The day-to-day reality of teacher turnover in preschool classrooms: an analysis of classroom context and teacher, director, and parent perspectives.
Cassidy, Deborah J. ; Lower, Joanna K. ; Kintner-Duffy, Victoria L. 等
The purpose of the current study is to examine teacher turnover
comprehensively by triangulating the experiences of teachers, directors,
parents, and children through actual, "real-time" turnover
transitions. We intentionally examined turnover with a small sample size
(N = 13 classrooms) to facilitate comprehensive data collection
utilizing multiple qualitative and quantitative measures and to gain a
rich understanding of the implications of teacher turnover on classroom
quality, staff, and the parents and children with whom they work. The
study utilized an interpretive paradigm to illuminate and juxtapose the
experiences of teachers, directors, parents, and children through the
turnover transition--as teachers departed and their replacements began.
Strategies used to respond to turnover were identified at the program
and classroom levels. Implications for early childhood classroom quality
and policy are discussed.
Keywords: early childhood education, child care, teacher turnover,
child care quality
**********
The high rate of teacher turnover continues to be a concern for the
child care industry. Research reveals that an estimated 82% of child
care teachers employed in 1994 and 76% employed in 1996 were no longer
retained in the field by the year 2000. Scholars characterize the
profession as "alarmingly unstable" (Whitebook, Sakai, Gerber,
& Howes, 2001), with this instability affecting children, their
families, and, of course, child care teachers.
The purpose of the current study was to examine the implications of
teacher turnover through a mixed-methods approach, one that included
multiple perspectives from within the classroom context. Classroom
observations, interviews, teacher and director survey self-reports, and
researcher fieldnotes served to facilitate an understanding of the
dynamic nature of teacher turnover and its implications for directors,
teachers, children, and parents. A comprehensive analysis of teacher
turnover was conducted by juxtaposing the experiences of teachers,
directors, parents, and children through actual, real-time turnover
transitions--as teachers left and their replacements began.
Comprehensive data collection was facilitated by intentionally
collecting data from a small sample (N = 13 classrooms). Multiple
qualitative and quantitative measures were implemented to gain a rich
understanding of the implications of teacher turnover on classroom
quality, staff, and the parents and children with whom they work.
The study utilized an interpretive paradigm to illuminate and
juxtapose the experiences of teachers, directors, parents, and children
through the turnover transition. The ontological assumption of the
interpretive paradigm is that "reality is socially
constructed" (Mertens, 1998, p. 11). From this perspective,
understanding the perceptions and experiences of teachers, directors,
parents, and children--as they interrelate in ways that support and
resist each other--during turnover is critical to addressing important
implications for classroom environments. By collecting data during real
time (rather than from prospective or retrospective accounts) and
through the use of qualitative and quantitative measures, a rich
understanding of how programs and parties (directors, teachers, parents,
and children) react and adapt in ways that support and resist each other
is fostered. Classroom quality as well as teaching and working
relationships among early childhood staff and among the parents and
children with whom they work are examined. By compounding data sources
and triangulating perspectives (i.e., teachers, directors, parents), we
were able to learn about the multiple realities of turnover, as well as
ways that may serve to help teachers, directors, parents, and children
through such transitions.
BACKGROUND
Research has established a link between teacher turnover, global
quality, and child outcomes. Centers with higher rates of teacher
turnover show lower levels of global quality and less appropriate
teacher-child interactions (Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, &
Abbott-Shim, 2000). Furthermore, in programs with high turnover,
children have lower levels of language, cognitive, and social
development (Howes & Hamilton, 1993; Howes, Hamilton, &
Philipsen, 1998; Howes, Phillips, & Whitebook, 1992; Howes &
Smith, 1995). For example, Whitebook et al. (2001) conducted a
longitudinal study of staffing and quality. The examination included 75
centers with data collected at three points in time (1994, 1996, and
2000). Average turnover per year was 30%, with a range of 0% to 100%.
The study further revealed no difference in turnover rates between
centers accredited by the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC) and those that were not accredited. More stable
caregivers were associated with a more secure relationship with the
children in their classroom. Low turnover, combined with well-educated
staff with specialized training in child development, was related to
higher classroom quality.
However, the link between teacher turnover and child outcomes is
quite complex. Centers with higher teacher turnover rates and lower
levels of child outcomes also have higher child-to-adult ratios, fewer
educated teachers, and are generally characterized as poor-quality
programs (DeVita, Twombly, & Montilla, 2002), which makes it
difficult to attribute poor child outcomes strictly to teacher turnover.
There has also been extensive research about the reasons for teacher
turnover (Hale-Jinks, Knopf, & Kemple, 2006), with a particular
focus on low salaries, lack of benefits, and difficult working
conditions, resulting in low morale, stress, and job burnout (Curbow,
Spratt, Unagretti, McDonnell, & Breckler, 2001), as well as
compromised organizational climate (Bloom, 1997).
Teacher Turnover and Work Environments
Theorists in organizational behavior science suggest three factors
that influence employee retention and turnover (Whitebook & Bellm,
1999). Employees are likely to remain in their current positions when
they have adequate pay and benefits, good work environments with
professional development opportunities and satisfactory relationships
with co-workers, and a good match between their work responsibilities
and the job expectation and training. Low teacher salaries and
unsatisfactory benefits in child care have long been associated with
high rates of turnover (Goodman, Brady, & Desch, 1987; Phillips et
al., 2000; Stremmel, 1991; Whitebook et al., 2001). Goodman et al.
(1987) reported that salary increases in Head Start programs resulted in
a sharp decrease in teacher turnover, from 65% to 35%. Olenick (1986)
also found a similar pattern of better compensation and higher retention
of teachers in child care programs. More recent research (Whitebook
& Sakai, 2003) examined the relationship between teachers who leave
and those who stay. The study revealed that directors were most likely
to leave because of low wages, whereas teachers, especially highly
qualified teachers, were more likely to leave not only because of low
compensation but also because they could not find a compatible level of
education among coworkers in their work environment.
Data from the Center for the Child Care Workforce (CCW; 2004)
underscore the relationship between inadequate compensation for teachers
and turnover rates: The average hourly rate of pay for a child care
teacher in 2006 was $9.05 per hour, with turnover ranging from 25% to
40% (CCW, 2004). Not surprisingly, this rate of pay was higher than only
18 other occupations and was less than what service station and locker
room attendants earn (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Child care
teachers earn slightly more than one-third of the salary of a public
school kindergarten teacher, even though many have the same degree and
perform somewhat similar teaching activities. The problem of teacher
salaries is so intractable that many in the field, including direct
service providers, have become somewhat complacent about turnover. They
have come to believe there is nothing that can be done about salaries
and, thus, turnover, so they regard the high turnover rates as
inevitable. Furthermore, Manlove and Guzell (1997) examined job turnover
in 169 child care workers in rural and semirural communities in
Pennsylvania. They cited high turnover as one of the greatest barriers
to providing high-quality child care. Turnover in their study averaged
23% over a 12-month period. However, 41% of the teachers in these
programs indicated that they expected to leave their jobs in the near
future. Reasons for leaving their jobs included advancement (changing
jobs) and returning to school. None of the participants in the study
left the programs to accept employment in other early childhood
programs. The authors also found those with less experience and those
with other job options were most likely to leave their positions.
Teacher Turnover and Child Outcomes
Turnover also can have a serious impact on teacher-child
relationships within child care classrooms. Howes and Hamilton (1993)
examined the relationship between caregiver-child attachment and teacher
sensitivity. They found that children who were classified as securely
attached experienced more teacher sensitivity and involvement, whereas
children classified as ambivalently attached experienced less teacher
sensitivity and involvement. Children in the avoidant category
experienced the least sensitivity and involvement. These findings are
relevant as we consider the relationships that are severed between
teachers and children when teachers leave their position. Furthermore,
there is evidence that the development of positive relationships can
affect children's long-term academic and social development. Hamre
and Pianta (2001) found that children who had difficulty forming
positive relationships with kindergarten teachers also had later
academic and behavioral problems in school, especially those in
teacher-child relationships marked by conflict and overdependence.
Overall, these findings from previous research demonstrate that
turnover can affect classroom quality and child outcomes, due to changes
in relationships within the classroom. However, most of the studies
conducted on turnover have been retrospective. Thus, these studies have
examined program quality with the rate of turnover in the past year,
wages and benefits, and working conditions. The current study
contributes to the field's understanding of turnover as it (1)
examines the actual transition in the turnover process as one teacher
leaves and another replaces her, (2) exemplifies the complexity of
teacher turnover and its effects on classroom quality, and (3)
demonstrates how turnover influences the lives of directors, teachers,
parents, and children. Whitebook and Sakai (2003) identified three types
of turnover: (1)job turnover, in which a teacher leaves a child care
facility; (2) position turnover, in which a teacher moves to another
classroom within the center agency; and (3) occupational turnover, in
which a teacher leaves the child care field. In the current study, all
three types of turnover were included, as was temporary turnover, such
as extended maternity or sick leaves.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To understand the impact of turnover on the quality of classrooms,
several questions guided our inquiry: (1) What are the day-to-day
experiences of teachers, directors, and parents during turnover
transitions? (2) How is classroom quality compromised as a result of
turnover? (3) What areas of the classroom are most affected (e.g.,
materials/activities, language/interactions, global quality) by
turnover? and (4) How are relationships among children, parents, and
staff affected by turnover?
METHOD
Procedure
Understanding quality ratings of the child care centers. In an
attempt to increase and maintain the quality of child care centers, the
state of North Carolina has implemented a star rating system. Centers
can obtain a rating from one to five stars, based on two essential
components: program and educational standards. For program standards,
the centers are assessed on their operating and personnel policies,
activity areas in the classroom, square footage area per classroom,
staff-child ratios, and their ratings on standardized instruments, such
as the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ITERS-R; Harms,
Cryer, & Clifford, 2006) and Early Childhood Environment Rating
Scale-Revised (ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998). The
educational standards considered for licensing include the education and
experience of teaching and administrative staff and the number of
teachers with child care credentials (North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services, 2010). The greater the number of stars, the
higher the quality of the program. In the current study, recruiting
centers with different star ratings was important, because programs of
varying quality may handle turnover in different ways, affecting
teachers, directors, parents, and children differentially.
Recruitment of centers. Center directors from child care centers
ranging in quality on North Carolina's five-star rated license were
contacted and asked to participate in the study. A purposive sampling
technique was employed to recruit centers. To begin, a list of child
care centers in the county of the study was gathered from the North
Carolina Division of Child Development website. A simple search on the
website using the county names led to a list of child care centers with
their star rating. Initially, centers were randomly contacted from that
list. Directors who consented or demonstrated willingness to be involved
in the study were then short-listed. Directors of child care centers on
the shortlist were provided with a full explanation of the study. If
they were interested in the concept of the study or anticipated a
possibility of turnover in their center, they were asked to contact the
researcher or give their verbal consent to be contacted twice a month to
check on the center's turnover status. Once a situation of turnover
was identified, the researcher visited the child care center, providing
further explanation about the study, answering questions, and providing
consent forms to the director and all teaching staff in the classroom
experiencing turnover, including the departing and any remaining
teachers in the classroom. One week after the new (or replacement)
teacher started in a classroom, the researcher made another visit to the
center, providing her with an explanation of the study, answering
questions, and requesting consent to continue the study while she was in
the classroom. Over a 2-year period, 38 centers were contacted, 11
centers agreed to participate, and 9 of those actually experienced
turnover. The star rating of the nine centers that experienced turnover
ranged from three to five stars.
Participant characteristics. Overall, 34 teachers participated in
the current study (see Tables 1 and 2 for teachers' demographics).
Most of the teachers were European American, followed by African
American and other ethnic groups. Most of the teachers had some college
education. Teachers were employed within the child care field for an
average of 78.39 months and earned an average hourly wage of $8.82. Most
of the teachers received full benefits from their employee, with a
handful receiving complete retirement packages. Similar to the teachers,
most of the directors were European American; there were two African
American directors and one American Indian director. Only one director
had a graduate degree, whereas the other directors had either a 2- or
4-year degree (see Table 3 for directors' demographics).
Study implementation during turnover. Directors sometimes were able
to provide or predict future turnover as a result of forewarned
departures, such as maternity leaves. At other times, we had to respond
more quickly as teachers gave relatively short notices. Once the
research team was made aware of a turnover situation, consent forms were
provided to the director and teaching staff of the classroom where
turnover was taking place. Upon consent, during the last week of
employment, teachers leaving a program were identified as
"departing teachers." Departing teachers were interviewed
during their last week of employment, their classrooms were observed,
and they completed survey measures. New teachers were considered those
teachers replacing the departing teacher and may or may not have been
new to the center. That is, in some cases, departing teachers were
replaced by a "floater" or another teacher working in the
center. In other situations, new teachers to the program were hired as
replacements. Approximately one week after the new teacher replaced the
departing teacher, she was observed and interviewed by an independent
researcher and asked to complete the survey measures. Thus, new teachers
were given a week in their new position before we began collecting data.
Giving a week to the new teachers in their own classroom ensured that
they could complete the various measures implemented in the study in an
appropriate manner. That is, the work environment surveys required that
the teachers have some knowledge about the center they are working for.
The remaining teachers in the classroom (e.g., coteacher, assistant
teacher) were identified as the teachers who were consistent through the
turnover transition. They worked with the departing teacher and the new
teacher with the same group of children. These teachers also were
interviewed and completed the survey measures once during the data
collection process. A sample of 13 classrooms, including 34 teachers
within nine centers, resulted. Two of the teachers who participated in
the project were initially remaining teachers, and, later in the
project, left the programs and were counted as departing teachers. At
these different times, these two teachers participated fully in the
project according to their teacher status. Teacher demographic data and
employment information are reported in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
with director demographic data reported in Table 3.
Parent recruitment. At the time the study began in each of the
classrooms, information about the study and consent forms were sent home
with children requesting consent for parent interviews. Interested
parents were interviewed at the center or by telephone after the new
teachers' arrival. Almost one half of the parents (42.3%) from each
classroom consented to participate in the interviews. Of these parents,
65.4% were interviewed.
Qualitative Measures
Interviews. Semistructured interviews (CCW, 2000) were conducted
with directors, teachers, and parents. Trained interviewers asked open-
and closed-ended questions to elicit in-depth responses from the
participants (see the appendix). Overall, each interview lasted
approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
Fieldnotes. The independent observers (from the observation with
the departing teacher and the observation with the new teacher) kept
fieldnotes about the procedures that participating centers implemented
to maintain consistency in the classroom during the teacher turnover
transition. Through a constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,
1967; Rennie, 2006), the fieldnotes assisted researchers in recognizing
distinctions in the way centers dealt with and responded to turnover. A
constant comparative method is a qualitative approach in grounded theory
to code data while simultaneously creating definitions through analysis.
Quantitative Measures
Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised. The ECERS-R
(Harms et al., 1998) is a widely used measure of global quality.
Additionally, two factors have been found to differentiate the scale
into two dimensions of quality: Activities/Materials and
Language/Interactions (Cassidy, Hestenes, Hegde, Hestenes, & Mims,
2005). The Activities/Materials and the Language/Interactions factors
represent subsets of the total scale and are utilized in the current
study. That is, the total ECERS-R score, subscales, and two factor
scores were used to examine changes in quality from pre- to
post-turnover. Past research has excluded the Parents and Staff subscale
to focus this instrument as a measure of "child-related items"
(de Kruif, McWilliam, Ridely, & Wakely, 2000, p. 254). Because the
current study included more comprehensive measures to capture the
perspectives of parents and staff, we felt comfortable excluding the
Parents and Staff subscale from the ECERS-R. This step is consistent
with numerous studies of quality using the ECERS-R. All of the
reliabilities for internal consistency were high; Cronbach's alpha
for the overall scale was .95. The Activities/Materials factor alpha was
.92, and the alpha for the Language/Interaction factor was .93. Due to
the small number of participating centers, the ECERS-R data were used
for descriptive purposes only.
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. The Student-Teacher
Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) is a 28-item self-report
instrument that examines teachers' perceptions of their
relationships with the children they work with and children's
interactive behavior toward them. The scale examines three factors:
Conflict, Closeness, and Dependency. Some examples of items are "I
share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child" and
"This child is overly dependent on me." Items are scored on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5
(definitely applies). Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .75.
This instrument was included for all teachers, including new teachers,
to demonstrate the possibly notable difference in relationship between
the teacher who departed and the newly arrived teacher. Although the
scale recommends a short period of familiarity between teacher and
child, the purpose of the study was to examine the loss for children
when a teacher leaves.
Data Analysis
As a mixed-methods study, qualitative data were analyzed using an
interpretive approach, whereas descriptive and inferential statistics
were used to analyze quantitative data.
Qualitative data analysis. An interpretive approach was used to
code the qualitative data (Creswell, 2005). Interviews were transcribed
and read to get a "general sense" (Creswell, p. 231) of the
data by three independent coders. In reviewing the transcripts, all
three coders wrote memos that informed an a priori coding scheme, which
was identified collectively through discussion among the three coders.
The coders then independently applied the coding scheme to the
transcripts. For example, text was highlighted and labeled with an
appropriate code. Any new codes that were identified were recorded as
memos for future analysis. A continuous process of reading and assigning
codes to the transcripts among the three coders ensured that themes were
applied appropriately. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
For example, in the first round of coding, the coders came up with
several descriptions for children's behavior as a result of
turnover; these included "children's misbehavior,"
"testing their boundaries," "acting out,"
"sense of sadness," and "frustration/anxiety." After
discussion regarding the details of the statements within the
transcripts, as well as comparisons across transcripts, these codes were
condensed to an overall theme of "children's behavior"
and subthemes of "sense of sadness," "acting out,"
and "where is so and so."
The results from these analyses provide information regarding the
day-to-day experiences of turnover from the perspectives of the
directors, teachers, and parents involved in the turnover transition.
Additionally, these results indicate changes in relationships among
teachers, parents, and children associated with turnover. Individual and
shared perspectives of these experiences and changes in relationships
are discussed in detail in the qualitative results section.
Quantitative data analysis. Due to the small sample size, it was
only appropriate to identify mean and standard deviations for ECERS-R
average, subscale, and factor scores. Comparisons among the descriptive
statistics were drawn across proactive and reactive centers and
individual classrooms, pre- and post-turnover. MANOVA was employed to
compare differences between teachers (departing, remaining, and new)
scoring on the various STRS factors, because the sample size allowed for
such comparisons. For these analyses only, follow-up post hoc analysis
revealed which group of teachers differed significantly from each other.
RESULTS
Distinctions Between Proactive and Reactive Centers
Based on the fieldnotes and memos from the interview transcripts,
distinctions among centers were identified from the policies and
procedures implemented during the turnover transition. In response to
these distinctions, centers were categorized as either
"proactive" or "reactive." Utilizing the constant
comparative method, these ideas were solidified as important qualities
to consider in the way that child care programs navigated the
complexities of turnover, and subsequently were important to the
interpretation of the results.
Specifically, child care centers that were identified as proactive
had systems in place to minimize the disruption of turnover. For
example, proactive centers were more likely to have a
"floater" position established in the program, someone with
whom children and parents were familiar and who was accustomed to the
center, its policies, daily routines, and instructional environment.
Often, this "floater" was placed in the classroom before the
departing teacher left the program and remained in the classroom until
after a transition period with the new teacher. Conversely, child care
centers that were more reactive responded to turnover by shifting
current staff or children to maintain state-required ratios or relied on
the use of multiple substitutes in the classroom. For example, one
center that was classified as reactive responded to turnover by
combining two classrooms after the teacher left, shifting children and
teachers to maintain state ratio requirements. This reactive approach
not only resulted in children and families losing their teacher, but
also meant some of the children experienced an unfamiliar classroom in
addition to multiple substitutes. In the current study, four centers
(five classrooms) were identified as proactive and five centers (eight
classrooms) were identified as reactive. Although we divided child care
programs that were more reactive or proactive to turnover into two
groups, we acknowledge that this concept may fit best on a continuum,
with centers having varying degrees of reactivity and proactivity.
Additionally, some of the qualitative results were similar across
proactive and reactive centers. However, the distinctions between
proactive and reactive centers are indicated where appropriate.
Qualitative Results
Teachers' perceptions of turnover
Instructional changes: "You cannot teach and you cannot help
as many children." Teachers discussed the impact of turnover on
their own work and in relationship to the experiences they were able to
provide to children. The departing, new, and remaining teachers across
reactive and proactive centers all talked about challenges they faced in
their work environment as a result of turnover. For example, a departing
teacher stated, "A lot of times, working with someone, you get
close to 'em.... It's kind of hard when they do leave,
'cause you learned a lot about 'em." Another departing
teacher recognized the implications of teaching with fewer teachers in
the classroom. She stated, "It's just when you don't have
enough people in this room, you cannot teach and you cannot help as many
children as you would like."
The teachers remaining in their classrooms during the turnover
transition felt largely depended upon and reported increased stress. For
example, one teacher stated, "After she left and I had all those
other teachers to come in, it just wasn't the same; it was like
everything was put on me." Another remaining teacher noted, "I
wouldn't have help, you know, for some time." Additionally,
teachers described an increased workload. For example, one teacher
stated, "It makes it more difficult to just work with a new person;
they don't know the routine." Further, it impacted "my
ability to plan, because my time is taken with other things in the
classroom instead of being able to take the time to plan our classroom
activities."
The new teachers also talked about an increased workload as a
result of turnover. For example, a new teacher noted, "You have to
pick up the slack for whoever is gone." Interestingly, the new
teachers also noted the increased responsibility of remaining teachers
to orient the new teacher (in this case, them) to the position. One new
teacher explained how a remaining teacher has to "basically do the
same thing that [she] did with the previous person." Accordingly,
another new teacher reflected on learning the logistics and routines of
the classroom: "When the [new teacher] come[s], you have to show
her the routine, you have to show her the schedule and stuff." No
matter the status of the teachers or reactivity of the program, turnover
resulted in an increased workload, making it more difficult to teach
effectively.
Classroom management: "Just trying to regulate the whole
classroom." Teachers also discussed the complexity of keeping daily
routines consistent, maintaining a positive climate through classroom
management, and having to compromise instructional activities in the
face of teacher turnover. However, the difficulties associated with
classroom management were expressed primarily by teachers in reactive
centers. One teacher said, "It disrupts your routine and
everything.... If you had something planned you know and somebody stays
out, you can't do what you planned on doing." Furthermore, a
teacher remarked, "It's harder, especially when you have
somebody who comes in who might not know the routines of the
classroom.... They need to get used to the classroom, used to the
kids." Similarly, another teacher stated, "Everything pretty
much falls on that one person because.., if they do send someone in,
they don't know the routine." As another teacher described it,
"You have to again kind of train the person." Similarly,
"just having to tell a sub what they need to do" was an added
stress to the day.
Moreover, classroom management was described as especially
difficult during turnover, affecting the activities and the interactions
teachers were able to have with children. For example, as one teacher
stated, "Just being able to teach the children is hard, because
it's hard for me to get involved with a small group of children
when I have to maintain the classroom as a whole.... I've had to do
more managing of the classroom." Another teacher noted, "I
can't teach them or sit with them like I want to because I have to
show the other teacher, you know, how to go move around the classroom
and what to do." For one teacher, instructional activities were not
a possibility because so much time was spent on daily routines. As she
said, "You can't do the activities ... when you're all by
yourself in this room.... You have to change them, feed them, nap them,
and that's it." Unfortunately, as a result of turnover,
teachers were less able to regulate their classroom and create a
positive learning environment for the children.
Teachers' perceptions of the impact of turnover on
children's behavior
In addition to trying to maintain a sense of normalcy in the
classrooms during turnover, teachers also are meeting the varying
demands of children's reactions to the change incurred by turnover.
Departing, remaining, and new teachers in proactive and reactive centers
shared some similar ideas about how turnover affects children. For
example, "behavioral changes" in the children emerged as a
theme from all teacher interviews, regardless of their role in the
transition. Additionally, sub-themes captured children questioning
"where is [the teacher]?," having a "sense of
sadness," and "acting out" as reactions to turnover.
Confusion: "Where is so and so?" Across proactive and
reactive centers, departing teachers reported that turnover was
"confus[ing] at first" to children, as "they don't
understand" and "they are looking for that teacher." One
teacher stated, "They wonder where the teacher's gone and are
and where are they going to, are they coming back." Another teacher
described the experience as being "very confusing for them, they
don't understand why, suddenly their teacher was here and then she
wasn't.... I think the first few days, they may be asking,
'Where is so and so?'" Similarly, a teacher noted,
"They get curious and ask a lot of questions, 'Well, where is
she?,' 'When is she coming back?'"
Remaining and new teachers expressed similar ideas related to
children being confused and inquiring about the teacher who left. For
example, a remaining teacher noted how "It takes time to get used
to somebody new ... they're still kind of like, 'Is she coming
back?'" Another remaining teacher described children as
"needing consistency and when there is not, the children seem to be
... confused: 'Who's the teacher?' 'Who do I listen
to?' "Another remaining teacher reflected, "You become a
part of their life, you know, when they come see you every day, then all
of a sudden you just disappear: 'Where did she go?,'
'What happened?' Kids stress just like adults stress."
For one new teacher, the children "just want to know why" a
particular teacher is leaving. As another new teacher observed,
"They are very confused and they want to know where that teacher is
and what happened." In general, no matter the reason for
teachers' departures, teachers reported that children seemed to be
confused about why teachers were leaving and concerned about them not
returning. However, in proactive centers, the children were given
positive strategies, such as writing letters to the departing teacher,
to help them with the transition.
Sorrow: "Sense of sadness." Regardless of center
classification, the departing and the remaining teachers also observed
children experiencing "sadness" from the loss of a teacher.
One departing teacher noted, "I think they're genuinely sad
that she's not there." Another departing teacher said, "I
think the children are very sad.., they're more emotional.
They'll come up to you and they'll tell you, 'I'm
going to miss you' and they give you things, 'I made this for
you.'" Teachers also made distinctions among children,
indicating that some children will show their "sadness" more
than others. Specifically, one departing teacher described how one child
would "be most hurt by it" because of a close relationship
with that teacher. A remaining teacher also noted, "They do have a
sense of sadness.... Sometimes they feel like they've been left
behind." Another teacher reflected that it was "hard for me as
a teacher to get used to it, so I know for the children it's
hard." Although a couple of new teachers expressed they saw sadness
among the children, this was not a prevalent theme; this may be a
function of new teachers wanting children to be happy to have them as a
teacher.
Frustration: "Acting out." All the teachers described
children "acting out," "pushing the limit," and
"testing boundaries" during the turnover transition. For
example, one departing teacher stated, "Children tend to test their
boundaries [with] the new person.... [They are] probably going to have a
few more arguments, get much louder, not follow the rules like they
would when their regular teacher is in the classroom, kind of act like
they don't really know what they're supposed to do."
Another departing teacher commented, "They'll test whoever is
in there.... It's hard for them to regain control.., because that
stable person isn't there anymore, so they are going to start
acting out and testing boundaries." Many of the new teachers also
described children "get[ing] distracted, push[ing] your buttons,
see[ing] your limits." For example, a new teacher noted, "I
think they just test whoever is in there; see if they're going to
stick with the same rules, if they can get away with something."
Overall, teachers identified several ways in which children manifested
in confusion, sadness, or frustration after losing a teacher.
Distinctions by role of teacher
Although all teachers shared some similar insights, they also were
affected differentially by the position they played in the transition.
For example, the departing teachers emphasized that if children knew the
incoming teacher, it "wasn't as big of a deal" and that,
over time, children "kind of adapt," suggesting the temporary
nature of the impact. This idea of a temporary impact was emphasized
more by departing teachers than by new or remaining teachers.
Understanding the effects of turnover as temporary may have eased their
concern for the children upon their departure. Additionally, new
teachers uniquely expressed the complexities of being new and
"learning all the people." One new teacher noted,
"I'm trying to get all this in my head so that I don't
mess up." Similarly, remaining teachers talked about changes in the
overall environment and how they took a more active role. For example,
one teacher stated, "You feel like that you have to be over
everything." These experiences of teachers echo the idea that all
teachers are affected by turnover; however, the nature of this impact
may differ according to the role in the system.
Directors' perceptions of turnover
Center-wide effect: "Domino effect." Directors described
the impact of turnover as a "domino effect ... because you'll
lose somebody and then there may be a whole shifting of people."
Directors indicated that turnover required a reorganization of staff
through adjusting, shifting, and accommodating. For example, a director
noted, "Everybody sort of has to adjust and shift and
accommodate." Additionally, a director compared turnover to "a
puzzle; it has to be put together and it all has to fit and work with
the classroom, the whole center, as well as meet the requirements of the
whole state." All center directors, regardless of the use of
proactive or reactive strategies during turnover, suggested that
turnover created change in the center as a whole. However, reactive
centers held more negative attitudes about the change. A director from a
proactive center noted that "a lot of times it [change] can be
good." Conversely, one director from a reactive center reflected
that such change was "not really great for morale." Similarly,
a director noted, "It just affects everybody and their whole
cohesion." All of the directors mentioned the use of substitutes
and floaters. Primarily, directors seemed to rely on their current
teachers and floaters to fill in the gaps in order to maintain
state-required ratios. However, proactive centers had floater positions
that helped to maintain consistency in classrooms during turnover:
"We usually rely on floaters and part-time people that can work
more hours than they're scheduled for." Another director from
a proactive center noted, "I feel really fortunate that I
haven't had to scramble and find somebody that I don't
know." Conversely, reactive centers were more likely to shift
teachers from other classrooms or move children into other classrooms as
a temporary solution. Consistently across proactive and reactive
centers, directors reported, "It is always difficult to find good
substitutes." In fact, a director from a reactive center described
desperately calling on "ladies from my church to come help
me." All directors recognized that remaining teachers must contend
with an extra workload as a result of turnover: "It overworks the
rest of the teachers because they have an extra burden." No matter
the reason for the turnover or the level of proactive or reactive
responses, all of the directors noted that changes were felt by everyone
at the centers.
Work overload: "It's just too many hats." Directors
also talked about accumulating extra work during turnover. One director
explained, "It's just too many hats, you have to wear too many
hats." Another director noted "I have 2-3 people's jobs
then" Some directors discussed working in classrooms in order to
cover ratios, taking them away from their administrative work. For
example, one director stated, "I usually have to cover the
classrooms, so that takes away my time in the office to get things
done." Another director noted, "Go[ing] in the classroom means
I have to stop here and then whenever I get a chance, or stay late
whenever everybody's gone, to get it [administrative work]
done."
Furthermore, directors also described the time it took to find and
interview new hires. For example, one director stated, "I
can't necessarily focus on what I need to focus on during the day
because ... people walk in the door to fill out an application and it
disrupts what you're in the middle of doing." Another director
described "spend[ing] all of my time interviewing people, calling
their references, making decisions, making staff changes, schedule
changes." Further, a director recognized that "it takes the
time to replace them [departing teachers], it takes time to orient a new
person to their job.... You sort of have to redo things you've
already done." Additionally, directors from both reactive and
proactive centers talked about how the extra work "affect[ed] their
home life as well as [their] job." Specifically, one director
described how she "wind[s] up working sometimes all day on Saturday
or part of Sunday." According to these statements, as directors
cope with the domino effects of turnover in their centers, they also
have to take on more and varied responsibilities, making their jobs even
more difficult. These increases in workload occurred for directors in
both proactive and reactive centers.
Prevention of turnover: "Increase their salary, give them
better benefits, and provide an assistant teacher." Directors
unanimously talked about needing to "increase staff salary and
improve staff benefits" in order to reduce the rate of turnover.
One director described the importance of "supplement[ing] teachers
based on levels of education, experience, and responsibility so that
teachers really are paid what they are worth." Interestingly,
directors also emphasized the need to reduce teacher-child ratios.
Consistently, directors discussed the complexities of trying to provide
high-quality services to children in the context of the current state
ratio regulation. For example, one director working for a corporate
child care program stated, "Companies don't give us enough
hours [for teachers to work] to put two [teachers] in there, because the
state is only 1 to 10 [children] so, without a doubt, it's lower,
it's gotta be lower [ratios]." Another director stated,
"I would love to have 1 to 3 ratio in infants, but it's l to
4.... I'd love to have lower class sizes and group sizes, but
that's the regulations right now and that's what's seen
as, you know, good care for children." In accordance, another
director described how "you don't have time to do activities
with them when you have 18 two-year-olds and there are only two of
you.... I think we would see a lot less turnover if we had smaller
ratios and, of course, higher pay." Similarly, one director wished
for "lower class sizes and staff-to-child ratios because, of
course, teachers are able to accomplish more if they are working with
fewer children and are able to have the time to devote to implementing
the curriculum as they planned." Additional staff also makes for a
better work environment for teachers, as described by one director:
"It's not as difficult for a person to feel like they can take
a vacation cause they know there's ... a competent person to cover
for them." Each of the directors noted that money, benefits, and
lower ratios would help to prevent turnover; however, they did not have
access to the resources that would allow them to implement such
preventions.
Parents' perceptions of turnover
Similar to teachers' perceptions, many parents expressed that
changes in the classroom staff, whether temporary or permanent, affected
the parent-teacher relationship, as well as the teacher-child
relationship. Specifically, parents in proactive and reactive centers
stated that a change in or loss of relationship with teachers resulted
in heightened concern for their children's welfare and diminished
quality of communication with classroom staff. With regard to the
teacher-child relationship, parents mentioned changes in their
children's behavior, emotionally and physically.
Parent-teacher relationship: "I had a real rapport and
relationship." Several parents noted that children are not the only
individuals who form relationships with teachers; parents also establish
relationships with teachers over time. As one parent stated,
"Having the same teacher for a longer period of time gives a
comfort level because you establish a rapport. You know that teacher has
a certain amount of history and background with your child." When
this relationship ends because of teacher turnover, parents may
experience difficulty in establishing that trust and confidence in the
new teacher: "This is the person that you have trusted your child
with, and then they leave. So that makes it kind of difficult to regain
confidence in the next teacher because [you] have to go through that
process all over again." Teacher turnover, therefore, has a direct
impact on some parents, as it affects the relationship between teachers
and parents, which may take quite some time to rebuild with a new
teacher.
Teacher-child relationship: "I'm concerned about my
child's welfare." As a result of this loss of trust, some
parents noted concern for their child's well-being. Often, these
concerns were related to new teachers not being familiar with each
individual child's needs or any special concerns. One mother was
specifically concerned about how new teachers would be able to handle an
emergency if they did not have background information on the child: She
noted that "if there was an incident, they are not familiar with
the children in the classroom or what, you know, things they may
do." This parent also noted that because her child was not familiar
with the teacher, he would be less likely to approach the teacher if a
problem arose. Parents also expressed concern that children may be
affected negatively because of changes in teaching style or approach.
These changes in teaching were especially salient for parents regarding
reactive centers that frequently use substitutes. As one parent noted,
"I don't feel that there's any sort of a class program or
agenda followed." Thus, parents' concerns for their children
addressed not only their physical safety and emotional well-being, but
the quality of the instructional environment as well.
It is interesting to note that most of the parents who discussed
serious concerns for children's well-being had children who were
enrolled in more reactive centers. Because there was such frequent
shifting of teachers in these centers, parents seemed to be less likely
to know who was caring for their children. For example, after
experiencing two instances of turnover within a few weeks, one parent
stated that, "You don't know.., who's taking care of your
child. You drop him off in the morning and you don't know
who's going to be there in the afternoon, and that's
tough." Another parent noted that the care situation for her child
had changed so frequently that she could not remember the teachers'
names.
Communication: "Nobody has the history." The majority of
the parents in both proactive and reactive centers also expressed the
sentiment that the loss of relationship with a teacher often resulted in
less effective and informative communication. For example, one parent
stated, "We feel like there's, um, an interruption.... They
[subs or new teachers] can't give you the same kind of information
about [your child]." Many concerns regarding communication arose
from new teachers' lack of familiarity with families. One parent
said, "Nobody has the history ... and the longer term picture of
your child." Another parent noted that new teachers do not
"know me as a parent, they [don't] know what is acceptable to
me and what is not acceptable to me in terms of my child's
behavior." Although parents noted that communication was affected
by turnover, they were less concerned about this, as they understood
that it takes time to develop new relationships. Specifically, one
parent noted that teachers "are still getting their bearings and so
they don't know what to report at the end of the day." Most
parents mentioned that the communication would return to normal after an
adjustment period in which the parents and teachers learned how to
communicate with a new person. These parents stated, "You have to
learn what that teacher does, how they communicate," and "It
takes time to develop that kind of relationship again."
Trust in relationships: "They probably don't know who to
trust." When discussing their children's reactions to
turnover, some parents noted that children were more attached to
specific teachers and, thus, were affected negatively by the departure
of those teachers. As one parent noted, "When children are
subjected to several different people, it can cause a trust issue."
This parent went on to comment that her child had a difficult time
becoming comfortable with the new teacher and expressed concern about
the long-term impact that the turnover would have on her child. Another
parent stated, "I think it has a negative effect on the children,
because they don't, urn, again, get to establish a relationship
with a particular person because there's constant change. So they
probably don't know who to trust." These sentiments were
echoed by most of the parents, who noticed an effect in their child
because of the severed relationship with the departing teacher, thus
losing an important person in their child's life.
Emotional reactions: "Sad to say goodbye." Some parents
observed that their children reacted emotionally to teacher turnover.
For some children, these reactions conveyed sadness over teachers'
departures; as one parent stated, "He came home from school and
said, 'Mum, we got some bad news today, [the teacher's]
leaving.' " Other parents noted similar reactions: "I
think [she] is, was a little bit sad to say goodbye"; "I
believe she was sad." Additionally, many parents noted that
children stated occasionally that they missed their previous teacher.
However, for other parents, their children showed more intense reactions
of sadness and anxiety about going to school. For instance, a parent
stated, "He's been crying like he didn't want to
go." Another parent said her child was upset at the transition and
"just doesn't want to come [to school]." No matter the
intensity of the reaction, there was a consensus among parents that
children were sad when they lost their teachers to turnover.
Behavioral reactions: "He's been acting out."
Parents also observed physical and behavioral reactions from their
children. Some parents mentioned that their children expressed their
emotions through acting out, either in the classroom or at home.
Specifically, one parent noted that her child was "having like
tantrums and stuff.., for the past two weeks." Other parents stated
that their children were less likely to exhibit their normal outgoing
behavior. For instance, one mother said, "I can definitely tell
he's not as comfortable with them, urn, maybe not as willing to
participate and ... be as outgoing." Similarly, another parent
observed that her child had "become more clingy when being dropped
off at school." Although many of the children's physical or
behavioral reactions were not severe, there were a few parents who noted
that their children had a more difficult time adjusting to the turnover.
One mother reported that her child had "wet his bed for like three
days in a row, and he never does ... but he knows what's going on
and it's bothering him" Another parent noted that her child
had "a lot of meltdowns.., a lot of crying, not wanting to go to
bed, not wanting to come to school" after the turnover started.
Although these children expressed their feelings in a variety of ways,
the emotional, physical, and behavioral reactions of children indicate
that children and families are impacted negatively by turnover in child
care classrooms. Additionally, although we recognize that some of these
effects may well be temporary, we must consider the possible long-term
impact of turnover transitions, especially those that are more chaotic
or reactive.
Quantitative Results
Differences in classroom quality from pre-turnover to
post-turnover. The quantitative results further capture some of the
experiences discussed by teachers. For example, classroom quality seems
to be compromised during the turnover transition. The overall mean
scores on the ECERS-R from the pre-turnover assessment to the
post-turnover assessment decreased (pre M = 4.35; post M = 4.13).
Similarly, as reported in Table 4, subscale and factor scores
post-turnover were lower than scores prior to the turnover transition.
These data are purely descriptive, as the sample size is small (N = 13)
and there is not enough power to test significance. As noted in Table 5,
classrooms identified as proactive in their response to turnover were of
higher quality, based on the ECERS-R scores, than classrooms identified
as reactive. Additionally, post hoc analyses revealed that reactive
centers experienced a higher turnover rate (29.82%) compared to programs
identified as proactive (20.93%), also reported in Table 5.
Teacher-child relationships. Utilizing the STRS, the interaction
patterns and teacher-child relationships for all of the children in each
classroom with the departing, remaining, and new teachers were examined.
This included an examination of the three factors of the STRS scale:
Conflict, Closeness, and Dependency. Additionally, the conflict and
dependency scores were added to formulate a relational negativity score
(Hamre & Pianta, 2001). The findings, also reported in Table 6,
indicated that the relationship between teachers and children were
differentiated by teacher role (departing, remaining, and new).
Departing teachers shared a closer relationship with the children in the
classroom, F(2, 302) = 4.17, p = .01, and perceived children to be more
dependent on them, F(2, 302) = 14.63, p =.001, as compared to remaining
or new teachers. Not surprisingly, this may suggest that the departing
teachers know more detailed characteristics of the children in
classrooms that they are leaving, compared to new teachers, and
subsequently indicated a closer and more dependent relationship between
the departing teachers and children.
DISCUSSION
This mixed-methods study on teacher turnover demonstrates the
complexity of the turnover process and documents its impact on the
classroom environments and people associated with this change. The
qualitative and quantitative findings demonstrate that the turnover
transition affects all individuals involved, as well as the child care
centers as a system. Among these effects are negative changes in
classroom quality, particularly in terms of disruptions to routines and
classroom instruction. Although only descriptive in nature, the changes
in the ECERS-R (including overall mean, subscale, and factors scores)
indicate that all areas of classroom functioning decrease in quality
during the turnover transition. Additionally, changes in teacher-parent
and teacher-child relationships may compromise trust and rapport, create
communication difficulties, and induce emotional and behavioral
distress. For example, the STRS data were collected to demonstrate that
the closest connections between children and teachers were those that
existed between the departing teachers and the children. Although this
may be inherent in the role of the departing teacher, it is clear that a
bond has been severed. Furthermore, in this sample, the remaining
teacher was often the assistant teacher or a center "floater"
who had some level of familiarity with the children but was not as
connected as the departing teacher.
Interdependence of Coping
According to Bloom (1991), child care systems can be thought of as
social systems that include the interdependent components of people,
structure, and processes. When change occurs in one component of the
system, the other components also will experience change. Thus, when
teachers (the people component) change due to turnover, child care
centers and classrooms experience adjustments to the structure and
processes within the centers. Examples of these changes include
adjustments in communication, teaching practices, classroom environment,
and interpersonal relationships. It is evident from the above findings
that the impact of teacher turnover elicits a range of coping mechanisms
from directors, teachers, children, and parents in the hopes of
regaining stability in their shared environment. Such coping mechanisms
instigate a dynamic process of teacher turnover that continues to
reverberate; how directors, teachers, children, and parents respond to
teacher turnover not only changes the nature of their personal
experiences, it also influences their relationships with one another.
For example, as a result of having a teacher depart, children may become
sad, resist coming to school, or "test" the new environment.
Teachers must then respond not only to an increased workload but also to
the children's varying reactions, while altering the schedule and
modifying the instructional activities in an attempt to manage the
classroom. This subsequently creates more inconsistency for the
children, resulting in additional stress. As parents respond to the
sadness and distress of their child, they also may receive disjointed
communication from the new teacher, with whom they may be struggling to
establish a new relationship.
Prevention
From the interviews with directors, teachers, and parents, three
main themes emerged as suggestions to reduce turnover: increase
salaries, offer better benefits, and create supportive work
environments. Consistently, salary was the number one strategy mentioned
by all participants to decrease the rate of turnover. Benefits also were
mentioned frequently as a way to reduce turnover by professionalizing
the field so that teaching in child care is understood as a long-term
career rather than as a temporary job. Additionally, various aspects of
the work environment were discussed, including a supportive and positive
organizational climate, lower teacher-child ratios, smaller group sizes,
and increasing the number of committed teachers with education in early
childhood.
It may be that no single factor is responsible for a teacher's
decision to leave. Rather, it may be the combination of low salaries,
inadequate benefits, and difficult work environments that lead teachers
to leave their jobs. This is not news to early childhood researchers and
policy analysts, but it does provide needed emphasis on the serious,
complex, and multilevel nature of the issue. In light of the impact of
turnover on directors, teachers, parents, and children in the child care
system, it is imperative that we have a goal to drastically reduce
turnover by addressing each of these factors.
Amelioration of the Impact of Turnover
Because prevention will provide only limited assistance with the
issue of turnover, programs need to have purposeful strategies in place
to make the transition as smooth as possible. Based on the results of
the current study, the policies and systems that are implemented
proactively by center directors dramatically change the severity of the
turnover process. That is, centers that responded with more proactive
strategies that aim to sustain the most consistency for teachers,
children, and parents tended to relieve some of the stress associated
with turnover. Although some reasons for turnover can be positive (e.g.,
promotion of a teacher or terminating the employment of a poorly
performing teacher), establishing policies and procedures to maintain
consistency for teachers, children, and parents is essential to minimize
disruption in the work environment and learning environments of teachers
and children. Helping centers create and implement these explicit
strategies to mitigate the negative effects of the turnover transition
must be a high priority.
Taking on Turnover
Whitebook and Bellm (1999) provided excellent strategies to assist
programs in coping with turnover. Findings from the current study offer
several possibilities. For instance, having consistent floaters or
substitutes who are already familiar with center policies and children
in the classrooms may prevent teachers or children from being shifted
from classroom to classroom when turnover occurs. Other strategies may
include having new teachers shadow departing teachers, so that the
remaining teachers are not required to spend as much time and energy
training incoming teachers. This would also allow children to form a
relationship with the new teacher prior to the turnover of the departing
teacher. Additionally, maintaining consistent mechanisms of
communication with parents seems vital as parents form new relationships
with new teachers. Having proactive strategies allowed centers to handle
the turnover transition in a way that supported children, families, and
teachers by minimizing the disruption associated with the turnover.
Thus, these centers were able to maintain high-level interactions and
prevent drastic decreases in classroom quality. Nonetheless, proactive
programs were not immune to turnover. Proactive and reactive programs
experienced turnover, and the causes of turnover including low salaries.
Although the proactive centers reported a lower turnover rate, it is
important to note that the differences between these two types of
programs were how they coped with turnover, not that one type
experienced turnover and the other did not.
Limitations
The results of the current study highlight the complexity of the
teacher turnover process. Nevertheless, there were a few limitations in
the current study. Unfortunately, the major limitation of the current
study was its small sample size. It was extremely difficult to solicit
cooperation from programs when they were experiencing turnover. Turnover
is a time when most programs do not want observers in the classrooms and
stress in the facility is high. We are deeply grateful to the programs
that shared their turnover experiences with us. However, the small
sample lowered the power necessary for testing statistical significance
on changes in classroom quality and restricted which analyses could be
conducted. Additionally, as the sample was not randomly selected, it is
not representative of all child care and does not allow for
generalizations to be made. The findings are also limited by the
semistructured nature of the interviews. Such structure may have
hindered participants from voicing concerns about, or experiences
related to, the turnover transition that were not addressed with the
preset questions.
CONCLUSION
The study allowed for measurement of the immediate impact of
turnover rather than the retrospective findings that have been reported
in past research. Teachers were interviewed as they were leaving
centers, arriving for employment, or experiencing the loss of a
coteacher. Directors and parents were caught in the turmoil of the
turnover crisis. We believe that because of the methodology used, we
captured the day-to-day reality of turnover, including the stress and
concern created. Furthermore, parents, teachers, and directors were able
to provide candid and accurate responses, because the impact of teacher
turnover was very fresh. Future research certainly should include a
larger sample size with a similarly immediate impact format. The
turnover variable also should be included in large-scale, longitudinal
studies that include child outcome data.
One important lesson learned is that good things do seem to go
together. Proactive centers may be able to better minimize the impact of
turnover on classrooms, teachers, and families, because they also have
successful management strategies and demonstrate an ability to maintain
higher quality, even through the disruption of turnover. Further
examination of the strategies used by proactive centers will enable us
to assist in better preparing programs for turnover and perhaps to
decrease the level of turnover in our child care facilities. Preparing
programs to reduce and minimize the effects of teacher turnover
alleviates job stress among teachers and directors, while providing a
more positive experience of child care for children and parents.
DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2011.533118
APPENDIX
Teacher Interview Questions (adapted from Center for the Child Care
Workforce, 2000)
1. In the last year, or since you have been working at this center
(if less than one year), how many changes of either type have you
experienced?
a. Number of changes in groups of children
b. Number of changes in rooms
2. What accounts for these changes?
3. What is the total number of teachers assigned to work in your
classroom each day?
4. During the last year, how many different teachers have you
worked with in your classroom?
5. Do the teachers you work with consistently share the workload
with you on a regular basis?
6. Have you received as much training as you would like (in the
last year)?
a. If no, please indicate why not.
7. If you leave this job, what would you be most likely to do?
8. When staff leave your center or when there are staff vacancies,
does it affect your ability to do your job?
a. On a scale of 1 to 10, how difficult is it for you?
b. What areas of your teaching are most affected?
9. When staff in your center are out of the classroom for a few
hours, how does it affect your ability to do your job? A day? A few
days?
a. Please explain how.
b. On a scale of 1 to 10, how difficult is it for you?
c. What areas of your teaching are most affected?
10. Does turnover among coworkers affect your own career goals?
11. How long do you plan to remain in child care?
12. Would you recommend teaching in child care as a career choice?
a. Please explain.
13. What are the most rewarding aspects of your job?
14. What are the most stressful aspects of your job?
15. (If a departing teacher) Why are you leaving this job?
16. (If a new teacher) Why did you accept this position?
17. How do you think children are affected when a teacher is out of
the classroom for a short time?
a. Describe their behavior.
18. How do you think children are affected when a teacher resigns
or is fired?
a. Describe their behavior.
19. How do you think parents feel when teachers leave?
20. How do you think parents feel about substitute teachers in the
classroom?
21. How do you think things will change next week when (departing
teacher) leaves?
REFERENCES
Bloom, P. J. (1991 ). Child care centers as organizations: A social
systems perspective. Child and Youth Care Forum, 20, 313-333.
Bloom, P. J. (1997). Navigating the rapids: Directors reflect on
their career and professional development. Young Children, 52(7), 32-38.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). May 2007 national occupational
employment and wage estimates. Retrieved from
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
Cassidy, D. J., Hestenes, L. L., Hegde, A., Hestenes, S., &
Mims, S. (2005). Measurement of quality in preschool child care
classrooms: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the early
childhood environment rating scale-revised. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 20, 345-360.
Center for the Child Care Workforce. (2000). Child care staff
salary and working conditions survey. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for the Child Care Workforce. (2004). Current data on the
salaries and benefits of the U.S. early childhood education workforce.
Washington, DC: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting,
and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Curbow, B., Spratt, K., Unagretti, A., McDonnell, K., &
Breckler, S. (2001). Development of the child care worker job stress
inventory. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 515-535.
De Kruif, R. E. L., McWilliam, R. A., Ridely, S. M., & Wakely,
M. B. (2000). Classification of teachers' interaction behaviors in
early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15,
247-268.
DeVita, C., Twombly, E., & Montilla, M. (2002). Toward better
child care worker compensation: Advocacy in three states. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED464715).
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Goodman, I., Brady, J., & Desch, B. (1987). A commitment to
quality: The impact of state supplemental funds on Massachusetts Head
Start. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
Hale-Jinks, C., Knopf, H., & Kemple, K. (2006). Tackling
teacher turnover in child care: Understanding causes and consequences,
identifying solutions. Childhood Education, 82, 219-226.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child
relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes
through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625-638.
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood
environment rating scale-revised. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. M. (2006). Infant/toddler
environment rating scale-revised. New York: Teachers College Press.
Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). The changing experience of
child care: Changes in teachers and in teacher-child relationships and
children's social competence with peers. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 8, 15-32.
Howes, C., Hamilton, C. E., & Philipsen, L. C. (1998).
Stability and continuity of child-caregiver and child-peer
relationships. Child Development, 69, 418-426.
Howes, C., Phillips, D. A., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds
of quality: Implications for the social development of children in
center-based child care. Child Development, 63, 449-460.
Howes, C., & Smith, E. W. (1995). Relations among child care
quality, teacher behavior, children's play activities, emotional
security, and cognitive activity in child care. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 10, 381-404.
Manlove, E. E., & Guzell, J. R. (1997). Intention to leave,
anticipated reasons for leaving, and 12-month turnover of child care
center staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 145-167.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and
psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of
Child Development. (2010). The NC star rated license: Overview.
Retrieved from http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/parents/pr_sn2_ov_sr.asp
Olenick, M. (1986). The relationship between quality and cost in
child care programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. UCLA Center for
Child and Family Policy Studies, School of Social Welfare, University of
California at Los Angeles.
Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., &
Abott-Shim, M. (2000). Within and beyond the classroom door: Assessing
quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15,
475-496.
Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS)
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Rennie, D. L. (2006). The grounded theory method: Application of a
variant of its procedure of constant comparative analysis to
psychotherapy research. In C. T. Fischer (Ed.), Qualitative research:
Instructional empirical studies (pp. 59-78). New York: Elsevier.
Stremmel, A. J. (1991 ). Predictors of intention to leave child
care work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 285- 298.
Whitebook, M., & Bellm, D. (1999). Taking on turnover: An
action guide for child care center teachers and directors. Berkeley, CA:
Center for the Child Workforce.
Whitebook, M., & Sakai, L. (2003). Turnover begets turnover: An
examination of job and occupational instability among child care center
staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 273-293.
Whitebook, M., Sakai, L., Gerber, E., & Howes, C. (2001). Then
& now: Changes in child care staffing, 1994-2000. Washington, DC:
Center for the Child Care Workforce. (ERIC No. ED452984)
Deborah J. Cassidy, Joanna K. Lower, and Victoria L. Kintner-Duffy
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North
Carolina
Archana V. Hegde
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
Jonghee Shim
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Submitted May 18, 2009; accepted July 15, 2010.
Address correspondence to Deborah J. Cassidy, Department of Human
Development and Family Studies, The University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, 248 Stone Building, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402.
E-mail:
[email protected]
TABLE 1
Frequencies for Teacher Demographics
Teacher Status
All Departing Remaining New
(N = 34) (n = 11) (n = 10) (n =13)
Highest level of education
High school/General 3 1 0 2
Equivalency Diploma
Some college 15 4 5 6
2-year degree 3 1 1 1
4-year degree 2 2 0 0
Some graduate school 3 1 1 1
Graduate degree 1 0 1 0
Missing 7 2 2 3
Ethnicity
African American 9 3 3 3
European American 17 6 4 7
Other 1 0 l 0
Missing 7 2 2 3
TABLE 2
Employment Information by Teacher Status (Means and SDs)
Teacher Status
All Departing
Time employed in child care (in 78.39 (70.01) 80.75 (51.71)
months)
Time employed at current center 25.05 (27.52) 32.38 (30.44)
(in months)
Hourly wage $8.82 ($1.94) $8.73 ($0.98)
Benefits received from center
Health coverage
None 8 2
Partial 6 3
Full 11 3
Retirement package
No 23 6
Yes 3 2
Teacher Status
Remaining New
Time employed in child care (in 108.71 (101.7) 59.53 (57.66)
months)
Time employed at current center 38.71 (26.29) 11.43 (22.08)
(in months)
Hourly wage 9.71 ($2.29 $8.50 ($2.28)
Benefits received from center
Health coverage
None 2 3
Partial 0 3
Full 5 3
Retirement package
No 7 9
Yes 0 1
TABLE 3
Frequencies for Director Demographics
Highest level of education
2-year degree 2
4-year degree 3
Some graduate school 3
Graduate degree 1
Ethnicity
African American 2
European American 6
American Indian 1
TABLE 4
Mean Differences in Classroom Quality Pre- and Post-Turnover
Pre-Turnover Mean Post-Turnover Mean
(SD) (SD)
ECERS-R Average Score 4.35 (l.02) 4.13 (l.29)
ECERS-R Subscales
Space and Furnishings 4.57 (.86) 4.40 (l.18)
Personal Care Routines 3.49 (l.26) 3.39 (l.46)
Language and Reasoning 4.66 (.95) 4,18 (l.31)
Activities 4.25 (l.06) 4.16 (l.31)
Interactions 4.88 (l.76) 4.43 (l.88)
Program Structure 4.77 (l.63) 4.14 (l.50)
ECERS-R Factors
Activities/Materials 3.83 (l.08) 3.74 (l.22)
Language/Interactions 4.82 (l.55) 4.29 (l.64)
ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised.
TABLE 5
Mean Quality Ratings Based on Reactivity to Turnover
Proactive Mean (SD) Reactive Mean (SD)
ECERS-R Average Score 5.11 (1.07) 3.61 (.03)
ECERS-R Subscales
Space and Furnishings 5.23 (.95) 3.96 (.68)
Personal Care Routines 4.21 (1.70) 2.89 (.61)
Language and Reasoning 5.32 (.93) 3.78 (.81)
Activities 5.00 (1.27) 3.63 (.67)
Interactions 6.08 (.85) 3.64 (1.59)
Program Structure 5.08 (l.78) 4.01 (1.28)
ECERS-R Factors
Activities/Materials 4.44 (l.15) 3.32 (.87)
Language/ Interactions 5.82 (.99) 3.65 (l.28)
ECERS-R = Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised.
TABLE 6
STRS Factors by Teacher Classification
Departing Remaining New
(N = 128) (N = 85) (N = 92)
Closeness 4.08 * (-0.62) 3.87 (-0.65) 3.86 (-0.67)
Conflict 2.03 (-0.89) 2.13 (-0.61) 2.01 (-0.86)
Dependency 2.45 ** (-0.87) 2.32 (-0.74) 1.83 (-0.93)
Relational negativity 2.13 (-0.76) 2.17 (-0.57) 1.97 (-0.77)
* p < .01, ** p = .001.
