GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Study says...

Charter schools see higher teacher turnover across the nation

Teacher turnover rates at charter schools nationwide are more than double those of traditional public schools, according to a study done by the National Center on School Choice.

Researchers found that charter schools lost 25 percent of their teachers to other schools and careers while district schools lost 14 percent, a difference the report called the “turnover gap.” The report’s findings are based on teacher survey data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics from the 2003-2004 school year.

“The odds of a charter school teacher leaving the profession versus staying in the same school were 130 percent greater than those of a traditional public school teacher,” the researchers noted.

The report’s authors found little data to support the idea that charter school turnover is higher because these schools have more leeway to fire teachers, a claim made by some charter school supporters.

While charter school teachers were more likely to leave their schools involuntarily than were traditional public school teachers, the report states that school closure and factors other than dismissal could account for this. Even if some of the charter school turnover is due to fired teachers leaving, most of it is “dysfunctional,” the report states.

Compared to traditional public school teachers, charter school teachers are more likely to voluntarily leave the profession or move to a new school because they are dissatisfied with the school and its working conditions.

From reading teachers’ exit surveys, the study’s authors found that the type of charter school affects teachers’ likelihood of staying put, but the schools’ age does not.

Teachers at schools that opened as charter schools were twice as likely to leave the profession and three times as likely to change schools as teachers at schools that converted from district to charter. Newer charter schools have roughly the same turnover rates as schools that have been around for more than three years.

However, a teacher’s age made a big difference.

Young teachers everywhere were more likely to leave teaching or change schools than older teachers, as were teachers who worked part time and didn’t have an education degree or state certification. The report’s authors wrote that it was “no surprise” that because charter schools employ a larger percentage of younger, uncertified, and part time teachers, their turnover rate would be higher.

“Simply put, the teaching staff of charter schools have higher concentrations of teachers that are at risk of leaving the profession,” the report states.

Schools’ student makeup also plays a role, which may have added to charter schools’ higher turnover rate. The more low-income students a school has, the higher its teacher turnover. Nationally, charter schools enroll more low-income students.

  • http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com Alexander Hoffman

    Scalability is a big issue here.

    Of course, that’s nothing new when it come to charter schools.

    If charters are going to be a significent level for school reform or improvement, they have to improve non-charter schools, because the charter model does not scale up to cover even half otthe population. 

  • Michael Fiorillo

    Alexander Hoffman,

    The charter model may not have to scale up to fifty percent to perform its intended purpose:

    1. Destabilize and fragment public schools

    2. Siphon immense amounts of money to edupreneurs, management firms and consultants

    3. Erode and eliminate longstanding ties between communities and their schools (which will become an increasingly provocative issue as communities targeted by charters gentrify and become more affluent and whiter (NY Times, 7/4))

    4. Erode and eliminate union standards won by teachers over the years

    5. Create an increasingly transient, at-will teaching population that is less likely to qualify for watered-down tenure protections or a pension

    I don’t think the privateers see themselves completely taking over all the schools: they need/want a rump public system they can continue to kick around and have as a convenient scapegoat, and as a for dumping ground for “lesser” populations that are unwanted in their archipelago of privately-managed, publicly financed boutique schools.

  • http://MoreThoughtful.blogspot.com Alexander Hoffman

    Well, I try to engage with them on their own terms.

    But issues like this make it hard dismiss your offered theory, as paranoid as it might seem.

  • Michael Fiorillo

    Alexander Hoffman,

    I understand your desire to take charters and the interests that promote them on their own terms, yet I question why you characterize my descriptions as “paranoid.” What is happening to the public schools in this country is consistent with the imposition of the business model- which is to say, Big Money/Capital’s model – on what was formerly a public bureaucracy that responded (or didn’t) to a far wider range of constituencies than the current regime. What does a “business model,” mean, if not that?

    Is my list inconsistent with what you see occurring in urban public education, and in NYC in particular? If not, then how else to explain what’s going on? Was not Joel Klein explicitly hired to break up the system, with his experience as an anti-trust lawyer seen as key to his ability to do so? Is not “creative destruction” – although for those of us who actually have to find our way through the minefields they set up for us, “destructive destruction” is the more appropriate term – a sacred phrase for these folks?

    There is nothing fanciful or “oaranoid” about it, and it has nothing to do with ruling class conspriacy, but rather consensus. A ruling class for whom, as Warren Buffett was honest but indiscreet enough to say, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

    Very, very ugly things are happening, and accelerating, in a highly planned and thought-out way in individual schools and across the system right now. Charter schools are an inseparable part of that process: how would you explain it?

  • Akademos

    Alex,

    With all of the scandals, actions, players (Gates, Broad, Klein, Bloomberg, Rhee, the Broad-moron who fired the staff of teachers, the President who stupidly applauded the act without being properly informed), illegality, and idiocy, you can no longer throw around the term paranoid, unless by paranoid you mean informed, and by extension the informed might seem paranoid to the uninformed . . .

    Well, you get the idea. Did you lose weight? You look more angular and flatter, more animated yet static.

  • Pingback: Bob “The Teacher” Jenkins at Niche Affiliate Marketing System (NAMS) Workshop 3

  • Gideon

    This study is based on data from 6 years ago and was limited to 16 states. Much has changed since 2003-04, so it’s hard to know the relevance of the findings. It would be interesting to look at the same schools now to see whether turnover rates have changed.

  • Jeff

    Wow – the class warfare nuts are out in force! Far better to cater to public sector virtues like livable wages, “due process” when it comes to job performance, and collaboration with “labor”! Every important value except educating students! Oh, that’s besides the point in the war against the corporatists!

  • Michael Fiorillo

    Jeff,

    By “class warfare nuts” I assume you are referring to Warren Buffett (who is contributing much of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, and whose quote appeared in the 11/26/06 New York Times).

    Who are the “nuts?” Those waging it, or those pointing it out?

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

0 comments so far today

Events Calendar

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031