INTRODUCTION
Teacher retention has become a critical issue in education, with high attrition rates leading to teacher shortages across the United States. Nearly 8% of teachers leave the profession yearly, with rates climbing to over 13% in high-poverty schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). These high levels of turnover disrupt school stability and continuity in instruction, undermining student achievement and school performance (Holme et al., 2018; Kraft et al., 2016). Teacher attrition also contributes to shortages as departures outpace the supply of new teachers entering the field (Sutcher et al., 2016). These shortages disproportionately impact schools serving high-need student populations, exacerbating existing inequities in educational quality (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Given these detrimental impacts, understanding and addressing the root causes of teacher turnover has become a policy imperative. This literature review synthesizes research on factors influencing teacher retention, explicitly focusing on teacher well-being and organizational policies and practices within private K-12 school contexts in the United States.
Methodologically, the literature encompasses a range of approaches, including quantitative analysis of large-scale datasets, surveys, in-depth qualitative studies, systematic reviews, and mixed methods designs. While varied in focus and methodology, common threads emerge around the importance of school leadership, workplace relationships, shared decision-making, reasonable work demands, and growth opportunities for fostering the well-being, satisfaction, and commitment required to retain teachers (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022; Kraft et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2019). The review synthesizes key contributions and limitations of this literature to identify productive avenues for future research and evidence-based policy and practice. Teacher retention has significant implications for educational quality and equality. High turnover has detrimental cascading effects on school culture, collegial relationships, institutional memory, and student outcomes (Holme et al., 2018; Kraft et al., 2016). Difficulty retaining teachers also fuels shortages, especially in high-poverty urban and rural schools that need help attracting and sustaining qualified instructors (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). These shortfalls disproportionately disrupt the education of students from historically marginalized groups, denying them access to stable and experienced teaching workforces (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Considering teachers’ vital role in student learning and development, shifting staffing patterns at schools dismantle the fundamentals of education, which are required for academic achievement and work readiness. On the contrary, organizations that effectively retain committed and experienced teachers enjoy the advantages of instructional continuity, favorable climate, collaborative professional practice, and accumulated institutional knowledge (Holme et al., 2018; Kraft et al., 2016). Investing in considerate and proactive retention strategies focused on improving teacher well-being and voice dramatically benefits students, schools, and the teaching profession (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). This paper aims to provide direction for such initiatives by combining fundamental research findings on factors influencing teacher drop-out and areas that merit further discussion.
The United States has experienced teacher shortages that are of great concern over the last decade, with the number of new teachers produced each year not rising enough to keep up with the increase of student enrollments as well as the high number of attritions (Sutcher et al., 2016). Supplies of every kind are particularly critical in certain academic areas such as math, science, special education, and foreign languages (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). #Marker# Shortages are likewise seen in schools with higher proportions of low-income, racial minority, and academically disadvantaged students (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Left unaddressed, these shortages threaten students’ equitable access to effective instruction. Teacher attrition is a crucial contributor to these shortages (Sutcher et al., 2016). Nearly 8% of teachers leave the profession each year, including about two-thirds who resign for reasons other than retirement (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Turnover rates are 50% higher in Title I schools serving more economically disadvantaged populations than in more affluent schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Teacher turnover costs include financial burdens on districts, which spend an estimated $20,000 on average per teacher who leaves (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). More importantly, turnover disrupts continuity, cohesion, and the development of expertise needed for school improvement and student success (Holme et al., 2018; Kraft et al., 2016). Private schools are open to challenges in retaining teachers. While public schools have been more extensively studied, emerging evidence suggests private school teachers may face heightened turnover risks due to differences in governance structures, decision-making procedures, and compensation and benefits (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Moore, 2018; Oke et al., 2016).
Conceptually speaking, this review emerges from scholarship honing in on teaching as a complex intellectual endeavor that necessitates prolonged learning and growth opportunities to achieve expertise. (Cochran-[Smith et al., 2018]) Unavailable such opportunities in environments will cause stagnation, leading to turnover (Torres, 2016). Likewise, the organizational management and policy settings provide the context for teachers’ daily work experiences; they affect their level of job satisfaction, commitment, and work-related stress (Kraft et al., 2016). The psychological consequence of the absence of adequate support structures and the unreasonable work commitments from that angle is that it makes teachers more likely to resign (Sutcher et al., 2016). Simultaneously, schools that provide voice, autonomy, collaboration, and growth, as well as these elements, reinforce professional identities, which result in positive well-being and persistence (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). Using the conceptual understandings, the literature synthesis distills how the contexts of policy and organization intersect with the developmental needs of teachers and which behaviors they adopt. This review utilizes qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyze findings from the empirical studies associated with teachers’ retention. Large-scale statistical analyses can reveal the status of attrition patterns and how they influence predictive relationships at the national level (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Holme et al., 2018).
Regression methods are designed to quantify associations between school-specific factors (e.g., leadership, atmosphere, and resources) and teacher turnover rates (Kraft et al., 2016). Value-added models with sophisticated adjustments consider confounding factors, making the claims more effective in the effects of organizational conditions on retention (Kraft et al., 2016). The details given by the qualitative and mixed-method studies give more comprehensive insights into how teachers evaluate and interpret the various organizational supports and difficulties. Interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic observations elicit subjective, contextually relevant stories about employees’ reasons for leaving organizations. Torres (2016), case-based and inductive methods unveil the mechanisms and essence of statistical relationships (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018). The present review integrates multiple schools of thought in order to offer a multifaced perception of teacher retention.
This literature review examines research centered around three prominent themes shaping the understanding of teacher retention issues: organizational well-being, stay interviews, and attrition patterns within private schools. First, an extensive body of literature documents associations between schools’ organizational characteristics and teacher well-being, predicting turnover intentions and behaviors. Key aspects of schools’ social contexts linked to well-being and retention include:
- Supportive, trust-building leadership approaches emphasizing collaboration and teacher autonomy (Anderson, 2019; Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Torres, 2016)
- Positive professional relationships and collegial support (Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018; Türker & Kahraman, 2021)
- Inclusive decision-making processes provide teacher voice (Anastasiou & Garametsi, 2021; Holme et al., 2018)
- Manageable workload and student discipline issues (Prilleltensky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016)
- Access to resources and professional development opportunities (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022; Kraft et al., 2016)
- Work-life balance and flexibility (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Moore et al., 2018)
- Recognition, feedback, and growth opportunities (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2019)
Schools cultivating these elements are characterized by greater trust, collaboration, collective responsibility, and support for teachers’ individual and professional needs (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). Teachers experience higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, efficacy, engagement, and motivation in these contexts (Anastasiou & Garametsi, 2021; Troesch & Bauer, 2017; Türker & Kahraman, 2021; Wang & Degol, 2016). Positive well-being reinforces persistence in the profession. Conversely, dysfunctional leadership, unsupportive workplace relationships, overwhelming demands, and lack of autonomy are tied to burnout, causing teachers to question their career fit and consider leaving (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Sutcher et al., 2016). Difficult work conditions erode teachers’ health, motivation, and sense of efficacy, hindering retention (Prilleltensky et al., 2016; Ryan et al., 2017). This body of literature on organizational well-being establishes that schools’ social and structural supports shape teachers’ daily experiences, influencing satisfaction and intentions to remain committed to the profession.
Another significant research area is an investigation of stay interviews as a means for improving teacher retention. Stay interviews are structured sessions in which school leaders hold meetings with teachers to understand and proactively address teachers’ reasons for remaining in their positions (Moore et al., 2018). The initial research reveals that stay interviews can be compelling in retention as they encourage open communication, show that teachers are valued, and enable leadership to respond to dissatisfaction promptly (Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). Through safe avenues for teachers to raise concerns and be attentively listened to, stay interviews can reveal issues that threaten retention and cause targeted improvements in working conditions.
Although this area needs more in-depth research, the existing research suggests that stay interviews are a step in the right direction as an organizational tool for promoting the well-being of teachers and retaining them. A third theme relates to research on teacher attrition issues focusing on private school contexts. There is more research on public schools, while less literature addresses organizational features that affect teacher retention and burnout in the private sector (Oke et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the qualitative research indicates that private school teachers may have unique turnover risks due to the varied organizational structures not found in most public schools. (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Moore, 2018). For example, school administrators from private schools tend to have an increased level of authority in decision-making, which can either aggravate or ameliorate turnover depending on the leadership strategies implemented (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018). Furthermore, private teachers are more likely to be affected by low pay and benefits than their public counterparts (Moore, 2018; Oke et al., 2016). Understanding the dynamics beneath attrition and retention in private education could assist in designing targeted organizational interventions in these settings.
Accordingly, this literature review is on teacher retention with a decade-based keyword search and classified the themes into organizational well-being, stay interviews, and attrition patterns in private schools. The review covers a range of methodological approaches, including quantitative methods, such as the analysis of large-scale datasets and surveys, and qualitative methods, such as in-depth case studies, mixed-method designs, and policy reports. A multidimensional perspective is juxtaposed, refreshing our understanding of the significance of school leadership, workplace relationships, teacher voice, acceptable workload, growth opportunities in sustaining teaching careers, proper job satisfaction, and teacher well-being. However, obstacles such as over-reliance on self-report data still need to be addressed. Still, it presents valuable information that can be used in research, policy, and practice to reduce teacher turnover.
THEME 1: ORGANIZATIONAL WELL-BEING
One of the dominant themes in literature is the phenomenon that organizational contexts affect teacher well-being, ultimately resulting in teacher attrition. Well-being is a multifaceted concept that includes physical, mental, emotional, and social health and satisfaction (Anastasiou and Garametsi, 2021). Environments in which there is positive teacher well-being are featured supportive leadership approaches, collaborative relationships among teachers, teacher autonomy and voice in decision-making, manageable workloads, and a climate of trust and respect (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018; Troesch & Bauer, 2017; Wang & Degol, 2016). These organizational facets have been related to elevated teacher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation, efficacy, and plans to remain in the profession. On the contrary, ineffective leadership, job overload, atrophy of autonomy, bad workplace relationships, and the lack of growth opportunities destroy teacher well-being, thus raising the risks of burnout, exhaustion, and turnover (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Prilleltensky et al., 2016; Ryan et al., 2017; Sutcher This body of research reveals how a school’s structural and social context influence teachers’ everyday experiences and feelings, thus affecting their health, morale, and desires to stay committed to teaching.
Supportive School Leadership
Among leadership approaches that are most predictive of teacher well-being and retention is the one that is supportive and trust-building. This is consistent across many studies which have different methodologies. Equivalently, the quantitative research of Anderson (2019) that investigated North Carolina teachers demonstrated a significant relationship between perceived principals’ support and teacher’s job satisfaction and anticipated longevity in the profession. Teachers who felt backed up by their administrators could maintain positive views of their working conditions and also want to continue teaching for the long term. Some leadership practices that improve teacher well-being and turnover are mentoring and instructional resources, listening and addressing teachers’ concerns, and delegating classroom decisions (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Martinez & McAbee, 2020). Supportive actions enhance the impression that instructors and students share the same objectives and demonstrate that teachers are essential participants in the educational process.
In the study [review] by Martinez and McAbee [2020] that summarizes research on the impact of administrative support interventions, the conclusion was that leadership styles orienting towards teacher voice, shared leadership, P.D. access, and autonomy indicated potential for enhancing teacher job satisfaction and retention rates. On the contrary, the results of the research point to the fact that the more authoritarian, top-down leadership models lead to a decrease in trust between administrators and teachers, which inevitably causes negative consequences like teacher stress and professional burnout. In her case study of teachers who leave “no excuses” charter schools, Torres (2016) found that principals’ unilateral authority and lack of transparency regarding high-performance expectations contribute to the development of relational distrust, perceptions of disrespect, and eventual teacher exit. From the research, it emerged that leaders who exert rigid control over classroom processes without providing teachers with input into decisions make teachers. Overall, school leadership approaches have been confirmed to be notably influential in what teachers go through daily and their well-being. Environments characterized by a leadership that is available build trust and offers development opportunities while decentralizing leadership and decision-making are known to be associated with the health, satisfaction, commitment, and retention of the teachers (Anderson, 2019; Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Martinez & McAbee, 2020).
Collaborative Climate and Peer Relationships
Considering leadership, relationships with peers also provide another important social dimension of schools, relevant to teachers’ well-being and the wish to stay in the profession. For Ryan et al. (2017), an environment where positive and collaborative peer interactions are the main emphasis is associated with a community feeling, meaning, and support that improves the quality of work experiences. For instance, Türker and Kahraman (2021) applied national survey data to examine relationships between school climate, colleague ties, and job satisfaction in Turkish teachers. The results of their analyses were found to be a positive association between perceptions of professional peer supportive interactions and both teacher job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Similarly, Geiger and Pivovarova (2018) explored the linkages between the climate in the schools, teacher and staff working conditions, and teachers’ retention using data from school surveys and district records. They found that schools with more collaborative environments had significantly lower teacher exit rates, even after controlling for student demographic differences. Fostering opportunities for collaborative planning, peer observation, and team teaching facilitates collaborative problem-solving and collective responsibility for outcomes. However, research also indicates that dysfunctional workplace relationships predicated on distrust, competition, or isolation erode teacher well-being. In their survey of 1866 U.S. teachers, Ryan et al. (2017) identified conflicts with administrators and colleagues as sources of frustration and emotional exhaustion associated with higher turnover intentions. Teachers without accessible mentors or close peers express lower job satisfaction and belonging (Martinez & McAbee, 2020). Building community through social events and establishing mentoring programs leads to the development of teacher support networks, which has been found to contribute to teacher retention (Moore et al., 2018). Summarily, the studies have shown that the school’s social dynamics affect the well-being and continuity of teachers. Supportive environments, mutual trust, respect, teamwork, and access to collegial support positively influence the teachers’ commitment to and experiences with organizations. However, competitive environments make people lonely and hinder happiness. Studies have shown that intentional activities aimed at fostering community through collaborative programs are valuable.
Teacher Autonomy and Voice
Professional autonomy, another organizational factor relating to teacher well-being, will further be discussed as teachers have discretion over classroom processes and decision-making influence in their schools. Lack of autonomy was among the key factors linked to turnover intentions and teacher dissatisfaction in Nguyen et al.’s (2019) systematic review. In contrast, research shows that teachers’ involvement in school policies and reform efforts makes them feel more satisfied with their jobs and that they intend to stay in the profession (Anastasiou & Garametsi, 2021; Holme et al., 2018). For instance, Anastasiou and Garametsi (2021) studied a sample of Greek secondary school teachers. They found out that the teachers who work in those schools where the democratic leadership approach is prevalent (involves teachers in decision-making) have higher levels of job satisfaction. The trust in the teachers’ expertise is implied by allowing them allowing them to take on the driver’s seat in initiatives aimed at improving classroom practice. Subsequently, this feeling of capability and self-determination strengthens workplace motivation and organizational commitment.
Relatedly, using administrative data, Holme et al. (2018) linked schools with higher teacher influence over policy with lower teacher exit rates in the following year. Their analyses controlled for other organizational variables, isolating the specific contribution of teacher’s voice to retention. Teachers want meaningful input into reforms, curricula, and resource allocation that shape their daily practice. Facilitating participatory decision-making structures sustains a teacher’s sense of purpose and agency. However, traditional top-down leadership models concentrating authority solely with administrators undercut teacher autonomy and involvement in school improvement efforts. Lack of voice in reform implementation processes is tied to disempowerment and deprofessionalization, increasing risks of exhaustion and turnover (Torres, 2016). Environments enabling teachers to shape policies and initiatives that impact their work appear critical for well-being and persistence in the field.
Manageable Work Demands
A further organizational facet linked to teacher well-being is reasonably calibrated workplace demands and adequate support to meet expectations. Studies consistently tie overwhelming workloads and student behavior challenges to teacher stress, burnout, and turnover intentions (Prilleltensky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Heavy teaching and administrative demands coupled with insufficient resources erode instructors’ ability to effectively perform their jobs, negatively impacting self-efficacy, emotional health, and desires to remain in teaching. For example, Prilleltensky et al. (2016) conceptually link high workload driven by elevated student needs and insufficient staffing to teacher stress and lowered instructor self-efficacy. Teachers need help to meet ever-growing demands with inadequate support experience exhaustion and questioning of their competence. These sentiments increase the risks of attrition.
Similarly, Sutcher et al. (2016) attribute many assignments that cover multiple courses or student needs to the cause of teacher dissatisfaction in their policy review. Work structures that do not make the effective delivery of high-quality instruction possible cause the dysfunction of teacher efficacy. Conversely, teachers who are frustrated or torn between roles due to ambiguous or overwhelming expectations are more likely to consider other careers. On the other hand, research shows that reasonable class size, manageable teaching loads, and the students’ needs all contribute to more excellent retention of teachers (Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018). Conditions that give teachers the feeling that they can manage the core instructional and relational responsibilities without burnout enable them to have continued motivation. Realizable demands facilitate teacher’ beliefs that their schools have sufficient infrastructure to help them excel. In summary, overwhelming work expectations and insufficient resources to meet needs take a toll on teachers’ emotional health and self-efficacy, increasing turnover risks (Prilleltensky et al. 2016; Sutcher et al. 2016). Structures ensuring adequate supports are in place to allow teachers to fulfill responsibilities without excessive strain facilitate instructor well-being and desires to continue teaching.
Work-Life Balance
Other structural characteristics of working conditions pivotal to teacher well-being and retention include workers achieving a reasonable balance between work and life. Schools featuring excessively long hours and tasks that trespass into one’s private time lead to dissatisfaction and a greater predisposition to burnout among teachers (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Moore et al., 2018). The discrepancy between professional obligations and personal requirements spoils chances for revitalization, refreshing, and attending to family matters. Illustratively, in their nationwide policy analysis, Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2017) point to a long workday as one of the factors in teacher attrition. Teachers frequently work outside teaching responsibilities (e.g., on lesson planning, grading, and administrative tasks) and suffer role overload and work-family conflicts. Emotional exhaustion and the longing to quit the profession are associated with the effects of these strains. Moreover, Moore et al. (2018) draft that the obstacles to accomplishing work-life balance because of heavy extra jobs were the factors that led the old private school teachers to quit their jobs in Texas according to their qualitative research. The indicators mentioned were school-related duties that often made participants feel burnt out and dissatisfied.
The work imposed on teachers that reduced time for oneself was psychologically draining and eroded well-being. Instead, in such schools, schooling, instead of being a culture that denies instructors personal/professional balance, becomes one that prioritizes instructors’ balance between professional and personal needs. Policies supporting the establishment and management of strategic boundaries and protected time-off choices communicate the organizational view that teachers’ lives outside school matter. The culture of care is the main factor that impacts employees’ emotional well-being and willingness to continue working for an organization (Troesch and Bauer, 2017). In conclusion, research underlines that those professional conditions hamper teachers from finding an equilibrium between school duties and personal needs and are linked to decreased well-being. Nevertheless, supportive policies providing work-life balance strengthen teachers’ physical and mental completeness and self-care, leading to retaining teachers.
Growth and Recognition
The final organizational dimension related to teachers’ well-being is staff career pathways and recognition within the school. Professional learning, leadership opportunities, or career progression are only possible if there are chances for them. The resulting skill development can stagnate, and dissatisfaction may follow (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022; Kraft et al., 2016). However, school cultures that allow and promote new learning experiences and appreciate teachers to the brim are related to increased job satisfaction and commitment. For example, Gimbert and Kapa (2022) used national survey data to undertake statistical modeling, revealing access to leadership roles as a significant predictor of mid-career teacher retention. There is always a chance to mentor peers formally or be a part of decision-making, which provides sufficient challenge and purpose for smooth professional growth. There is a tendency for those teachers who can widen their sphere of influence and practice their knowledge to show a high level of job satisfaction and have the intention to continue in that field.
Moreover, the authors of Kraft et al. (2016) also saw schools with more robust professional development support as linked with less voluntary turnover. The practitioner’s skill growth increased through specific training to enhance their practice. The content P.D. entails the institution’s commitment to continuously educating and improving faculty members to be effective in the classroom. Moreover, school cultures bring positive contributions and value to teachers emanating from respectful treatment or acknowledgments (Nguyen et al., 2019). Poor performance evaluation leads people to undervalue the impact and usefulness of their tasks. Maintaining a healthy being requires teachers to evaluate their actions that positively influence their surroundings progressively. In summary, research shows that professional learning, leadership, and recognition opportunities lead to a continuous challenge, purpose, and perceived impact – keep the satisfaction and commitment that are needed to keep teachers (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022; Kraft et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2019). Teachers should not be ignored and underdeveloped by the environments, or stagnation and turnover in the teaching profession will become unavoidable.
Summarizing the findings, the organizational quality of schools is a broad theme identified in the literature as having a significant impact on teacher stress, which causes turnover intentions and actions. The numerous elements of the social and structural workplace context inform teachers’ daily experiences, which determine their health, motivations, and job perceptions. Leadership types, collaborative relationships, decision-making accountability, manageable workloads, work-life balance, and opportunities for growth are salient stressors linked to teacher burnout, satisfaction, organizational commitment, and retention. Studies using a range of methodologies across different settings have shown that the essentials of developing positive school climates that support teachers in meeting their professional, personal, and emotional needs for sustaining a fulfilling teaching career are essentially universal.
THEME 2: STAY INTERVIEWS
Ambiguous research is growing around the possibility of stay interviews as organizational tools to enhance teacher retention. Stay interviews are meetings between school leaders and teachers purposely designed to understand the determinants of the teachers’ retention of their positions (Moore, Allen, & Williams, 2018). Despite its emerging nature, the initial studies have shown that the frequent stay interviews may boost teacher retention since it provides teachers with open communication channels, values teachers, and allows leadership to respond to dissatisfaction threats before they escalate into turnover (Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). Thus, though thorough empirical studies providing evidence on the effects of retention rates are limited, available qualitative studies present stay interviews as an essential source of feedback urging organizational transformation. In addition, research indicates a great deal of variance among districts and schools in how stay interviews are carried out. Thus, there is a need for a standard practice or a shared understanding of operation. The current body of research contributes to establishing and verifying the theory underlying stay interviews as a potentially beneficial technique for teacher retention, which deserves further exploration and elaboration.
Conceptual Origins
The stay interview idea stems from the literature on employee turnover studies in business. Turnover costs are costly to the bottom line; companies began to reach out to existing staff who are valued employees and elicit their input as to why they remained in their current positions and what additional support they might need to continue. Moore et al. (2018). Lessons learned shape leadership decisions that aim to improve the conditions of work to uphold employee delight and trustworthiness. In response to the devastating effects of teacher turnover on school stability and student outcomes, educators have lately adapted this retention approach to education(Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). Regular personnel interviews with teachers to seek out motivations to stay give actionable data that can help to strengthen existing support structures. Stay interviews mark a change of direction from exiting employee interviews conducted after the staff members leave to conversations with the ones staying. Conceptually, stay interviews resemble constructive behaviorist views, emphasizing that environmental conditions and individual perceptions shape behaviors such as turnover (Martinez & McAbee, 2020). Schools socialize teachers to the conditions and rules of daily practice in the workplace through policies, practices, climate, and relationships. These conditions and rules also motivate teachers to be committed or otherwise leave the system. Stay interviews are the source of the insights that clarify how the mechanisms work to design system changes. However, nascent and emerging theories and research affirm the continuance of stay interviews as a diagnostic tool that authentically gives teachers a voice to inform best supportive leadership practices and work environment improvement, potentially leading to more muscular retention (Martinez and McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). More empirical studies on teacher retention are required to be conducted in order to develop compound models.
Implementation Approaches
School systems use varied means of implementing stay interviews; the overall objectives of getting feedback from teachers on retention factors remain constant. Interviews can range from informal conversations to extremely structured schemes, annual processes, and monthly dialogues, as stated by Moore et al. (2018). Both the administrator and teacher leader are interviewers of the process. However, finding the best design and consistency parameters is an area that still needs to be studied. Most studies demonstrate that a non-family manager should interview to promote open sharing and eliminate evaluation concerns (Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). Confidentiality and explicitly avoiding linkage to the rigid appraisal process create trust. Allowing educators to submit online responses in advance may facilitate information and care. The research(s) advocate(s) the repeating stay interviews conducted on an annual basis to maintain open communication channels and detect emerging problems early(Martinez and McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). Although no definite standards are being set, meetings at monthly or quarterly intervals ensure regular contact, which schools lack most often. Annually conducted interviews cannot address the ongoing challenges in a timely way. For structure, research has shown that interviews should consist of broad, open-ended inquiries that will enable teachers to illustrate the reasons and the needs. Even though uniform questions improve the process of extracting systematic trends by synthesizing the results, administrators can use the notes of teachers’ responses to trace the teacher input to the improvement initiatives. Generally, literature calls for authentic stay interviews characterized by frequent informal conversations centered on only the elements that can influence continuity of professional, unconnected to performance assessment by leaders whom the workers trust and who have systems for collecting and linking feedback to action (Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). The sheer diversity of the current applications demonstrates that more detail is required in the development principles.
Benefits of Teacher Retention
The empirical literature on the impacts of stay interviews on teacher retention remains restricted and patchy, but the existing studies appear favorable on teacher persistence and school improvement. First, interviews provide a space for a “stay factors” conversation, leading to their voicing, valuing, and actioning. In their study EMCSE 12 in Texas, Moore et al. (2018) discovered that teachers appreciated a safe space to express their frustrations and suggestions without judgment freely. The ability to submit anonymous opinions inhibited accumulated frustrations when not handled, which could trigger resignations. In addition, research shows that stay interviews contribute to the implementation of two-way communication, which needs to be improved in matters relating to the administration and teaching staff (Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). While dialogue shows teachers as co-operators in reforming the system, it also facilitates the leaders in getting the perspective from the lower ranks on the needed improvements. Improving school communication networks strengthens teachers’ belongingness, worth, and sense of commitment. Furthermore, researchers argue that stay interviews lower the state of affairs by which school administrators implement decision-making steps that are based on data gathered by teacher inputs and which aim to address problematic sufficiently policies or practices that teachers reveal before they become a reason for them to leave (Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018).
Speedy’s response to concerns by revising support can build trust and morale in an organization. Interviews are a source of information that helps leaders determine what issues in the company have the highest leverage in improving retention. Although these benefits are attractive (only a few scientific researches prove them), there needs to be conclusive evidence that the stay interviews lead to a measurable reduction in teacher turnover. There is a need for mixed methods and longitudinal studies on a larger scale to quantify the impacts on graduation rates and process mechanisms at play. While the qualitative aspects highlight the potential values, the quantitative data is yet to be found. Despite this, initial studies suggest that stay interviews are worth attention for developing multiple-dimensional teacher retention plans.
Benefits beyond Retention
Conducting regular stay interviews also has some auxiliary advantages in schools besides the fact that they may increase teacher retention rates. To begin with, shared governance fosters distributed leadership by transforming teachers into co-leaders of the reform processes instead of their objects. This targeted empowerment and agency underpinning could result in halo effects on school climate and culture, over and above retention outcomes. Research indicates that stay interviews are a vehicle for leadership development and to build administrators’ capacity to cultivate trust, actively listen, and align teacher feedback and actions (Moore et al., 2018). The routine practice develops linkage and communication capacities transferable to other school processes. Leadership development in these competencies can be effective in the whole school.
Additionally, the interview processes generate data that can be applied to many types of organizational improvements apart from retention problems that comprise modification of instructional resources and P.D. offerings, changes in workplace policies and staffing patterns, and extra perks like lounge upgrading (Martinez & McAbee, 2020; Moore et al., 2018). The teacher insights pinpoint the lacking parts of school systems. However, investigations that show these potential side benefits still need to be completed. Early findings, however, show that stay interviews facilitate collaborative leadership and data-driven improvements that go beyond retaining teachers. The proposed secondary gains must yet be proven and explained.
Limitations and Considerations
Besides likely benefits, stay interviews are known to have limitations to account for. Initially, with anonymity, the instructors may feel confident in divulging their confidential problems concerning leadership or the workplace (Moore et al., 2018). Ensuring confidentiality is a must, but results aggregation might get in the way. Anonymous surveys could be used alongside interviews, but it then deprives room for interchangeable back-and-forth dialogue and explanations. Furthermore, temporary interviews cannot fix administrative problems if leadership or cultural issues are the root cause (Martínez & McAbee, 2020). Issues that emerge during the interview may need to be addressed at a deeper level, and intervention may be needed beyond interviews. Seeing interviews as a magic bullet rather than a part of a holistic retention process could lead to unrealistic expectations. Research reveals that the interviews may not be credited when there is no evidence of any action based on teacher feedback (Moore et al., 2018). The teachers expect an observable change in the workplace due to their input. Not completing the loop reduces the process’s reliability and benefits. This leads to a lower impact of interviews, as implementation is inconsistent (Martinez & McAbee, 2020). Lack of standardized protocols, sporadic incidents, and frequent administrator turnovers complicate maintaining desirable practices. Having stability and fidelity of implementation is still a problem.
In essence, although a helpful diagnostic retention tool, stay interviews have limitations that should be accounted for. Masking one’s identity, establishing realistic expectations, visible response to teacher input, and standardization of procedures can maximize the potential benefits of retaining teachers through stay interviews. In other words, stay interviews have great potential as a system improvement method, which can also positively affect teacher retention. A stay interview is a two-way conversation through which teachers can confidentially share the organizational aspects that encourage retention. In this lens, leader responses to identified areas of need may strengthen support systems and climate to keep teachers satisfied and committed to their work. Many research gaps still exist in this area, such as varied implementation methods and a need for rigorous empirical studies evaluating the effect on retention. Wide-scale mixed methods research must be done to establish the relationships between stay interview characteristics, resultant organizational changes, and teacher attrition rates. Furthermore, research that would enhance understanding of the optimal design, consistency parameters, evaluation protocols, and cost-effectiveness would develop stay interviews as a viable organizational intervention.
THEME 3: TEACHER ATTRITION IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS
Even though public K-12 schools have been vastly studied in retention research, the factors influencing attrition in private school contexts still need to be studied. Some literature offers early proof that the unique retention challenges private school teachers may face result from specific structural and policy differences from public schools. The dynamics of teacher persistence and burnout in the private education sector should be understood more and better to inform efficient context-specific retention strategies. This part summarizes the research literature on the private K-12 school environment’s teacher turnover trends and drivers within the last ten years. Centralized Governance and Leadership, Compensation and Benefits, Professional Development and Growth Opportunities, and Stress and Work-Life Balance are some central issues associated with staff turnover risk in the private sector. Although central in identifying private schools’ differentiation, the literature is limited by the paucity of empirical retention data, relying on self-report measures, the restricted applicability of localized samples, and the general lack of adequate, evidence–based retention initiatives prescribed to private settings. The recommendations for future research to fill this gap are discussed.
Centralized Governance and Leadership
An outstanding issue that influences teachers’ experiences in private schools is governance structure and leadership styles. In public education, distributed leadership models that involve teacher voice in collaborative decision-making are associated with more instructors’ job satisfaction and retention intentions (Anastasiou & Garametsi, 2021; Holme et al., 2018). Nevertheless, principals or leadership teams usually exercise one-sided power in private schools (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018). We should also look at the qualitative studies by Bickmore and Dowell (2018) that showed that authoritarian leadership in charter schools negatively affected administrator-teacher trust and perceived respect, thus increasing teacher desires to leave. After the study, the scholars found that the lack of teachers’ input in policies governing their daily practice undermined teachers’ autonomy and competence, which are crucial for motivation and persistence.
Relevantly, Moore’s (2018) qualitative research study of teacher attrition in Texas’ private schools ascertained that being deprived of involvement in organizational decisions was the main reason for teacher turnover. Responders stated feeling voiceless about formulating policies, the disciplining procedures, and the nature of instructional supports, which resulted in insensitivity and disempowered them. (Anastasiou & Garametsi, 2021 Holme et al., 2018), classroom teaching professionals regard the participatory decision-making process as crucial for conveying professional value, promoting engagement, and encouraging retention. Nonetheless, in most private schools, this kind of leadership is centralized and closed so that the administrators are the only ones in control (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Moore, 2018). The risk of disempowering the instructors by not providing teacher participation in reforms and programs leading to classroom practices is high.
Although under the form of muted teacher-evaluated centralized authority, private education is seen to have structural norms. Research shows that leadership strategies still significantly influence the issue of turnover. Leaders of private schools who promote and build trust create a space that supports teachers’ learning and development and listen to their concerns without judging them, as they trust their expertise. They also promote teacher autonomy where it is possible and let teachers understand together, with their leaders, what the objectives are as well as the importance of respecting the expertise that teachers possess ( Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; These leadership behaviors shape how teachers perceive themselves, their colleagues and their work, advocate for themselves and are more likely to stay despite the structural context. On the other hand, leaders needing to be more flexible, having complete power that is not regulated, or lack of transparency regarding expectations results in damaged relationships and employee turnover. In the leadership of private schools, authority is more concentrated, yet administrative styles and approaches also determine whether teachers feel supported or discouraged in their professional practice. From the above, despite the lack of empirical data, private schools tend to have leadership and decision-making structures that give teachers less voice and autonomy compared to typical public schools. The restrictions implied on the involvement of the instructors in the initiatives defining the classroom practice are the measures that may degrade the position of the instructors. Despite this, research shows that even in the centralized hierarchy, leaders still hold dispositions of supportiveness, collaboration, and trust-building that can minimize adverse retention outcomes through relationships. Despite the existing understanding of leadership approaches pertinent to the private education sector, more profound research in this domain is required.
Compensation and Benefits
Another structural factor potentially heightening attrition risks unique to private schools is compensation and benefits. Teacher salary emerges consistently in literature as a significant, albeit complex, predictor of retention intentions. While not generally the primary reason teachers exit the field, inadequate pay and high work demands limit many instructors’ career sustainability (Torres, 2016). Private school teacher salaries are notably lower than their public counterparts. The National Center for Education Statistics indicates average starting salaries of $36,580 in private schools versus $41,163 in public schools, with gaps widening at career levels (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022). On average, public school teacher compensation exceeds that of private counterparts by over 25%, accounting for salaries and employer-sponsored benefits like healthcare, retirement savings plans, and tuition reimbursement (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022). For early career teachers financing living expenses and student loans, compensation disadvantages in private education may tip decisions to change settings or leave the classroom.
Moore’s (2018) qualitative study of Texas private school turnover found inadequate pay was a primary driver of attrition, alongside a lack of P.D. support and voice in decision-making. Participants reported insufficient wages failing to reflect long work hours strained emotional health and relationships outside school by requiring second jobs or relocation from unsustainable financial situations. Similarly, Oke et al.’s (2016) literature review named low pay and benefits as a recurring private school-specific turnover contributor absent the union-negotiated compensation structures protecting many public instructors. While many private school teachers express strong intrinsic motivations, research indicates external hygiene factors like fair pay matter for longer-term career continuation (Torres, 2016). Compensation constraints in private education compound other retention challenges from restrictive leadership approaches and developmental opportunities discussed next.
In conclusion, though comparative empirical data is lacking, a review of national wage statistics and qualitative studies suggests private school teachers’ lower comparative salaries and benefits packages may negatively and uniquely impact persistence intentions. Further quantifying these associations would clarify compensation’s role in differentiating public and private teacher retention patterns.
Professional Development and Growth
Access to meaningful professional development and leadership growth opportunities also diverges between public and private education in ways that influence teacher turnover. Public schools with robust P.D. systems sustaining continuous instructional skill development and peer collaboration have significantly lower teacher exit rates (Kraft et al., 2016). However, qualitative evidence suggests that private schools’ limited, stagnating P.D. offerings contribute to attrition risks (Moore, 2018). Without structures to hone practice, instructors lose a sense of purpose and growth vital for career persistence (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022). Leadership opportunities allowing teachers to formally mentor peers or shape initiatives reinforce value and challenge stemming turnover (Gimbert & Kapa, 2022). However, Moore (2018) found that Texas private school teachers needed access to leadership roles or decision-making channels to apply expertise. When professional learning and advancement stagnate, classrooms become intellectually deadening and demotivating places for ambitious educators seeking improvement.
Moreover, the public school systems usually have incentives in terms of tuition reimbursement or sabbatical allowances that encourage teachers to take up advanced certifications to broaden their responsibilities and financial rewards over their careers. (Torres, 2016). The sacrifices of time and salary recognized early on in the prospect phase are sustained by the pathways since they provide long-term benefits for these commitments. However, the scant data indicates that a lack of built-in advancement incentives in private schools might particularly fuel turnover intentions in unstable early career stages as instructors navigate trajectories. The review of teacher preferences surveys conducted by Oke et al. (2016) indicates that the absence of a structured promotion pipeline is one factor that leads to the private school attrition risks facing institutions while also preventing them from achieving intended retention goals. The comparative research needs to be more varied. However, available papers agree that private education constraints on professional growth may be one of the factors compounding the other frustration sources creating burnout and voluntary resignations. These interpretations could be backed by more detailed data so that the pathway to developing contextualized professional development aimed at retaining ambitious instructors would become more apparent.
Stress and Work-Life Balance
Lastly, the qualitative evidence indicates that some particular work environments and climates in private schools may lead to more teacher stress and work-life imbalance, likely affecting teachers’ turnover intentions. Public school literature suggests that reasonable workloads and student discipline levels mediate the relationship between teacher retention burnout and self-efficacy (Prilleltensky et al., 2016; Kraft et al., 2016). On the other hand, heavy teaching assignments and extensive administrative and extracurricular requirements are the norm in many private school contracts (Torres, 2016). For Bickmore and Dowell (2018), teachers from charter schools viewed the overwhelming demands and the lack of work-life boundaries as disregard for their overall well-being, thus increasing their desire to seek sustainable positions. Also, Moore (2018) tied high teacher turnover among Texas private schools to a need for more personal time, a decision-making voice, and insufficient wages. Poor working conditions that do not allow teachers to meet their established standards erode perceptions of efficacy and competency, vital to motivation and health (Prilleltensky et al., 2016). The culture of overworking in private schools often results in burnout of passionate teachers.
Furthermore, although the scant empirical data does not allow for conclusive comparisons, research suggests higher rates of student behavior and school discipline problems in private education, with teachers citing a lack of leadership support to meet higher demands as a job dissatisfier. The failure to manage chronic student disruption and conflict reduces teachers’ emotional reserves more than conduct leads to punishment as the regular practice of “no excuses” in charter schools (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018). In the private context, student-teacher relationships may worsen more rapidly without the necessary support structures to accommodate heightened behavioral needs, leading to disengagement. In addition, family expectations standards for private school parent involvement models frequently require teachers to handle duties that include massive communication with parents, volunteer coordination, fundraising activities, and student mentoring (Torres, 2016). Being overworked due to unfulfilled responsibilities gradually depletes personal time and energy levels needed to carry out the teaching duties without experiencing burnout. Just like Sutcher et al. (2016) state, at public schools, private teachers get frustrated, exhausted, and emotionally drained by unsustainable workplace demands, unsurprisingly questioning their persistence.
Comparative empirical research is scant regarding dissimilar employee retention outcomes; nevertheless, qualitative studies indicate that “normalized overwork” cultures aggravated by increased student needs typical of private school settings tend to deplete teachers’ reserves over time more than do better-resourced public schools governed by a distributive leadership style, and thereby influence burnout risks (Bickmore & Dowell, 2018; Nevertheless, the term private education covers a wide range of phenomena, which is why the dynamics expressed differently by the institutional diversity and by the way these institutions approach staff well-being, working with reasonable conditions. In conclusion, Torres (2016) asserts that “the teacher turnover problem is complex and context-specific,” being influenced by the combination of policies and leadership choices at organizational levels and teachers’ developmental needs, which can promote or destroy career commitment. However, disentangling nuances in climate and related trends in retention between public and private areas of learning would provide critical information for context-specific implementation.
CONCLUSION
This review is of much value as it draws together various publications on teacher retention by identifying essential themes of organizational well-being, career conversations, and the reasons for teachers leaving private schools. Various methodological perspectives offer complementary information. Qualitative studies provide vivid descriptions of how leadership, team spirit, the work environment, and other organizational factors interact with teacher motivation and health and build up the teacher’s decision to stay. Large-scale data utilize regression approaches, which highly increase predictive relationship internal consistency. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can synthesize large-scale complexity. Together, they give us a multifarious knowledge base. However, we must recognize that those limitations can significantly reduce the literature’s practical usability to support evidence-based reforms. What is most striking is that many experimental studies struggle to establish that a given initiative, such as stay interview programs, is efficacious regarding actual teacher retention in the long term. The data correlational risk the cause and effect conflation. Confounding variables could be the reasons or the factors that drive observed outcomes. For example, positive atmospheres may attract teachers by the nature of their work. Causality can be defined with certainty by comparing the outcomes of implemented interventions against counterfactual situations.
The other aspect is that excessively self-administered surveys permit subjective bias to be what we see in conclusions—typical method variance inability to conclude when a predictor and an outcome share a rater. Unintended social desirability responses creep in at the point that anonymity is lacking. Triangulating perceptual data along with behavioral measures increases validity. For instance, a poll/evaluation of climate with admin withdrawal indicates various factors causing actual exit moves. However, most studies aim only at perception tapping. Like that, the small homogeneous samples prevent the generalization of the results. The advantage of national datasets is the possibility of inferring other areas, but they must include qualitative aspects. Mixed methods design allows for depth, but also breadth enables the most accurate refinements.
Moreover, literature still needs to be more centered on the public schools with less consideration for the causes and remedies specific to the private institution settings. However, the circumstances could directly apply and generate different risks. Questions remain as to whether the fundamental differences in autonomy, decision-making, leadership styles, compensation policies, and development formats, which vary from public to private education, are the fundamental differences in retention pathways. It is essential to provide different experiences by separating them for specific reactions. Last but not least, besides the lack of substantial research on the cost-effective basis of programs, problems with balancing tight budgets and retention requirements exist. Furthering research into policies and implementation sciences would thus enhance the utility impact.
Future Directions
Addressing the above limitations to build a more robust knowledge base warrants expanded research attention in several vital areas: Interventional Trials: Large-scale experimental studies that control the introduction of specific retention initiatives like stay interview programs, revised evaluations of leaders and teacher voice committees, amongst other interventions in schools and measuring their impacts against control groups untreated over time would provide more conclusive evidence for the correlations of causes and effects that are absent in correlational data. Mixed Methods: An intersecting model that blends sizeable administrative data sets, subjective surveys, and qualitative case profiles would give multidimensional views that explain the complex process of dropping out from systemic and grounded perspectives. Triangulation of data sources improves validity and foresight.
Comparative Public/Private Research: Analyzing organizational varieties in how leadership models, workplace policies/supports, career trajectories, etc., differently come into play with teachers’ workplace experiences and retention outcomes between public and private schools will allow for a more efficient, tailored response that is specific and suited to local contexts, based on empirically verified interventions. Isolation of significant differentiators is necessary. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Ascertaining the costs associated with implementing, sustaining, and growing context-centric retention interventions alongside the savings created by reducing staff attrition would improve the actual utility of such interventions for cash-strapped districts. Proofing return on investment highlights the high return priorities for change management.
By using multidimensional, triangulated, comparative intervention studies followed by a critical cost analysis, research can desegregate evidence-based practice used in targeted areas and demonstrate a long-term solution to maintaining teacher retention through one’s well-being throughout the career cycle. The revolution would give an excellent opportunity to have significant investments from students, schools, and the teaching profession.
References
Anastasiou, S., & Garametsi, V. (2021). Perceived leadership style and job satisfaction of teachers in public and private schools. International Journal of Management in Education, 15(1), 58-77.
Anderson, S. M. (2019). Principal support and its effect on new teacher retention. Dallas Baptist University.
Bickmore, D. L., & Dowell, M. M. S. (2018). Understanding teacher turnover in two charter schools: principal dispositions and practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education.
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.
Cochran-Smith, M., Carney, M. C., Keefe, E. S., Burton, S., Chang, W. C., Fernandez, M. B., & Baker, M. (2018). Reclaiming accountability in teacher education. Teachers College Press.
Geiger, T., & Pivovarova, M. (2018). The effects of working conditions on teacher retention. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 604-625.
Gimbert, B. G., & Kapa, R. R. (2022). Mid-career teacher retention: Who intends to stay, where, and why? Journal of Education Human Resources, 40(2), 228-265.
Holme, J. J., Jabbar, H., Germain, E., & Dinning, J. (2018). Rethinking teacher turnover: Longitudinal measures of instability in schools. Educational Researcher, 47(1), 62-75.
Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Shen-Wei Yee, D. (2016). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449.
Martinez, J., & McAbee, S. (2020). School Administrator Support of Teachers: A Systematic Review (2000-2019). Education Leadership Review, 21(1), 230-254.
Moore, L., Rosenblatt, K., Badgett, K., & Eldridge, J. (2018). Urban Texas Teacher Retention: Unbelievable Empirical Factors Tied to Urban Teacher Persistence and Retention. Online Submission, 9(2), 2923-2931.
Nguyen, T. D., Pham, L., Springer, M. G., & Crouch, M. (2019). The factors of teacher attrition and retention: An updated and expanded meta-analysis of the literature. Annenberg Institute at Brown University, 19-149.
Oke, A. O., Ajagbe, M. A., Ogbari, M. E., & Adeyeye, J. O. (2016). Teacher retention and attrition: A review of the literature. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2 S1), 371.
Prilleltensky, I., Neff, M., & Bessell, A. (2016). Teacher stress: What it is, why it is essential, how it can be alleviated. Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 104-111.
Ryan, S. V., von der Embse, N. P., Pendergast, L. L., Saeki, E., Segool, N., & Schwing, S. (2017). Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on turnover intent. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 1-11.
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute.
Torres, A. C. (2016). The uncertainty of high expectations: How principals influence relational trust and teacher turnover in no-excuses charter schools. Journal of School Leadership, 26(1), 61-91.
Troesch, L. M., & Bauer, C. E. (2017). Second career teachers: Job satisfaction, job stress, and the role of self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 389-398.
Türker, Y., & Kahraman, Ü. (2021). School climate and self-efficacy as a predictor of job satisfaction. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 14(4), 548-569.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational psychology review, 28(2), 315-352.
write