant savings.
  5. District data systems are not designed to control the costs of turnover. However, systems can be modified to enable district officials to collect the data they need to make informed decisions about turnover costs.