Transcript

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 27 October 2014, At: 05:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,Issues and IdeasPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtch20

Teacher Preferences for Middle Grades: Insights intoAttracting Teacher CandidatesRich A. Radcliffe a & Thomas F. Mandeville aa Texas State University—San MarcosPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Rich A. Radcliffe & Thomas F. Mandeville (2007) Teacher Preferences for Middle Grades: Insights into AttractingTeacher Candidates, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80:6, 261-266

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.6.261-266

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

e need more middle grades teacher candi-dates in our teacher preparation program,”

is a phrase that has troubled me for a decade during my tenure at three universities located in western, cen-tral, and southern states. Our peers, also middle-level teacher educators, share this concern. When addressing large groups of freshmen bound for teaching careers, I encounter hordes already committed to the elementary grades and large contingents of content-focused candi-dates seeking high school positions. In my region, mid-dle school principals desperately seek candidates with specialized middle grades preparation and my graduat-ing preservice middle grades teachers often enjoy mul-tiple job offers.

A review of the literature concerning teacher short-ages, particularly middle school teachers, yields dis-couraging information. Howard (2003) cites the U.S.

Department of Education estimate that approximately 2.2 million teachers will need to be replaced over the next decade (U.S. Department of Education 1999). McAuliffe (2003) reports that the supply of teachers is more critical today than in the previous twenty-four years. Looking to the future, Gursky (2001) predicts a demographic train wreck ahead and Bracey (2002) sug-gests that we are in for a “double whammy” because of retirement and high preretirement turnover. Teacher shortages are reported in the southern and western states while surpluses exist in the Northeast and North-west.

Although the supply and demand for teachers varies regionally, shortages exist in some specialization areas (Howard 2003), including middle school. Johnston (n.d.), reporting that a teacher shortage hits the middle grades with a special vengeance, suggests that many mid-dle school teachers have originally prepared for another level and leap at the chance to move out of the middle grades. Jackson and Davis (2000) describe the need for specialized middle grades preparation and cite studies in which researchers found that fewer than 25 percent of middle grades teachers received specialized preparation. Useem, Barends, and Lindermayer (1999) found that in many states, middle grades teacher licensure or endorse-ment is voluntary or is available with little or no special-ized professional preparation. In a report commissioned by The Southern Regional Education Board Cooney (2000) describes the acute need to improve the quality of teachers in the middle grades. McEwin, Dickinson, and Smith (2002) state that middle-level principals found it difficult, if not impossible, to find teachers with specialized knowledge in the middle grades.

Teacher Preferences for Middle Grades

Insights into Attracting Teacher Candidates

RICH A. RADCLIFFE and THOMAS F. MANDEVILLE

Rich A. Radcliffe, PhD, is an associate professor at Texas State University–San Marcos. Thomas F. Mandeville, PhD, has most recently been on the faculty at Texas State Univer-

sity–San Marcos and Walden University as an associate professor. Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications

261

Abstract: Shortages of middle-level teacher candidates may cause teacher educators to recruit candidates by focusing on what attracts and discourages candidates about teach-ing at the middle level. The authors used a survey approach (n = 110) to investigate why preservice middle school and high school teachers and in-service middle school teachers chose the middle grades. The results included ten common reasons that the respondents favored the middle grades and ten major concerns about this level. Three attractions to the middle grades—student age, content level, and employment market—and common beliefs about positive teacher–student relationships and students’ maturity may guide teacher educa-tors in their efforts to increase middle grades program enroll-ment.

Keywords: attractions, concerns, middle school, recruiting teacher candidates

“W

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:53

27

Oct

ober

201

4

These recommendations for specialized middle grades preparation occur amidst much discussion of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and controversy over what constitutes a highly qualified teacher. One viewpoint of teacher competence maintains the sin-gular importance of content knowledge. As explained by Walsh (2004), federal lawmakers created NCLB to respond in part to strong research evidence that teach-ers’ subject matter knowledge contributed to greater student learning. Porter-Magee (2004) describes the NCLB legislation as a “shift away from certification that includes student teaching and pedagogy courses, man-dating that teachers demonstrate content knowledge” (27). According to Erb (2004), NCLB does “not require a teacher candidate to provide more than preliminary evidence of teaching competence to receive the appel-lation ‘highly qualified’” (4). Laczko-Kerr and Berliner (2002) stress the importance of pedagogy, not just con-tent. There is a growing consensus that middle-level teachers should have specialized preparation based on McEwin, Dickinson, and Smith (2003). A study by McEwin, Dickinson, and Hamilton (2000) found that National Board Certified Early Adolescence/Generalist teachers believe that specialized preparation of middle-level teachers is important and desirable. The call for specialized preparation predates the NCLB legislation (McEwin 1996; McEwin and Dickinson 1997; McEwin et al. 1997). In summary, many educators advocate for pedagogy as well as content preparation and continue to stress the importance of middle grades specialized programs.

Concern about shortages of teachers with specialized middle grades preparation may lead teacher educators to question how to recruit more candidates. Thornton (2004) calls for a thorough examination of how to attract middle grades teachers. According to Bracey (2002), we need to recruit more teachers and find better ways to retain them. Wattington et al. (2004) recommend research studies to further inform the field to assist with teacher recruitment. While discussing the continuing need to advocate for specialized prepara-tion of middle school teachers, Gaskill (2002) suggests that our job may become more difficult with the pro-jected teacher shortage.

A need clearly exists to recruit more teacher candi-dates into specialized middle-level teacher preparation programs. An understanding of why teachers choose the middle grades may help teacher educators bet-ter recruit middle-level teacher candidates. Clement (2004) points out the importance of knowing the reasons that teachers give for entering the profession. The literature identifies many reasons people choose a teaching career, including positive teacher–student relationships (Shann 1998), intrinsic rewards such as seeing a child develop (Latham 1998), the ability to shape the future (Nieto 2003), and needs for autonomy

and creativity (Williams 2003). A review of current literature is less informative concerning why teachers specifically choose to teach the middle grades.

In this study, we investigate what preservice middle school and high school teachers and in-service middle school teachers find attractive or discouraging about teaching in today’s middle grades. An understanding of this may guide us, and other middle-level educators, in our efforts to attract teacher candidates to a middle grades preparation program.

Method

Participants

In this study, we followed a descriptive design that used a questionnaire to investigate teacher perceptions. Participants were middle school (n = 35) and high school (n = 32) preservice teachers enrolled in level-specific professional development school (PDS) pro-grams at a large university and taking courses that were held at two public middle school and one high school PDS site(s). The three schools, one rural, one suburban, and one urban, are located in different school districts. Approximately two-thirds of the preservice teachers were Caucasian, a few were black, and the balance was Hispanic. We also included experienced middle grades teachers (n = 43) from two public school PDS sites. The majority of these teachers were female (77 percent) and Caucasian (95 percent), with experience levels that included fewer than five years (19 percent), between five and ten years (36 percent), and more than ten years (45 percent). The teachers taught a population that included 33 percent economically disadvantaged students with a distribution of 41 percent Hispanic and 54 percent Caucasian students.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire included eighteen Likert-type items such as “I am interested in teaching the middle grades because I like working with the middle grades age group.” The instrument also included five open-ended questions: (1) Why do you want to teach in the middle grades? (2) What do you perceive as possible disadvantages to teaching in the middle grades? (3) Why not teach in the elementary grades? (4) Why not teach in high school? and (5) What experiences have you had with middle-grade students prior to teaching? We designed the questionnaire on the basis of a prior unpublished study by one of the researchers that used in-depth interviews with preservice teachers (n = 4) and a fourteen-item survey of preservice teachers (n = 57) to determine what attracted them to the middle grades.

Procedure

We gave questionnaires to preservice teachers in their classes and delivered them to principals with a

262 The Clearing House July/August 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:53

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Vol. 80, No. 6 Preferences for Middle Grades 263

TABLE 1. Response Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Choosing Middle School and High School Levels

Preservice In-service Preservice Preservice middle grade middle grade high school high school teacher teacher teachera teacherb

Reason M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

Prefer age group 4.73 (.52) 4.66 (.48) 3.23 (1.45) 4.55 (.68)Prefer content level 4.91 (.38) 4.63 (.59) 3.22 (1.21) 4.52 (.77)Like employment market 4.03 (1.02) 2.90 (1.21) * 3.23 (1.28)Have prior experience with this level students 3.85 (1.46) 2.86 (1.58) * 2.97 (1.74)Attracted because of positive experiences at this level 3.61 (1.46) 3.09 (1.36) * 3.74 (1.34)

Note. n = 110. The score range was 1 to 5; Agree to a great extent = 5; Agree to a modest extent = 4; Agree to a small extent = 3; Neither agree or disagree = 2; and Disagree = 1.aThoughts about middle school; bThoughts about high school.* Was not addressed in the survey.

TABLE 2. Top Ten Reasons Respondents Choose to Teach the Middle Grades

Rank Category description for reason No. of responses

1 Curriculum content 482 Students’ age 373 Students’ developmental issues 344 Can relate to student 315 Can influence the student 286 Students’ ability to think at a high level 227 Students’ ability to talk and discuss ideas 228 Students’ level of motivation 209 Students’ ability to work independently 1510 Professional ability as a teacher of this group 14

Note. n = 110.

TABLE 3. Top Ten Reasons to Not Teach the Middle Grades

Rank Category description for reason No. of responses

1 Students’ age 242 Curriculum content 233 Disciplinary issues 174 Students’ attitude 165 Students’ developmental issues 146 Babysitting experience 107 Ability to influence the student 108 Hormones and puberty issues 109 Students’ motivation 910 Students’ emotional state 8

Note. n = 110.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:53

27

Oct

ober

201

4

request to distribute the instrument to teachers. Sixty-seven preservice teachers and forty-three in-service teachers returned usable surveys. The response rates for the preservice middle grades teachers was 100 percent, the preservice high school teachers was 91 percent, and the inservice middle grades teachers was 86 percent.

ResultsWe tabulated the data from the open-ended ques-

tions using Excel software and analyzed them by iden-tifying keywords in each response. Based on keywords, we logged the responses into one or more categories such as age, development, and hormones. We analyzed the responses to the Likert-type questions using SPSS (14.0 for Windows) computer software.

Table 1 summarizes the participants’ responses to key Likert-type questions about what attracted them to teach at the middle grades or high school level. Responses to the open-ended questions are reported in table 2, which includes a ranking of the top ten reasons why respondents choose to teach the middle grades, and in table 3, which lists a ranking of the top ten reasons that discourage teachers from teaching at the middle level.

DiscussionThe results suggest that perceptions about students’

age, content levels, and the employment market attract preservice and in-service teachers to the middle grades. Also, many characteristics of young adolescents encour-age teachers to choose to teach this age group.

Interest in Working with the Age Group

The preservice teachers’ mean score of 4.73 for level of interest in the age group and the in-service teachers’ mean score of 4.66 indicate high interest in working with middle-level students because of their age. This finding is consistent with the listing of responses to open-ended questions that ranked age as the second-highest ranked reason for working with middle-level students. The responses to open-ended questions investigating what the participants found to be attractive about working with this age group often included explanations of (a) able to relate to the student, (b) able to influence the student, and (c) students are able to talk and discuss ideas. Recognizing that these are important elements in a positive teacher–student relationship, the quality of relationships with students may draw teachers to this age group. Respon-dents also reported being attracted by the (a) students’ motivation, (b) students’ ability to think at a high level, and (c) students’ ability to work independently. The respondents view middle-level students as relatively mature and ready to learn, that is, the students are motivated, can think creatively, and are able to work independently. The preservice high school teachers’

mean score (3.23) for interest in the middle grades age group was significantly lower than the middle grades survey participants but still indicates a positive per-spective on the middle-level age group.

Regarding the respondents’ level of interest in teach-ing specific grades, the preservice and in-service middle school teachers were most interested in teaching sev-enth grade; interest declined with each subsequently lower grade level.

Interest in Teaching at the Content Level

The preservice middle-level teachers had a high mean score of 4.91 for level of interest in working at the middle grades content level. This finding is consistent with the responses to open-ended questions that included curric-ulum content as the highest-ranked reason for working with middle-level students. The preservice middle-level teachers’ score (4.91) was significantly higher than the preservice high school teachers’ score (4.52) for teach-ing at their content levels and higher than the in-service teachers’ score (4.63). When asked about their level of interest in teaching specific content areas, the preservice middle-level teachers’ highest mean score was for social studies, with slightly lower scores sequentially for math, English, science, and other areas.

The preservice high school teachers had a high mean score (4.52) for level of interest in working at the high school content level. In response to a question about their level of interest in teaching middle grades’ content, the preservice high school teachers’ mean score (3.22) was significantly lower than the middle grade survey participants, but still indicates a positive perspective.

Responses to the open-ended questions revealed several explanations for why preservice and in-service middle grades teachers were attracted to teaching middle-level content including (a) a desire to teach material that was more sophisticated than in grades K–4, (b) an interest in focusing on a single content area, and (c) young adolescents’ cognitive ability to work with relatively complex content.

Interest in a Perceived Favorable Employment Market

The responses to a question investigating the level of interest in teaching in middle school and high school because of perceived favorable employment markets suggest that middle grades and high school preservice teachers may have different priorities. Preservice mid-dle-level teachers’ mean score for interest in teaching because of a favorable employment market was high (4.03), in contrast to in-service middle-level teachers’ mean score (2.90) and preservice high school teachers’ mean score (3.23).

Other Factors That May Attract Teacher Candidates

Analysis suggests that positive classroom experiences with a middle grades teacher during the respondents’

264 The Clearing House July/August 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:53

27

Oct

ober

201

4

adolescence may have had a small positive influence on the respondents’ choice to teach middle school. Negative classroom experiences with middle-grades teachers did not appear to influence the respondents’ choice to teach middle school.

The respondents consistently reported that they were not recruited to teaching while in high school or mid-dle school and that they were not given teaching expe-riences as a student in high school or middle school. These survey participants did not experience or benefit from the recruiting efforts of organizations such as the Future Educators of America.

The responses to an open-ended question about prior experiences with young adolescents revealed that almost all preservice middle-level teachers had prior experience working with middle grades stu-dents. Reported experiences, in order of frequency, include tutoring, leading youth groups, serving as a camp counselor, serving as a paraprofessional educa-tor, coaching, leading a choir, and working in after-school care.

What Discourages Teachers from Choosing the Middle Grades

The most common response to open-ended ques-tions investigating “why not teach the middle grades” was concern with the students’ age. Preservice high school teachers’ mean score (3.23) for the prompt “I am interested in teaching the middle grades due to the age level” fell in the category of “agree to a small extent.” It is notable that this score did not fall in the disagree or indifferent categories and the standard deviation (1.45) is large; perhaps age is not a barrier to teaching the middle grades. However, the issue of age cuts both ways; preservice middle school teachers see “the age” as attractive and preservice high school teachers do not.

A review of open-ended questions about teaching the middle grades reveals some of the thinking behind the polarity in responses about age. In contrast to pre-service and in-service middle-level teachers, preservice high school teachers think that it may be difficult to have a positive relationship with young adolescents. Often stated concerns about (a) disciplinary issues, (b) babysitting experience, and (c) ability to influence the student suggest a negative view that middle-level students are relatively immature and that it may be difficult to teach them. Student developmental issues, ranking fifth among the concerns, appear to be a sig-nificant reason not to teach in the middle grades. “Hor-mones and puberty issues” and “students’ emotional state” were among the top ten concerns. It is clear that major differences exist among the survey respondents in their expectations of the quality of student–teacher relationships in the middle grades and their expecta-tions of middle-level students’ willingness and ability to respond to instruction.

Although preservice middle-level and high school teachers’ preferences for different levels of curriculum content may be founded on a relatively clear under-standing of the content, their polarized perceptions about the nature of young adolescents may not be as well-founded. Existence of early, erroneous percep-tions about middle-level students was evident in the comments of some experienced middle grades teach-ers including one who reported “When I first started my teacher preparation courses there was no way that I wanted to teach middle school, and then I discovered what these kids are like, and (now) I am glad that I chose this group.” This is a hopeful message for mid-dle-level advocates, but this response and the current research design do not capture the feelings of other teachers who may have started, and then quit, teaching the middle grades. Questions to guide future research on the polarity in responses among preservice teachers about young adolescents are the following: (a) What is the basis for major differences in preservice teachers’ expectations? (b) How well-founded are their percep-tions? and (c) Are there ways to influence perceptions that are based on inaccurate stereotypes about young adolescents?

ConclusionWe found through our study that middle grades

teachers have high interest in working with middle-level students because of the students’ age, expect posi-tive teacher–student relationships with middle grades students, and believe that these students are relatively mature and ready to learn. Many respondents gave positive descriptions of the students, emphasizing the students’ motivation, ability to think at a high level, and ability to work independently. Also, many respon-dents perceived a positive teaching situation in which they were able to relate to the student, they were able to influence the student, and students were able to talk and discuss ideas.

The study indicated that preservice middle-level teachers are highly attracted by the content level in the middle grades and perceive a favorable employment market. It is clear that preservice teachers’ high inter-est in content is consistent with NCLB’s emphasis on content preparation.

Teacher educators’ strategies to attract teacher candi-dates to the middle grades could center on the above three attractions to the middle grades (student age, content level, and employment market). In addition, teacher educators could focus on two reported, impor-tant beliefs: teachers can expect positive teacher–student relationships with middle grade students and these stu-dents are relatively mature and ready to learn.

The study also found that some survey participants perceived that (a) it may be difficult to have a positive relationship with young adolescents, (b) these students

Vol. 80, No. 6 Preferences for Middle Grades 265

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:53

27

Oct

ober

201

4

are quite immature, and (c) it is difficult to teach them. Some respondents held negative perceptions about young adolescents’ emotional development, similar to the “Storm and Stress” image suggested long ago by Hall (1904). Teacher educators’ strategies to attract teacher candidates to the middle grades could respond to these concerns by providing evidence that teaching in the middle grades can be satisfying and success-ful work. The positive conclusions of contemporary adolescent experts, as summarized by Petersen (1998), may complement the prevailing attitude among this survey’s respondents that the typical adolescent is a reasonably well-adjusted individual who is not marred by emotional incapacity.

An example of the use of the study’s conclusions is our plan to use them in our efforts to attract candi-dates to our middle grades teacher preparation pro-gram. Conclusions regarding what interests and what concerns teacher candidates will help (a) guide the makeup of “middle school program” presentations in our Introduction to Education courses, (b) prioritize what we include in handouts and Web sites about our middle grades program, (c) focus question prompts in a student survey about our middle grades program, and (d) provide the agenda for a preservice teachers’ Collegiate Middle-level Association (National Middle School Association 2005).

REFERENCES

Bracey, G. W. 2002. About the teacher shortage. Phi Delta Kappan 84 (4): 331–32.

Clement, M. C. 2004. Hiring the best middle school teachers with behavior-based interviewing. Middle School Journal 35 (4): 25–32.

Cooney, S. 2000. A middle grades message: A well-qualified teacher in every classroom matters. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Erb, T. 2004. To be “highly qualified” no longer requires any evi-dence of effective teaching. Middle School Journal 35 (4): 4.

Gaskill, P. E. 2002. Progress in the certification of middle-level per-sonnel. Middle School Journal 33 (5): 33–40.

Gursky, D. 2001. Supply and demand: The teacher shortage: How bad is it? What’s being done about it? American Teacher 85 (4): 12–17.

Hall, G. S. 1904. Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiol-ogy, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Howard, T. C. 2003. Who receives the short end of the shortage? Implications of the U.S. teacher shortage on urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 18 (2): 142–60.

Jackson, A. W., and G. A. Davis. 2000. Turning points 2000. Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Johnston, H. n. d. Teacher shortages: New pressures on middle-level schools. http://www.middleschool.com/partnerfocus/monthly.htm (accessed January 7, 2003).

Laczko-Kerr, I., and D. Berliner 2002. The effectiveness of “Teach for America” and other under-certified teachers on student achieve-ment: A case of harmful public policy. Educational Policy Analy-sis Archives 10 (37): http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/ (accessed March 15, 2005).

Latham, A. S. 1998. Teacher satisfaction. Educational Leadership 55 (1): 82–83.

McAuliffe, C. 2003. Educators in short supply. Kappa Delta Pi Record 39 (3): 12–13.

McEwin, C. K. 1996. The effects of comprehensive middle level teacher preparation programs. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly 19 (2): 1–21.

McEwin, C., and T. S. Dickinson. 1997. Educators committed to young adolescents. This we believe and now must act. Middle School Journal 28 (5): 50–53.

McEwin, C., T. S. Dickinson, T. O. Erb, and P. C. Scales. 1997. Orga-nizing principles for middle grades teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly 24 (4): 9–10.

McEwin, C. K., T. S. Dickinson, and H. Hamilton. 2000. National board certified teachers’ views regarding middle level teacher preparation. The Clearing House 73 (4): 211–13.

McEwin, C. K., T. S. Dickinson, and T. W. Smith 2002. May I see your license? Principal Leadership 3 (1): 40–42.

———. 2003. Why specialized preparation is critical. Kappa Delta Pi Record 39 (2): 58–61.

National Middle School Association. 2005. Collegiate middle-level asso-ciation. http://www.nmsa.org/AboutNMSA/AffiliateOrganizations /CMLA/tabid/553/Default.aspx (accessed October 20, 2005).

Nieto, S. M. 2003. What keeps teachers going? Educational Leadership 60 (8): 14–18.

Petersen, A. C. 1998. Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psy-chology 39: 583–608.

Porter-Magee, K. 2004. Teacher quality, controversy, and NCLB. The Clearing House 79 (1): 26–29.

Shann, M. H. 1998. Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research 92 (2): 67–73.

Thornton, H. J. 2004. What can we learn about retaining teachers from PDS teachers’ voices? Middle School Journal 35 (4): 5–12.

U.S. Department of Education. 1999. A back to school special report on the Baby Boomecho: No end in sight. http://www.ed.gov/pubs /bbecho99/part7.html (accessed March 24, 2006).

Useem, E., R. Barends, and K. Lindermayer. 1999. Reforming alone: Barriers to organizational learning in urban school change initia-tives. Journal of Education of Students Placed At Risk 2 (1): 55–78.

Walsh, K. 2004. Through the looking glass: How NCLB’s promise requires facing some hard truths about teacher quality. The Clear-ing House 78 (1): 22–25.

Wattington, E. J., R. Shockley, D. L. Earley, K. K. Huie, J. D. Morris, and M. Lieberman. 2004. Variables associated with teacher reten-tion: A multi-year study. The Teacher Educator 40 (1): 56–66.

Williams, J. S. 2003. Why great teachers stay. Educational Leadership 60 (8): 71–74.

266 The Clearing House July/August 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:53

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Top Related