蜜桃影视

The education field needs a jolt.

No, make that JOLTS 鈥� the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You wouldn鈥檛 know it from the discourse over public schools, but according to the most recent results, public education has some of the lowest rates of job turnover in our economy. In fact, public education workers, mainly teachers, have lower turnover rates than employees in every other industry except the federal government.

This is not a new or surprising result 鈥� public education has some of the lowest turnover rates among all industries, in good economic times and bad. But if your news diet consisted only of reports from the education field, you might be forgiven for thinking teacher retention rates are in crisis.

Exactly why this myth persists is worthy of a longer conversation, but let鈥檚 set that aside for the moment and analyze what we actually know. That might help us get to the 鈥渨hy鈥� and a better understanding of teacher retention rates 鈥� and what to do about them.

We know that teacher turnover has risen over the past 30 years by a couple of percentage points. We also know that teacher churn is harmful to students, and that replacing a single teacher costs districts thousands of dollars. These facts can lead to the perception that teacher turnover is really high, and that it鈥檚 always a problem. The nuance is much more interesting, though, and it presents a far different story than just 鈥渢eacher turnover is bad鈥� or 鈥渢eacher turnover is fine.鈥�

First, as shown in the JOLTS data, public schools have much lower rates of job openings, hire rates, quit rates, and voluntary and involuntary separations than every industry except the federal government. Across all these measures, public schools have employee mobility rates that are roughly half the national averages. The public education sector has far less employee churn than practically all other sectors of our economy.

We should be celebrating this as good news, but instead we鈥檝e treated all churn as bad. For instance, we know that teacher churn in general is to students. But research suggests that schools aren鈥檛 losing their top teachers; rather, teachers who leave their or the tend to be lower-performing than the ones who stay. It would not be a productive use of resources to reduce turnover rates for low-performing teachers.

As a real-world example, of swapping out low-performing teachers for higher-quality replacements has proven to be effective despite producing higher churn. Urban charter schools are another exception: They yield strongly positive outcomes for low-income and minority students despite high rates of teacher and principal turnover. Teach for America does it, too; found that its teachers were still a net positive for students even after accounting for higher teacher turnover.

We also don鈥檛 talk about teacher turnover in the proper context. State data suggest that it is much higher in some places than in others, rather than being some sort of universal issue. Consider the map below from the annual 鈥淔acts and Figures鈥� from BEST NC. It maps teacher turnover rates by district in North Carolina and finds a statewide turnover rate of 13.5 percent, which is lower than the national average. But some districts have turnover rates about half that, while others are double the statewide average. Interestingly, this year鈥檚 map looks nearly the same as the one BEST NC created .

In other words, North Carolina doesn鈥檛 have a generic teacher retention problem, but it might have a teacher retention disparity problem. This pattern shows up in other states and districts as well. When we looked at retention rates by district in Colorado, we even larger gaps than in North Carolina, and from John Papay, Andrew Bacher-Hicks, Lindsay Page, and William Marinell found similarly large disparities when they looked at longitudinal teacher retention rates in 16 large school districts spread across seven states. When the National Council on Teacher Quality looked at turnover within Miami-Dade County Public Schools, they significant disparities even within the same district.

So, should we as a field be working to improve teacher retention? Sure. It still costs money to hire and retrain teachers. But the evidence suggests our money would be better spent working to boost retention for effective teachers working in specific hard-to-staff schools and subjects, rather than worrying about turnover as a generic problem to solve.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.