Longitudinal Teacher Education and Workforce Study (ltews) Final Report
Yüklə 3,35 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- How mobile are graduates in their early teaching career
- Longitudinal analysis of teacher mobility
3.3 Teacher MobilityThis section addresses the issue of teacher mobility, first, by briefly defining this phenomenon and then by looking at the types and causes of early career teacher movement revealed by this study. Teacher mobility has received more comprehensive attention only recently in a broader attempt to understand and manage teacher turnover. Previous large-scale studies into the teaching workforce have captured some key mobility patterns relevant to this study. For example, McKenzie et al. (2011) explored career paths in teaching and reported that 40 per cent of primary teachers and 36 per cent of secondary teachers surveyed in 2010 spent less than two years at their first school (as compared to 42 per cent and 40 per cent in 2007 respectively). On average, movers spent about 3 years in their first school, with only 5 per cent spending more than 10 years at their first school. They also looked at the patterns of teacher mobility across school sectors, states and in/outside metropolitan cities. In comparison to 2007, movement between sectors appears to have slowed in 2010, with 81 per cent of primary teachers and 67 per cent of secondary teachers working in the same sector as their first school (71 per cent of primary and 60 per cent of secondary in 2007). Similarly, there was some decrease in moving away from government schools from 20 per cent in 2007 to 13 per cent in primary in 2010 and from 28 per cent to 22 per cent in secondary. The data showed that about 80 per cent of teachers who had moved schools were teaching in the same state or territory as their first school. Compared to 2007, a higher percentage of primary teachers began teaching in a school outside of a capital city (61 per cent in 2010, 55 per cent in 2007). Mobility and attrition, according to Imazeki (2005), are the biggest challenges that many education systems face. Ingersoll (2004) estimated that both types of teacher turnover have approximately the same percentage in the USA. It has been recognised that teacher turnover has both significant financial and education implications and, in particular, the attrition of beginning teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Imazeki, 2005). Early attrition and mobility have an impact on education quality in certain schools (e.g. disadvantaged, rural and remote), as well as affecting school staffing more broadly. In both cases teachers need to be replaced. However, mobility has a more direct impact on schools than on systems, and hence is a less problematic issue for governments. From the point of view of school administration, teachers who move to another school, system or place pose various retention and turnover issues. From the perspective of state or federal governments, movers are not leaving the profession and thus do not contribute to overall teacher shortages. Therefore, if movers are not considered and examined along with leavers, total teacher turnover appears far less problematic than it is for those viewing this issue from a school management perspective (R. Ingersoll, 2004). In relation to early career teachers, (Cochran-Smith, 2004, p.846) argue that stayers and leavers are not a homogenous group: ‘rather there are multiple variations of practice-coupled-with-career decisions, some of which are desirable and some are not.’ Some attrition is desirable, for example if beginning teachers perceive themselves, or are perceived by others, as not well-suited to teaching, but some attrition is not (e.g. the attrition of highly-qualified graduates). Some attrition is temporary (e.g. teachers leaving to complete a post-graduate degree, raise a family, or take a long period of leave before returning to teach), and some is inevitable (e.g. teachers retiring). Teacher mobility, however, is related more to workplace issues such as student discipline problems, lack of support and mentoring arrangements, poor working conditions, conflicts with administration, lack of participatory opportunities in school decision-making and governance (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2003; R. Ingersoll, 2004). LTEWS and the analysis discussed in this section explores the mobility of graduates across only one year and so drawing similar generalisations about the patterns of mobility is not feasible. Box 3 lists the main findings for Section 3.3.
How mobile are graduates in their early teaching career?Table 36 shows the movement of graduates from Round 1 to Round 2, across states and territories. The total number of graduates who had teaching positions at both points-in-time, and who could be tracked across the two survey rounds (a six-month period) numbered 458. Table 36. Graduate mobility between schools from Round 1 to Round 2 – state/territory
Note: n=458 The table shows that for those graduates with teaching positions in Round 1 in Victoria, SA, WA, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT, all of them were still in that same state or territory in Round 2. There was a small percentage of change from Round 1 to Round 2 for NSW, with two per cent going to Queensland and one per cent obtaining an overseas teaching position. For Round 1 graduates from Queensland, 98 per cent were still in Queensland in Round 2, one per cent moved to a school in the Northern Territory and one per cent overseas. As the numbers represented in each cell in the table above are very small, the small percentage of graduates who have moved actually totals less than ten, so these state/territory changes should be treated with caution. Overall, the data shows that nearly all graduates did not move state/territory between the beginning and the end of their first year in teaching. Table 37 shows the movement of graduates from time two (Round 2) to time three (Round 3) across states and territories. The total number of graduates who had teaching positions at both points in time and who could be tracked across the two survey rounds (a six month period) numbered 819. Table 37. Graduate mobility between schools from Round 2 to Round 3 – by state/territory
Note: n=819 The table shows that for those graduates with teaching positions in Round 2 in WA and Tasmania, there was no movement between states in Round 3. There was less than a four per cent change from Round 2 to Round 3 for graduate teachers in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and ACT. Of the graduates teaching in South Australian in Round 2, 2.9 per cent were in the Northern Territory in Round 3 and 2.9 per cent had a teaching position overseas. Of the graduates teaching in the Northern Territory in Round 2, 3.1 per cent were teaching in WA in Round 3 and 3.1 per cent in the ACT. Graduates who were teaching overseas in Round 2 showed the greatest mobility, with 6.7 per cent changing their location from Round 2 to Round 3 – all these graduates were in Queensland in Round 3. Overall, the data shows that nearly all graduates did not move state/territory between the end of their first year and the beginning of their second year in teaching. Table 38 below shows the movement of graduates from Round 1 to Round 3, across states and territories. The total number of graduates who had teaching positions at both points in time and who could be tracked across the two survey rounds (a 12-month period) numbered 354. Table 38. Graduate mobility between schools from Round 1 to Round 3 – state/territory
Note: n=354 The table shows that for those graduates with teaching positions in Round 1 in Victoria, SA, WA, Tasmania and the ACT there was no movement between states in Round 3. The number of graduates who did change schools across states and territories in the 12-month period was less than 10, so overall nearly all graduates remained in the same state/territory from the beginning of their first year of teaching to the beginning of their second year. Discrete point-in-time of graduate teachers with a teaching position – by characteristics of school location: Round 3 (March 2013)In Round 3, graduate respondents with a teaching position were asked for some information about the area in which their school was located. They were asked if they were teaching in a school where they had lived prior to enrolling in their teacher education program. They were also asked if they had lived in an area similar to where their current school was located in terms of: population size, socio-economic make-up, and cultural diversity. Graduate responses are shown in Table 39. Table 39. Graduates with a teaching position in Round 3 – by characteristics of school location
The data show that 32 per cent of graduates taught in schools in the area where they had lived prior to entering their teacher education program. Sixty-eight per cent taught in schools that were located in other suburbs or areas. This pattern reflects their geographic preferences as graduate teachers and the availability of jobs. Graduates decided to move to other geographic areas or schools for a wide range of reasons. These reasons are discussed in more details the following sections (See Section 3.5). When looking at graduates' schools with similar location characteristics to where graduates had lived prior to their teacher education program, two-thirds of graduates stated that they were in areas with similar population size, socio-economic make-up, or cultural diversity. Longitudinal analysis of teacher mobilityThe following tables show information from graduates who responded to more than one Graduate Teacher Survey. As outlined in Chapter 2, these respondents formed three cohorts for the purpose of data analysis and are grouped as follows:
Cohort 1 (Round 1 to Round 2): Mobility between schools Table 40 shows all Cohort 1 respondents who indicated whether or not they were currently teaching in the Round 1 survey. As can be seen from the totals at the bottom, there were 499 respondents who were teaching and 186 respondents without a teaching position in Round 1. The data are based on teaching status and the name of the school given by respondents in each round. The rows in the table show where Cohort 1 respondents were in Round 2, in terms of teaching employment and movement between schools. Table 40. Cohort 1 mobility between schools
It can be seen that of those who were employed as a teacher in Round 1, 75.6 per cent were still in the same school six months later. Thirteen per cent had moved to a different school over this period and 3 per cent were no longer teaching (and therefore did not have a school). For those who were not employed as a teacher in Round 1, 36.6 per cent had gained teaching employment by Round 2 and 38.7 per cent were still not employed as a teacher. Just under a quarter of Cohort 1 who were not employed in Round 1 had named schools that were not able to be matched to the school data provided by the former Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations-DEEWR. Cohort 2 (Round 2 to Round 3): Mobility between schools Table 41 below shows Cohort 2 respondents who indicated whether they were currently teaching in the Round 2 survey. As can be seen from the totals, there were 894 respondents who were teaching and 156 respondents without a teaching position in Round 2. The rows in the table show where Cohort 2 respondents were in Round 3, in terms of teaching employment and movement between schools. Table 41. Cohort 2 mobility between schools
Of those who were employed as a teacher in Round 2, 55.5 per cent were still in the same school six months later. For Cohort 2, these six months ran from the end of the school year in 2012 to early in the school year in 2013. Because of this, it is to be expected that the movement between schools for Cohort 2 will be higher than for Cohort 1, and it is: 18. 3 per cent had changed schools compared to 13.0 per cent of Cohort 1. Just under 6 per cent were no longer teaching and there was insufficient information for just over 20 per cent of Cohort 2 who were teaching in Round 2. For those who were not employed as a teacher in Round 2, 29.5 per cent had gained teaching employment by Round 3 and 59.0 per cent were still not employed as a teacher. For all of Cohort 2 who could be tracked in terms of school employment and/or school name, at the time of Round 3, 47.2 per cent were still in the same school as they had been in Round 2, 15.6 per cent had moved to a different school, 4.4 per cent had gained employment as a teacher, 4.8 per cent had left teaching and 8.8 per cent were not teaching in Round 2 or Round 3. Cohort 3 (Round 1 to Round 3): Mobility between schools Table 42 shows all Cohort 3 respondents who indicated whether or not they were currently teaching in the Round 1 survey. As can be seen from the totals, there were 392 respondents who were teaching and 152 respondents without a teaching position in Round 1. The rows in the table show where Cohort 3 respondents were in Round 3, in terms of teaching employment and movement between schools. Table 42. Cohort 3 mobility between schools
Of those who were employed as a teacher in Round 1, 57.1 per cent were still in the same school 12-months later. Just under 20 per cent had moved to a different school over this period and 7.4 per cent were no longer teaching (and therefore did not have a school). For those who were not employed as a teacher in Round 1, 39.5 per cent had gained teaching employment by Round 3 and 42.1 per cent were still not employed as a teacher. For all of Cohort 3 who could be tracked in terms of school employment and/or school name, at the time of Round 3, 41.2 per cent were still in the same school as they had been in Round 1, 14.3 per cent had moved to a different school, 11.0 per cent had gained employment as a teacher over the 12 month period, 5.3 per cent had left teaching and 11.85 per cent were not teaching in Round 1 or Round 3. In more general terms, the analysis of the qualitative data demonstrates that the main reason for teacher mobility revealed in this study, was better employment opportunities. Most of the movers were employed on short-term contracts or in casual relief positions and moved to different schools, systems or geographic areas as soon as they secured full-time positions. Based on the interviews data, 40 per cent of the respondents (N=33) who participated in all three interview rounds remained on short-term contracts or casual relief positions by the third round of interviews, conducted within 12-months over two calendar years. The data also show that a majority of early career teachers remained on short-term contracts, and this will continue to be the major cause of mobility and teacher turnover in the future. This pattern of beginning teacher mobility is reflective of the marketplace and system changes that have reduced demand for teachers in certain geographic areas and prompted different recruitment patterns. The following graduate teacher’s reflection echoed that of several others who have made, or are considering, the option to move interstate or overseas for better teaching prospects.
From the interviews and survey free text responses, both graduate teachers and principals attribute the difficulty in finding employment to the perceived overproduction of teachers and the lack of full-time jobs (‘there are too many graduates for primary teachers, and not enough jobs’). Contributing factors in this regard are retirement delays, an ‘out of service’ pool of teachers, public sector cutbacks (e.g. freezing salaries), affordability of private education, etc. As some studies of teacher employability show, the supply of new teachers is closely affected by the economic cycle. However, it does not reflect the cycle directly but rather lags behind it, contributing to some increase in teacher casualization or unemployment when the economy starts to perform better. The interview and free text responses illustrate four types of mobility (See Box 4). Respondents to the survey indicated that many were employed as replacement teachers filling short-term vacancies. The age-profile of the teaching profession, and consequently both retirement levels and maternity leave, either temporary or semi-permanent, affect the demand for replacement teachers. Another reason is the uneven level of economic activity in urban and rural locations that creates an over-supply of teachers in some geographical areas and an undersupply in others. The interplay of such factors was mentioned by participants in
this study, particularly by beginning teachers who were mature, mid-career changers, and were from dual-income families that lack mobility. The patterns of mobility also show that some schools suffer more from the effects of shortages than others, most notably those with large numbers of low socio-economic status students. Free text comments taken from each of the survey rounds show the contextual variation that occurs across Australia:
In this regard, teacher mobility is as relevant to the retention of qualified teachers as attrition. Evidence suggests that teachers tend to move away from low-performing and low socio-economic schools (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). Beginning teachers generally require three to five years of teaching experience to become entirely effective at improving student learning outcomes (Rivkin & Hanushek, 2005). Some studies show that more effective and experienced teachers are less likely to leave their schools or the profession, while inexperienced teachers are more likely to leave (e.g. Kreig, 2004). As a result, schools with high mobility rates tend to fill vacant positions with new teachers, leading to the concentration of inexperienced and less effective teachers among their staff. In this context, teacher retention has an important role in improving students’ learning. However, the mobility of beginning teachers, beyond its relationship to effectiveness and experience, is also dependent on workplace conditions. The following sections will elaborate on these issues in more detail. The following illustrates the four types of early career teacher mobility based on the analysis of findings. Yüklə 3,35 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||