Recruitment

The goal of the Noyce Program is to increase the number of highly qualified science and math teachers with strong content knowledge working in high need school districts.  This is proposed to address the projected need for higher numbers of science and math teachers, and the importance of strong content knowledge for effective teaching (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06528/nsf06528.pdf). 

In order to increase the number of these teachers, more teachers must be brought into teaching (recruitment) or must stay in teaching (retention).  Elsewhere on this Web site, we allow authors to define recruitment and retention for themselves (see our Glossary).  Here, we examine in more depth definitions of retention, and what research has explored about that concept.

We have chosen to consider both recruitment and retention as two stage processes, happening both within teacher training and certification programs, and again within schools and districts.  Our position paper on Retention addresses that topic more thoroughly. 

When talking about recruitment and retention for programs, a college of education recruits candidates and either keeps them through the conferral of a degree and/or state certification or licensure, or loses them to another field.  In addition, depending on how well they train their candidates, they set them up more or less effectively for doing well and feeling successful during the program, and later in their teaching position, thus being more likely to stay in teaching.  Part of recruitment and retention, then, is the responsibility of these higher education institutions. 

Districts also recruit teachers, and a good deal of literature addresses the characteristics they look for, the demographics of who is hired, and how teachers vary between districts.  Working conditions in districts, salaries, school culture, student demographics, and many more factors play a role in how long teachers stay in those jobs – again, retention. 

Recruitment

Labor market theories are often used to analyze recruitment (cf. Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006), where the choice to teach is made if teaching is the most attractive option currently available to an individual – and attractiveness can be affected both by the rewards of teaching and by the hurdles that need to be jumped to become a teacher.  In a similar vein, though framed differently, Lortie (1975) distinguishes between attractors to teaching (characteristics of the profession which make it appealing to potential teachers) and facilitators (social mechanisms which help people move into the profession, including relatively easy entry to teaching and a wide age range during which entry is possible).  Whether the social processes involved in becoming a teacher are seen as hurdles or as facilitators, the factors that attract people into teaching can be divided generally into two categories, both of which can be changed by public policy: the features of a teaching career which make it attractive to potential teachers, and the social processes involved in becoming a teacher.

For instance, a good deal of research has been done on teacher salaries (e.g., Carter & Carter, 2000; Milanowksi, 2003) and how changing teacher salaries, one factor that affects the attractiveness of teaching, can affect recruitment rates, who is recruited, and more.  Debates about the role of testing requirements in licensing teachers (Gitomer, Latham, & Ziomek, 1999; Memory, Coleman, & Watkins, 2003) are about the processes involved in becoming a teacher.

Clearly these two areas are both ripe for debates about what the priorities in recruiting teachers should be.  Are new incentives attracting people who will become the best kinds of teachers?  Are entry requirements useful in selecting the best teachers or are they deterring the very people we want in classrooms?  These questions are further complicated by debates, both empirical and philosophical, about what makes a good teacher, and by inconsistent data from studies about the impact of attractors to teaching and entry requirements.

In examining the literature about recruitment, we have used a broad net, trying to understand the many different ways that people have looked at

  • who is choosing to teach – that is, demographics of new teachers
  • why they are becoming teachers – this includes intrinsic and extrinsic rewards of teaching
  • how they have been attracted to teaching – reports on specific programs designed to recruit teachers.

Program recruitment

Within programs, research and evaluation efforts have examined how programs can work to attract individuals to teaching.  Some target particular groups, like military retirees (Shaul, 2006), science or math teachers (Tomanek, 1996; Gafney & Weiner, 1995; Kinne et al, 2004), or teachers of color (Robinson et al, 2003), or work to recruit teachers to urban schools (Schoon & Sandoval, 2000).  Some have also examined how financial incentives have been used to attract new candidates (McDermott, 2005; Fowler, 2003; Liu, Johnson, Peske, 2004 all look at a short-lived recruitment program in Massachusetts).  These and other reports like them range from simple reporting on a program, which could be quite useful to those designing a similar program, to analysis and recommendations that can be more broadly applied. 

A good deal of that broader research on program recruitment has focused on the effects of different kinds of teacher certification programs on teacher recruitment, particularly between alternative and traditional certification programs.  Often alternative certification programs are designed to recruit non-traditional students – education paraprofessionals, teachers of color, and career changers are among these – and this is reflected in who they do in fact train.  Clewell and Villegas (2001), Villegas and Clewell (1998), and Natriello and Zumwalt (1993) all report on alternative licensure programs, and the differences of teachers trained in these program, including more teachers of color, higher average age, and greater preference for working in high need settings.  Recalling the labor market model described above, it’s not surprising that an alternative certification program, which often provides a faster route to certification (or at least to a paid teaching position) would be more attractive to older participants, who are more likely to give up income in training to teach.

Most broad work on financial decisions for teachers looks at incentives as used by districts, and will be treated in that section.  However, one recent high quality study did investigate the relative attractiveness of financial incentives and a particular fast-track certification program.  A state-run program in Massachusetts provided both very fast entry to teaching, and financial incentives for some participants.  Liu, Johnson, and Peske (2004) found that the speed of training and the quick entrance to the classroom was more important than money in recruiting individuals to teaching. 

Research has also examined how selection criteria do affect, or could affect, who enters teaching, often with respect to teachers of color.  Gitomer, Latham, and Ziomek (1999) and Memory, Coleman and Watkins (2003) report that raised requirements for entrance to teacher education programs (particularly standardized tests) could result in a less diverse workforce. 

District recruitment

A great deal of district recruitment data is descriptive, showing who are hired to teach in schools and how those characteristics have changed over time. 

More women enter teaching than men (Henke, Chen, Geis, & Knepper, 2000), but the proportion of female college graduates going into teaching, and the proportion of entering teachers who are female, have both declined in recent years (Broughman & Rollefson, 2000; Flyer & Rosen, 1997).  These changes are thought to reflect the increasing opportunities for women in professions outside of teaching.  Elementary teaching is particularly female-dominated, while secondary teaching shows a greater gender balance (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). 

Most entering teachers are white, and recruitment rates of teachers of color have not matched the rapidly rising enrollment rates of students of color (Kirby, Berends, & Naftel, 1999).  Broughman and Rollefson (2000) have shown rising numbers of teachers of color, but these rising numbers of teachers do not match the rising number of students of color.  Other recent studies (AACTE, 1999) support this rise in numbers of minorities entering teaching.  One small study (Gordon, 1994) suggests that teachers of color may be discouraged from entering teaching because of the perception that it is a “white” profession.

Studies suggest that college students of highest ability tend not to go into teaching (or stay in teaching, though that is a question of recruitment) (Podgursky, Monroe, & Watson, 2004; Henke et al, 2000; Gitomer et al, 1999; Ballou, 1996).  These studies use measures such as college entrance examinations and degree of selectivity of the undergraduate institution.  Pogursky, Monroe, and Watson (2004) and Gitomer and colleagues (1999) report that these differences are almost entirely due to the scores of elementary, not secondary teachers.

Anecdotally and historically, teaching has served as a way for higher achieving members of the lower or lower middle classes to enter the middle class (Lortie, 1975; Lanier & Little, 1986).  Zumwalt and Craig (2005) report that this trend may be diminishing over time, but still exists to a certain degree.

Lortie (1975) suggested five main attractors for those entering teaching: interpersonal characteristics (e.g., ‘likes working with young people’), the notion of service, continuation of something (schooling) that has been enjoyable for the individual, material benefits (including job security), and time compatibility (particularly for parents).  More recent research has examined similar questions.  These studies suggest that the intrinsic rewards of teaching (similar to Lortie’s interpersonal characteristics and notion of service) and time compatibility continue to be attractive to those who become teachers, but that the material benefits are not considered a reward of teaching by those who become teachers (Farkas, Johnson, & Foleno, 2000; Shipp, 1999; King, 1993).

Guarino, Santibanez, and Daley (2006) frame these characteristics of teachers in terms of labor market theories about teacher recruitment:

The labor market supply-and-demand framework that was discussed in our conceptual framework suggested that individuals with higher opportunity costs in the form of attractive alternatives to teaching would be less likely than those with lower opportunity costs to enter the teaching profession.  The empirical findings discussed above tend to fall in line with this hypothesis.  Males have historically had a wider choice of jobs than women, and this imbalance may persist today.  Alternatively, it may be that women continue to bear a greater share of child-rearing responsibilities than men and find teaching to be more compatible with these constraints, thus narrowing their choice set.  The documented rise in minority participation may indicate increased accessibility to teaching positions and the attractiveness of these positions relative to other accessible positions.  Individuals with higher ability are likely to have a wider range of job choices.  High school teaching positions may offer more attractive extrinsic and intrinsic rewards than elementary school positions. (p. 184)

There has been a great deal of research on the effects of compensation policies on teacher retention, research that has clearly shown that higher compensation, particularly compared to nearby districts, increases teacher retention (Guarino et al, 2006).  Because retention, as a measure, includes both those teachers who are leaving one school for another school, as well as those who are leaving teaching entirely, this suggests that teachers compare salaries, among other factors, when choosing where to teach.  Carter and Carter (2000) suggest that higher salary could make middle schools, which were seen as unattractive compared to other assignments, seem more attractive to prospective teachers.

Other research suggests that individuals consider salaries when deciding whether to teach in the first place.  Milanowski (2003) reports that for all STEM majors (not just those who plan to teach), an annual starting salary 45% above the average local salary would attract just under half of students to teaching, though other factors besides low salaries (such as poor working conditions, and other career interests) also keep many STEM majors from considering teaching as a career. 

Teachers also consider other school characteristics when deciding where to teach.  Smith and Ingersoll (2004) and Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2002) studied new teachers, and found that even very early career teachers (one to five year veterans) were moving to schools that were more attractive to them.  Hanushek et al (2004) showed that white teachers, in particular, were more likely to move to schools with non-minority, higher income students, while African-American teachers moved to schools with more African-American students.  Though there are pockets of difference (as Hanushek and colleagues found), on the whole teachers seem to move to schools with fewer students of color, higher income families, and higher performing students (Guarino et al, 2006).

Final thoughts

Why should researchers focus on recruitment?  There is always a need for new teachers, as teachers retire, but also the attrition from teaching (see our article on Retention and hotlink that word) forces a higher number of new teachers to be trained. 

The research synthesized here suggests that teachers weigh a number of factors in considering whether or not to teach, and also in considering where to teach.  Different pathways to teaching are designed for, and attractive to, different groups of teachers.  Those who choose to teach do so because of affective and practical features of the career itself, and also in considering the social processes necessary to become a teacher  Programs and districts can and should affect the attractiveness of teaching in both the attractors of teaching and the processes involved in getting there.   

Ultimately future research in this area will most effective as more predictors of teacher quality are incorporated.  If students learn better from teachers with similar characteristics, if significant experience in STEM fields makes for better STEM teachers, if particular undergraduate experiences are important in creating good teachers, then these factors should be included in analyses of recruitment.  The goal of recruitment should not be just to get a warm body into a classroom, but a dynamic and effective teacher into every classroom.

 

Resources
AACTE. (1999). Teacher education pipeline IV: Schools and departments of education enrollments by race, ethnicity, and gender.  Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

Ballou, D. (1996).  Do Public Schools Hire the Best Applicants?  Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(1), 97-133.

Broughman, S., & Rollefson, M. (2000).  Teacher supply in the United States: Sources of newly hired teachers in public and private schools: 1987-88 to 1993-94.  Education Statistics Quarterly, 2(3), 28-32.

Carter, M., & Carter, C. (2000). How principals can attract teachers to the middle grades.  Schools in the Middle, 9(8), 22-25.

Clewell, B., & Villegas, A. (2001).  Evaluation of the DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund’s Pathways to Teaching Careers Program.  Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Foleno, T. (2000).  A sense of calling: who teaches and why.  New York: Public Agenda.

Flyer, F., & Rosen, S. (1997). The new economics of teachers and education.  Journal of Labor Economics, 15(1), S104-139.

Fowler, R.C. (2003). The Massachusetts Signing Bonus Program for New Teachers: A model of teacher preparation worth copying? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(13).

Gafney, L., & Weiner, M. (1995).  Finding future teachers from among undergraduate science and mathematics majors.  Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8): 637-40.

Gitomer, D., A. Latham, and R. Ziomek. (1999).  The academic quality of prosepective teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing.  Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Gordon, J. (1994). Why students of color are not entering teaching: Reflections from inority teachers.  Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 346-353.

Guarino, C., L. Santibanez, and G. Daley. (2006).  Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature.  Review of Educational Research, 76(2): 173-208.

Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2004).  Why Public Schools Lose Teachers.  Journal of Human Resources, 39(2): 326-354. 

Henke, R., X. Chen, S. Geis, and P. Knepper. (2000).  Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992-1993 college graduates and elementary/secondary teaching as of 1997.  Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

King, S. (1993).  Why did we choose teaching careers and what will enable us to stay?  Insights from one cohort of the African-American teaching pool.  Journal of Negro Education, 62(4): 475-492.

Kinne, D., Kukreti, A.R., Fowler, T.W., Davis, K., Islam, S., Miller, R.A., Prather, E.N., Soled, S.W. (2004). Work in progress: Successes and lessons learned from a GK-12 NSF Grant project.  Frontiers in Education, 3, 18-19.

Kirby, S.N., M. Berends, and S. Naftel (1999).  Supply and Demand of Minority Teachers in Texas: Problems and Prospects.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 47-66.

Lanier, J., & Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education.  In M. Wittrock (ed), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed, pp. 527-269).  Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Lankford, M., S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff. (1999). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1): 37-62.

Liu, E., Johnson, S., & Peske, H. (2004). New teachers and the Massachusetts signing bonus: The limits of inducements.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 217-236.

Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McDermott, K. (2005).  In MINT Condition? The politics of alternative certification and pay incentives for teachers in Massachusetts.  Educational Policy, 19(1): 44-62.

Memory, D., Coleman, C., Watkins, S. (2003).  Possible tradeoffs in raising basic skills cutoff scores for teacher licensure: A study with implications for participation of African Americans in teaching.  Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3): 217-227.

Milanowski, A. (2003).  An exploration fo the pay levels needed to attract students with mathematics, science and technology skills to a career in K-12 teaching.  Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(50). 

Natriello, G., & Zumwalt, K. (1993).  New teachers for urban schools? The contribution of the provisional teacher program in New Jersey.  Education and Urban Society, 26(1): 49-62.

Podursky, M., R. Monroe, and D. Watson.  (2004) The academic quality of public school teachers: An analysis of entry and exit behavior.  Economics of Education Review, 23: 507-518.

Robinson, J., Paccione, A., Rodriguez, F. (2003).  A place where people care: A case study of recruitment and retention of minority-group teachers.  Equity and Excellence in Education, 36(3), 202-212.

Schoon, K., & Sandoval, P. (2000). Attracting, preparing, and keeping great urban teachers: The urban teacher education program, option II.  Urban Education, 35(4): 418-441.

Shaul, M. (2006).  Troops-to-teachers: Program brings more men and minorities to the teaching workforce, but education could improve management to enhance results.  Report to Congressional Committees.  Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office.

Shipp, V. (1999).  Factors influencing the career choices of African-American collegians: Implications for minority teacher recruitment.  Journal of Negro Education, 68(3), 343-351.

Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004).  Reducing teacher turnover: What are the components of effective induction?  American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 687-714.

Tomanek, D. (1996). Creating Interest in Teaching: Science Classroom Experiences for Academically Talented College Science Majors. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(3), 213-225.

Villegas, A., & Clewell, B.  (1998).  Increasing the number of teachers of color for urban schools: Lessons from the Pathways National Evaluation.  Education and Urban Society, 31(1), 42-61.

Zumwalt. K., and Craig, E. (2005).  Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (eds), Studying Teacher Education (pp. 111-156).  Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.