steven kolber - 15,000 words - final draft - research project

1

Steven Kolber 576312 Teachers’ career intentions, school facilities and resources.

Graduate Certificate in Educational Research. EDUC90558: Research Project.

Teachers’ career intentions,

school facilities

and resources.

Steven Kolber

576312

Supervisor

Dr. Suzanne Margaret Rice

Ethics ID

1544077.1

Word Count: 15,388

2


Abstract

This study sought to examine the relationships between school facilities, school resources and

teacher career intentions. The hypothesis of this study is that teachers are affected by their

teaching context, as manifested through the facilities and resources that they have available to

them. It is hypothesised that this effect of the teaching context impacts upon teachers’

enjoyment, motivation, and satisfaction, of and for teaching. Further, it is predicted that this

impact upon enjoyment, motivation and satisfaction will ultimately impact upon teachers’

career intentions, and likelihood of remaining at their current school, and more widely, within

the teaching profession. The key research question the study addressed was: ‘What is the

relationship between teacher career intentions and teaching resources and facilities?’ In

addition, a series of sub-questions were imbedded in the research. The first sub-question was

‘What facilities do teachers most value in respect to their ability to teach effectively?’ The

second was ‘What resources do teachers most value to allow them to teach effectively?’ The

third was ‘What is the connection between teaching experience and self-reported likelihood

of teacher movement?’ This study found that teachers’ intentions were affected by their

resources and facilities, with resources being more impactful than facilities. It also suggest

that teachers have different perceptions of the resources and facilities at their school,

depending upon their intentions to move schools or leave the profession.

3


Table of Contents

1……………………………………… .Abstract………………Page 2

2……………………………………… .Table of contents……..

3………………………………………..Definitions…………….Page 4

4………………………………………..Literature Review……Page 5

5………………………………………..Methodology………….Page 23

6………………………………………..Results………………..Page 30

7………………………………………..Discussion…………….Page 48

8………………………………………..References……………Page 62

9………………………………………..Appendices…………...Page 80

4


Section 3 – Definitions

1-to-1 / 1:1: One computer, per student, equipped and provided by the school, in a

standardised way.

Attrition: This term encompasses two types of teacher loss: wastage, (teachers leaving the

profession); transfer, (teachers moving from their current school).

Density: The number of students in relation to the space available in a classroom, a high-

density classroom is one with many students in it in relation to the space available.

Facilities: Rooms and areas that students and teachers access for teaching and learning. This

includes science labs, gyms, computer labs, woodwork rooms and so on.

Information Communication Technology (ICT): Is an umbrella term that includes any

communication device or application.

Retention: Retention can refer to teachers remaining either in teaching, or at their current

school, and is used in both senses in the literature.

Stayer: A more casual phrase used in the literature for a teacher not moving from their

current school setting.

Teacher self-efficacy: A teacher’s belief in their capacity to influence student learning

positively.

Transfer: This refers to a teacher’s intention to change to a new school site.

Turnover: The rate at which employees leave a workforce and are replaced.

Wastage: Wastage refers to teachers who leave the profession entirely.

5


Literature Review

The Issue

Teacher turnover is a significant problem in education systems across the world (Kearney &

Mareschal, 2014; Manuel, 2003). This concept encompasses attrition from the profession

(henceforth referred to as ‘wastage’ (Smithers & Robinson, 2003), and movement between

schools within the profession (henceforth referred to as transfer). The reasons for teacher

wastage from profession are numerous and complex (Cochran-Smith, 2004) and require a

range of macro- and micro-level actions and policy actions to address them. Generally

speaking, education systems are trying to minimise teacher turnover, and increase teacher

retention (Goddard and Goddard, 2006; Ingersoll 2001a; 2001b; Kearney & Mareschal, 2014;

Manuel, 2003)

Defining terms

Teacher turnover encompasses teachers leaving the profession (wastage), as well as teachers

transferring from their current site to a new school. It also includes teachers leaving for

personal reasons such as retirement, family leave, and so on (Struyven & Vathournout, 2014).

Both teacher transfer and wastage have powerful impacts on society, the education system,

individual schools and the individual teachers (Berry, 2004; Carnoy & et al., 2015). Policies

to increase teacher retention may halt unnecessary wastage of teachers, and this research will

offer only suggestions in this regard. However, it must be noted that there is also ‘wastage’

that Struyven and Vathournout (2014) refer to as occurring due to ‘natural causes’ that

include retirement, family leave, temporary leave, secondments, and other career

6


interruptions. Both Hanushek (1971) and Darling-Hammond (2000) note that how recently

teachers have taught, has an impact on how well they perform as teachers. Therefore even

these natural breaks within teacher’s careers can be viewed as problematic at a system level.

The abovementioned reasons can also be contrasted against ‘unnatural’ wastage, where

teachers leave due to dissatisfaction with their profession or professional conditions, which is

the primary focus of this piece of research. It also must be stressed that some level of teacher

movement and wastage is desirable (Boyd & Grossman & et al., 2008; Ingersoll, 2003). The

ideal level of turnover, though not closely studied in educational settings, is a contentious

research problem (Dalton & et al., 1981; Gleebeek & Bax, 2004; Meier & Hicklin, 2008;

Park & et al., 1994; Siebert & Zubanov, 2009). Harris, Tang, and Tseng (2006) argue that the

ideal level of turnover in an organisation is 0.22% per annum. A more large-scale study

(Wyatt, 2005), provide three different levels of turnover, and further breaks these percentages

down, to include different levels of ‘voluntary’, and ‘involuntary’ turnover. These categories

are: “low turnover” (2% voluntary + 3% involuntary = 5%), “moderate turnover” (9%

voluntary + 6% involuntary = 15%), and “high turnover” (25% voluntary + 18% involuntary

= 43%). The literature notes ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ forms of turnover, where the

two forms are differentiated by the needs of both the employee and the employer (Abelson &

Baysinger, 1984). That is to say that turnover is functional when the employee wants to leave,

and the employer is ‘unconcerned’ (p6), whilst it is dysfunctional when the organisation

wants to retain the leaving employee. Teachers who are unsuited to the teaching profession,

or who cannot cope with the stress associated with the career improve the education system

when they leave it, and this can be defined as functional turnover. However, teachers who are

effective and leave a school or teaching because of dissatisfaction represent dysfunctional

turnover.

7


The disconnect between the levels of “high turnover”, 43% defined by Wyatt (2005) and the

levels of turnover and wastage experienced by early career teachers, is something that is

widely noted in the education research (Barnes & et al., 2007; Harris & Adams, 2007;

Ingersoll, 2001, 2001b; Loeb & et al., 2005). So, though it is difficult to be precise about

what turnover is functional, and what is dysfunctional at the individual school level, it is clear

that the levels of turnover across systems are problematic (Mason & Matas, 2015).

What are the costs to society when teacher wastage is significant?

Where teacher wastage is high, society loses the returns to its investments into education.

Governments subsidise teacher education courses with the expectations that they will produce

productive teachers to educate the population.

What are the costs to educations systems?

Within the education system losing teachers results in lost expertise, which also has an

impact on students, worsening learning outcomes (Ronfeldt & et al., 2013), as a litany of

inexperienced teachers is disruptive and has a negative effect on students’ learning overall

(Peske & Haycock, 2006). Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) note that there appear to be

important gains in teaching quality in the first year of experience, and smaller gains over the

following years. Teachers who fill graduate teacher vacancies, and then leave teaching or

move schools, are then replaced with other new, graduate teachers. These new, graduate

teachers, both those that leave, and those who replace them, lack experience, and localised

school knowledge, which negatively affects their ability to teach effectively. Further, the

costs of time used by the system to identify staff to replace those who leave are also

8


significant (Ingersoll, 2011; Lonsdale & Ingvarson, 2003; Ramsey, 2000; Skilbeck &

Connell, 2003, 2004; Williams, 2003). Replacing teachers is expensive (Ingersoll, 2003a;

2003b), with some researchers noting that “Chicago Public Schools lose $17,872 on every

teacher who leaves the district” (Barnes & et al., 2007, p73).

What are the costs of teacher turnover at the school level?

At the individual school level (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Ingersoll, 2002a; 2002b; 2003a; 2003b;

2004a; 2004b) high teacher turnover (whether through teacher attrition or teacher movement

to other schools) results in negative impacts on staff time, school cohesion and community,

teacher effectiveness, and students’ achievement. When teachers leave a school, the school

incurs costs in the form of lost expertise, staff time, and money taken to advertise, sort, and

interview prospective teaching staff (Connell, 2007; Korthagen, 2004; Schuck & et al., 2012).

Another concern at the school level is the loss of organisational memory that the departing

teachers possess (Buchanan, 2009, 2010). This organisational memory can represent

important skills, knowledge of processes, understandings of students’ backgrounds and

preferences. It is this loss, as well as the impact of lower teacher effectiveness through

multiple early career teachers (Scale & McEwin, 1994) that may reduce achievement for the

students in affected schools (Ronfeldt & et al., 2013).

What are the costs to individual teachers?

For the individual teachers who leave the profession, the costs may also be significant

(Connell, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001a; 2001b: Korthagen, 2004; Schuck & et al., 2012).They may

9


have associated feelings of failure and inadequacy (Smithers & Robinson, 2003). Further,

teachers do not receive a return on their investment of time and forgone income in

undertaking a teacher education course.

Potential Policy Responses to Teacher Transfer and Wastage

The problems associated with teacher wastage and transfer are significant. However,

economic policy responses in the form of monetary incentives may not be effective. For

example, teachers do not respond to pay incentives as powerfully as other professions (Baugh

& Stone, 1982; Vegas & Umansky, 2005; West & Mykerezi, 2011). Hirsch, Emerick,

Church, Reeves and Fuller (2006) used a far wider concept of working conditions that

includes principal leadership, resources and facilities, and showed that these conditions are a

powerful lever that education systems can use to reduce the teacher attrition. Further they

found that teachers with positive perceptions of their working conditions are far more likely

to stay at their current school, than those with negative perceptions of their conditions. The

fact that in-school conditions affect teachers’ attrition from the profession, means that

improving school conditions could potentially assist education systems and schools in

retaining teachers. For the purpose of this study, conditions include those factors that directly

affect teachers core duty, teaching. The full range of factors can be understood by referring to

the methodology section.

Facilities

Providing facilities is one of the largest and most important expenses of education systems

(McGowen, 2007). Facilities have been widely studied, and it has been reported that the

10


quality of school facilities may influence student achievement, with higher quality facilities

being associated with higher student achievement levels (Dawson & Parker, 1998; Hines,

1996; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012; Johnson et al., 2001; Lowe, 1990; Riveria-Batiz &

Marti, 1995; Tanner, 2000 Lewis & et al., 2000; Tanner, 2000). In these studies the quality of

facilities is defined by the quality of various factors referred to later in the thesis, such as: air

quality; thermal environment; acoustic quality; and the availability of artificial and natural

light.

Facilities Research Overview

The majority of research into facilities is dated (Roots, 2007), and takes a pragmatic,

empirical and simplistic view of facilities. This research typically makes use of tick-sheets,

and diagrams of human movement through spaces and rating scales (Cash, 1993; McGuffey,

1974; 1978). Importantly, this research generally does not consider the thoughts, feelings or

perceptions of teachers (Cash, 1993; Dawson & Parker, 1998; Hines, 1996; Lowe, 1990;

McGuffey, 1982; Riveria-Batiz & Marti, 1995). The key focus of these studies is the

relationship between various aspects of school facilities and student achievement. The factors

that have been studied in this rigorous way include: light, temperature, acoustics, space, and

aesthetics. This research found its conceptual basis in environmental psychology which had

begun to consider the effects of the environment on its inhabitants, primarily the students, but

also, to a lesser extent the teachers (Dawson and Parker, 1998, Hines, 1996, Lowe, 1990;

Riveria-Batiz & Marti, 1995). More recently, the research of Johnson, Kraft and Papay,

(2012); Lewis, Liu, Kars, Kauffman, Preske and Johnson (2000); and Tanner (2000), has

looked at the effects of teachers’ conditions on students’ achievement. This type of research

11


shows that where there are dysfunctional and emotionally unsupportive work environments,

teachers will tend to move away (Johnson & et al., 2011).

Facilities – Lighting

The ability to control the amount of light in the classroom has been found to promote

confidence among teachers (Benya & Leban, 2011; Heschong Mahone Group, 2000). A well-

lit classroom has been found to promote clearer communication, which is integral for teachers

to effectively perform their job (Gifford, 2007; Jago &Tanner, 1999; Lemasters, 1997;

Phillips, 1997). Both Jago and Tanner (1999) and Earthman and Lemasters (1997a, 1997b)

completed meta-analyses of previous research which confirmed that well-lit classrooms, and

teachers’ ability to control lighting, were associated with increased student achievement.

Facilities – Thermal Environment

The thermal environment of a classroom also impacts on teacher and student achievement,

with Earthman (2004) listing it among the most important environmental elements for student

achievement. de Dear, Kim, Candido and Deuble (2014) note that Australian students

reported 22.5 degrees as their neutral and preferred temperature for classrooms, which is

likely impossible to achieve in many Australian classrooms during summer, in the absence of

access to air conditioning. They suggest that possibly Australian students are habituated to

air-conditioning, and have adapted to its presence. They do note however, that students have

limited ways to adapt to the temperature within their room. Overbaugh (1990) studied 38

state Teachers of the Year in 1988 in regards to how school facilities affected their ability to

12


function as professionals; these teachers listed the ability to control the temperature of their

rooms among the most important environmental supports to effective teaching.

Facilities – Acoustics

The acoustics of a classroom environment are also very important to students’ speech

perception ability, which is crucial for their ability to learn within their setting. Schneider

(2003) found that teachers in Chicago and Washington D.C. felt their classrooms and

hallways were so noisy that their students’ learning was negatively affected. This potentially

may impact on teacher satisfaction, and from there on retention in a school or in teaching.

Studies completed into classroom acoustics provide recommendations for ideal acoustic

classroom (ASHA, 2005; Berg & et al., 1996; Crandell 1991; Crandell & Bess, 1986;

Crandell & et al., 1995; Crandell & et al., 1995; Crandell & Smaldino, 1996; Earthmann &

Lemaster, 1997a; Hegarty & et al., 1981). However, Nabeleck and Nabeleck (1994) note that

these recommendations are rarely achieved in everyday learning environments. It is unlikely

that the dated school buildings in Australia, many as old as 100 years old or greater, are able

to meet the recommendations cited above.

Resources

For the purposes of this study, resources comprise, Information, Communication, Technology

(ICT) resources, audio-visual (AV) resources, textbooks, paper supplies and photocopying,

resources for teaching such as whiteboards or art supplies, and resources to display work and

beautify classrooms. School resources have not been as extensively researched as school

13


facilities. Tapper (1995) studied first-year teachers in New York City public schools, and she

found that ‘teachers spent significant sums of their own money on classroom supplies’ (p.8),

with half of first year teachers spending their own money on resources, suggesting inadequate

resourcing of schools. More recently, Kloberdanz (2010) noted that Californian teachers

used an array of strategies to procure the instructional materials they deemed necessary,

including entering competitions and saving coupons, again suggesting that school resourcing

is inadequate from teachers’ perspectives. Though the funding structure in the United States

of America (USA) is very different to Australia, the possibility that this practice also occurs

in Australia is too compelling to overlook. Further, these two examples are notable because

they come from two first-world, urban settings, and the possibility of teachers spending their

own funds, or time to procure the necessary resources is something rarely addressed in the

literature. Chapman, Snyder and Blanchfield (1993) found that the supply of resources to

classrooms by the government was viewed by teachers as an act that supported them, and

their efforts. One study has found that teachers’ perceptions of their school’s resources and

teaching materials differed based upon their career intentions, with ‘leavers’ and ‘movers’

reporting less access to, and quality of, resources than stayers (Hirsch & et al., 2006). This

pattern could indicate a certain level of overall dissatisfaction rather than the actual quality of

the resources and facilities. This finding also further underlines the importance of perception,

whereby perceptions lead to actions. In this situation, the actual facts are not impactful on

actions in the same way as perceptions. This pattern will be considered in the discussion

section.

1:1 computers

14


Currently, 1:1 computers are a pervasive and expected part of both students’ and teachers’

equipment in Australia, as the High Court recently agreed (ABC Online, 2015). In Australia

the ‘Digital Education Revolution’ was introduced in 2007 (Rudd & et al., 2007), a policy

initiative which funded laptops in schools. At the individual school level, this was interpreted

in many idiosyncratic ways.

AV Resources

Audio-visual (AV) resources can include, but are not limited to: radios, screens, records, film

clips, TV broadcasts, film recorders, films, projectors and transparencies (Bizimana &

Orodho, 2014). AV resource research has mostly been undertaken in the 1960s, in third-

world countries, and in language classes (Cates, 1990; Voller & Widdows, 1993). These

studies were mostly focussed on learning outcomes associated with the adoption of these

technologies. This raises the possibility that these resources and their effect on teachers’

movement have been overlooked in research.

Textbooks

Textbooks are similarly under-researched, but their sheer ubiquity is difficult to deny. It is

especially worth reconsidering textbooks because of the potential to replace them with digital

textbooks (Australian School of Business, 2010; Davy, 2007; Dougherty, 2010; Hains &

Nelson, 2010; Milby & Rhodes, 2007; Shiratuddin & et al., 2006; Young, 2009)(or ‘e-

books’), and even to do away with them entirely (Bonis & Bonis, 2011; Gibson, 2011;

Kupetz, 2008; Sapers, 2012). As Mohammad and Kumari (p3, 2007) note, the textbook is

15


‘the heart of the school’ and the ‘ubiquitous text’. These scholars believe that as technology

becomes more pervasive, the role of high quality course materials becomes even more

important. They even suggest that textbooks can serve as guidance for untrained or

inexperienced teachers in the third world. Ball & Cohen (1996) also state that textbooks, as

well as teacher guides, can be used to support teachers. Collopy’s (2013) research suggested

that it may be possible for textbooks to function as a form of professional development, for

some teachers in the United States, but not for all. Koski & Weis (2004) note that California

as an area where resources and facilities are of a particularly poor standard, whilst Darling-

Hammond (p1, 2004) noted that some schools in California lack what she called ‘the most

basic elements of schooling’: buildings, textbooks, materials and qualified teachers. Oakes &

Saunders (2002) found a relationship exists between teachers’ satisfaction at their current

school site and access to sufficient supplies of textbooks. Among those teachers who rated

their job satisfaction as ‘fair’, 48% of these respondents also noted a shortage of textbooks for

students to take home, as well as 30% noting that their textbooks and materials were of ‘fair’

or ‘poor’ quality. This suggests that textbooks are important to teachers, especially in

circumstances where teachers lack experience, or appropriate levels of training.

Classroom resources – Location

Location and context may influence the quality of classrooms and facilities. For example,

there is an observable pattern that classroom resources tend to be worse in rural and remote

areas in Australia (Sullivan & et al., 2013; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011), whilst a great deal of

research in the USA has shown that inner-city, urban schools are poorly resourced (Corcoran

& et al., 1988; Levin & Quinn, 2003; Loeb & et al., 2005; Schneider, 2003; Buckley & et al.,

2004; 2005).

16


Classroom environment – Space

Overall, research suggests that limited space and high-density conditions affect social

interactions between teachers and students (Gifford, 2007), and may increase student

aggression (Moore, 1979). Moore (2010) also noted that smaller, more high-density

classroom environments may promote more teacher-centred lessons. Further, some research

has found that as density increased, so too did pupil movement and distraction (Lackney,

1994), though it was noted that movement could be influenced by teachers by modifying the

classroom layout. The impact on teacher movement and satisfaction has not yet been

identified in research. However, increased student aggression and distraction, together with

the inability to teach in a student-centred way may potentially decrease teacher satisfaction

and increase turnover and/or wastage.

Classroom environment – Displays of student work

The display of work has been shown to improve student motivation (Killeen & et al., 2003),

and makes the school feel more welcoming to all school users (Maxwell, 2000). There is

little examining the value teachers place on the capacity to display student work.

Ability to control aspects of classroom environment

Notably, teachers feel that they are partly responsible for factors in their environment, even if

they are actually unable to control them (Lackney, 1997; Martin, 2002). Trancik & Evans

17


(1995) showed that teachers’ ability to control their classroom environment allowed them to

feel a sense of accomplishment and independence whereas a lack of control could potentially

result in feelings of helplessness. This further illustrates that teachers’ perceptions are

important in that the ideal state of a teacher’s mentality in regards to their classroom

environment is of ‘control’, whilst the opposite, ‘out of control’, can lead to feelings of

helplessness, which in turn is likely to affect teacher wastage.

Resources – Conclusion

These specific resources have clear associations with teachers’ interactions within the

classroom. There are also indications that they may impact upon teacher wastage and

transfers through an impact on satisfaction. Notably, Corcoran, Walker and White (1998)

found that facilities have some relationship with teacher satisfaction. McGowen (2007) was

able to add that poor facilities affected teacher attendance, resulting in more sick days and

teacher absences. Dawson and Parker (1998) found that by surveying staff prior to, and

following, a facilities renovation, that teachers perceived an observable improvement in

teaching and learning, which has been supported by other studies (Berry 2002; Sommer &

Olsen, 1980). Lastly, and most surprisingly it has been found that in third world countries,

improving facilities is more impactful on teacher retention that increasing teachers’ wages

(Bennell, 2004; Chapman, 1994; Farrell & Olieveira, 1993; Kemmerer, 1990; MacDonald,

1999).

Attrition – Leaving the Profession/Wastage

18


The most challenging form of teacher turnover is wastage, teachers leaving the profession.

Worldwide attrition from the profession occurs most commonly within the first five years of

a teacher’s career (Kim & Loadman, 1994; Goddard & Goddard, 2006; Manuel, 2003;

Struyven & Vanthournout, 2014). Hirsch, Emerick, Church, Reeves and Fuller (2006)

conclude that working conditions generally are a powerful lever that education systems can

use to reduce teacher attrition, with resources and facilities being one aspect of these

conditions. The fact that in-school conditions affect teachers’ attrition from the profession,

means that education systems could leverage this information to improve facilities, and

possibly improve teacher retention. Goddard and Goddard’s (2006) small-scale research in

Queensland found that 21 percent of beginning teachers were considering leaving their

current job, with 50 percent of this 21 percent considering transfer whilst the remainder were

considering leaving the profession. Manuel (2003) called for a research agenda that seeks a

qualitative explanation for teacher wastage within the first five years of their careers. Further,

it should be noted that experience (years spent teaching) does not necessarily correlate with

expertise, but it has been found that a positive correlation does exist, though it is not always

significant or linear (Carnoy & et al., 2015; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Klitgaard & Hall,

1974; Murnane & Phillips, 1981). Further, it must be noted that due to the high rates of

wastage among early career teachers (ECT), the older teachers are often overlooked in

regards to attrition research (Day & Gu, 2009). Ingersoll (2001b) refers to the problem of

teacher shortages as a ‘revolving door’ of teachers training to be teachers, and then moving to

other careers. He states that teacher attrition from the profession is a sizeable phenomenon

that is the major factor behind the demand for new hires. His work (2001a; 2001b; 2003a;

2003b; 2004a; 2004b) also emphasises that working conditions play an important role in

teacher movement.

19


Attrition from individual schools – Transfer

Ingersoll (2001) states that teacher movement within the profession accounts for half of all

teacher turnover at a school level. Research indicates that teachers tend to move away from

low socio-economic status (SES) schools (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Loeb & et al., 2005).

Further, they tend to move away from schools with a high proportion of minority, low

income students (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011) and from low-achieving schools (Boyd & et

al., 2005; Hoglund & et al., 2015). In settings where there is a pay differential between

schools, teachers tend to move towards better pay (Boyd & et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond,

2004).

In summary, teacher movement is more closely-linked to student make-up, the students that

teacher have to teach, than pay incentives (Hanushek & et al., 2011). It has also been noted

that teachers tend to move from rural, or remote schools to urban schools (Sullivan & et al.,

2013; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011). Each of these patterns may be harmful to the community as a

whole, and pose problems to education systems. However, teachers also move within the

system in subtle and understandable ways. For example, teachers tend to move towards

schools that are near where they live (Boyd & et al., 2005). As such, research needs to control

for instances of natural, reasonable, unchallenging transfers such as these, but note that they

also contribute significantly to the overall level of turnover. One of the most complex factors

for transferring school is when teachers seek to find a good ‘cultural fit’, or to escape from an

unsuitable cultural fit. There are two concepts that represent different aspects of a good

cultural fit, ‘school climate’, and ‘school culture’.

20


School climate “refers to the quality and character of school life” (Cohen & et al., p1, 2009),

made up of the staff’s interpersonal relationships, cultural norms and values. ‘School culture’

is more focussed on the school leadership’s impact on the school. The school’s symbols and

stories, values and beliefs form the schools culture and impact on levels of teacher

empowerment (Balkar, 2015; Edwards & et al., 2002; Hill & Huq, 2004; Shakibaei &et al.,

2012). School climate and culture are important but can be difficult for researchers to

measure (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007; Johnson, 2012; Johnson & et al., 2011; Uline & et al.,

2009). These concepts appear often in teachers’ explanations for transferring or remaining in

a school, but the interactions with career intentions are not clear. Research also exists in

regards to the school’s principal (Ladd, 2011), and their leadership style, and their decision-

making has been located as a cause of teacher stress (Litt & Turk, 1985). Johnson, Kraft, and

Papay (2012) also found that those factors captured by the concept of school culture are most

impactful upon teachers’ job satisfaction and career plans, and also include the teacher’s

relationship with colleagues. The principal’s leadership style is also impactful (Bolger, 2011;

Koh & et al., 1995) and the way that different teachers respond to this. A factor worth

considering in this equation is support from ones colleagues (Bilingsley, 1993; Johnson & et

al., 2012). The support of colleagues appears to act as a buffer to the other factors that impact

upon teachers transfer intentions, in a similar way that the mentoring and induction process

assists in retaining early career teachers (Howe, 2006).

What do we not know?

Of the research detailed above, there emerge three key areas in which the existing research

could be extended and built upon. Firstly, among the research above, only a small portion of

it places ‘teacher voice’ at the centre. Secondly, a great deal of the research makes reference

21


to resources and facilities, as one of many factors. Thirdly, and most importantly, no research

in regards to resources and facilities appears to have been completed in Australia. However a

significant amount of research has been completed in other nations. It is difficult to establish

whether or not this research applies in the Australian context, given that the quality of

resources and facilities are strongly affected by funding policies and mechanisms, and these

differ greatly between countries.

There is a small body of research that directly considers the relationship between resources,

facilities and career intentions. Schneider (2002; 2003) in his dissertation looked at a large

sample drawn from Chicago and Washington, D.C. He showed that teachers who ranked their

school resources and facilities a ‘C’ rank or lower (with A indicating high quality and F

indicting low quality) were much more likely to intend leaving teaching or transferring

schools. Buckley, Schneider and Shang (2004; 2005) in the U.S. found that as teachers’

perception of the quality of school facilities improved, so did the probability of retaining the

teacher in their school. They were also able to establish that facility quality has a larger

impact on transfer and resignation intentions than dissatisfaction with pay. Earthman and

Lemaster (2009) looked at 22 schools, 11 defined as having satisfactory facilities, and 11

defined as having unsatisfactory facilities, by the schools principals. The teachers who taught

in the ‘satisfactory’ schools viewed their classrooms more positively and had higher levels of

satisfaction in their careers. However, the study did not attempt to examine the link between

poor classroom conditions and teacher wastage or transfer intentions. Lastly, Ladd (2011)

utilised a broader definition of working conditions that included three concepts: school

leadership, opportunities for development, and the quality of facilities. She found that

teachers’ perceptions of working conditions at the school level were highly predictive of their

intentions to leave the school. Her data set was state-wide, but the data set did not

22


differentiate between ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ attrition, nor between transfer and

wastage. These studies suggest that facilities, classroom quality, and resources impact upon

teachers’ career intentions.

The key research question this study addressed was: ‘What is the relationship between

teacher career intentions and teaching resources and facilities?’ In addition, a series of sub-

questions were imbedded in the research. The first sub-question was ‘What facilities do

teachers most value in respect to their ability to teach effectively?’ The second was ‘What

resources do teacher most value to allow them to teach effectively?’ The third was ‘What is

the connection between teaching experience and self-reported likelihood of teacher

movement?’

23


Methodology

The methodology of this study is based on its exploratory nature. It seeks to develop a new

instrument for further research using a small sample of Melbourne secondary schools. The

research uses a quantitative approach. As well as allowing a conversion from qualitative data

into quantitative data (Creswell, 2009), this will allow a Chi-square analysis, as well as other

illustrative correlations only available by coding qualitative questions into numerical

categories. The quantitative approach allows the study to establish a relationship between

satisfaction with resources and facilities, and intentions to move. Each of these factors is able

to be placed on a rating scale, and then compared. For this reason quantitative data is

appropriate.

The epistemological viewpoint of this study is an ‘interpretative’ approach. It favours an

emancipatory, critical style (Gough, 2002) that seeks empathetic knowledge that is able to

produce useable suggestions and recommendations (Snyder & Tardy, 2004). The

methodology can be seen as emancipatory because findings from the study inform changes to

improve teachers’ working conditions (Punch, 2013). Focussing solely on teachers’ career

intentions means that it is possible to limit the goals of the study and thus retain internal

coherence (Zhang & Wildermuth, 2009). The value that underpins this study is that research

is most useful when it empowers and elicits responses from teachers and puts the ‘teacher’s

voice’ at the forefront.

24


Method

Each specific aspect covered below in Table 1is drawn from a significant body of research,

covered in the Literature Review. The form of a ‘Likert Scale’ was selected to allow teachers

to complete the questionnaire quickly. Also, the research question is seeking to locate those

aspects that teachers most prioritise. A Likert scale is able to show levels of strength of

feeling in regards to each of the aspects. A series of ranking questions was also included

based on other factors that teachers had expressed in the research as important. For each of

the ranking questions, an ‘Other’ option was included to allow teachers direct input into

improving the questionnaire for future rounds of this research. A more thorough overview of

the topics that this research addresses can be seen in Table 1 below, which provides an

overview of what form of measurement was used, and a brief example.

25


Table 1: Overview of questionnaire instrument

Focus or construct Elements Measure used and Example

Demographics Time spent teaching Category response: __ years __ months full time

Education qualifications Category response: TAFE certificate or diploma, Teaching

certificate, Undergraduate diploma, Undergraduate degree,

Postgraduate certificate or diploma, Master’s degree, Doctorate of

Education or Ph.D.

Currently studying Category response: Yes - No

Gender Category response: Male – Female

Age Category response: 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 51-55,

56 or older

Facilities Ability to control and monitor temperature

in classroom

Four point Likert Scale: Strongly agree-Agree-Disagree-Strongly

disagree

Ability to change seating arrangements As above

Space to change seating arrangements As above

Natural light “ ”

Artificial light “ ”

Noise level inside classroom “ ”

Noise level outside classroom “ ”

Sufficient space “ ”

Facilities support good teaching “ ”

Facilities support innovation “ ”

Facilities permit a variety of teaching and

learning activities

“ ”

Teaching spaces send a positive message

to students

“ ”

Facilities restrict pedagogical outcomes “ ”

Compare your school to your ideal school 10 point scale: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Labels: 1 = far from ideal, 5 =

acceptable, 10 = ideal.

Resources Access to ICT Four point Likert Scale: Strongly agree-Agree-Disagree-Strongly

disagree

Access to ICT to expand teaching

activities

“ ”

Access to course materials such as

textbooks

“ ”

Access to AV resources “ ”

Access to individual laptops or tablets “ ”

Access to photocopying “ ”

Access to resources to beautify the

classroom

“ ”

Access to resources to display student

work

“ ”

Money spent on classroom supplies,

previous year

Category response: $0, $1-100, $101-200

Of this money, percentage spent on

students

Category response: 0-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, 80-100%

Overall Overall satisfaction with facilities 10 point scale: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Labels: 1 = Not at all satisfied; 5

=Moderately satisfied; 10 = Extremely satisfied.

Overall satisfaction with facilities “ ”

Intentions Intentions for 2016 Category response: Remain, Transfer, Seek promotion, Other (Please

Specify).

Likelihood of moving schools within the

next 3 years

5 point Likert Scale: Very Likely, Likely, Unlikely, Very Unlikely,

Undecided

Intention to remain in teaching profession Category response: 1-3 years; 3-6 years; 6-10; 10 or more years;

Retirement Age; Other (Please specify)

26


Firstly, this research’s purpose is to establish suggestive findings. This point cannot be

laboured enough. The findings are not statistically strong, but are tentative and suggest

directions for further research. The research is instead, exploratory, as this is the first kind of

research on this topic in Australia.

Secondly, the research seeks to test the research instrument, for improvement. Most notably,

the questionnaire will be tested across contexts and feedback will be sought formally and

informally from the teachers taking part in the study.

Procedure

A maximum variation sampling strategy was followed. A list was generated of schools that

represented different levels of resources and facilities within the northern region of

Melbourne. After this list was generated, the schools were sent a ‘letter of approach’

explaining the research, addressed directly to the principal of each school. Following this

letter, a phone call was made, most often a voicemail was left, then an email explaining the

project in a simpler way, focussing on the important details of the research. Schools that

agreed to participate were delivered the questionnaires, Plain Language Statements for

participating teachers and a reply-paid envelope in which they could return the documents.

Data was gathered over the period of a single school term, Term 4, 2015.

Limitations

The scope of this project was limited by the timeframe of one year which reduced the

capacity to involve a large number of schools in the project. For this reason, the number of

27


schools approached was small, all located within one easily accessible school region. In

addition, when approaching schools seeking participants, the request was for 5 or more

teacher participants per school, which assisted with schools’ willingness to assist, but also

limited the sample size significantly.

Sampling

The procedure for producing this sample was begun by shortlisting a number of schools that

are located within the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne. Schools were selected

using a maximum variation sampling strategy to include schools with a wide range of

resourcing levels, from very well resourced to poorly resourced. The participants for this

research are high school teachers drawn from schools within the northern metropolitan region

of Melbourne. The sample of this research was a total of 40 secondary school teachers.

Secondary schools were selected due to familiarity with this system. Within the sample, 26

were female, 13 were male, and 1 respondent elected not to select either of these options.

The sample represented a wide variety of levels of teaching experience, from less than 1 year

to 38 years. Notably, 12 of the 40 teachers were within their first five years of teaching

because this group of teachers is considered most at risk of leaving the profession.

Participants ranged in age from 21 to 56 and above years of age.

Overview of region

The research took place within the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne. These suburbs

show a high level of diversity of populations, with overall low SES populations, but with

pockets of inner-urban wealth. It features a high level of students with language backgrounds

other than English. This area also features low level of parental education, and high

unemployment among the parents of the students.

28


Overview of schools

School 1

School 1 is a government secondary school that is co-educational, and is focused around

using ICT in the classrooms. The buildings are old, perhaps 1970s, but have been repurposed

to support a more modern, open-plan learning environment. The student pathways at this

school are 36% to university, 41% to vocational study and 0% of students in employment,

with the remaining percentage being unaccounted for. The school has 27% of students with a

language background other than English. The school did not report their students’ ICSEA

data, and as such it cannot be accessed from the MySchool website. The school has put aside

textbooks and libraries, and classrooms feature only token, small-sized whiteboards. The

school has a small cohort of 129 students, catered for by 27 teachers.

School 2

School 2 is a government, co-educational high school, catering for students from Year 7 to

Year 12. It is situated on large grounds, with a focus on the sustainability of the school

grounds. The school boasts a radio and TV studio, as well as a commercial kitchen, making it

ideal for VCAL and VET enrolments. The school has 171 VET placements, and 79 school-

based apprenticeships and traineeships. The school has an increasingly affluent community,

with a large student community of 1192. Of these students, 44% have a language background

other than English,and 4% of the school cohort is Indigenous. The school has “Well-

resourced modern facilities, including comfortable air-conditioned classrooms” (Department

of Education and Training, 2015). Of the 1192 enrolments, 742 them are boys, with only 450

girls, catered to by 84 teachers. The ICSEA distribution shows that 30% were in the ‘bottom

quarter’, and 16% were in the ‘top quarter’.

29


School 3

School 3 is an inner-city secondary government school that draws students from beyond its

surrounding areas for some of its specialist programs. The school is relatively large with

1,303 students catered to by 108 teachers, with a diverse student population; 59% of its

students have a language background other than English. The school is situated in large

grounds with relatively new buildings, including a new science lab building. The school has

an ICSEA score higher than the mean, with 58% of students drawn from the top 25% of the

ICSEA. 83% of students go on to study at university, which suggests that the school has an

aspirational focus for students and parents. The school teaches students from Year 7-12 in a

co-educational setting. The original 1930s buildings have had progressive additions and

renovations, in 2004 and 2007. Students are encouraged to take control of their own learning.

School 4

School 4 is an inner-city, co-educational, Government Secondary school that teaches students

from Years 7 to 12. The school has a student population of around 900, catered to by around

70 teachers. The student gender breakdown is reasonably even. The population has 1%

Indigenous students, and only 15% of the students have a language background other than

English. The ICSEA distribution showed that only 4% were in the bottom quartile, and 66%

were in the top quartile. The student pathways were 59% to University, 11% to TAFE /

vocational study, and 3% to employment. The school is located on relatively small grounds,

but has access to shared facilities, especially in regards to sports facilities. The buildings date

back to the 1970s, and have witnessed a number of renovations. The school makes reference

to the stability of its teaching population in their promotion materials.

30


Coding

After the data was collected it was organised and collated using Microsoft Excel. When re-

organised it was entered into SPSS which was used for the statistical analysis. The Likert

scale questions were analysed with those questions that were mostly positively and negatively

responded to were separated and further analysed. With each of the four options being coded

as numbers, then correlations between different categories being sought.

In regards to demographic data, each schools opinions on resource perception were analysed

using a Chi square to seek relationships between the school sites and the participants views

on resources and facilities.

Ethics

The research was approved by the Melbourne Graduate School of Education Human Ethics

Advisory Group (MSGE HEAG) and by the Department of Education and Training

(Victoria). Every possible avenue was pursued to protect the participants’ rights. Specifically,

all questionnaires were returned anonymously, with no identifiers ever being attached to the

documents. Pains were taken so that the schools, or the teachers, that participated were not

able to be identified. In addition, all data was stored securely in locked facilities, or on

password protected computers. The data will not be retained beyond 5 years, and will be

destroyed after this time. Schools are referred to by pseudonyms.

31


Results

What is the relationship between teacher career intentions and teacher perceptions of

resources and facilities?

Looking at the main question of this study, we must seek a relationship between six key

points of correlation. Relationships between intentions to move, intentions to remain, and

perceived expectations regarding length of time at the school and perceptions of school

facilities, resources, and resources compared to an ideal school will be examined.

Relationships will be sought between the three aspects of teacher movement intentions and

the three questions in regards to the perception of resources and facilities.

The questions asked in regards to perceptions were the following:

Overall how satisfied are you with the resources at your school?

How do you feel your school facilities compare to your ideal school?

Overall how satisfied are you with the facilities at your school?

Respondents were asked to respond to each of these statements on a 10 point scale, from 1-

10. The question that called for a comparison between facilities and ideal schools, also

included the following descriptors along its 10-point scale, with 1: Far from ideal, 5:

Acceptable, 10: Ideal.

The following question was asked in regard to teacher movement:

What are your intentions for 2016?

32


Responses to this question required selection of a category there were three options: ‘Remain

at the same school’; ‘Transfer to another school in an equivalent position’; ‘Seek promotion

in another school’, or ‘Other (Please specify)’, which provided a number of different

responses.

How likely are you to move to a different school within the next 3 years?

Responses to these questions were again using a Likert scale with the following options:

‘Very Likely’, ‘Likely’, ‘Unlikely’, ‘Very Unlikely’, and ‘Undecided’.

How long do you intend to stay in teaching?

Respondents were required to select one of the following possible categories: ‘1-3 years’; ‘3-

6 years’, ‘6-10 years’; ’10 or more years’; ‘retirement age’; ‘Other (Please specify)’.

Table 2 displays the correlations between participants’ responses to the question ‘How likely

are you to move to a different school within the next 3 years?’, “How long do you intend to

stay in teaching?” and the three ranking questions in regards to their perception of facilities at

their schools.

33


Table 2: All Schools: Pearson’s Correlation for Perception of resources and facilities and

Intentions

Move Likelihood Significance How long to stay Significance

Facilities versus ideal -.319 .047 .003 .984

Overall Facilities -.407 .010 .107 .518

Overall Resources -.458 .003 .161 .328

As would be expected, the strongest positive correlation is between the three aspects of

resource and facilities, each rated along a 10-point scale. ‘Overall facilities’ positively

correlates with ‘facilities compared to an ideal school’ at .910 (P = 0.01). ‘Overall facilities’

also positively correlates with ‘Overall resources’ at .911 (P = 0.01). This indicates that there

is a high level of agreement between the overall scores selected for all three aspects of

resources and facilities.

Most notably, neither perceptions of ‘Overall resources’, ‘Overall facilities’, nor ‘Facilities

compared to an ideal school’ revealed any significant correlation with how long respondents

intended to remain in the teaching profession. This suggests that the perceived quality of

resources and facilities has no impact on respondents’ long-term plans in regards to leaving

the profession (wastage).

The factor that most clearly displayed a relationship was the self-reported likelihood of

movement to a new school within the next three years and all low levels of satisfaction with

three aspects of resource and facilities perception. In regards to the likelihood of movement

within the next three years there was an observable relationship with perceptions of resources

and facilities. The relationship was strongest in regards to resources, with a negative

34


correlation of -.458, (P = 0.01). That is, teachers who were most negative about the quality of

resources at their current schools were more likely to indicate that they intended to transfer

schools in the next three years. The relationship between facilities and intentions to move

was less strong but nevertheless significant, displaying a negative correlation of -.407 (P =

0.05). This suggests that teachers who were most negative about their school’s facilities were

also more likely to consider moving schools.

There was a negative correlation between facilities compared to an ideal school, and

intentions for the next three years, (R =-.319, P = 0.47). This suggests that teachers do

consider an ideal school when planning for the next three years, but less so than perceived

poor quality resources and facilities.

This seems to indicates that teachers do consider ideal schools when carrying out semi long-

term planning (as indicated by their three year intentions) overall. However, this has less of

an impact on intentions than their immediate working conditions, which have a stronger

impact on their likelihood of movement within the next three years. It is notable that overall

dissatisfaction with resources was more strongly correlated with movement intentions than

overall dissatisfaction with facilities. This could indicate that resources have a stronger effect

on teacher turnover at a school level than facilities. This possibility will be addressed in the

discussion section.

How satisfied are secondary teachers with facilities at their current school?

Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation in response to facilities questions from all

participants, with the standard deviation for each item presented. To produce this table, the 4

point Likert scale was coded numerically to produce an indicative mean score.

35


Participants responded to each statement by selecting a ‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’,

‘Agree’, or ‘Strongly Agree’ response. These were coded as follows: Strongly Agree as 4,

Agree as 3, Disagree as 2, and Strongly Disagree as 1.

Table 3: All Schools: Mean and standard deviation in response to facilities questions

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Facility 1: I am able to control and monitor the temperature in my classrooms 2.12 .97

Facility 2: I am able to make changes to seating arrangements 3.25 .78

Facility 3: I have room to make changes to seating arrangements 2.98 .70

Facility 4: I am able to control the natural light within my classrooms 2.50 .88

Facility 5: I am able to control the artificial light within my classrooms 3.00 .88

Facility 6: I can control the level of noise inside my classroom 2.90 .90

Facility 7: I can control the level of noise outside my classroom 2.05 .90

Facility 8: The classroom and teaching spaces are sufficient for my students 2.88 .85

Facility 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching. 2.73 .81

Facility 10: The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to

innovate 2.70 .82

Facility 11: The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to

perform a variety of teaching and learning activities 2.80 .79

Facility 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the

students 2.79 .73

Facility 13: The facilities at my school force teachers to use certain teaching and

learning activities 2.73 .78

36


The statements that respondents showed high levels of agreement with were centred on

seating, artificial light, noise inside the classroom, sufficiency of resources and teaching

spaces, their ability to use a variety of teaching activities, and that facilities forced teaching

into using into specific teaching styles.

The statements with which participants were most likely to agree with:

I am able to make changes to seating arrangements (Mean = 3.25)

I am able to control the artificial light within my classrooms (Mean = 3)

I have room to make changes to seating arrangements (Mean = 2.975)

I can control the level of noise inside my classroom (Mean = 2.9)

The classroom and teaching spaces are sufficient for my students (Mean = 2.87)

The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to perform a

variety of teaching and learning activities (Mean = 2.8)

Overall, these statements did not display high levels of agreement, which suggests that there

is room for improvement in regards to facilities.

The statements that were met with only moderate levels of agreement related to natural light,

and whether the classroom sends positive messages, supports good teaching, and allows

innovation.

The statements that elicited these types of responses were:

The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the students (Mean

= 2.79)

The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching (Mean = 2.72)

The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to innovate

(Mean = 2.7)

I am able to control the natural light within my classrooms (Mean = 2.5)

37


Overall, the moderate agreement with these statements suggests that teachers do not believe

strongly that their classrooms support good teaching, or allow innovation. Only moderate

agreement in regards to the positive message the facilities at their schools send might suggest

either that respondents do not perceive that their facilities achieve this, or that respondents

themselves may not value this aspect of facilities. Lastly, and most simply, the lack of

agreement in regards to controlling natural light within classrooms indicates that facilities at

participants’ schools may be poorly designed, or lack functional blinds or similar apparatus

for controlling natural light.

The two statements that generated relatively high levels of disagreement among participants

focused on the degree of control teachers had over temperature and noise outside the

classroom.

The statements that drew these responses were as follows:

I am able to control and monitor the temperature in my classrooms (Mean = 2.12)

I can control the level of noise outside my classroom (Mean = 2.05)

Overall, the level of disagreement with these two factors shows that teachers do not feel they

can control the temperature of their teaching environment. Notably, the levels of

disagreement are not extreme, which may suggest that teachers are generally positive in

regards to their facilities, or alternatively that temperature inside and noise outside their

classrooms are not among their primary concerns. In regards to facilities, the aforementioned

factors were most impactful, which elements were most impactful in regards to resources?

38


‘How satisfied are secondary teachers with resources at their current school?’

The statements with which participants indicated high levels of agreement were centred on

ICT access, and its use to expand teaching, AV resources, laptops and tablets, and

photocopying. These statements are listed below:

My students have access to individual laptops or tablets (Mean = 3.22)

My access to photocopying is sufficient (Mean = 3.20)

I have appropriate access to ICT resources to carry out my teaching (Mean = 3.15)

My access to ICT allows me to expand my teaching activities (Mean = 3.05)

I am able to access audio-visual resources as needed (Mean = 2.97)

The statements that were met with moderate levels of agreement were those probing access to

textbooks, resources to display work, and to beautify the classroom.

All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials such as textbooks

(Mean = 2.6)

I have access to resources to display student work (Mean = 2.52)

I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms (Mean = 2.35)

There were no statements that elicited overall disagreeing responses (that is, a mean of 2 or

less).

Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation in response to resource statements from all

schools. To produce this data the four possible responses, ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’,

39


‘Disagree’, and ‘Strongly Disagree’, were coded numerically as follows: Strongly Agree as 4,

Agree as 3, Disagree as 2, and Strongly Disagree as 1.

Table 4: All Schools: Mean and standard deviation in response to resource statements

Mean Standard

Deviation

Resource statement 1: I have appropriate access to ICT resources to carry out my teaching 3.15 .62

Resource statement 2: My access to ICT allows me to expand my teaching activities 3.05 .60

Resource statement 3: All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials

such as textbooks 2.60 1.01

Resource statement 4: I am able to access audio-visual resources as needed 2.98 .80

Resource statement 5: My students have access to individual laptops or tablets 3.23 .70

Resource statement 6: My access to photocopying is sufficient 3.20 .79

Resource statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms 2.35 .83

Resource statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work 2.53 .87

Was there a relationship between responses to specific facilities statements and

movement intentions for the following three years?

Responses to the statement, “How likely are you to move to a different school within the next

3 years?” displayed a correlation with the following factors: ‘overall resources’ at -.458 (P =

.003); ‘overall facilities’ at -.407 (P = 0.10)’ and ‘facilities compared to an ideal school’ at -

.319 (P =.047). This significant level of correlation explained in more detail above, suggests

that a closer study of the responses to the individual statements for each of these factors may

be fruitful. To achieve this both resources and facilities statements were analysed seeking to

40


locate a relationship between responses to each individual statement and movement

intentions.

In regards to facilities, the statements that were most of interest are those provided below.

These statements showed a reasonable level of correlation, on par with the findings in regards

to the main research question, and they indicate that there may be some relationship between

perception of facilities and movement intentions. This pattern appears at least as it regards

their likelihood of moving within the next three years.

Facilities statements

Table 5 displays the correlation between likelihood of movement for the next three years

(recorded on the table as ‘move likelihood’), and specific statements.

Table 5: All Schools: Pearson’s correlation of move likelihood and responses to

statements of interest for facilities

Correlation Significance

Facilities statement 7: I can control the level of noise outside my classroom -.406 .010

Facilities statement 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good

teaching.

-.474 .002

Facilities statement 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of

success to the students

-.447 .005

The statements that were mostly responded to with a ‘disagree’ were statement 1: “I am able

to control and monitor the temperature in my classrooms”, which did not have a notable

correlation with movement intentions. Whilst statement 7: “I can control the level of noise

outside my classroom”, which had a negative correlation with “likelihood of movement

41


within the next 3 years” was -.406 (P =.010). This suggests that the ability to control and

monitor the temperature in a classroom does not factor in semi-long term planning, but that a

perceived level of noise outside of the classroom may impact on teachers’ intentions. Those

who disagree on their ability to control this factor also being more likely to intend to move

schools within the next three years.

The statements that exhibited high levels of standard deviation were:

Statement 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching (SD = 0.81)

Statement 10: The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to

innovate (SD = 0.81)

Statement 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the

students (SD = 0.73)

Statement 13: The facilities at my school force teachers to use certain teaching and

learning activities. (SD = 0.78)

Of these statements, only three had notable correlations. Interestingly, statement nine: ‘The

classroom spaces at my school support good teaching.’ was negatively correlated with move

likelihood, with -.474 (P = .002). Statement 10: ‘The range of classroom and teaching spaces

in my school allows me to innovate’ displayed a negative correlation of -.324 (P = .044).

Further, Statement 12, “The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the

students”, had a -.447 (P = .005) correlation with move likelihood over the next three years.

That is, participants who were disagreed with the statement that their facilities support good

teaching, and send a positive message of success to students, were also more likely to intend

to leave their current school within the next three years. In addition, teachers who responded

42


negatively to the teaching spaces at their school allowing innovation were more likely to

intend to leave within the next three years. It is difficult to ascertain individual teachers’

conceptions of a classroom that allows innovation, but their perceptions of this factor is

impactful upon their movement intentions. The remaining statements showed non-significant

correlations. Overall, there was a relationship between only three of the six statements

considered. With these three statements each having a relationship between poor perceptions

of these factors and the intended likelihood of moving schools within the next three years.

Conversely, a respondent that agreed with ‘classroom spaces support good teaching’, ‘I can

control the level of noise outside my classroom’ and ‘facilities send a positive message to

students’ is likely to intend to remain at their school for the next three years.

Is there a relationship between responses to resource statements and three year

movement intentions?

In regards to resources, the questions that were most of interest were those provided below.

These questions showed a stronger level of correlation even than the main research question,

and the earlier questions in regards to facilities, although it must be noted that this level of

correlation is still only considered ‘moderate’. However, these levels of correlation are the

highest recorded in this study. It also indicates that there may be a relationship between

respondents’ views of the resources at their school and their likelihood of movement within

the next three years.

Table 6 displays the correlation between likelihood of movement for the next three years

(recorded on the table as ‘move likelihood’) and perceptions of school resources.

43


Table 6: All participants: Correlations between likelihood of moving and school

resources

Correlation Significance

Resource statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms -.599 .000

Resource statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work -.504 .001

Resource statements with the highest level of standard deviation

Statement 3: All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials such

as textbooks (SD = 1.000)

Statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms (SD = .833)

Statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work (SD = .876)

Similar to facilities statements, only a small number of resource statements showed a

moderate correlation with move likelihood within the next three years.

Responses to the statement about textbook sufficiency were negatively correlated with move

likelihood for the next three years at -.309 (P = .056), and there was a .658 positive

correlation (P = .000) between responses to the statement about access to resources to

beautify the classroom and perceived likelihood of moving in the next three years. Lastly,

statement 8 “I have access to resources to display student work” revealed a .725 positive

correlation (P = .000 level) with movement intentions for the next three years. This suggest

that the provision of textbooks, access to resources to beautify classrooms, and to resources to

display student work may impact on teacher movement decisions. Respondents who did not

feel they had appropriate access to course materials and textbooks were more likely to intend

to move schools. By contrast, respondents who perceived their schools as providing resources

44


to display students work and beautify their classrooms were more likely to intend remaining

at the school. This may be because respondents at these schools feel that this lack of access

to resources represents a lack of appreciation for their work as teachers, or alternatively, that

these two aspects of resources are indicative of a more generalised lack of resources at these

respondents’ sites. The negative correlations for these particular questions are some of the

strongest overall recorded in this study, which may suggest possible solutions for teacher

turnover, and movement between sites. This will be addressed in greater detail in the

discussion section.

What is the relationship between teaching experience and likelihood of teacher

movement?

Previous research indicates that teachers tend to move schools more often within the first five

years of their teaching careers (Barnes & et al., 2007; Harris & Adams, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001,

2001b; Manuel, 2003; Loeb & et al., 2005). As this connection was commonly found in the

literature, a number of different aspects were considered in regards to teacher experience. The

concept of experience was broadened not only to include the amount of time for which

teachers had been teaching, but also their level of education, whether or not they were

currently studying, and whether or not they were in their first five years of teaching. None of

these factors had any significant relationship with these respondents’ answers in regards to

their likelihood of movement within the next three years, or how long they intend to remain

in the teaching profession. The reasons for this will be considered more closely in the

discussion section.

45


Do intending ‘leavers’, ‘stayers’, and ‘movers’ perceive the resources and facilities at

their schools differently?

Table 7 displays the mean responses to overall to resources and facilities, grouped by

respondent’s intentions. The questions for overall satisfaction with facilities was ‘Overall

how satisfied are you with the facilities at your school?’, whilst for resources it read ‘Overall

how satisfied are you with the resources at your school?’ It seeks to identify if those

intending to move perceive the quality of their school’s facilities and resources differently

from those intending to stay.

Figure 1: All Schools: Histogram Graph, Responses to Overall Facilities and Overall

Resources, grouped by 2016 Intentions.

Remain at school (N=32), Transfer to another school (N=6), Leave the profession (N =1).

46


Figure 1 above shows the mean scores in regards to facilities and resources, separated out by

the intentions of these groups. Firstly, the small sample-size overall, and secondly, the

relatively small size of the comparison groups means that these findings are very tentative.

Respondents were separated into the following three categories ‘remain’ for those

respondents who intend to stay at their school, ‘transfer’ for those who intended to move

schools, and lastly, ‘wastage’ for those intending to leave the profession. The ‘Remain’ group

represents 32 participants, there are 6 participants in the ‘Transfer’ group, which leaves

‘Wastage’ represented by 1 participant. In addition, one respondent selected ‘Other’ and

noted they intended to ‘Combine study with teaching’, which was included in the ‘remain’

group. 1 participant failed to select any option for this section. Despite these reservations in

regards to the overall sample, and specific examples within this, it is possible to see a

difference between these groups with intending “stayers” being almost 2 full points more

positive in regards to both facilities and resources than intending “movers”, and the one

participant that represents ‘Wastage’ placed between these two groups. Therefore, differences

appear to exist between the three groups but the size of the wastage and transfer groups

means no firm conclusions can be drawn. A chi-square test was completed to compare

groups. Movement intentions were significantly related to perceptions of overall resources,

χ2 (24) = 38.993, p = .027. This test supports the fact that respondents who intended to

remain at their school viewed resources more positively, whilst respondents who intended to

transfer to a new school viewed their resources comparatively less positively overall. The

relationship with facilities was not significant. The reasons behind this pattern could be

numerous, and these will be pursued in more detail in the discussion section. However, three

compelling possibilities are as follows. It could suggest that respondents who know they do

not intend to remain at their school begin to see faults in their current school. Alternatively,

47


respondents who perceive resources and facilities more poorly are more likely to move

schools. Or, that the schools with the most high quality resources and facilities perform more

effectively at retaining their teachers. These and other possible explanations will be pursued

in the discussion section.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings of this study are as follows. Respondents showed that they perceived

resources and facilities similarly, and there was a high level of agreement between these two

factors. Perceptions of resources and facilities as shown by any of the measures applied

during this study, did not have any significant relationship with how long teachers intended to

remain in the profession. There was a relationship between perceptions of resources,

facilities, and movement intentions within the next three years. Overall though, the quality of

resources had the strongest relationship with movement intentions, followed by facilities, and

lastly, facilities compared to an ideal school. Generally speaking teachers were overall

positive about their facilities and resources, but not to a strong degree. Five clear items

emerged as most strongly related to movement intentions within the next three years. These

statements, in order of significance were as follows:

Resource statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms (-.658, P

= .000)

Resource statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work (-.725, P =

.000)

Facilities statement 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching. (-

.474, P = .002)

48


Facilities statement 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of success

to the students (-.447, P = .005)

Facilities statement 7: I can control the level of noise outside my classroom (-.406, P

= .010)

It also established that no aspect of experience had any significant impact on movement

intentions within the next three years. Lastly, it established that grouping respondents by their

movement intentions showed that each group had different perceptions of the resources and

facilities at their school.

49


Discussion

The findings from this study suggest that teachers’ perceptions of resources and facilities do

have an impact on movement intentions, which confirms the work of Schneider (2002; 2003).

Schneider’s research looked at a large sample drawn from Chicago and Washington, D.C.

and found that teachers who ranked their schools’ facilities a ‘C’ rank or lower (where A was

highly positive and F negative) were more likely to consider moving schools or leaving the

profession, with 40 percent considering transfer and 30 percent considering leaving the

profession altogether. This study cannot be replicated here, due to the low numbers of

respondents who intended to transfer (6) and those intending to leave the profession (1).

However, this study confirms the pattern that perceptions of facilities do have a relationship

with movement intentions in that respondents who were more dissatisfied with facilities were

more likely to report intending to move schools or leave the profession.

Teachers in this study were overall satisfied with their resources and facilities, but more

positive in regards to resources than facilities. This study did not establish a relationship

between years of teaching experience and likelihood of teachers transferring schools.

It found that grouping teachers by their intentions revealed different patterns of perceptions

of resources and facilities. The pattern was that teachers intending to remain at their current

schools viewed their schools resources and facilities overall positively whilst those intending

to transfer schools or leave the profession had a comparatively less positive view of their

school’s resources and facilities.

50


It also found relationships between specific aspects of resources and facilities and movement

intentions, which will be covered below.

Whilst these findings are drawn from a small sample (40 respondents, from 4 schools), they

replicate the results from a number of larger scale studies, especially a small number of

studies which inspired this study. As such, attention will be paid to how the findings of this,

small study fit within the broader body of research in regards to the topics addressed.

In regards to teacher satisfaction, the work of Dinham and Scott (1996, 1998, 2000) has been

especially influential. In their 1997 study, they found on surveying 892 teaching staff that

regardless of experience and job retention, most teachers identified the same intrinsic

motivators were linked to positive teacher satisfaction. These intrinsic factors are all linked to

engaging with students, ‘light-bulb moments’ and improving the behaviour or work output of

challenging students. They also suggest that aspects of schools that limit, or inhibit teachers’

ability to achieve these intrinsic forms of motivation are ultimately dissatisfying. This

discussion illustrates a number of factors that teachers were dissatisfied with, which may well

be due to the ways that their provision or access impacts upon their teaching. This also

connects with the motivator-hygiene model of Herzberg (1966), which posits that there are

two forces: those that satisfy and those that are required to allow satisfaction to occur.

Looking at the factors referred to by respondents indicates a number of factors that inhibit

their ability to enjoy the intrinsic satisfactions of their job which come from teaching

students.

51


Resources and intentions to move schools or leave the profession

It is worth noting that firstly, the largest and most broadly interesting finding of the study was

that resources displayed a more powerful relationship than facilities with regards to

movement intentions, in that those who were more negative about their school’s resources

were more likely to be intending to transfer schools.

This is a clear and consistent pattern across all of the results of the study. It is worth pausing

to consider the reasons for this pattern at a school level, as well as more broadly at a system

and societal level. Within the studied inner-city schools, teachers noted that they had

sufficient access to classrooms, which could suggest that facilities are not in a state of deficit

or concern. This is true at least at the four schools being studied, or potentially more broadly,

in all inner city schools. This could be due to these schools being located in the city, rather

than in a rural or remote community which are typically less well resourced (Monk 2007;

Plunkett & Dyson 2011; Welch & et al., 2007). However, it could also be that resources are

viewed as the essential tools that enable teachers to perform their work.

The difference found between the importance placed on resources and facilities could also be

due to teacher perceptions about what poor facilities or resources mean. At a school level

teachers may interpret poor resources and facilities differently. The general perception may

be that facility improvement is funded by the state government, or at the level of the

education department, whilst resourcing is provided at the school level. So, poor resources

might be interpreted as indicating that the school leadership does not value teachers or their

work, while poor facilities might be taken less personally, as being the result of decisions by

distant bureaucrats. For this reason, poor resourcing might increase teacher dissatisfaction

more than poor facilities, leading to decisions to transfer schools.

52


The study provided this list of resources for respondents to consider: Information &

Communication Technologies (ICT), Audio-visual (AV) resources, textbooks / instructional

materials, laptops / devices, photocopying, resources to display student work, and resources

to beautify classrooms.

Teachers were overall satisfied with ICT, AV resources, laptops / devices, and access to

photocopying. These resources could be considered some of the essential teaching elements

of modern classrooms, so it is a positive sign that respondents were satisfied with their access

to them. This suggests the four school sites surveyed do not need to focus on these aspects.

The factors that are most closely linked with teacher intentions to transfer and those which

generated the most disagree responses are those that these school sites should improve, which

may improve teacher retention at their school.

The items for which respondents expressed most dissatisfaction referred to access to

textbooks and instructional materials, resources to display students’ work and resources to

beautify classrooms.

Dissatisfaction with resources to beautify and display student work was strongly correlated

with movement intentions. Resources to beautify classrooms and display work are clearly

additive aspects beyond the minimal requirements of a classroom. However, participants’

responses suggest that teachers see them as important. Though these two aspects are

different, they will be addressed together here, as the possible reasons and potential

recommendations are similar. These two factors are more commonly considered in relation to

primary schools, and the majority of research is also focused at this level (Barrett & Barrett &

53


Zhang, 2016). However, the link between these aspects and transfer intentions appear to

suggest either that respondents value these factors in themselves, or that they feel that

provision of or access to these resources reflect the valuing of their work. Findings here are

similar to those of Gronberg, Jansen and Taylor (2011), who argued that quality resources are

“an important, unmeasured dimension of school quality” (p8). The clearest response to this

concern would be for schools to provide funds for resources for this purpose (such as display

cabinets). However, this alone is not sufficient.

Discussing a statement drawn from the facilities area seems logical here. The statement, ‘The

facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the students’ displayed a

significant negative correlation with movement intentions. This statement can be viewed as

another summary statement, due to the fact that it has a positive correlation with both ‘I have

access to resources to beautify my classrooms’ and ‘I have access to resources to display

student work’. This suggests that for teachers, an ideal classroom is one that is beautiful,

decorated, and sends a positive message of success to students, one in which students’ work

is displayed.

This statement, ‘All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials such as

textbooks’ was negatively correlated with movement intentions. There could be several

reasons for this. Firstly, textbooks are generally expected to be provided by students’

families, except in cases where additional funding can be accessed to redress disadvantage.

As such, the responses to this statement could indicate that dissatisfaction with this factor

reflects a high percentage of low-SES students in the school, as these students are most likely

to be unable to afford textbooks. The school that had ‘banned’ textbooks (School 1) showed

that each school has different levels of dissatisfaction, but also that this site was not the only

54


site of dissatisfaction with textbooks. Alternatively, this data could indicate that where there

is a gap between expected levels of textbook provision and actual, respondents expect the

school administration to address this gap through funding.

Facilities and intentions to move schools, or leave the profession

Satisfaction with facilities also showed a relationship with movement intentions in that a low

level of satisfaction with facilities increased the likelihood of participants reporting that they

intended to move schools, or leave the profession. This aligns with the findings of Corcoran,

Walker and White (1998) who noted a positive relationship between the quality of facilities

and teacher satisfaction. It also aligns with the work of McGowen (2007), who found that

poor facilities were associated with increased teacher turnover. With support spaces,

classrooms that service and support the main classroom space, having a positive impact on

teacher retention when present, and turnover when absent.

In regards to facilities, teachers were asked to respond to the following items: seating

arrangements, artificial light, room to change seating, noise inside the classroom, sufficiency

of classrooms, ability to perform a variety of activities, facilities send a positive message,

classrooms support good teaching, allow innovation, natural light, noise outside classroom,

and temperature in classrooms.

Overall, respondents were relatively satisfied with these factors: seating arrangements,

artificial light, room to change seating, noise inside the classroom, sufficiency of classrooms,

able to perform a variety of activities, facilities send a positive message, classrooms support

55


good teaching, allow innovation, and natural light. This suggests that the schools studied met

the majority of the basic requirements of teachers in regards to classroom spaces.

The statements ‘I am able to control the natural light within my classrooms’ was overall

responded to with agreement which confirmed earlier research, whilst, ‘I am able to control

the artificial light within my classrooms’ only elicited moderate agreement. However,

teachers in this study only responded moderately positively with their ability to control

natural light within their classrooms, which may mean that blinds, and similar ways of

controlling natural light would be an improvement at the schools studied. The ability to

control natural light is notable due to being a design factor, and may be particularly important

if teachers wish to ‘black-out’ classrooms for the purpose of presentations and projections.

This raises the question of whether the ability to control natural light was linked to teachers’

perception of whether their classrooms support good teaching, and whether they allow them

to innovate. Correlations bear this out as likely, with a positive and significant correlation for

these two statements with ‘I am able to control natural light within my classrooms’. This

suggests that this basic requirement of teachers in their classrooms has a strong relationship

with their perception of whether the classrooms support good teaching and allow innovation.

Artificial light is a simple issue to address in schools, whilst natural light is less so, due to

being more closely tied to wider design aspects in schools, and classrooms specifically. It is

worth considering which schools had the highest level of disagreement with statements in

regards to these two forms of light. School 1 and 4 showed the highest proportion of low

levels of satisfaction with their perceived ability to control natural light. A further study could

be considered, that was targeted at these factors, and looking for the design features that

support control of natural light for teachers. It is interesting to note that School 1 is unique

from the other three schools studied in the respect that it features a number of buildings that

are relatively newly built and designed. These buildings utilise an ‘open plan’ layout and

56


feature numerous internal and external glass walls. This could suggest that teachers are more

comfortable when they have control over natural light, which may be easier to achieve in

more dated, or traditional facilities, rather than in the more modern, open-plan facilities.

The statement, ‘I can control the level of noise outside my classroom’ is doubly impactful

because it displays a high level of negative responses as well as a relationship with movement

intentions, so it will be addressed first. Responses to this statement were significantly

correlated with movement intentions - those who disagreed with this statement were

significantly more likely to report intending to move schools. It seems likely that this control

is important to teachers in the respect that it impacts upon their intrinsic enjoyment of the

teaching role. Schneider (2003) found that teachers in Chicago and Washington D.C. felt

their classrooms and hallways were so noisy that their student’s learning was negatively

affected. Schneider noted that these conditions impacted on teacher satisfaction and that

“many believed that school conditions affected their career decisions” (p.1). Responding to

teachers’ concerns about the level of noise outside the classroom is complex, as the quality of

classroom acoustics is largely determined by the design and construction of these classrooms,

and the hallways, and atriums.

Participants’ responses suggest issues with school design or student processes. Possible

solutions in regards to this are firstly and most affordably, to alter the timetable, or the

movement and management of students before, between, and following class times. These are

the times when there are likely to be most problematic noise concerns for teachers in adjacent

classes. Alternatively, at a system level, funding could be provided to improve schools which

have problematic designs, such as School 1. Small scale additive improvements could be

applied to these schools to improve the acoustics in troublesome areas within the school, for

57


example, by adding sound-absorbent materials to walls. Lastly, as Nabeleck and Nabeleck

(1994) noted the acoustic recommendations encouraged by research are rarely followed in

everyday learning environments. However, the relatively small connection with movement

intentions despite the high level of disagree responses indicates that this factor is rightly

overlooked, or considered as a lesser priority to address through intervention.

Participants overall disagreed with ‘The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school

allows me to innovate’. The research on classroom innovation, is often framed in terms of

access to ICT, particularly access to individual laptops and devices. However, responses to

the statements: ‘My students have access to individual laptops or tablets’, ‘I have appropriate

access to ICT resources to carry out my teaching’, and ‘My access to ICT allows me to

expand my teaching activities’, were among the most positively responded aspects of the

study. This seems to indicate quite strongly, that across the four schools studied, there is a

high level of access to ICT, both for the teachers, and the students. This contrasts with a low

level of agreement by participants with the statement that their classrooms allow them to

innovate. So it appears that good access to ICT facilities is not necessarily perceived by

teachers as highly important in facilitating innovation. Looking at individual schools, School

1 emerges as a prime candidate for improvement, with two ‘Strongly Disagrees’, seven

‘Disagrees’ from eleven respondents. However, as noted earlier School 1 features ‘open-

plan’, modern classrooms, which may indicate that teachers do not view ‘open-plan’

classrooms as particularly conducive to innovation.

The types of facilities that would allow teachers to feel they can innovate is not clear, as ICT

access, and newer, open-plan classrooms do not seem to provide the solution. This illustrates

58


a need for further research that focuses on teacher voice about the conditions they need to be

able to teach innovatively.

Teacher intentions influence on perceptions

Do intending ‘leavers’, ‘stayers’, and ‘movers’ perceive the resources and facilities at their

schools differently? The findings from this study in regards to this question confirm the study

of Emerick, Church and Fuller (2006) which found that teachers’ perceptions of their

school’s resources and teaching materials differed based upon their career intentions, with

‘leavers’ and ‘movers’ reporting less access to, and quality of, resources than stayers. Though

this study is very small scale, and the number of respondents who indicated they intended to

move schools, or leave the profession, was very small, the observed pattern was the same.

The reason for the observed pattern could be that movers and leavers are at schools with

poorer resources and facilities, which is consistent with the data, as all of the 6 intending to

move, and 1 intending leaver are from School 1. Other possibilities for this pattern could be

that respondents from the leaver (wastage) and mover (transfer) groups are more sensitive to,

or more aware of shortcomings in regards to resources and facilities, or are overall more

negative in their perception of resources and facilities due to their intentions to move schools

or leave the profession. Though the small scale sample suggests the first option is more

likely, the limited sample means that the other possibilities cannot be ruled out. Buckley,

Schneider and Shang (2004; 2005) also focused on similar factors to this study, and found in

Washington, D.C. and New York City, with a sample size of 835, that as teachers’

perceptions of the quality of school facilities improved, so too did the probability of retaining

that teacher in their school. There is also the possibility that there are other factors driving

down teacher morale and satisfaction at School 1 (for example, poor leadership) , and that

59


this then influences their perceptions of the facilities and resources at the school. The

possible solutions for this are consistent with elsewhere in the document, but it underlines

further that making changes to improve resources and facilities may assist in retaining

teachers, especially those from the ‘leaver’ (wastage), and ‘mover’ (transfer) groups.

Experience and Movement Intentions

In regards to the research question, ‘What is the relationship between teaching experience and

likelihood of teacher movement?’ the answer was the most surprising finding of the entire

study. Regardless of how experience was defined there was no significant relationship

between experience and intentions to move school or leave teaching. Furthermore, none of

the factors studied had an impact on how long teachers intended to remain in the profession.

This is surprising, due to the fact that a significant body of research has shown that teachers

in their first five years of teaching are significantly more likely to move schools, and at a

higher risk of leaving the profession (Barnes & et al., 2007; Harris & Adams, 2007; Ingersoll,

2001, 2001b; Loeb & et al., 2005). It is likely that this is something of an anomaly due to

sample size, rather than anything that overturns the findings of the studies. The sample is

simply too small, and the transfer group (6), and ‘leaver’, wastage group (1) are are too small.

The reason for this could be due to the relatively small number of Early Career Teachers

(ECT) in the sample, only 12 of the 40 respondents. However, it is interesting considering the

intention of this study was that this pattern would be able to be replicated, but in fact this was

not able to be established.

Potential future directions

60


Overall, the findings of this study suggest that it is most beneficial for schools or education

systems seeking to increase teacher retention at a school or system level to invest in better

resourcing than facilities. Dissatisfaction with resourcing was found to have the strongest

relationship with participants’ intentions to transfer schools or leave teaching.

Whilst it must be noted that teachers were satisfied overall with their facilities and resources,

they were rarely strongly satisfied, which may suggest some capacity to improve both.

Depending upon the level of funding available to schools or education systems, two different

levels of response are outlined in this discussion. The first series of interventions is based

around addressing those areas that are most likely to improve teacher retention, and limit

teacher movement away from schools. The second series of interventions is ranked by ease of

solution, and by the low cost involved. The third series of interventions represents a more

holistic and even-handed approach to school improvement as approached from a system

level.

If school leadership wishes to reduce teacher attrition from their school they should prioritise

the following factors, in the order of priority represented by their order of presentation. First,

provide teachers with easily accessible resources to beautify their classroom and to display

student work, as dissatisfaction with these has a high level of positive correlation with the

intention to transfer schools. Second, provide classroom spaces that support good teaching,

followed by facilities that send a positive message to students. Third, consider changes to

school processes and procedures that may support teachers to control the level of noise

outside their classrooms. Fourth, provide classrooms that support innovation (although what

61


these might look like would require additional research). Finally, ensure that teachers have

access to sufficient textbooks and instructional materials.

Given the financial constraints on schools, the following ordering of interventions may be

more cost-effective and less ambiguous in that they do not require further investigation and

are relatively practical to implement. The highest priority is to provide resources to display

student work. Second, upgrade or provide resources for teachers to beautify their classrooms.

Third, ensure all teachers and students have sufficient access to textbooks and instructional

facilities. Fourth, trial procedures and protocols with the aim of modifying the flow of human

traffic between corridors and hallways at key times so as to minimise the level of noise

outside classrooms. Further, these interventions are those that are most likely to impact upon

teachers ‘intrinsic’ satisfaction which they glean from the act of teaching.

These interventions overlook facilities because resources have been shown to have a stronger

relationship with movement, which suggests that improving resources may improve teacher

retention. However, overlooking facilities seems short sighted considering they are the

“largest and most important expenses, and the most enduring transaction of education

systems“(McGowen, 15, 2007). But given the sheer cost, and complexity of upgrading and

improving facilities, this seems most realistic.

In third-world countries, it has been found that improving facilities is more impactful on

teacher retention than increasing wages (Bennell, 2004; Chapman, 1994; Kemmerer, 1990;

McDonald, 1999; Olieveira & Farrell, 1993). However, unsurprisingly, the findings of this

study indicate that facilities in Australia are not as lacking as in these third world sites, as

indicated by teachers’ overall high level of satisfaction.

62


A less simplistic and more even-handed approach, regardless of cost, or budget, would be to

implement a holistic program of resource and facilities improvement based upon the most

current research in regards to creating learning spaces. This even-handed approach would

require supplying a certain budget in regard to each school site, followed by the staff at all

levels of that school completing some form of questionnaire of survey, similar in intent to

that used in this study. The results of such a study could then be analysed based on each

individual schools responses to tailor a roll-out of facility upgrades and resource-provision

improvements to meet the needs of the teachers at the individual school.

In regards to improving any aspect of a school’s resources or facilities, it is important to

consult teaching staff themselves, and as much as possible involve them in the process, as

this action alone, has been shown to have a positive impact on teachers’ perception of their

role in the teaching and learning process (Berry 2002; Dawson and Parker, 1998; Sommer &

Olsen, 1980). Lastly, Hirsch, Emerick, Church and Fuller (2006) concluded that working

conditions generally are a powerful lever that education systems can help reduce teacher

attrition, with resources and facilities being but one aspect of these conditions. This study has

shown more detail in regards to what teachers most value, and a number of options to address

these concerns.

63


References

Australian Broadcast Corporation Online (2015). Victorian teachers could receive millions in

repayments over 'unlawful' laptop leasing scheme. Accessed on 6/12/2015, retrieved from:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-07/teachers-may-be-repaid-millions-over-department-

laptop-scheme/6921128

Abelson, M. A. & Baysinger, B. D. (1984). Optimal and dysfunctional turnover: Toward an

organizational level model. Academy of management Review, 9 (2), 331-341.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2005). Acoustics in educational

settings: Technical report. Accessible from: www.asha.org/policy

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015). My School Website.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2015. Accessed on 22/11/2015,

retrieved from: http://www.myschool.edu.au/

Australian School of Business (2010). E-textbooks: The New Best-sellers. March 03, 2010 in

Knowledge @ Australian School of Business. Accessed on 10/9/2012, retrieved from:

http://knowledge.asb.unsw.edu.au/article.cfm?articleid=1077

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is: Or might be: The role of

curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational researcher, 6-

14.

Balkar, B. (2015). Defining an empowering school culture (ESC): Teacher perceptions.

Issues in Educational Research, 25 (3), 205-224.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barnes, G. & Crowe, E. & Schaefer, B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five school

districts: A pilot study. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s

Future. Retrieved October, 2015, from:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-07/teachers-may-be-repaid-millions-over-department-laptop-scheme/6921128

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-07/teachers-may-be-repaid-millions-over-department-laptop-scheme/6921128

http://www.asha.org/policy

http://www.myschool.edu.au/

http://knowledge.asb.unsw.edu.au/article.cfm?articleid=1077

64


http://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTFullReportfi

nal.pdf

Barrett, P. & Barrett, L. & Zhang, Y. (2015). Teachers' views of their primary school

classrooms. Intelligent Buildings International, I-16.

Baugh, W. H. & Stone, J. A. (1982). Mobility and wage equilibration in the educator labor

market. Economics of Education Review, 2(3), 253-274.

Bennell, P. (2004). Teacher motivation and incentives in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

Brighton: Knowledge and Skills for Development.

Benya, J. R., & Leban, D. J. (2011). Lighting Retrofit and Relighting: A Guide to Energy

Efficient Lighting. John Wiley & Sons.

Berry, M. A. (2002). Healthy School Environment and Enhanced Educational Performance:

The Case of Charles Young Elementary School, Washington, DC. Accessed on 11/12/2015,

retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED473985.pdf

Berry, B. (2004). Recruiting and retaining" highly qualified teachers" for hard-to-staff

schools. NASSP bulletin, 88 (638), 5-27.

Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher Retention and Attrition-in Special and General Education

A Critical Review of the Literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27 (2), 137-174.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational

administration quarterly, 37 (5), 662-683.

Bonis, S. & Bonis, N. (2011). Going Green: Managing a Paperless Classroom. US-China

Education. US-China Education Review A 1, 83-87.

Boyd, D. & Grossman, P. & Lankford, H. & Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Who leaves?

Teacher attrition and student achievement (No. w14022). National Bureau of Economic

Research.

http://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTFullReportfinal.pdf

http://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTFullReportfinal.pdf

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED473985.pdf

65


Boyd, D. & Lankford, H. & Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of

high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. American economic review,

166-171.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H. & Loeb, S. & Rockoff, J. & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap

in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-

poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27 (4), 793-818.

Boyd, D. & Lankford, H. & Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home: How

teachers' preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis

and Management, 24 (1), 113-132.

Boyd, D. & Lankford, H. & Loeb, S. & Ronfeldt, M. & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The role of

teacher quality in retention and hiring: Using applications to transfer to uncover preferences

of teachers and schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30 (1), 88-110.

Buckley, J. & Schneider, M. & Shang, Y. (2004). The Effects of School Facility Quality on

Teacher Retention in Urban School Districts. National Clearinghouse for Educational

Facilities.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Carnoy, M. & Ngware, M. & Oketch, M. (2015). The Role of Classroom Resources and

National Educational Context in Student Learning Gains: Comparing Botswana, Kenya, and

South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 59 (2), 199-233.

Cash, C. S. (1993). Building condition and student achievement and behaviour (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrievable from: https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-10052007

143026/ LD5655.V856_1993.C379.pdf

Cates, K. (1990). Teaching for a better world: Global issues in language education. The

Language Teacher, 14 (5), 3-5.

https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-10052007%20143026/%20LD5655.V856_1993.C379.pdf

https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-10052007%20143026/%20LD5655.V856_1993.C379.pdf

66


Chapman, D. W. (1990). The role of education management information systems in

improving education quality. Improving educational quality: A global perspective, 217-42.

Chapman, D. W. & Snyder, C. W. & Burchfield, S. A. (1993). Teacher incentives in the third

world. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9 (3), 301-316.

Chapman, D. W. (1994). Reducing teacher absenteeism and attrition: Causes, consequences

and responses. UNESCO, IIEP.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Stayers, leavers, lovers, and dreamers: Insights about teacher

retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 55 (5), 387.

Cohen, J. & McCabe, L. & Michelli, N. M. & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,

policy, practice, and teacher education. The Teachers College Record, 111 (1), 180-213.

Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a

mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. The Elementary School Journal, 287-

311.

Connell, R. (2007). Education, change and society. Oxford University Press, USA.

Corcoran, T. & Walker, L. & White, L. (1988). Working in Urban Schools. Institute for

Educational Leadership, 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW,# 310, Washington, DC.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, California.

Dalton, D. R. & Krackhardt, D. M. & Porter, L. W. (1981). Functional turnover: An

empirical assessment. Journal of applied psychology, 66 (6), 716.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.

National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. Kutztown Distribution Center, 15076

Kutztown Road, PO Box 326, Kutztown, PA.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy

analysis archives, 8, 1.

67


Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. The Teachers

College Record, 106 (6), 1047-1085.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Plank, D. N. (2015). Supporting Continuous Improvement in

California’s Education System. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Davy, T. (2007). E-textbooks: opportunities, innovations, distractions and dilemmas.

Thomson Learning EMEA Serials – 20 (2), July 2007. Accessed on 12/12/2012, retrieved

from: http://uksg.metapress.com/content/9y80hac8w4ynmnm9/fulltext.pdf

Dawson, C. & Parker, D. (1998). A Descriptive Analysis of the Perspectives of Neville High

School's Teachers Regarding the School's Renovation. Mid-South Educational Research Association

(New Orleans, LA, November 4-6, 1998).

de Dear, R. & Kim, J. & Candido, C. & Deuble, M. (2014). Summertime Thermal Comfort in

Australian School Classrooms. Counting the Cost of Comfort in a changing world.

Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK: NCEUB (Network for Comfort and Energy Use in

Buildings).

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations & Gonski, D. M. (2011).

Review of funding for schooling: final report. Australia. Department of Education,

Employment and Workplace Relations. Review of Funding for Schooling.

Department of Education and Training (2015). Right School Right Place: A Full Guide to

Victorian Government Schools Enrolling International Students (2015–16). International

Student Program, Department of Education and Training.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1996). Teacher Satisfaction, Motivation and Health: Phase One of

the Teacher 2000 Project. American Educational Research Association (New York, NY,

April 8-12, 1996).

Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive career

satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36 (4).

http://uksg.metapress.com/content/9y80hac8w4ynmnm9/fulltext.pdf

68


Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher

satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (4).

Donaldson, M. L. & Johnson, S. M. (2011). Teach for America teachers: How long do they

teach? Why do they leave? Phi Delta Kappan, 93 (2), 47-51.

Dougherty, W. (2010). E-Readers: Passing Fad or Trend of the Future? The Journal of

Academic Librarianship, Vol. 36, No. 3. (31 May 2010), pp. 254-256.

Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. (1997a). The Impact of School Buildings on Student

Achievement and Behavior. PEB Exchange, 30, 11-15.

Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (1997b). Can Research Findings Help School Systems

Obtain the Most Bang from the Construction Bucks? Accessed on: 17/4/2016, retrieved from:


Earthman, G. I. & Lemasters, L. (1998). Where Children Learn: A Discussion of How a

Facility Affects Learning. Accessed on: 28/4/2016, retrieved from:


Earthman, G. I. (2002). School facility conditions and student academic achievement.

UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access. Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Accessed on 29/4/2016, retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439#page-3

Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore,

MD: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland.

Earthman, G. I. & Lemasters, L. K. (2009). Teacher attitudes about classroom

conditions. Journal of Educational Administration, 47 (3), 323-335.

Glebbeek, A. C. & Bax, E. H. (2004). Is high employee turnover really harmful? An

empirical test using company records. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2), 277-286.

Gibson, M. (2011). Save A Tree, Teach Through The Cloud: South Korea Schools First To

Go Paperless. Time Newsfeed, July 10th. Accessed on 1/10/2012, retrieved from:



https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439#page-3

69


http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/10/save-a-tree-teach-through-the-cloud-south-korea-

schools-first-to-go-paperless/#ixzz28BzSkDdD

Gifford, R. (1988). Light, decor, arousal, comfort and communication. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 8 (3), 177-189.

Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA:

Optimal books.

Golombek, P. (1994) Putting teachers back into Teacher’s knowledge. TESOL Quarterly,

1994. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL).

Gough, N. (2002) Blank spots, blind spots, and methodological questions in postgraduate

research. In meeting of the Postgraduate Research Conference, Deakin University. Retrieved

November (Vol. 15, p. 2004).

Gough, D. (2004) Systematic research synthesis. Evidence-based practice in education, 44-

62.

Gronberg, T. J. & Jansen, D. W. & Taylor, L. L. (2011). The impact of facilities on the cost

of education. National Tax Journal, 64 (1), 193-218.

Haines, M. M. & Stansfeld, S. A. & Brentnall, S. & Head, J. & Berry, B. & Jiggins, M. &

Hygge, S. (2001b). The West London Schools Study: the effects of chronic aircraft noise

exposure on child health. Psychological medicine,31 (08), 1385-1396.

Harris, M. N. & Tang, K. K. & Tseng, Y. P. (2006). Employee Turnover: Less is Not

Necessarily More?. Contributions to Economic Analysis, 274, 327-349.

Harris, D. N. & Adams, S. J. (2007). Understanding the level and causes of teacher turnover:

A comparison with other professions. Economics of Education Review, 26 (3), 325-337.

Hanushek, E. (1971). Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation

using micro data. The American Economic Review, 61 (2), 280-288.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/10/save-a-tree-teach-through-the-cloud-south-korea-schools-first-to-go-paperless/#ixzz28BzSkDdD

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/10/save-a-tree-teach-through-the-cloud-south-korea-schools-first-to-go-paperless/#ixzz28BzSkDdD

70


Hanushek, E. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. Does money matter, 43-

73.

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance:

An update. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 19 (2), 141-164.

Hanushek, E. A. & Luque, J. (2000). Smaller classes, lower salaries? The effects of class size

on teacher labor markets. Using What We Know: A Review of the Research on

Implementing Class Size Reduction Initiatives for State and Local Policymakers.

Hanushek, E. A. (2002). Publicly provided education. Handbook of public economics, 4,

2045-2141.

Hanushek, E. A. & Kain, J. F. & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose

teachers. Journal of human resources, 39 (2), 326-354.

Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The

future of children, 17 (1), 69-86.

Hanushek, E. A. & Mayer, S. E. & Peterson, P. (1999). The evidence on class size. Earning

and learning: How schools matter, 131-168.

Heschong Mahone Group (1999). Daylighting in schools: an investigation into the

relationship between daylighting and human performance. Fair Oaks, Calif.: Author.

Retrieved 10/04/2016 from:

http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003c_edu_train/pec/daylight/di_pubs/SchoolDetailed8

20App.PDF

Herzberg, F. I. (1966) Work and the nature of man. Oxford, England: World.

Hill, F. & Huq, R. (2004) Employee empowerment: Conceptualizations, aims and outcomes.

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15 (8), 1025-1041.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478336042000255505

http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003c_edu_train/pec/daylight/di_pubs/SchoolDetailed820App.PDF

http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003c_edu_train/pec/daylight/di_pubs/SchoolDetailed820App.PDF

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478336042000255505

71


Hines, E. W. (1996) Building Condition and Student Achievement and Behaviour.

Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Hirsch, E., Emerick, S., Church, K., Reeves, C., & Fuller, E. (2006). Creating conditions for

student and teacher success: A report on the 2006 Kansas teacher working conditions survey.

Chapel Hill, NC: Southeast Center for Teaching Quality.

Hoglund, W. L. & Klingle, K. E. & Hosan, N. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources:

Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children's adjustment in high needs elementary

schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53 (5), 337-357.

Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die

hard. Educational researcher, 17 (8), 10-16.

Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review. Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 38 (3), 287-297.

Ingersoll, R. (2001a). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational

analysis. American educational research journal, 38 (3), 499-534. Seattle, WA, Center for

the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001b). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.

American educational research journal, 38 (3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. M. & Smith, T. M. (2003a). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.

Educational leadership, 60 (8), 30-33.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2003b). Why schools have difficulty staffing their classrooms with qualified

teachers. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 30-33.

Ingersoll, R. & Kralik, J. M. (2004a). Teaching Quality. Education Commission of the States,

700 Broadway, Suite 1200. Denver, CO 80203-3460

Ingersoll, R. M. & Smith, T. M. (2004b). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP

bulletin, 88 (638), 28-40.

72


Ingersoll, R. M. & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for

beginning teachers a critical review of the research. Review of educational research, 81 (2),

201-233.

Johnson, S. M. & Kraft, M. A. & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need

schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and

their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114 (10), 1-39.

Johnson, S. M. (2012). Build the Capacity of Teachers and Their Schools: Improve the

Quality of Teachers and Teaching by Investing in Individual Teachers and Assessing Their

Effectiveness While Also Improving the Schools Where They Work. Phi Delta Kappan, 94

(2), 62.

Kemmerer, F. (1990). An integrated approach to primary teacher incentives. Improving

educational quality: a global perspective, (35), 135.

Klitgaard, R. E. & Hall, G. R. (1974). Do schools make a difference? Journal of Human

Resources, 74, 90-106.

Killeen, J. P. & Evans, G. W. & Danko, S. (2003). The role of permanent student artwork in

students’ sense of ownership in an elementary school. Environment and Behavior, 35 (2),

250-263.

Kim, I. & Loadman, W. E. (1994). Predicting Teacher Job Satisfaction. Accessed on

11/4/2016, retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED383707

Kloberdanz, K. (2010). California teachers: Pay for school supplies and more. Time, 7 (1),

17.

Koh, W. L. & Steers, R. M. & Terborg, J. R. (1995) The effects of transformational

leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of

organizational behavior, 16(4), 319-333.

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED383707

73


Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic

approach in teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 20 (1), 77-97

Koski, W. & Weis, H. (2004). What educational resources do students need to meet

California's educational content standards? A textual analysis of California's educational

content standards and their implications for basic educational conditions and resources. The

Teachers College Record, 106 (10), 1907-1935.

Kupetz, A. (2008). Is the paperless classroom possible? BizEd, January, 2008. AACSB

International. Accessed on, 3/10/2012, retrieved from:

http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/archives/janfeb08/36-41_paperless_bized.pdf

Lackney, J. A. (1994). Educational Facilities: The Impact and Role of the Physical

Environment of the School on Teaching, Learning and Educational Outcomes. Center for

Architecture and Urban Planning Research, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Lackney, J. A. (1996). Quality in School Environments: A Multiple Case Study of the

Diagnosis, Design and Management of Environmental Quality in Five Elementary Schools in

the Baltimore City Public Schools from an Action Research Perspective. Volumes I and II.

Lackney, J. A. (1997). The Relationship between Environmental Quality of School Facilities

and Student Performance. Energy Smart Schools: Opportunities To Save Money, Save

Energy and Improve Student Performance. A Congressional Briefing to the US House of

Representatives Committee on Science.

Lackney, J. A. (1999). Assessing School Facilities for Learning/Assessing the Impact of the

Physical Environment on the Educational Process: Integrating Theoretical Issues with

Practical Concerns.

Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Working Conditions How Predictive of

Planned and Actual Teacher Movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33 (2),

235-261.

http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/archives/janfeb08/36-41_paperless_bized.pdf

74


Levin, H. M. (1970). A cost-effectiveness analysis of teacher selection. Journal of Human

Resources, 24-33.

Litt, M. D. & Turk, D. C. (1985) Sources of stress and dissatisfaction in experienced high

school teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 78 (3), 178-185.

Loeb, S. & Darling-Hammond, L. & Luczak, J. (2005) How teaching conditions predict

teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80 (3), 44-70.

Lonsdale, M. & Ingvarson, L. (2003) Initiatives to address teacher shortage. ACER, 11, 2003.

Lowe, J. M. (1990). The interface between educational facilities and learning climate in

three elementary schools. Dissertation, University of Alabama.

Manuel, J. (2003). 'Such are the Ambitions of Youth': exploring issues of retention and

attrition of early career teachers in New South Wales. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education, 31 (2), 139-151.

Marsland, N. & Wilson, I. & Abeyasekera, S. & Kleih, U. (2000). A methodological

framework for combining quantitative and qualitative survey methods. Draft Best Practice

Guideline submitted to DFID/NRSP Socio-Economic Methodologies.

Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of

teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22 (1), 139-156.

Martin, S. H. (2004). Environment-behaviour studies in the classroom. Journal of Design &

Technology Education, 9 (2).

Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6 (1),

9-25.

Mason, S. & Matas, C. P. (2015). Teacher attrition and retention research in Australia:

Towards a new theoretical framework. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40

(11), 45.

75


Maxwell, L. E. (1999). School Building Renovation and Student Performance: One District's

Experience. Council of Educational Facility Planners, International, Scottsdale, AZ.State

Univ. of New York, Ithaca. Coll. of Human Ecology at Cornell Univ.

Maxwell, L. E. (2000). A safe and welcoming school: What students, teachers, and parents

think? Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 271-282.

McGowen, Robert Scott (2007). The impact of school facilities on student achievement,

attendance, behaviour, completion rate and teacher turnover rate in selected Texas high

schools. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. Texas A&M University. Accessed on

22/11/2015, retrieved from: http : / /hdl .handle .net /1969 .1 /85819.

McGuffey, C. W. (1974). MEEB: Model for the Evaluation of Educational Buildings. Bureau

of Elementary and Secondary Education (DHEW/OE), Washington, DC.

McGuffey, C. W. & Brown, C. L. (1978).The Impact of School Building Age on School

Achievement in Georgia. CEFP Journal.

Milby, T. & Rhodes, J. (2007). Teacher-Created Electronic Books: Integrating Technology to

Support Readers with Disabilities. Reading Teacher, November 1, 2007. Accessed on

12/12/2012, retrieved from:

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2aceda89-

fb9a-4bdd-8fb5-cdd9da471110%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=103

Meier, K. J. & Hicklin, A. (2008). Employee turnover and organizational performance:

Testing a hypothesis from classical public administration. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 18 (4), 573-590.

Mohammad, R. & Kumari, R. (2007). Effective use of textbooks: A neglected aspect of

education in Pakistan. Journal of Education for International Development, 3 (1), 1-12.

Monk, D. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future

of Children, 17 (1), 155-174.

http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/85819

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2aceda89-fb9a-4bdd-8fb5-cdd9da471110%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=103

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2aceda89-fb9a-4bdd-8fb5-cdd9da471110%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=103

76


Moore, G. (1979). Environment-behaviour studies. Introduction to Architecture, McGraw

Hill, New York, USA.

Moore, G. & Lackney, J. (1994). Educational Facilities for the Twenty-First Century:

Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Center for Architecture and Urban Planning

Research, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee.

Moore, J. (2010). Are textbooks dispensable? Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 80 No. 4

April 2003. Accessed on 14/12/2012, retrieved from:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed080p359

Murnane, R. J. & Phillips, B. R. (1981). What do effective teachers of inner-city children

have in common? Social Science Research, 10 (1), 83-100.

Oakes, J. & Saunders, M. (2002). Access to textbooks, instructional materials, equipment,

and technology: Inadequacy and inequality in California’s public schools. UCLA's Institute

for Democracy, Education, & Access. Accessed on 6/6/2015, retrieved from:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4ht4z71v

Overbaugh, B. L. (1990). School Facilities: The Relationship of the Physical Environment to

Teacher Professionalism. Dissertation, Texas A & M University.

Park, H. Y. & Ofori-Dankwa, J. & Bishop, D. R. (1994). Organizational and environmental

determinants of functional and dysfunctional turnover: Practical and research implications.

Human Relations, 47 (3), 353-366.

Plunkett, M. & Dyson, M. (2011). Becoming a Teacher and Staying One: Examining the

Complex Ecologies Associated with Educating and Retaining New Teachers in Rural

Australia? Australian Journal of Teacher Education,36 (1), 32-47.

Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Sage.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed080p359

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4ht4z71v

77


Rice, S. (2005). You don't bring me flowers any more: A fresh look at the vexed issue of

teacher status. Australian Journal of Education, 49 (2), 182-196.

Rice, S. (2008). Getting good teachers into challenging schools. Curriculum Leadership, 6

(14), 1-3.

Rice, S. M. (2010). Getting our best teachers into disadvantaged schools: differences in the

professional and personal factors attracting more effective and less effective teachers to a

school. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9 (3), 177-192.

Rice, S. M. (2014). Working to maximise the effectiveness of a staffing mix: what holds

more and less effective teachers in a school, and what drives them away? Educational

Review, 66 (3), 311-329.

Rivera-Batiz, F. L., & Marti, L. (1995). A School System at Risk: A Study of the

Consequences of Overcrowding in New York City Public Schools. IUME Research Report

No. 95-1.

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic

achievement. Econometrica, 73 (2), 417-458.

Ronfeldt, M. & Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50 (1), 4-36.

Roots, E. (2007). Making connections: The relationship between epistemology and research

methods. Special Edition Papers, 19 (1).

Rosenholtz, S. J. & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of

teachers' commitment. Sociology of education, 241-257.

Rudd, K. & Smith, S. & Conroy, S. (2007). A digital education revolution. Australian Labor

Party, Australia.

Ryan, C. & Watson, L. (2004). The drift to private schools in Australia: Understanding its

features. The Australian National University. Discussion paper, No. 479, September 2004

78


Sapers, J. (2012). Paperless Dream: Digital classrooms are saving forests and fostering

creativity among teachers and students. Scholastic Administrator. Accessed on: 3/10/2012,

retrieved from: http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3757273

Schuck, S. & Aubusson, P. & Buchanan, J. & Russell, T. (2012). Becoming a teacher: Stories

from the classroom. Springer Science and Business media, New York City.

Schneider, J. (2014). Rhetoric and practice in pre-service teacher education: the case of Teach

for America. Journal of Education Policy, 29 (4), 425-442.

Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? National

Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Accessed on 12/12/2015, retrieved from:


Schneider, M (2003). Linking School Facility Conditions to Teacher Satisfaction and

Success. Accessed on: 13/7/2016, retrieved from:


Scott, C. & Stone, B. & Dinham, S. (2001). "I love teaching but…." International Patterns of

Teacher Discontent. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9 (28).

Scott, C. & Dinham, S. (2002). The beatings will continue until quality improves: Using

carrots and sticks in the quest for educational improvement. Teacher Development, 6 (1), 15-

32.

Scott, C. & Dinham, S. (2003). The development of scales to measure teacher and school

executive occupational satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 41 (1).

Scott, C. & Cox, S. & Dinham, S. (1998). An English Study of Teacher Satisfaction,

Motivation, and Health. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3757273



79


Shakibaei, Z. & Khalkhali, A. & Nezgad, S. S. (2012). Relationship between organizational

culture type and empowering staff in manufacturing companies of Iran. Procedia - Social and

Behavioural Sciences, 46, 2886-2889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.583

Shiratuddin, N. & Landoni, M. & Gibb, F. & Hassan, S. (2006). E-Book Technology and Its

Potential Applications in Distance Education. Journal Of Digital Information. Accessed on

12/12/2012, retrieved from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/90/89

Siebert, W. S. & Zubanov, N. (2009). Searching for the optimal level of employee turnover:

A study of a large UK retail organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (2), 294-313.

Skilbeck, M. & Conell, H. (2003). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers:

Australian country background report. Department of Education, Science and Training.

Accessed on 15/9/2015, retrieved from:

https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/ATTRACTING,%20DEVELOPING%20AND%20RETAI

NING.pdf

Skilbeck, M. & Connell, H. (2004). Teachers for the Future: The Changing Nature of Society

and Related Issues for the Teaching Workforce. Ministerial Council on Education,

Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (NJ1).

Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. (2003). Factors affecting teachers' decisions to leave the

profession. Research report, 430, Centre for Education and Employment Research,

University of Liverpool.

Sommer, R. & Olsen, H. (1980). The soft classroom. Environment and Behavior, 12 (1), 3-

16.

Struyven, K. & Vanthournout, G. (2014). Teachers' exit decisions: An investigation into the

reasons why newly qualified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession or why those who

do enter do not continue teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 37-45.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.583

http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/90/89

https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/ATTRACTING,%20DEVELOPING%20AND%20RETAINING.pdf

https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/ATTRACTING,%20DEVELOPING%20AND%20RETAINING.pdf

80


Tanner, C. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on academic achievement. Journal

of Educational Administration, 38 (4), 309-330.

Trancik, A. M. & Evans, G. W. (1995). Spaces fit for children: competency in the design of

daycare center environments. Children's Environments, 311-319.

Vegas, E. & Umansky, I. (2005). Improving teaching and learning through effective

incentives: What can we learn from education reforms in Latin America? Open Knowledge.

Accessed on 19/11/2015, retrieved from:

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/242822/day5Improving%20teaching%20and%2

0learning_Final.pdf

Voller, P. & Widdows, S. (1993). Feature films as text: A framework for classroom use. ELT

Journal, 47 (4), 342-353.

Welch, A. & Helme, S. & Lamb, S. (2007). Rurality and Inequality in Education. In Teese, R.

& Lamb, S. & Duru-Bellat, M. (Eds.) International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory

and Policy, (pp. 602-624). Springer Netherlands.

West, K. L. & Mykerezi, E. (2011). Teachers’ unions and compensation: The impact of

collective bargaining on salary schedules and performance pay schemes. Economics of

Education Review, 30 (1), 99-108.

Wyatt, W. (2005). Maximizing the return on your human capital investment: The 2005

Watson Wyatt Human Capital Index® Report.

Young, J. (2009) This Could Be the Year of E-Textbooks, if Students Accept Them. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed on: 29/9/2012, retrieved from:

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Year-of-E-Textbooks-/48305/

Zhang, Y. & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Applications of social

research methods to questions in information and library science, 308-319.

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/242822/day5Improving%20teaching%20and%20learning_Final.pdf

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/242822/day5Improving%20teaching%20and%20learning_Final.pdf

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Year-of-E-Textbooks-/48305/

81


Appendix 1 – Questionnaire document

Teachers’ career intentions, school facilities and resources.

Infrastructure / Facilities

The following questions relate to where you work at school: the places you teach in and the

places that are available to you and your students when not teaching. The questions do not

refer to students’ recreation areas as the focus is on your teaching. In answering the

questions consider class, meeting and staff rooms, performance spaces, computer and

science labs, sports areas and ancillary rooms and any other space you use for teaching.

Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the statements.

I am able to control and monitor the temperature in my classrooms

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I am able to make changes to seating arrangements


Demographics

Please provide information about your teaching experience and qualifications. 1) How long have you been teaching?

_______ years _____ months full time

_______ years ______months part time

2) What are your educational qualifications?

TAFE certificate or diploma Teaching certificate Undergraduate diploma Undergraduate degree Postgraduate certificate or diploma Masters degree Doctorate of Education or Ph.D.

Other (please specify) _____________________________

3) Are you currently undertaking post-graduate study? Yes No

4) What is your gender? Male Female

5) Please circle the age range to which you belong

21-25

years old

26-30

years

old

31-35

years old

36-40

years old

41-45

years old

46-50

years old

51-55

years old

56 years

or older

82


I have room to make changes to seating arrangements


I am able to control the natural light within my classrooms


I am able to control the artificial light within my classrooms


I can control the level of noise inside my classroom


I can control the level of noise outside my classroom


The classroom and teaching spaces are sufficient for my students


The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching.


The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to innovate


The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to perform a variety of

teaching and learning activities


The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the students


The facilities at my school force teachers to use certain teaching and learning activities


How do you feel your school facilities compare to your ideal school?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Far

from

ideal

Acceptable Ideal

Resources

The following section relates to the resources that are used in your classroom teaching and

preparation, as well as resources that students bring to class, or have access to from within

the classroom or school. Consider essential resources such as chairs, tables, whiteboards

and areas to display student work. Think about consumables such as novels, textbooks,

exercise books, and writing materials as they are relevant to your teaching role. Lastly,

consider information communication technology (ICT), audio-visual resources, projectors,

students’ access to computer or tablets, and photocopying facilities.

83


I have appropriate access to ICT resources to carry out my teaching


My access to ICT allows me to expand my teaching activities


All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials such as textbooks


I am able to access audio-visual resources as needed


My students have access to individual laptops or tablets


My access to photocopying is sufficient


I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms


I have access to resources to display student work


In the previous year, approximately how much of your own money would you have spent

on classroom supplies?

$0 $1-100 $101-200 $200-300 $300 or more

Of this money, how much of it was spent on things for students? (Please circle)

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

Overall

For the following questions consider your overall opinion on your school settings facilities

and resources. Try to take a ‘long view’ rather than thinking only about your most recent

experiences of the factors considered in the questions above.

Overall how satisfied are you with the facilities at your school?

1

Not at

all

satisfied

2 3 4 5

Moderately

satisfied

6 7 8 9 10

Extremely

satisfied

84


Overall how satisfied are you with the resources at your school?

1

Not at

all

satisfied

2 3 4 5

Moderately

satisfied

6 7 8 9 10

Extremely

satisfied

Intentions

Take a moment to consider your professional future, your goals and aspirations.

What are your intentions for 2016?

Remain at the

same school

Transfer to

another school in

an equivalent

positions

Seek

promotion at

another school

Other (Please specify)

Seek

opportunities

teaching in

another setting

Leave teaching

temporarily to

pursue other

options

Leave teaching

permanently to

seek a job in

another

profession

Leave teaching to retire

How likely are you to move to a different school within the next 3 years?

Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very Unlikely Undecided

How long do you intend to stay in teaching?

1-3

Years

3-6

Years

6-10

Years

10 or more

Years

Retirement

Age

Other (Please

Specify)