Educational Administration Quarterly

Vol. 40, No. 5 (December 2004) 742-771

10.1177/0013161X04268844

Educational Administration Quarterly

Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS

Influences on the Satisfaction and Retention

of 1st-Year Teachers: The Importance of
Effective School Management

Jean Stockard
Michael Bryan Lehman

Data from two panel studies, the 1993 to 1995 nationwide Schools and Staffing Survey
and the Teacher Follow-Up Survey, as well as a 1998-1999 survey of teachers in one
western state are used to examine the influence of variables related to demographic char-
acteristics, work assignment, effectiveness, social support, and school management on
the satisfaction and retention decisions of 1st-year public school teachers. Minor differ-
ences appear between the results for the statewide and national samples, but both sets of
results indicate that the most important influences on satisfaction involve variables re-
lated to social support and school management, and that the most important influence on
retention decisions is job satisfaction. Implications for future research and for practitio-
ners are discussed, including the central role of effective and supportive school manage-
ment in promoting the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year teachers.

Keywords: beginning teachers; retention; satisfaction; management

Projections developed by the National Center for Education Statistics

(2000) indicate that the number of school-age children will steadily and sig-
nificantly increase during the 21st century, and schools will face a major
challenge in both attracting and retaining quality teachers. Although teacher
turnover can provide some positive outcomes, such as the loss of those with
fewer skills, extensive turnover can also contribute to low morale, increased
costs, and lower levels of effectiveness (Mobley, 1982; Perie & Baker, 1997;
Price, 1989; Rosenholtz, 1989). Given that attrition rates among teachers are
highest among those in their earliest years within the profession (Darling-
Hammond & Sclan, 1996; Heyns, 1988; Murnane, 1987; Murnane, Singer, &
Willett, 1988; Schlechty & Vance, 1981; Singer, 1992, 1993), it is especially

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X04268844
© 2004 The University Council for Educational Administration

742
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 743

important to understand factors that contribute to both the satisfaction and

retention of 1st-year teachers. This article explores this issue by examining
the influence of a wide range of factors on the satisfaction and retention of
1st-year teachers using data from both a national and a statewide sample.

RELATED LITERATURE

Some authors have noted the difficulties involved in developing a theoreti-

cally strong conceptual definition of worker satisfaction (e.g. Mitchell,
Ortiz, & Mitchell, 1987, p. 30). Yet theoretical models of worker turnover, as
well as empirical data, suggest that workers’satisfaction, however it might be
defined, influences their intentions to stay in or leave their jobs, which in turn
influences their actual behavior (e.g., Bacharach & Baumberger, 1990;
Bluedorn, 1982; Chapman, 1983; Heyns, 1988; Mueller & Price, 1990).
Although the exact grouping of variables differs slightly from one analyst to
another, researchers who have examined influences on teacher satisfaction
and retention suggest that important factors to consider include (a) demo-
graphic and background variables, (b) variables related to the teaching
assignment, (c) the teachers’ effectiveness and self-efficacy, (d) the support
they receive from colleagues and parents, and (e) administrative practices
and policies within their schools (e.g., Billingsley, 1993; Chapman, 1983,
1984; Chapman & Lowther, 1982; Shen, 1997c).
Empirical analyses have examined the influence of demographic vari-
ables, including gender, race, educational background, age, and prior experi-
ence and training. Some results suggest that women tend to be somewhat
more satisfied with their teaching career (e.g. Chapman & Lowther, 1982;
Heck & Wolcott, 1997; Ma & MacMillan, 1999), whereas men tend to be
more likely than women to stay in teaching (Adams, 1996; Murnane et al.,
1988; Singer, 1992; Stinebrickner, 1998; but for a finding of no difference in
retention, see Shen, 1997b, 1997c).1 The majority of studies report no differ-
ences in retention rates between race/ethnic groups or those with different
levels of education (Billingsley, 1993; Chapman, 1983; Shen, 1997b, 1997c).
Relatively consistent results have been found regarding the influence of age
and prior experience with older teachers (Adams, 1996; Billingsley, 1993;
Heck & Wolcott, 1997; Singer, 1992; Whitener et al., 1997), and those with
prior experience within education or who rate their teacher training as more
helpful being less likely to leave (Billingsley, 1993).
Relatively consistent results have also appeared in examinations of the
influence of variables related to a teacher’s assignment. Most studies find that
744 Educational Administration Quarterly

teachers at the secondary level are less satisfied (Heyns, 1988) and more
likely to leave teaching (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1990; Billingsley, 1993;
Singer, 1992; Theobald, 1990; but for a contrary result, see Shen, 1997c).
Teachers with lower salaries, as well as those who have fewer resources and
are in more “difficult” assignments, are more likely to express dissatisfaction
or leave teaching (Billingsley, 1993; Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997; Conley,
Bas-Isaac, & Brandon, 1998; Heck & Wolcott, 1997; Heyns, 1988; Murnane,
Singer, Willett, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991; Perie & Baker, 1997; Rumberger,
1987; Shen, 1997c; Stinebrickner, 1998; Theobald, 1990; Whitener et al.,
1997). Somewhat less consistent results appear when the influence of the
geographic region of teachers’ assignments and the extent to which assign-
ments match their areas of expertise are studied, although the number of stud-
ies involved is very small. Some authors have found that teacher attrition is
more problematic in urban areas (e.g., Billingsley, 1993), some have sug-
gested that the problem is more acute in suburban areas (Heyns, 1988), and
others have noted special problems in retaining teachers in rural areas (Bull
& Hyle, 1989). In contrast, Shen (1997c), in the most extensive national anal-
ysis, found no differences in retention across various locations.2 Finally,
although Ingersoll (1999) suggested that teachers without proper credentials
are more likely to leave teaching (see also Boe, Cook, Bobbitt, & Terbanian,
1998; Shen, 1997a), Adams (1996), in a study of only one school district,
found that those with traditional rather than alternative certifications are
more likely to leave the field, and Shen (1997c) found no relationship
between teachers’ decisions to leave the field and the extent to which their
teaching assignment matches their area of expertise.
We found surprisingly few studies that examine the role of teachers’ com-
petence and effectiveness in promoting their satisfaction and retention. All of
the studies that we found, however, confirm that teachers who see themselves
as more competent (Ma & MacMillan, 1999), who believe that they are using
complex or high-level skills (Conley et al., 1998), or who have higher levels
of organizational or student management skills (Chapman & Hutcheson,
1982; Rosenholtz, 1989) are more satisfied with and committed to their work
(see also Cohen, 1987; Gold, 1996). Research that examines the role of social
support has also produced consistent results, with teachers who report
receiving more support from their colleagues and from parents also reporting
greater satisfaction and being more likely to stay in their jobs (Billingsley,
1993; Bryk, Lee, & Smith, 1990; Chapman, 1983; Colbert & Wolff, 1992;
Newmann, Rutter, & Smith, 1989; Perie & Baker, 1997; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Finally, existing research tends to suggest that school management policies
influence teacher satisfaction and retention, with teachers who are employed
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 745

in settings where they have greater influence over school policy, greater con-
trol over their own classroom, more effective administrators, and a mentoring
system that provides support in their initial years of teaching being both more
satisfied and more likely to stay in the field (Billingsley, 1993; Bryk et al.,
1990; Colbert & Wolff, 1992; Darling-Hammond & Sclan, 1996; Ingersoll,
2001; Ma & MacMillan, 1999; Newmann et al., 1989; Perie & Baker, 1997;
Rosenholtz, 1989; Shen, 1997c; Whitener et al., 1997).
Relatively few studies regarding teacher satisfaction and retention appear
to use a national sample (e.g., Boe et al., 1997; Boe et al., 1998; Heyns, 1988;
Rumberger, 1987; Shen, 1997c; Stinebrickner, 1998). Of these studies, only
Shen (1997c) and Stinebrickner (1998), who examined teacher retention,
and Perie and Baker (1997), who looked at teacher satisfaction, explored the
influence of a wide range of variables.3 Most studies focus on teachers from a
limited geographic area, such as one district (e.g., Adams, 1993, 1996;
Conley et al., 1998), one state or province (Bacharach & Bamberger, 1990;
Ma & MacMillan, 1999; Murnane, 1987; Murnane et al., 1988; Rosenholtz,
1989; Theobald, 1990), or those who have attended one university (Chap-
man, 1984; Chapman & Green, 1986; Chapman & Lowther, 1982) or only a
few colleges and universities (Chapman & Hutcheson, 1982). We found no
studies that specifically focus on the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year,
beginning teachers, a surprising gap given the crucial nature of this 1st year in
the career process.
Our study, thus, adds to the literature on teacher satisfaction and retention
in several ways. First, we limited our analysis to 1st-year teachers, a group
whose experiences have apparently not been thoroughly explored but who
are most likely to leave the field. Second, we examined both teacher satisfac-
tion and retention and included a broad range of explanatory variables in our
analysis. Finally, we used both a national data set and a state-level data set.
We examined the extent to which teachers’ satisfaction and retention are re-
lated to their demographic backgrounds, their teaching assignments, their
perceived effectiveness, the support they receive from others, and adminis-
trative practices and policies within their schools. Based on the literature
reviewed above, the following can be hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1: Demographic variables will have the least impact on teachers’satis-

faction and retention, whereas variables related to effectiveness, social sup-
port, and school management will have the most effect.
Hypothesis 2: Measures of teachers’ satisfaction will independently influence
both their intentions to stay in or leave their jobs as well as their actual retention
behavior.
746 Educational Administration Quarterly

METHOD

Data to test our hypotheses come from two surveys of 1st-year teachers.
Both data sets are panel designs, with data from two time points. The first
uses a national sample and was collected as part of the Schools and Staffing
Survey sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics. Teachers
included in the national study were selected through a large-scale multistage,
stratified sampling strategy and were first contacted during the 1993-1994
school year. A subsample of this group was contacted again in the 1994-1995
year to determine their rate of attrition from teaching. The data were gathered
by the U.S. Bureau of the Census through standard mail-out/mail-back tech-
niques with telephone follow-up questionnaires used for sample members
who did not respond to the mailed inquiries (Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research, 2000). Data used in our study were obtained
through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
(2000) at the University of Michigan (Study No. 2763). Our analysis focuses
on the 379 public school teachers in Grades 1 through 12 who responded to
both surveys, identified themselves as regular full-time teachers, and were
identified on the data file as beginning teachers.
The second data set also comes from a mail-out/mail-back survey, but it
involves teachers from only one western state. Human resource directors in
the state’s 25 largest districts and a randomly selected sample of 15 smaller
districts were contacted in the summer of 1998 regarding participation in the
study. Directors in 12 of the larger districts and 6 of the smaller districts
agreed to participate in the study and were sent surveys to distribute to their
1st-year teachers along with a coupon for a national coffee shop chain as a
small incentive.4 One hundred seventeen teachers who had no prior full-time
paid experience as public school teachers responded to a survey distributed in
the fall before they began school and a second survey sent in April 1999,
toward the end of their 1st year in teaching. These teachers compose the state-
wide sample.5
The two data sets are similar in that they both involve 1st-year teachers,
data gathered in a mail-out/mail-back format, and a panel design. They differ,
however, in the scope of the samples and in a number of the questions that
were asked. The national survey includes respondents from a much wider
variety of settings, more general questions regarding the teachers’ careers,
and data from 2 different years. The statewide survey has respondents from a
more limited geographical area but includes measures that are often more
specifically related to the literature reviewed above and data collected prior
to the teachers’ 1st year of full-time employment in the field. Thus, the use of
two data sets allows us to examine a wide variety of indicators of key
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 747

variables in our hypotheses and provides complementary approaches to the

issue of 1st-year teacher satisfaction and retention.

Measures

We have two indicators of our dependent variable in both of the data sets.
In the national data set, one measure, derived from the work of Perie and
Baker (1997), taps the respondents’ general satisfaction with their choice of
teaching as a career (see the Appendix for details on all composite measures
used in the analysis). The second measure indicates the teachers’ actual work
status in the follow-up year—whether they remained in the same school,
moved to a different school, or left education entirely. The first measure of
the dependent variable for the statewide sample is a composite measure of
responses to items regarding the teachers’ general satisfaction with their jobs
and was adapted from work by Bacharach and Bamberger (1990, p. 340) and
Irving and Meyer (1995, p. 1167). The second measure comes from a ques-
tion that asked the teachers, in both the fall and the spring administrations,
“How long do you plan to teach?” Responses were grouped into a dichotomy,
with one value indicating that they would stay either 6 or more years or 3 to 5
years if that was what they had chosen the first time, and the other value indi-
cating that they would stay for only 1 to 2 years or for less time than they had
originally thought.6
With respect to demographic and background variables, both data sets
include measures of gender, race/ethnicity, level of education, age, and previ-
ous work experience. In addition, the national survey includes information
on participation in continuing education activities, and the statewide survey
includes the participants’ ratings of the quality of their college field
experience.
Both surveys provide data on the teachers’ assignments, including the
level at which the teachers work, their class size, and their certification or pre-
ferred grade level. In addition, the national data set includes information on
both the size of the city and region of the country in which the teachers
worked, whereas the statewide data set includes the respondents’perceptions
of how similar their present school was to the one in which they had their field
experience. Two measures were used to tap the difficulty of an assignment
for the national sample: a scale constructed from a series of questions
designed to measure the extent to which the school was safe and orderly and
responses to a question regarding whether “a student from this school ever
threatened to injure you.” With the state sample, indicators of difficulty
included the number of students with disabilities, the students’ level of
748 Educational Administration Quarterly

achievement, school size, the socioeconomic status of the community, and

available teaching resources.
There are two broadly based indicators from the statewide data set related
to perceptions of effectiveness with items that tap widely accepted standards
of effective teaching, including issues related to student learning, profes-
sional relations, and curricular competence. In the fall, the teachers were
asked to describe the degree of effectiveness they expected to have in each of
the areas; and in the spring, they were asked to describe “the degree of effec-
tiveness you have had.” We, unfortunately, could find only one question in
the national set that appeared to relate to the teachers’ effectiveness—a ques-
tion that asked the teachers, “During your most recent full week of teaching,
how many times did you have to interrupt your class(es) to deal with student
misbehavior or disruption?” We assumed that those who believed that they
had a higher level of classroom control saw themselves as more effective.
Our measure of social support for the national sample was an additive
scale regarding support and agreement from parents and fellow teachers. For
the statewide sample, the measure of social support was an additive scale,
gathered in the spring administration, regarding the respondents’ relation-
ships with fellow teachers.
For the national sample, we used three composite measures of the teach-
ers’ perceptions of school management: (a) influence over school policy, (b)
perceived control over classroom planning and teaching, and (c) perceived
effectiveness of the principal. For the statewide sample, we used two com-
posite measures of school management: (a) the teachers’ perceptions of their
administrator and (b) their assessment of mentoring in their school.

Analysis

We explored hypothesized influences on the measures of satisfaction us-

ing multiple regression and techniques of path analysis, which allowed us to
examine both the direct and indirect patterns of influence of the independent
variables. We first examined the zero-order correlations between satisfaction
and each of the independent variables and then regressed the measures of sat-
isfaction on the independent variables, adding each set of variables outlined
above as a block. Based on the results of the zero-order and multivariate anal-
yses, we developed a reduced model that contained all variables that were re-
lated to the dependent variables at p < .10 or beyond in either the bivariate or
multivariate analyses. Finally, we examined the patterns of indirect and direct
influence of our hypothesized independent variables on teacher satisfaction
using the basic theorem of path analysis (Duncan, 1966):
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 749

rs1 = Bs1 + Bs2r12 + Bs3r13 + . . . + Bsqr1q,

where s = satisfaction (the dependent variable); variables 1, . . . , q are the in-

dependent variables; and Bsq are standardized regression coefficients. The
coefficient Bs1 is said to represent the hypothesized direct effects of variable 1
on the dependent variable. Each of the remaining elements of the right-hand
side of the equation represents indirect effects. For instance, the product
Bs2r12 represents the effect of variable 1 on satisfaction that occurs through its
relationship with variable 2.
Following Shen (1997c) and Chapman and colleagues (Chapman 1984;
Chapman & Green, 1986; Chapman & Hutcheson, 1982), we used discrim-
inant analysis to examine teachers’ retention intentions (the statewide sam-
ple) and decisions (the national sample). We first used one-way analysis of
variance to explore the relationship between the measures of retention and
our set of independent variables, as well as the measure of satisfaction. Based
on the results of these univariate analyses, we developed discriminant func-
tions that best differentiated the various groups.
As noted above, we hypothesized that demographic variables would have
the least impact on teachers’ satisfaction and retention, whereas variables
related to effectiveness, social support, and administrative practices and poli-
cies would have the greatest effect. We also expected that the influence of
these job-related measures on retention could be indirect and largely cap-
tured by the measure of job satisfaction.

RESULTS

We first describe the characteristics of the samples, then explore the

results with the measures of satisfaction and finally, the results with the mea-
sures of retention intentions and decisions.

Characteristics of the Samples

Table 1 provides descriptive data on the variables used in the analysis. The
data indicate that a majority of the 1st-year teachers were satisfied with their
work. Responses to the individual elements of the scale used with the
national sample indicate that more than 50% would definitely become a
teacher again, a slightly larger proportion planned to remain in teaching as
long as they were able or until retirement, and less than 10% strongly agreed
that they sometimes felt it was a waste of time to do their best. Despite this
 TABLE 1

750
Descriptive Statistics, National and State Samples

National Sample Mean Standard Deviation State Sample Mean Standard Deviation

Dependent Variable Dependent Variable

Satisfaction 10.61 2.38 Satisfaction 3.99 0.69
Retention Retention
% move 45 % intending to stay 88
% leave 17
% stay 38
Background Variable Background Variable
Gender (% female) 70 Gender (% female) 72
a
Non-Hispanic White (%) 81 Non-Hispanic White (%) 94
b
Highest degree (0-3) 1.14 0.45 Degree (% masters) 56
Experience (% in ed. previous year) 21 Experience in education (0-4) 1.66 0.89
In-service activities (0-5) 2.31 1.23 Age (years) 30.13 8.43
Age (years) 30.90 7.56 Undergraduate grade point average 3.34 0.35
Field experience valuable (2-3) 2.78 0.41
Assignment Assignment
c
No student threats (%) 80 School level
Orderly school 2.76 0.58 Elementary (%) 43
Secondary level (%) 59 Middle school (%) 25
Class size 20.67 9.99 High school (%) 32
Certified in area (%) 60 Class size 25.89 4.52
Salary (1993 dollars) 22,375 4,017 Certified in area (%) 91
c
Place of residence Field experience similar (1-3) 1.55 0.73
Fringe city (%) 23 In preferred grade assignment (% yes) 85
Small town (%) 56 Students with disabilities 5.72 2.79
Central city (%) 21
 c
Area of residence Students low achievers (%) 17
Midwest (%) 19 Hours of assistance 5.54 7.94
South (%) 48 Have own room (0-3) 2.48 0.77
West (%) 26 Sufficient supplies (0-3) 1.85 1.04
c
Northeast (%) 7 Community socioeconomic status
% low 38
% average 45
% high 17
Teaching Effectiveness Teaching Effectiveness
Interrupt for discipline 19.79 30.54 Expected effectiveness (fall) 34.85 4.26
(number of times/week) Rated effectiveness (spring) 32.64 4.42
Social Support Social Support
From teachers and parents 2.79 0.60 Support from teachers –0.10 4.45
School Management School Management
Control over work 3.98 0.78 Effective principal 0.12 9.10
Influence over work 1.98 0.94 Mentoring provided 3.78 1.98
Effective principal 3.16 0.59

NOTE: Values in parentheses give the range of responses for items that are not dichotomies or are not composite scales described in the appendix.
a. Due to the lack of variability, this variable was not included in the multivariate analyses.
b. 0 = no degree, 1 = bachelor’s, 2 = master’s, 3 = doctorate.
c. These variables were converted to dummy variables for the multivariate analyses. For place of residence, central city was the omitted variable; for area, the
northeast was the omitted variable; for level of schooling, elementary was the omitted variable; and for community socioeconomic status, low was the omitted
variable.

751
752 Educational Administration Quarterly

reported satisfaction, a substantial proportion of respondents either moved to

a different school (45%) or left education (17%) by the follow-up year.
The respondents to the national survey were predominantly young, non-
Hispanic White women. Most had bachelor’s degrees, although a few (13%)
had master’s degrees, and some had no college degree at all. They taught in
districts in all areas of the country and in cities of varying sizes. Almost two
thirds taught at the secondary level, and a similar proportion had at least a reg-
ular or standard certificate for their main teaching field. Their classes aver-
aged about 21 students, and they saw their schools, on average, as moderately
problematic. There was, however, substantial variation in the indicators of
difficulty, and 20% reported that they had been threatened with injury by a
student from their school. There was also substantial variation in our measure
of effectiveness. The teachers reported a wide range of times that they had to
interrupt their class to deal with misbehavior or disruption in the past week (0
to 240), with an average of about 4 times a day. The majority of the teachers
reported feeling that their colleagues and students’ parents supported them in
their work, and relatively few indicated a substantial lack of support. On
average, they reported that they had a fair amount of influence over school
policy and a substantial amount of control over classroom planning and
teaching. They, however, tended to rate their principals, on average, as
slightly ineffective in various areas of school management.
Respondents to the state survey were also, on average, relatively satisfied
with their jobs, and the vast majority remained committed to teaching at the
end of their 1st year. As with the national sample, the teachers were primarily
young women. The state sample differed somewhat from the national sam-
ple, however, in level of educational preparation and previous experience,
with the state sample tending to have higher levels of education and some-
what more previous experience in educational settings. Respondents to the
state sample also had very favorable attitudes regarding their college field
experience, with more than three quarters rating it as very valuable.
Like the national sample, teachers in the statewide data set worked in a
variety of settings, in communities with different reported socioeconomic
status and at different grade levels. Their classes were substantially larger
than those for the national sample, and they had relatively few hours, on aver-
age, of assistance and some shortage of teaching supplies. On the other hand,
they were much more likely than teachers in the national sample to be certi-
fied for the areas in which they were teaching, and a large proportion reported
that they were in their preferred grade assignment. They reported widely
varying numbers of students with disabilities (e.g., those for whom individ-
ual education plans and/or 504 plans have been prepared, those with attention
deficit disorder or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder), yet less than one
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 753

fifth (17%) described the achievement level of their students as “low.” The
teachers reported moderate feelings of effectiveness in their own work,
although their scores declined from fall to spring (t = 5.352, df = 108, p <
.001). They also reported, on average, feeling supported by their colleagues
and that their principals were at least moderately effective, but they were
about evenly divided in their reports of effective mentoring.

Modeling Influences on Satisfaction

National sample. As hypothesized, the weakest relationships with satis-

faction in the national sample occurred with demographic and background
variables, whereas the strongest occurred with the measures of social support
and school management. The first column of Table 2 gives zero-order corre-
lations with satisfaction that were significant at p < .10. In path-analytic
terms, these represent the “total effects” of the independent variables. The re-
sults indicate that more satisfied teachers tended to be older, to work in more
orderly schools where they were less often threatened by students, to teach at
a level below secondary and outside the southern area of the country, to have
higher salaries, to receive more support from colleagues and parents, to have
more control and influence over their work, and to perceive their principal as
more effective. None of the other background, demographic, or assignment
variables or the measure of effectiveness were significantly associated with
satisfaction.
The second column of Table 2 gives the standardized regression coeffi-
cients that were obtained when the measure of satisfaction was regressed on
the independent variables included in the first column. In the path-analytic
framework, these coefficients are considered to be “direct effects” because
they represent the hypothesized influence of an independent variable once
other variables are controlled.7 Of the variation in teachers’ satisfaction, 19%
was explained by the variables in this model (adjusted R2 = .17). The most
significant independent influences on satisfaction were an assignment to a
safe and orderly school (p = .01), teaching in regions other than the South (p =
.01), and having more control over one’s work environment (p = .07) and a
more effective principal (p = .07).
Much of the influence of other hypothesized independent variables in the
model was indirect, as shown by the data in the remaining columns of Table
2, and results from the patterns of intercorrelation between the measures of
safe and orderly schools, supportive colleagues and parents, more effective
school management, and location outside the southern region. Inspection of
the correlation matrix indicates that teachers who believed their schools were
754
TABLE 2
Patterns of Direct and Indirect Effects on Teacher Satisfaction, Reduced Models, National Sample

Indirect Through
Direct Orderly South Sense Principal All Other
Total Effect Effect School Region of Control Effectiveness Variables

Age 0.092* 0.069 0.009 0.001 –0.003 0.009 0.007

No student threats 0.186**** 0.052 0.052 0.027 0.011 0.013 0.030
Orderly school 0.309**** 0.151*** 0.013 0.018 0.036 –0.059
Secondary level –0.162*** –0.078 –0.056 0.004 0.000 –0.013 –0.019
Salary 0.103** 0.066 –0.003 0.026 –0.002 0.002 0.015
South –0.200**** –0.135*** –0.014 –0.021 0.006 0.099
Social support 0.283**** 0.077 0.066 0.008 0.019 0.066 0.046
Control over work 0.215**** 0.095* 0.028 0.030 0.026 –0.060
Influence over work 0.219**** 0.042 0.031 0.031 0.037 0.036 0.043
Effective principal 0.257**** 0.111* 0.049 –0.007 0.023 –0.029

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 755

safe and orderly were also more likely to be in schools below the secondary
level (r = –.37), to not have been threatened by a student (r = .35), to report
more support from colleagues and parents (r = .44), to perceive that they had
more influence over their work (r = .20), and to rate their principal as more
effective (r = .33). Teachers in the southern region of the country were more
likely to have lower salaries (r = –.19),8 to report that students had threatened
them (r = –.20), and to believe that they had less control and influence over
their work environment (r = –.22 and –.23, respectively). All of the measures
of social support and school management were correlated with each other
(r’s range from .20 between the measure of social support and control over
the work environment to .60 between social support and the principal’s effec-
tiveness). In addition, teachers at the elementary level were more likely to
report that colleagues and parents were supportive. In short, these results
appear to suggest that within the national sample, 1st-year teachers were
more satisfied when they were in safe and orderly schools, with supportive
colleagues and parents, and a school management style that promoted effec-
tive teaching and collaboration. A number of these characteristics were more
common below the secondary level and in regions outside the southern
United States.

State sample. Table 3 presents results from the analysis of the satisfaction
of teachers in the statewide sample. The zero-order correlations in the first
column indicate that none of the background variables, but all of the mea-
sures of social support and school management, were associated with the
teachers’ reported satisfaction. In contrast to the results with the national
sample, a number of variables related to the teachers’ assignments and one of
the measures of self-perceptions of effectiveness were also significantly re-
lated to satisfaction. As with the national sample, the results indicate that
more satisfied 1st-year teachers tended to have less difficult assignments. For
instance, they tended to teach at levels other than middle school, had smaller
classes, worked in areas for which they were certified and at grade levels that
they preferred, had fewer students with disabilities, fewer low achievers, suf-
ficient supplies, and worked in a community of average socioeconomic sta-
tus. Although both the measure of expected teaching effectiveness collected
before the school year began and the measure of effectiveness given in the
spring were positively related to satisfaction, only the correlation with the
spring rating was significant. Finally, as hypothesized, teachers who reported
receiving more support from their colleagues, perceived their principal as a
more effective administrator, and had been provided mentoring during their
1st year were more satisfied.
 756
TABLE 3
Patterns of Direct and Indirect Effects on Teacher Satisfaction, Reduced Models, State Sample

Indirect Through
Average
Community
Direct Preferred Socioeconomic Teaching Supportive Other
Total Effect Effect Grade Status Effectiveness Colleagues Variables

Field experience valuable 0.103a 0.128 –0.006 –0.025 0.005 0.023 –0.022
Middle school level –0.240*** –0.051 –0.055 0.006 –0.019 –0.067 –0.054
Class size –0.175* –0.088 –0.020 0.009 –0.002 –0.072 –0.002
Certified in area 0.264*** 0.125 0.045 0.016 0.011 0.024 0.044
Preferred grade 0.322**** 0.170** 0.004 0.020 0.035 –0.077
Students with disabilities –0.227** –0.069 –0.013 –0.023 –0.034 –0.046 –0.042
Students low achievers –0.225** –0.081 –0.047 –0.030 –0.020 –0.045 –0.002
Sufficient supplies 0.191** 0.006 0.003 0.011 0.008 0.126 0.038
Community average
socioeconomic status 0.180* 0.143* 0.005 0.018 0.000 –0.129
Teaching effectiveness (spring) 0.365**** 0.140* 0.024 0.019 0.117 –0.075
Support from colleagues 0.530**** 0.396**** 0.015 0.000 0.041 –0.318
Effective principal 0.461**** 0.057 0.036 0.012 0.055 0.253 0.048
Mentoring provided 0.283**** –0.056 0.003 0.013 0.028 0.229 0.067

a. This variable was significantly related (p < .10) to satisfaction in the regression in which all hypothesized variables were included in the model and was, thus,
included in the reduced model.
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.

756
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 757

The results of the regression of the measure of satisfaction on the inde-

pendent variables are given in the second column of Table 3. This reduced
model explains substantially more of the variation than occurred with the
national sample (R2 = .45, adjusted R2 = .38). The results indicate that the
most important influence on the teachers’reported satisfaction was the extent
to which teachers received support from their colleagues, followed by
whether they were teaching in their preferred grade level. Somewhat smaller
influences (significant at p < .10) accrued from teaching in a community with
an average socioeconomic status and seeing oneself as an effective teacher at
the end of the school year.
As with the analysis of the national data, the influence of other variables in
the model was indirect, funneled through the major influences of supportive
colleagues and teaching at a preferred grade level. These indirect influences
are summarized in the final columns of Table 3. For instance, the total effects
of having an effective principal and a mentoring program were relatively
high (r = .46 and .28, respectively), but the direct effects were substantially
lower and near zero (B = .06 and –.06, respectively), with most of the influ-
ence of these variables funneled through the presence of supportive col-
leagues. In general, teachers who reported receiving more support from their
colleagues were much more likely to report that their principal was an effec-
tive school manager (r = .639) and that they had a mentoring program in their
schools (r = .578). They also more often reported having adequate supplies
(r = .317) and perceiving themselves as effective teachers (r = .295). Teachers
who were assigned to their preferred grade level were less often in middle
schools or teaching low-achieving students (r = –.321 and –.275, respec-
tively) and more often taught in an area in which they were certified (r =
.262), believed they were effective teachers (r = .141), and believed that their
principals were effective managers (r = .213). In short, these results appear to
suggest that more satisfied 1st-year teachers worked in a collegial and sup-
portive environment and at a preferred grade level, and that these characteris-
tics were part of a more general environment of effective and supportive
school management in which the teachers perceived that they were effective
instructors.

Career Patterns
Our measure of career patterns for the statewide sample was the teachers’
intention to remain in the field at the end of their 1st year in the field. The vari-
able was highly skewed, with 88% planning to remain in teaching for the
foreseeable future. A preliminary analysis of differences between those who
wished to stay in teaching and those who wanted to leave indicated very few
758 Educational Administration Quarterly

TABLE 4
Comparison of Means on Selected Variables of Prospective Leavers and Stayers and
Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients, Statewide Sample

Standard
Discriminant
Means
Wilks’s Function
Leavers Stayers F p Lambda Coefficient

Background variable
Age 27.4 30.4 3.221 0.076 0.97 0.559
Assignment
Low achieving students 0.071 0.18 0.872 0.352 0.992 0.441
Own room 2.79 2.43 2.316 0.131 0.978 –0.455
Satisfaction
Summary satisfaction 3.69 4.03 2.744 0.101 0.975 0.679
Wilks’s Lambda 0.907
Chi-square 10.106
df 4
Significance 0.039
Group centroid for leavers –0.856
Group centroid for stayers 0.117

NOTE: Leavers (n = 14); Stayers (n = 100).

differences between these groups. As shown in Table 4, those who indicated

they were likely to remain in teaching were somewhat older and more satis-
fied with their job. Unexpectedly, those who wanted to remain had somewhat
more difficult assignments than the other teachers in that they had more low-
achieving students and less often had their own room rather than having to
share with others. The standardized discriminant function coefficients shown
in Table 3 support these conclusions and indicate that satisfaction and age
were the most important variables in differentiating those who expected to
leave from those who expected to remain in teaching.
Table 5 reports the results of the discriminant analysis of the actual career
paths of the beginning teachers in the national sample. Results from a prelim-
inary analysis of variance indicated that variables in all hypothesized areas,
except effectiveness, differentiated stayers (those who were in the same posi-
tion in the 2nd year as in their 1st year of teaching) from leavers (those who
had left the profession entirely). As shown in Table 5, stayers were more
likely than leavers to be female and non-White. They more often taught at the
elementary level, received higher salaries, taught in an area fringing a large
city rather than in a small town, less often lived in the West, and perceived that
they received more support from other teachers and parents and that their
principals were more effective school managers. In addition, teachers who
 TABLE 5
Comparison of Means on Selected Variables of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers and
Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients, National Sample

Standard Discriminant
Means Function Coefficients
Stayers Movers Leavers F p Wilks’s Lambda Function 1 Function 2

Background variable
Gender (female) 1.76 1.70 1.60 2.76 0.065 0.986 0.277 0.152
Majority race/ethnicity 0.76 0.83 0.89 2.90 0.056 0.985 –0.209 –0.002
Assignment
Secondary level 1.51 1.62 1.71 4.16 0.016 0.978 –0.145 0.090
Salary 23,172 22,228 20,977 7.13 0.001 0.963 0.380 –0.064
Fringe city 0.30 0.22 0.11 4.70 0.01 0.976 0.170 0.140
Small town 0.44 0.59 0.72 8.26 <.001 0.958 –0.234 0.207
South 0.54 0.41 0.49 2.72 0.067 0.986 0.178 –0.213
West 0.18 0.31 0.29 3.95 0.02 0.979 –0.328 0.182
Social support
From teachers and parents 2.87 2.74 2.73 2.34 0.098 0.988 –0.013 –0.349
School management
Influence over work 1.96 2.07 1.76 2.59 0.076 0.986 0.111 0.668
Effective principal 3.25 3.1 3.15 2.53 0.081 0.987 –0.047 –0.489
Satisfaction 11.10 10.67 9.37 12.75 < .001 0.936 0.612 0.364
Wilks’s Lambda 0.808 0.959
Chi-square 78.815 15.589
df 24 11
Significance < .001 0.157
Group centroid for stayers 0.450 –0.148
Group centroid for movers –0.087 0.226
Group centroid for leavers –0.777 –0.258

759
NOTE: Stayers (n = 145); Movers (n = 169); Leavers (n = 65).
760 Educational Administration Quarterly

moved to another teaching position in their 2nd year, but had not left the pro-
fession, were less likely than other teachers to live in the South and were more
likely to say that they had control over their work environment. The most
important discriminating variable was the measure of job satisfaction, with
leavers indicating far less satisfaction than movers or stayers.
The results of the discriminant function analysis, also shown in Table 5,
indicated that two functions described the differences between movers,
stayers, and leavers, although only the first function was significant. This
function differentiated stayers and leavers, with movers falling midway
along the hypothesized dimension. As shown in Table 5, the most important
discriminating variable was satisfaction, with those who were less satisfied in
their 1st year of teaching being much more likely to have left the field by the
next school year. Among the other variables, the most important was salary,
followed by living on the West Coast and gender. Other discriminating vari-
ables (with coefficients with an absolute value greater than or equal to .20)
included race/ethnicity and the size of the town in which the teacher taught.
All results replicated those found in the zero-order analysis, with teachers
who left the profession more often White males, in low-paid positions, in the
West, in small towns rather than suburbs, and highly dissatisfied with their
jobs.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

As expected, we found that demographic variables had relatively little

influence on teachers’ satisfaction. None of the measures of age, gender,
race/ethnicity, education, or experience had a significant influence on satis-
faction in the final models. In contrast, some demographic variables influ-
enced the measures of retention in both the national and statewide samples.
Even when levels of satisfaction with teaching were controlled, younger peo-
ple in the statewide sample were more likely than older people to indicate that
they planned to leave teaching, and men and non-Hispanic Whites in the
national sample were more likely to leave the field. We suspect that the influ-
ence of demographic variables on retention, rather than satisfaction, reflects
the role that alternative job opportunities play in the decision to stay in or
leave a position. Men, non-Hispanic Whites, and younger people may have
more employment opportunities as an alternative to teaching and, thus, may
be more likely to leave the field, no matter how satisfied they are.9
As expected, the zero-order correlations indicated that a number of vari-
ables related to the difficulty of the teachers’ assignments were significantly
related to satisfaction, with teachers who were at the middle or secondary
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 761

level, with more challenging students, teaching outside their area of certifica-
tion, and lacking adequate supplies being less satisfied. When, however, vari-
ables regarding teaching effectiveness, social support, and school manage-
ment were added to the equations, the direct influence of most of these
assignment-related variables declined markedly. There were, however, three
major exceptions. In the statewide sample, teachers who reported teaching
outside their preferred grade level were less satisfied, even when school man-
agement and support variables were controlled. In the national sample,
teachers who taught in schools with a greater rate of problem behaviors—
such as tardiness, absenteeism, vandalism, student apathy, poverty, racial
tension, and poor student health—and teachers in the southern region of the
nation were significantly less satisfied even after measures of support and
management were controlled.
Although a few measures related to the difficulty of the teachers’ assign-
ment were related to retention (e.g., having one’s own classroom for the state-
wide sample and teaching at the secondary level for the national sample),
location and salary were more important variables, at least for the national
sample. When other variables were controlled, teachers with lower salaries,
in small towns, and in the West were more likely than others to have left
teaching. Those in the West were also more likely to move to other positions.
Again, we hypothesize that the importance of these factors may be related to
the pursuit of better employment opportunities. Teachers with low salaries
and in rural areas may more actively seek out other employment. A relatively
high cost of living on the West coast may have prompted these teachers to
seek other opportunities. In addition, teachers in the West may have been
more likely to move to other positions in education as a rapidly growing pop-
ulation and teacher shortage produced more job opportunities.
Results with the specific measures of teaching effectiveness, social sup-
port, and school management differed somewhat from one sample to another.
In both samples, the measures of social support and school management
were all significantly related to satisfaction at the zero-order level. In the
statewide sample, the spring measure of effectiveness also had a significant
zero-order relationship with satisfaction.10 In contrast, in the multivariate
analyses, only teachers’perceptions of their influence over their work and the
effectiveness of their principal (for the national sample) and teachers’ ratings
of the support they received from others (statewide sample) significantly
influenced satisfaction. The influence of the other management and support
variables was, as noted above, largely indirect. These indirect patterns of
influence resulted from the strong patterns of intercorrelation among the
measures of social support, school management, orderly and safe schools,
and effective teaching.
762 Educational Administration Quarterly

Thus, although many of the variables are insignificant in the multivariate

analysis, and although there are differences in the patterns of influence from
one sample to another, it is important to stress that the global pattern of results
that we obtained were very similar in both the national and statewide sam-
ples. The results from both samples indicate that 1st-year teachers were more
satisfied in schools that were well managed—where the schools were orderly
and safe, where teachers felt a sense of control and influence over their work
environment, where mentoring and support in the day-to-day activities of
teaching were common, and where teachers felt more efficacious and were
teaching in areas for which they are prepared. Administrators seem to influ-
ence teachers’ satisfaction indirectly—by promoting a safe and orderly
school, by assigning teachers to positions for which they feel qualified, by
providing teachers a sense of control and influence over their work and by
providing a context in which teachers can feel supported by their colleagues
and students’ parents and where they can be more efficacious in their
teaching (see also Ingersoll 2001, 2002).
Although the measures of teaching effectiveness, support, and school
management were the most important influences on teachers’ satisfaction,
either directly or indirectly, they had surprisingly little direct influence on
teachers’ retention decisions. None of the variables in these areas differenti-
ated those who intended to stay in or leave teaching in the statewide sample,
and the support- and management-related variables discriminated at a signif-
icance of only p < .10 in the zero-order analysis of variance results for the
national sample. In contrast, the measure of teachers’ satisfaction was the
most important influence on retention intentions and decisions, with 1st-year
teachers who were highly satisfied with their work being much more likely to
plan to stay in teaching (statewide sample) and to actually do so (national
sample). These results support general models of worker turnover, which
suggest that worker satisfaction is the primary influence on workers’ reten-
tion (e.g., Bluedorn, 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990). They also may indicate
that our measures of satisfaction tapped a large range of attitudes and emo-
tions, which was only partly influenced by our indicators of effectiveness,
support, and school management. This more global sense of satisfaction may
be most important in influencing retention.11,12
Our results have several implications for future research on teacher satis-
faction and retention. First, our results suggest that it is important to look at
both satisfaction and retention. Satisfaction is strongly related to retention
intentions and decisions and more important, different factors appear to
influence each construct. Variables related to school management appear to
be most strongly related to satisfaction, whereas the availability of alternative
job opportunities is more strongly related to retention.
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 763

Second, the varying results from the statewide and national sample indi-
cate the importance of carefully measuring concepts and providing as many
indicators of such concepts as possible. In this sense, our use of two different
samples provides an important counterbalance and replication of our results.
For instance, our measures of satisfaction and teaching effectiveness were
more elaborate for the statewide sample and produced stronger results; our
measure of retention was more elaborate for the national sample and also pro-
duced stronger results. If we were to look at the results for one sample only,
we could well have dismissed an important aspect of the entire model.
Third, our results illustrate the importance of including a wide variety of
variables in explanatory models, for although some variables did not have
statistically significant results in the final reduced multivariate models, they
often had a strong indirect impact. Such an indirect impact no doubt reflects
the way in which schools actually operate. In analyses such as those in this
article, we try to statistically isolate one or more variables, such as social sup-
port, as influencing a characteristic such as satisfaction. In reality, however,
each of the variables in our models is part of a larger organizational culture
and dynamic that involves the cumulative and joint influence of a wide vari-
ety of variables. Thus, for example, safe and orderly schools do not appear by
themselves but instead, are part of a larger gestalt that involves supportive
colleagues and effective school management.
Finally, we suggest that our results have implications for policy makers
and practitioners. In the coming years, schools throughout the nation will
face the challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers for a growing number
of students. This task will be made easier to the extent that 1st-year teachers
choose to remain in the field. Our results suggest that promoting teachers’
satisfaction will be a key element in the success of this endeavor. Our results
also suggest that teachers’satisfaction is not influenced by their demographic
characteristics and, to only a relatively minor extent, by the difficulty of their
teaching assignment. Instead, 1st-year teachers’ satisfaction is greatly influ-
enced by the environments in which they work—the support they receive
from others, the control they have over their work environment, the mentor-
ing they receive, the extent to which they are successful in the classroom, and
the extent to which these environments are safe and orderly. These are char-
acteristics that are directly under the control of building administrators and
can be encouraged by school district–level policies. Notably enough, many
of these characteristics also are important in promoting student learning
(e.g., Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991). Schools and districts that heed these
findings could, we hypothesize, expect enhanced student learning and
greater satisfaction and retention of teachers.
764 Educational Administration Quarterly

APPENDIX
Composite Measures Used in the Analysis

Satisfaction

For the national sample, the measure of satisfaction combines responses to three
questions asked in the 1st year of teaching. Higher scores indicate that teachers would
choose a career in teaching if they were to start college again, that they planned to re-
main in teaching as long as possible, and that they did not feel that “it is a waste of time
to try to do my best as a teacher” (alpha = .67). These items are those used by Perie and
Baker (1997), although our coding of responses to the question, “How long do you
plan to remain in teaching?” differs from theirs. In our analysis, we placed responses
of “undecided” (25% of the respondents) between those who indicated that they
would “leave as soon as possible” (4%) and those who would “continue unless some-
thing better comes along” (9%). Perie and Baker, who examined all teachers in the
Schools and Staffing Survey study, omitted those who indicated undecided from their
analysis but noted that including these responses did not dramatically alter their re-
sults. Given both that the “undecideds” are a substantial number of the 1st-year teach-
ers and that such a response substantively indicates greater dissatisfaction, we chose
to retain these participants in our analysis.
For the state sample, the measure of satisfaction is a summation of responses to six
questions asked in the spring administration:

1. “How satisfied are you with your present job when you compare it to jobs in other
organizations?”
2. “How satisfied are you with the progress you are making toward the goals you set
for yourself in your present position?”
3. “How satisfied are you with the chance your job gives you to do what you are best
at?”
4. “How satisfied are you with your present job in light of your career expectations?”
5. “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your job?”
6. “Considering all the jobs you might realistically have at this point in your career,
how does your current job compare?”

Possible responses to Questions 1 through 5 involved a 5-point Likert-type scale with

1 = not at all satisfied and 5 = very satisfied; responses to Question 6 also involved a 5-
point Likert-type scale with 1 = worse than other jobs and 5 = better than other jobs
(alpha = .90).

Safe and Orderly Schools—National Sample

The measure of safe and orderly schools for the national sample was a composite
measure of responses to the question, “To what extent is each of the following matters
a problem in this school? Indicate whether it is a serious problem, a moderate prob-
lem, a minor problem, or not a problem in this school.” Twenty-four different areas,
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 765

ranging from tardiness and absenteeism to vandalism, possession of weapons, student

apathy, poverty, racial tension, poor student health, and problems with the English
language were listed. Responses ranged on a 4-point Likert-type scale with 1 = seri-
ous problem and 4 = not a problem in this school. The summed scale was averaged to
maintain the original scoring scheme (alpha = .94).

Teaching Effectiveness—State Sample

In both the fall and spring administration, the beginning teachers were asked a se-
ries of questions intended to tap widely accepted standards of effective teaching com-
piled from those identified by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, and the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The standards involve issues re-
lated to student learning, professional relations, and curricular competence; corre-
spond to Veenman’s (1984) most commonly identified problems of beginning teach-
ers; and reflect the performance indictors found in the checklist used by cooperating
teachers in one of the state’s teacher certification programs. There are nine items in
the scales: (1) understanding and addressing differences in students’ backgrounds,
abilities, and disabilities; (2) managing classroom interactions and maintaining disci-
pline; (3) motivating students; (4) involving parents in students’ learning; (5) having
well-planned and effective lessons; (6) using a variety of curriculum materials and re-
sources; (7) using multiple and frequent measures of student performance; (8) main-
taining good relations with other staff members; and (9) having a deep and broad
knowledge of subject matter and general education. Responses on each item range
from 1 to 5 with a higher score indicating greater effectiveness. The scores were com-
bined into an additive scale for each time period (coefficient alpha = .76 in the fall and
.77 in the spring).

Social Support

The measure of social support for the national sample included five items with re-
sponses to the question, “Do you agree or disagree with each of the following state-
ments: (1) Teachers participate in making most of the important educational decisions
in this school, (2) I receive a great deal of support from parents for the work I do, (3)
Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, (4)
Even for students who are not in their classes, most of my colleagues share my beliefs
and values about what the central mission of the school should be, and (5) There is a
great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members.” Responses, on a 4-point
scale with 1 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree, were summed and averaged
(alpha = .72).
For the state sample, items included were responses to “My colleagues assist me in
acquiring the knowledge, skills, and strategies to be successful in the classroom” and
“Experienced teachers are very concerned about my welfare,” as well as ratings of
four additional items regarding advice and direction; feedback regarding their perfor-
766 Educational Administration Quarterly

mance; emotional support, such as concern, empathy, and trust; and instrumental sup-
port, such as time and resources that they receive from their colleagues. Standardized
scores (z scores) were used in creating the scale because the individual item responses
had slightly different point ranges (alpha = .83).

School Management—National Sample

The measure of influence over school policy included six items, with responses to
the questions, “At this school, how much actual influence do you think teachers have
over school policy in each of the following areas? (a) setting discipline policy, (b) de-
termining the content of in-service programs, (c) hiring new full-time teachers, (d) de-
ciding how the school budget will be spent, (e) evaluating teachers, and (f) estab-
lishing curriculum.” Responses, on a 6-point Likert-type scale with 0 = no influence
and 5 = a great deal of influence, were summed and averaged (alpha = .77).
The measure of perceived control over classroom planning and teaching included
6 items, with responses to the question, “At this school, how much control do you feel
you have in your classroom over each of the following areas of your planning and
teaching? (a) selecting textbooks and other instructional materials, (b) selecting con-
tent, topics, and skills to be taught, (c) selecting teaching techniques, d) evaluating
and grading students, e) disciplining students, and f) determining the amount of
homework to be assigned.” Responses, on a 6-point scale with 0 = no control and 5 =
complete control, were summed and averaged (alpha = .76).
The measure of principal effectiveness was a composite score of 9 items com-
posed of responses to the question, “Do you agree or disagree with each of the follow-
ing statements? (a) Teachers in this school are evaluated fairly; (b) The principal lets
staff members know what is expected of them; (c) The school administration’s behav-
ior toward the staff is supportive and encouraging; (d) The principal does a poor job of
getting resources for this school (reversed); (e) My principal enforces school rules for
student conduct and backs me up when I need it; (f) The principal talks with me fre-
quently about my instructional practices; (g) The principal knows what kind of school
he/she wants and has communicated it to the staff; (h) In this school, staff members
are recognized for a job well done; and (i) Goals and priorities for this school are
clear.” Responses, on a 4-point scale with 1 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree,
were summed and averaged (alpha = .88).

School Management—State Sample

The measure of principal effectiveness is a composite of 14 items. The included

items were “School administrator(s) take my best interests into account when making
decisions that affect me,” “School administrators enforce school rules for student
conduct and back me up when I need it,” “I know where I stand [and] how satisfied my
supervisor (administrator) is with what I do in the classroom,” “The administrator(s)
let me know what is expected of me,” “The administrator(s) and teachers collaborate
in making the school run effectively,” “Teachers share the responsibility for making
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 767

many of the important decisions that affect this school,” “There are often opportuni-
ties to reflect on my teaching with experienced teachers,” “Experienced teachers help
new teachers with problems that arise,” “There is good communication between staff
members and administrators,” “Teachers are evaluated fairly,” and ratings of four ad-
ditional items regarding how much informational support (advice, suggestions, direc-
tives and other information to help you do your job), appraisal support (feedback re-
garding your professional performance), emotional support (behaviors and actions
that demonstrate concern for your welfare), and instrumental support (when others
help you do your work) that they received from their administrator. Standardized
scores (z scores) were used in creating the scale because the individual item responses
had slightly different point ranges (alpha = .90).
The measure of effective mentoring included 4 items in which teachers rated the
extent to which, within the school, “Beginning teachers are provided with a mentor
teacher or support system of educators”; “Mentor teachers are trained to support be-
ginning teachers”; “Beginning teachers are provided with an in-service program
based on their individual needs”; and “Additional funding is specifically earmarked
for the support of beginning teachers.” Responses, on a 7-point scale with 1 = strongly
disagree and 7 = strongly agree, were summed and averaged (alpha = .87).

NOTES

1. One possible reason for these different results may be the analytic techniques that were
used. Shen (1997b, 1997c) employed discriminant analysis to differentiate movers, stayers, and
leavers during a 2-year time span, whereas most of the other studies use proportional hazard
models or survival analysis during a longer time range. In other words, using a short time span,
there may be little difference between men and women in their likelihood to leave teaching;
whereas during a longer period of time, women may be more likely to exit.
2. Again, differences in analytic strategies might account for these varying results.
Billingsley (1993) described rates of attrition from school districts; Heyns (1988) examined de-
cisions of individual teachers regarding leaving the field of teaching during a relatively long time
span; and Shen (1997c) examined decisions within only a 2-year time period. It is surprising that
little research, however, examines this issue.
3. Shen (1997c) used data from all teachers who responded to the 1990-1991 Schools and
Staffing Survey and the 1991-1992 Teacher Follow-Up Survey conducted by the National Center
for Educational Statistics. Stinebrickner (1998) examined the teaching careers and attrition pat-
terns of certified teachers who were part of the National Longitudinal Study of the Class of 1972.
Perie and Baker (1997) and Whitener et al. (1997), in reports prepared for the National Center for
Education Statistics, examined the data for all teachers (all levels of experience and both private
and public schools) in the national data set used for this study (1993-1994 Schools and Staffing
Survey and 1994-1995 Teacher Follow-Up Survey, respectively).
4. Given the geographic nature of the state, none of the districts were “urban,” and a number
of the “larger” districts had less than 10,000 students enrolled. Teachers in the largest district in
the state were not part of the sample. The inclusion, in the analysis of the national data set, of con-
768 Educational Administration Quarterly

trols for place and area of residence can help control for differences between the data sets in these
characteristics.
5. One hundred forty-one teachers responded to the first survey and provided addresses for
the spring follow-up; 127 (90%) returned the second survey. Of these 127, 10 were omitted from
the analysis because they had prior full-time paid experience as a public school teacher.
6. It should be noted that only the national data set provides a direct measure of the teachers’
actual retention in teaching, and only the statewide data set provides a broad-based measure of
satisfaction. In addition, the measure of intent to leave used with the statewide sample includes
some elements that are similar to those included in the measure of satisfaction used with the
national sample.
7. The entire correlation matrix and the results of the regression equations when all hypothe-
sized variables were included as predictor variables are available from the authors.
8. The only other variable in the model with a significant correlation with salary was age,
with older 1st-year teachers having slightly higher salaries (r = .13, p < .01).
9. Murnane and his associates (Murnane, 1987; Murnane, Singer, & Willett, 1988;
Murnane, Singer, Willett, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991) reported that teachers’ areas of specialty are
related to the extent of time that they remain in teaching and suggested that alternative job oppor-
tunities can explain these differences in retention (see also Darling-Hammond & Sclan, 1996;
Singer 1993).
10. We suspect that the measure of efficacy for the national sample was not significant largely
because it was composed of only one item that tapped only issues of classroom management. The
measure used for the statewide sample was much more complete. The presence of this more com-
plete measure of efficacy probably also contributes to the greater proportion of variation ex-
plained in the analysis of satisfaction in the statewide data.
11. As a reviewer of this article noted, both the measures of satisfaction and the measures of
social support and teaching environment are self-reports by the beginning teachers. It is, thus,
possible, as the reviewer put it, that
teachers who have decided to remain in the occupation view their environments through
“rose-colored glasses” and interpret those environments as more supportive. . . . Perhaps
teaching still is a moral occupation in which dedication to professional ideals provides
teachers with inner satisfaction and leads them to interpret their working environments as
supportive even when they are no more commodious than those of the less professionally
committed teachers who are unsatisfied with their working environments.
This is a fascinating argument and one that could be tested with measures of school environ-
ments from multiple sources.
12. This strong role of satisfaction could, to some extent, counter the concern voiced by
scholars regarding the lack of a strong theoretical definition of the concept (e.g., Mitchell, Ortiz,
& Mitchell, 1987). It is possible that satisfaction is a global term, much like social capital or so-
cial class, that incorporates a wide variety of elements and can be measured in a variety of ways.
Even though the term may be hard to pin down conceptually, it is precisely this complexity that
underlies its explanatory power.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. J. (1996). Using a Cox regression model to examine voluntary teacher turnover. Jour-
nal of Experimental Education, 64, 267-285.
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 769

Adams, G. J., & Dial, M. (1993). Teacher survival: A Cox regression model. Education and
Urban Society, 26, 90-99.
Bacharach, S. B., & Bamberger, P. (1990). Exit and voice: Turnover and militancy intentions in
elementary and secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 316-344.
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A criti-
cal review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 27, 137-174.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35,
135-153.
Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., & Cook, L. H. (1997). Whither didst thou go? Retention, reassignment,
migration, and attrition of special and general education teachers from a national perspective.
Journal of Special Education, 30, 371-389.
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., Bobbitt, S. A., & Terbanian, G. (1998). The shortage of fully certi-
fied teachers in special and general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21,
1-21.
Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1990). High school organization and its effects on teachers
and students: An interpretive summary of the research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.),
Choice and control in American education Volume 1: The theory of choice and control in edu-
cation (pp. 135-226). London: Falmer.
Bull, K. S., & Hyle, A. E. (1989). Recruiting and retaining rural teachers: Some reported alterna-
tives. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 3, 22-27.
Chapman, D. W. (1983). A model of the influences on teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 24, 43-49.
Chapman, D. W. (1984). Teacher retention: The test of a model. American Educational Research
Journal, 21, 645-658.
Chapman, D. W., & Green, M. S. (1986). Teacher retention: A further examination. Journal of
Educational Research, 79, 273-279.
Chapman, D. W., & Hutcheson, S. M. (1982). Attrition from teaching careers: A discriminant
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 93-105.
Chapman, D. W., & Lowther, M. A. (1982). Teachers’satisfaction with teaching. Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 75, 241-247.
Cohen, M. (1987). Improving school effectiveness: Lessons for research. In V. Richardson-
Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook: A research perspective (pp. 474-490). New York:
Longman.
Colbert, J. A., & Wolff, D. E. (1992). Surviving in urban schools: A collaborative model for a
beginning teacher support system. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 193-199.
Conley, S., Bas-Isaac, E., & Brandon, J. (1998). What matters to whom: Predictors of teacher sat-
isfaction in a career development plan. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11,
299-322.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why: Dilemmas of building a
profession for twenty-first century schools. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 67-101). New York: Macmillan.
Duncan, O. D. (1966). Path analysis: Sociological examples. American Journal of Sociology, 72,
1-16.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support. In J. T. Sikula, T. J. Butter, & T. E. Guyton (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548-594). New York: Macmillan.
Heck, R. H., & Wolcott, L. P. (1997). Beginning teachers: A statewide study of factors explaining
successful completion of the probationary period. Educational Policy, 11, 111-133.
Heyns, B. (1988, April). Educational defectors: A first look at teacher attrition in the NLS-72.
Educational Researcher, 17, 24-32.
770 Educational Administration Quarterly

Ingersoll, R. M. (1999, March). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary

schools. Educational Researcher, 28, 26-37.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499-534.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of
schools: An exploratory analysis (Document R-02-1). Seattle: University of Washington,
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research. (2000). Schools and Staffing Sur-
vey, 1993-1994 [United States]: Teacher Follow-Up Survey, 1994-1995, Revised version:
Codebook (ICPSR 2763). Ann Arbor, MI: Author.
Irving, P. G., & Meyer, J. P. (1995). On using measures of met expectations: A methodological
note. Journal of Management, 21, 1159-1175.
Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools
on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208.
Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers’job satisfac-
tion. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 39-47.
Mitchell, D. E., Ortiz, F. I., & Mitchell, T. K. (1987). Work orientation and job performance: The
cultural basis of teaching rewards and incentives. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1990). Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of
voluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 321-335.
Murnane, R. J. (1987). Understanding teacher attrition. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 177-
182.
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1988, August/September). The career paths of
teachers: Implications for teacher supply and methodological lessons for research. Educa-
tional Researcher, 17, 22-30.
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., Willett, J. B., Kemple, J. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1991). Who will teach?
Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). A back to school special report on the baby
boom echo. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://ed.gov/pubs/bbecho00
Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school
sense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221-238.
Perie, M., & Baker, D. P. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s teachers: Effects of work-
place conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation (Statistical Analy-
sis Report No. NCES-97-471). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Price, J. (1989). The impact of turnover on the organization. Work and Occupations, 16, 461-473.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York:
Longman.
Rumberger, R. W. (1987). The impact of salary differentials on teacher shortages and turnover:
The case of mathematics and science teachers. Economics of Education Review, 6, 389-399.
Schlechty, P. C., & Vance, V. S. (1981). Do academically able teachers leave education? The
North Carolina case. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 106-112.
Shen, J. (1997a). Has the alternative certification policy materialized its promise? A comparison
between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers in public schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 276-283.
Shen, J. (1997b). How to reduce teacher attrition in public schools: Policy implications from a
national study. Educational Horizons, 76, 33-39.
 Stockard, Lehman / 1ST-YEAR TEACHERS 771

Shen, J. (1997c). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 91, 81-88.
Singer, J. D. (1992). Are special educators’ career paths special? Results from a 13-year longitu-
dinal study. Exceptional Children, 59, 262-279.
Singer, J. D. (1993). Once is not enough: Former special educators who return to teaching.
Exceptional Children, 60, 58-72.
Stinebrickner, T. R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics of Educa-
tion Review, 17, 127-136.
Theobald, N. D. (1990). An examination of the influence of personal, professional, and school
district characteristics on public school teacher retention. Economics of Education Review, 9,
241-250.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 54, 143-178.
Whitener, S. D., Gruber, K. J., Lynch, H., Tingos, K., Perona, M., & Fondelier, S. (1997). Charac-
teristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the Teacher Follow-Up Survey: 1994-
95 (Statistical Analysis Report No. NCES-97-471). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

Jean Stockard is a professor in the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at
the University of Oregon. Her research interests include sociology of education, youth, and
health. Her most recent publication is a 2003 article with J. Hibbard and M. Tusler titled “Does
Publicizing Hospital Performance Stimulate Quality Improvement Efforts?” in Health Affairs.

Michael Bryan Lehman is a principal in Lake Oswego School District, Oregon. His research
interests include beginning teacher support and job satisfaction.