04.01.2014 Views

Teacher turnover in special and general education: attrition

Teacher turnover in special and general education: attrition

Teacher turnover in special and general education: attrition

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Teacher</strong> Turnover<br />

Corporate Attrition<br />

NonBus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />

Health Care<br />

13.2%<br />

17.2%<br />

Special Ed<br />

General Ed<br />

10.1%<br />

9.7%<br />

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%<br />

Annual Corporate Attrition Percent<br />

Figure 3. Annual corporate <strong>attrition</strong><br />

percent for public school teachers <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>special</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>general</strong> <strong>education</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

comparison with other occupation fields.<br />

Corporate <strong>attrition</strong> is def<strong>in</strong>ed by leav<strong>in</strong>g<br />

an employer, such as a corporation or<br />

school district. Percents shown represent<br />

the mean <strong>attrition</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1991, 1994, <strong>and</strong><br />

2000. <strong>Teacher</strong> data from <strong>Teacher</strong> Follow-<br />

Up Surveys, NCES, USDE. Other<br />

occupation data from the Employer<br />

Surveys by the Bureau of National Affairs<br />

(BNA), Inc.<br />

rate than did employees from non-bus<strong>in</strong>ess employers nationally. In fact, the corporate <strong>attrition</strong><br />

rate of public teachers was actually lower than for non-bus<strong>in</strong>ess occupations dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1990s.<br />

Reasons for Leav<strong>in</strong>g Teach<strong>in</strong>g<br />

As shown <strong>in</strong> Table 1, there is a variety of ma<strong>in</strong> reasons given by public school teachers for<br />

leav<strong>in</strong>g teach<strong>in</strong>g. To secure sufficient sample size for detailed analyses of this phenomenon, we<br />

aggregated <strong>attrition</strong> data across three TFSs dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1990s. Even so, the samples for some of<br />

the particular reasons for leav<strong>in</strong>g by SETs were small (i.e., less than 30). Therefore, only the<br />

subtotals for the five categories of reasons shown <strong>in</strong> Table 1 were considered.<br />

17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!