Entering,Staying,Shifting,Leaving,and Sometimes Returning: A Descriptive Analysis of the Career Trajectories of Two Cohorts of Alternatively Certified Mathematics Teachers

Abstract

Background:

By attracting high-achieving college graduates and professional career changers, selective alternative certification programs, such as the New York City Teaching Fellows (NYCTF), promise to address pressing teacher shortages while also improving outcomes in hard-to-staff schools.

Purpose:

Looking at the main patterns in their careers before, during, and after completing NYCTF, the study provides insights into the short- and long-term impacts of mathematics teachers who entered as first- and second-career teachers on NYC public schools and the people in them.

Participants:

The study tracked the career trajectories and decision-making of more than 600 NYCTF mathematics teachers over a 9-year period.

Research design:

The longitudinal analysis of the teachers’ career trajectories is illuminated by descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses of their responses to open-ended survey items.

Results:

The article provides a portrait of urban mathematics teachers’ career decision-making as it unfolds over time. It challenges conventional understandings by demonstrating the stochastic nature of teachers’ career decision-making and, as part of this, consequential amounts of involuntary and midyear turnover. It further shows that, although in many ways similar, the career trajectories of the career changers and recent college graduates differed in key regards.

Recommendations:

On their own, strategies designed to attract high-achieving recent graduates and professional career changers to teach core subjects like mathematics will not solve long-standing teacher turnover and shortage issues in in high-needs urban schools. Districts also should focus on retention strategies, including training and induction tailored to meet the different needs and career goals of first- and second-career teachers.

Keywords

Mathematics Teacher Retention Career Development Career Changers Teacher Turnover Alternative Teacher Certification

Many U.S. school districts face shortages of teachers in core subjects such as mathematics (Sutcher et al., 2016). By attracting high-achieving college graduates and professional career changers, selective alternative certification programs, such as the New York City Teaching Fellows (NYCTF), promise to address these shortages while also improving teacher quality, particularly in hard-to-staff schools.¹ Although in the short term, teachers from selective and other fast-track alternative certification programs help to stabilize school staffs, their long-term effects on schools and students are less clear because they generally turn over at high rates (Brantlinger et al., 2020; Redding & Smith, 2016; Zumwalt et al., 2017).

Advocates of selective alternative certification programs (e.g., Higgins et al., 2011) argue that comparatively high rates of turnover do not paint the full picture because some program alumni move into leadership positions in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors, where they can advocate on behalf of historically marginalized students. Yet, even if this is so, more needs to be done to retain early-career teachers from selective and other alternative certification programs. This requires that researchers and policy makers better understand the structural factors and individual decision-making that shape individuals’ career trajectories (Quartz et al., 2008; Rinke & Mawhinney, 2017; Simon & Johnson, 2015).

The purpose of this study is to examine the career trajectories and decisions of recent college graduates and career changers who became mathematics teachers in 2006 or 2007 in hard-to-staff schools through the NYCTF program, a nationally prominent selective alternative certification program. The goal is to understand the main patterns in individuals’ careers before, during, and after NYCTF and, as part of that, what draws people with varying degrees of career experience to teach mathematics in hard-to-staff schools, what keeps some in teaching, and what drives others out of the field.

Literature Review

Career Trajectories of Teachers

In the 1980s and 1990s, scholars (e.g., Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997) advanced novel research on the professional lives of teachers. At that time, teachers’ opportunities for career advancement, particularly those who were female and non-White, were limited, and they often held their position for their entire career. Scholars concluded that, rather than moving up a career ladder, most teachers move through a series of career stages. For example, Huberman’s (1989) framework included the following stages: survival and discovery, stabilization, experimentation/activism, self-doubt, serenity, conservatism, and disengagement. In this framework and others, teachers’ career trajectories were characterized by the movement, and sometimes cycling back, through different stages.

Career trajectory theories have been adapted in response to recent trends, including the rise of short-term employment and the new teacher professionalism, which views teachers as easily replaceable technicians (Brantlinger & Smith, 2013). New generations of teachers tend to see teaching as a career phase rather than a lifelong career (Johnson & Peske, 2004; Rinke, 2013). Some enter teaching expecting to quickly transition into leadership positions in schools or the education sector (Olsen & Anderson, 2007).

Whereas the career trajectories of earlier generations of teachers could be described by stages, those of the recent generations are more complex and often marked by abrupt transitions (Grissom & Reininger, 2012; Lindqvist et al., 2014; Quartz et al., 2008). Some new teachers have long gaps in employment, take extended leaves of absence, leave teaching only to return at a later date, and transition in and out of school leadership positions.

By facilitating an easy entry into and exit out of teaching, fast-track programs may simultaneously leverage and contribute to recent economic and educational trends.² Collectively, alternatively certified teachers appear to be somewhat less invested in teaching than those who completed traditional programs (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Glazer, 2018; Redding & Smith, 2016; Zahner et al., 2019). Fast-track programs seem to attract substantial numbers of “career explorers” (Chin & Young, 2007; Johnson, 2004) and “resume builders” (Maier, 2012), who only teach for a few years, as well as career changers looking for meaningful work (Chin & Young, 2007).

Teacher Entrants and Reasons for Entry

The majority of new public school teachers in the United States are White, female, and 25 years of age or younger (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Teaching often is their first full-time job (Chin & Young, 2007). However, novice alternatively certified teachers are more likely than novice traditionally certified teachers to be male, non-White, older, and career changers (Chin & Young, 2007; Johnson & Peske, 2004; Zumwalt et al., 2017). These differences have implications for retention; for example, Black teachers are more likely than White teachers to be retained in high-minority schools (Carver-Thomas, 2018).

Individuals become teachers for a range of intrinsic, extrinsic (e.g., job security), and altruistic reasons (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Morettini, 2014; Olsen & Anderson, 2007), and their reasons for entry may be predictive of their long-term retention (Callahan & Brantlinger, 2021). Teachers’ reasons for entry also vary by certification pathway (Zumwalt et al., 2017). Alternatively certified teachers tend to cite altruism and the lowered barriers to entry facilitated by alternative certification policies (Chin & Young, 2007; Morettini, 2014). Perhaps feeling financially secure, career changers similarly seem to prioritize altruistic and intrinsic reasons over extrinsic reasons for entry (Varadharajan et al., 2020; Wilkins, 2017).

Teacher Turnover Research Landscape

Analyses of cross-sectional data from the Schools and Staffing Survey and Teacher Follow-Up Survey (SASS/TFS) show that, in the U.S. context, teacher turnover is (1) somewhat higher among teachers from fast-track alternative certification programs than those from traditional certification programs (Redding & Smith, 2016); (2) particularly high during teachers’ first 2 years (Glazer, 2018; Kelly & Northrop, 2015); (3) lower among midcareer teachers than early- and late-career teachers (Ingersoll et al., 2014; Redding & Smith, 2016); (4) influenced by school climate, particularly administrator support (Djonko-Moore, 2016; Ingersoll, 2001); and (5) comparatively high in high-poverty and high-minority schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).

This cross-sectional picture is complemented, and complicated, by longitudinal research that shows that teachers’ career trajectories are not as linear, continuous, or straightforward as cross-sectional research suggests (Grissom & Reininger, 2012; Lindqvist et al., 2014; Quartz et al., 2008; Redding & Henry, 2018; Zumwalt et al., 2017). Longitudinal research also challenges cross-sectional assumptions that new teachers start at the beginning of the school year, that midyear turnover is inconsequential or can be ignored, that teacher leavers leave their schools (rather than move into a nonteaching role in those schools), and that teacher leavers rarely return to K–12 teaching.

Career Decisions of Teacher Stayers

Teachers point to internal and external factors that explain why they stay in teaching and, in particular, in hard-to-staff and high-turnover schools. Internal factors include such things as care for students, a desire to give back, and socioemotional benefits (Nieto, 2003; Waddell, 2004; Zumwalt et al., 2017). External factors include supportive administrators and teacher collegiality (Kokka, 2016; Olsen & Anderson, 2007; Waddell, 2004). However, many teacher stayers seem to regularly consider changing schools or leaving teaching entirely (You & Conley, 2015), and terms such as “stayer” and “leaver” fail to capture the tenuous and stochastic nature of teachers’ career decision-making (Quartz et al., 2008; Rinke & Mawhinney, 2017). For example, in a study of 15 early-career teacher graduates of a selective master’s certification program, Olsen and Anderson (2007) found that six had difficulty speculating about their futures in education, six “reported complex and varied plans for their teaching futures” (p. 11), and twelve considered shifting roles, from teaching to administrating or working in the education sector.

That these teachers were from a selective program may explain why so many were considering leaving teaching to work in the nonprofit sector. Admission into a selective alternative route program, coupled with elite college credentials, facilitates career advancement opportunities (Kelly & Northrop, 2015; Maier, 2012).

Career Decisions of Leavers and Movers

Although early-career teachers turn over for many reasons, school climate is a major driver (Ingersoll, 2001; Simon & Johnson, 2015). Many early-career teachers move from school to school to feel better supported by administrators and colleagues (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Zumwalt et al., 2017). Lacking seniority, new teachers are frequently given the most difficult assignments, which can fuel their desire for change. Lacking tenure, they also can be easily dismissed or involuntarily transferred.

The reasons that teachers leave teaching or change schools seem to vary with their level of experience (Glazer, 2018; Rinke, 2013). New teachers enter with idealistic attitudes and preconceived notions that influence their early-career decisions (Wilhelm et al., 2000). Many undergo culture shock and struggle initially with classroom management (Schonfeld & Feinman, 2012; Zumwalt et al., 2017). As they gain experience, other issues, such as teacher autonomy and student engagement, become more salient in their career decision-making (You & Conley, 2015). Prior experience also shapes their perceptions and career decisions; in particular, many career changers are surprised by the working conditions of schools and feel that their prior experience, skills, and wisdom are not valued by administrators and colleagues (Johnson & Peske, 2004; Wilkins, 2017).

Alternatively certified teachers may leave teaching for somewhat different reasons than traditionally certified teachers (Redding & Smith, 2016; Zumwalt et al., 2017). Perhaps because of the insufficiency of fast-track training, alternatively certified teachers seem to experience greater initial difficulty with classroom management than traditionally certified teachers working in similar schools (Schonfeld & Feinman, 2012). That said, their different patterns of attrition may result from nonrandom teacher sorting into programs and first school. For example, teachers from selective colleges, overrepresented in selective and other alternative certification programs, leave teaching at higher rates than those from less selective colleges (Brantlinger et al., 2020; Kelly & Northrop, 2015; Podgursky et al., 2004; Zumwalt et al., 2017). Alternative route teachers also are more likely to begin in higher poverty and higher turnover schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).

Research Questions

This study addresses questions about the career trajectories of mathematics teachers who entered teaching more than a decade ago through a nationally prominent selective alternative certification program, namely, NYCTF. It examines their reasons for entry, staying, and leaving and how this relates to their prior work experience as recent college graduates and career changers. As such, the study is designed to answer the following overarching research question:

Research Question 1: What were the main patterns in the career trajectories of NYCTF mathematics teachers and, in particular, those who entered as recent graduates and career changers?

It also answers the following subquestions:

Research Question 1a: What were the teachers’ characteristics and backgrounds, including their prior career experiences, and how did the characteristics and backgrounds of recent graduates and career changers compare?

Research Question 1b: What were the recent graduates’ and career changers’ reasons for entering teaching?

Research Question 1c: When and why did the teachers decide to leave, stay, or move into school leadership and administrative positions, and how did the career transitions and decisions of recent graduates and career changers compare?

Research Question 1d: What educational roles and noneducational occupations were the recent graduates and career changers working in a decade after entering teaching through NYCTF?

Theoretical Perspective

Consistent with the literature on teachers’ career trajectories (Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997; Lindqvist et al., 2014), I understand teachers’ career decision-making to be a process that unfolds over time. Teachers’ career decisions and opportunities for advancement are shaped by the accumulation of experience, professional ties, and credentials. Relatedly, how teachers make sense of their work depends on their career stage (Huberman, 1989; Varadharajan et al., 2020; Wilkins, 2017).

I also assume that teachers’ career trajectories are open-ended, due in part to the interplay between individual agency and societal structure (Chin & Young, 2007; Hurst & Brantlinger, in press; Rinke & Mawhinney, 2017). Structural factors include pay differentials between districts and administrator support. Agency concerns the ability of individual teachers to proactively shape their own career outcomes (e.g., deciding to leave a school). The interplay between structure and agency suggests that teachers’ career trajectories generally are not fixed in advance. Although some new teachers plan to teach for exactly 2 years, and others until retirement, they can leave teaching at any point because of accumulation of stress, a sudden decline in health, a personal whim, or an administrative decision. Reciprocally, depending on teaching experience and career alternatives, some teachers become open to the possibility of staying in teaching longer than they initially planned (Hurst & Brantlinger, in press).

Method

This study incorporates survey and retention data collected as part of a longitudinal research project on the recruitment, training, induction, and instruction of hundreds of NYCTF mathematics teachers (Brantlinger, 2020; Cooley et al., 2021). That project began with an exploratory, qualitative-to-quantitative mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2017). The current study draws on the project data to provide a descriptive portrait of the teachers’ career trajectories. The analysis is illuminated by descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses of teachers’ open-ended survey responses. It uses exploratory factor analysis to transform the numerous survey measures about teachers’ reasons for entry, staying, and leaving into a manageable number of psychometrically desirable measures. The current study does not use statistical modeling but rather uses Kruskal–Wallis tests, chi-square tests, and t tests to examine whether different teacher subgroups (e.g., career changers, recent graduates) leave or stay in teaching at different rates and for different reasons.

Sample and Context: Two Cohorts of NYCTF Mathematics Teachers

Launched in 2000 by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education in collaboration with The New Teacher Project (TNTP), NYCTF was the flagship Teaching Fellow program. At that time, policy makers expressed concern about teacher shortages and quality (Levy, 2000). Through the targeted recruitment of selective college graduates and professional career changers, Teaching Fellow programs promised to improve teacher quality while addressing shortages of certified teachers (Brantlinger, 2020).

The project sample includes 635 secondary mathematics candidates who entered NYCTF in either summer 2006 or summer 2007. According to NYCTF lists, this included 98% of the teachers from those two cohorts who began paid teaching in NYC public schools; 617 of them became teachers of record after completing 120 hr of university coursework, 40 hr of NYCTF-delivered training, and a minimum of 40 hr of practice teaching in a summer school classroom (Brantlinger & Smith, 2013). In their first 2 years, the teachers taught full-time while also taking in-service master’s certification courses at one of four NYCTF-partner universities for secondary mathematics. In exchange for the subsidized master’s certification coursework, NYCTF teachers committed to teaching in the district for 2 years.

Service History Data

The NYC Department of Education provided service history data for the 617 teachers who began paid teaching in NYC public schools. Spanning the period from 2006 to 2016, the service history data included information about their school assignments, roles (e.g., mathematics teacher, assistant principal), and employment status (e.g., excessed, temporary leave), and whether their attrition was considered voluntary or involuntary.

Survey Data

In 2016, 389 NYCTF mathematics teachers—approximately 63% of the 617 NYCTF mathematics teachers who began paid teaching in NYC public schools—completed a “career trajectory” survey. The survey collected information about their college experience (e.g., graduation date, major) and their career activity before NYCTF. It included two tables that collected information about the professional positions (e.g., department chair, assistant principal) they held annually in NYC public schools and, if applicable, other K–12 settings. The survey also included a “reasons for entry” inventory with 24 Likert-type scale items. The teacher leavers, those who had left K–12 teaching before 2016, were prompted about their postteaching occupations, including titles, dates, and salaries. The stayers were prompted to complete a 29-item “reasons for staying” inventory and an open-ended item that asked them to list personal attributes that they believed had contributed to their retention. An open-ended prompt asked those who had become school leaders to explain that transition. All the survey inventories were informed by prior study results (Brantlinger & Smith, 2013; Foote et al., 2011; Meagher & Brantlinger, 2011) and existing surveys (e.g., SASS). To validate these inventories, the project researchers conducted cognitive interviews with a dozen mathematics teachers not in the study. Experts in mathematics education and teacher preparation also reviewed the survey inventories.

Sample and Subsample

The “Results” section integrates findings from the full sample of 635 NYCTF teacher candidates, the 617 who became paid teachers of record, and the 389 who completed the 2016 survey. For example, Figures 1 and 2 merged retention results from the larger sample with insights provided from the survey subsample.

Prior Project Results

The current study complements two prior project analyses of NYCTF mathematics teacher retention. These show that NYCTF mathematics teachers were significantly more likely to stay in the district for at least 5 years if they had graduated from an NYC high school and were Black (Brantlinger et al., 2021). NYCTF training also seemed to shape their retention outcomes. Although university coursework—which differed across the four NYCTF-partner campuses—was weakly predictive, NYCTF’s Advisories (i.e., seminar groups linked to preservice clinical fieldwork) were highly predictive of their retention at 5 and 8 years. The frequency with which they interacted with their mentors in their first year also was positively associated with their retention (Brantlinger et al., 2020).

Qualitative Analysis and Career Subgroup Categories

To understand the teachers’ career decisions, I conducted qualitative analyses of the teachers’ responses to a series of open-ended survey prompts. In particular, the teachers responded to different, but parallel, prompts depending on their 2016 status as either district leavers or district stayers. Parallel prompts asked the stayers and leavers, respectively, about the school and district characteristics that they believed explained their retention or attrition. In this case, in vivo coding (Saldaña, 2015) was used to develop six codes for the leavers’ responses (e.g., administrator support, classroom management) and five codes for the stayers’ responses (e.g., administrator support, collegial relationships). A follow-up item inquired about the personal attributes that the district stayers believed had contributed to their retention. In this case, in vivo coding was used to develop seven codes (e.g., knowledge of mathematics, relationships with students). Additional parallel prompts asked the stayers and leavers about the “critical incidents” that they believed factored in their career decisions. In this case, an iterative coding process resulted in the following categories: positive or negative critical incidents involving their students, the job of teaching (e.g., salary, commute), and professional support. A colleague and I both coded the critical incidents data and arrived at 94% agreement. After discussing differences, we came to consensus about the interpretation and coding of a given response.

Using 2016 survey data on their self-reported career activity before NYCTF, another colleague and I assigned the teachers to one of three career subgroups. In particular, those who reported entering NYCTF within 3 years of having received their undergraduate degree were labeled recent graduates. Just over half of the remaining teachers reported 5 or more years of career experience—generally work in a single field or position—before entering NYCTF. They were labeled career changers. The other half, labeled career explorers, generally held one to three full- and part-time jobs (e.g., bank teller, waiter) for 1 to 3 years before entering NYCTF. Tigchelaar et al. (2008) and Boyd et al. (2011) used similar criteria to sort teachers into three career subgroups. In nine cases out of 389, my colleague and I differed on whether to designate someone as a career changer or a career explorer. We came to a consensus decision about each after discussing their responses. Finally, the NYC service history file distinguished between voluntary and involuntary attrition from a school and district (from the district perspective).

Quantitative Analysis

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to address questions about the teachers’ career decision-making and to reduce the 24-item “reasons for entry” and 29-item “reasons for leaving” inventories to a manageable number of psychometrically desirable factors. Both inventories used a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (not important at all or not applicable) to 5 (extremely important). The factor analyses used varimax (orthogonal) rotations, which required the factor eigenvalues to be greater than 1. An iterative approach was used to eliminate items that were weakly associated with the resulting factors. This process generated four reasons for entry factors and five reasons for leaving factors. Based on the item loadings, the reasons for entry factors were labeled altruism, meaningful job, alternative certification, and job benefits. The reasons for leaving factors were labeled dissatisfaction or concerns with administration, job benefits, course assignments, standardized tests, and school safety. The Cronbach’s alphas for the reasons for entry factors ranged from .65 to .87, and those for the reasons for leaving factors ranged from .71 to .86.

Two-sided comparison of means tests was used to examine whether career changers, career seekers, and recent graduates scored differently on the reasons for entry and leaving measures. Kruskal–Wallis H tests (one-way analysis of variance [ANOVA] on ranks tests) were used to examine whether career changers, career explorers, and recent graduates responded differently, in the aggregate, on the reasons for entry and leaving (Likert-type scale) items. Chi-square tests also were used to examine whether members of different career subgroups (e.g., career changers) left the district at different rates at key transition points (e.g., during the first year). This required that the continuous measures of retention be converted to dichotomous measures of staying–leaving in the district at key transition points, namely, before the end of Year 1, by the end of Year 1, before the end of Year 2, by the end of Year 2, by the end of Year 3, and by the end of Year 8.

In addition, to examine survey selection bias, the demographics and attrition rates of teachers in the project sample and survey subsample were compared statistically. This showed that although their demographic differences were generally small (i.e., below 3%), the survey takers were significantly more likely to be retained in NYC public schools in 2016—43% versus 35%. This difference was due in large part to the first-year leavers being about half as likely to respond to the 2016 survey than the other teachers. This limitation is discussed in the “Discussion” section.

Results

The results are organized chronologically, namely, by the periods: before NYCTF, during NYCTF’s 2-year certification program, and the 7 years after program completion (see Figure 1). Each subsection is divided in two, beginning with results about the teachers’ career trajectories and then discussing their decisions to enter, leave, and stay at different stages.

Before NYCTF: Recent Graduates, Career Seekers, and Career Changers

The majority (65%) of NYCTF mathematics teachers entered as recent graduates, that is, within 3 years of having received an undergraduate degree (Table 1). Most recent graduates entered in their early to mid-20s. They also skewed female. Recent graduates were particularly willing to resettle in NYC to participate in NYCTF, as reflected in the comparatively small proportion who had graduated from an NYC high school.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Surveyed NYCTF Mathematics Teachers.

Teacher characteristics	Recent graduates (n = 250)	Career seekers (n = 62)	Career changers (n = 77)	Combined sample (N = 389)
Age (median years)	23	27	39	25
Age (mean years)	24	30	40	28
Female (%)	59	48	42	54
Latinx (%)	9	3	9	8
Asian (non-Latinx) (%)	17	15	9	15
Black (non-Latinx) (%)	15	26	27	19
White (non-Latinx) (%)	58	56	55	57
Upper class or upper-middle class (%)	25	21	16	23
Other middle class (%)	38	48	39	40
Working class (%)	37	31	45	38
NYC high school graduate (%)	25	19	49	29
Very selective college (%)	35	26	30	32
Degree in mathematics (%)	12	6	8	10
Degree in other STEM-related fields (%)	14	19	23	16
Prior advanced degree (%)	4	36	55	19
Median annual salary prior	US$0	US$30,000	US$70,000	US$18,000
Mean annual salary prior	US$12,646	US$28,645	US$99,580	US$32,208

Note. NYCTF = New York City Teaching Fellows; NYC = New York City; STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Career seekers, comprising 16% of the surveyed sample, were older than most recent graduates but younger than most career changers (Table 1). Most career seekers (75%) entered NYCTF between the ages of 26 and 30. They typically worked for 3 or fewer years in one or more nonprofessional jobs before NYCTF. Like recent graduates, most career explorers were community outsiders, as indicated by the comparatively small proportion who were NYC high school graduates.

Career changers comprised 20% of the surveyed sample.³ Before NYCTF, most (65%–75%) worked in professional positions as engineers, architects, investment bankers, lawyers, corporate consultants, and brand managers. The rest worked in semiprofessional positions as salespeople, carpenters, secretaries, and restaurant managers. More than half entered NYCTF with an advanced degree. Although ranging in age from 28 to 62, most of the career changers were in their 30s or early 40s at entry (Table 1). They also skewed male and were particularly likely to be rooted in the city, as indicated by the fact that 49% were NYC high school graduates.

Although the majority of NYCTF mathematics teachers were White and from middle- or upper-class backgrounds, their characteristics differed somewhat by career subgroup (Table 1). The recent graduates were the most likely to be non-Black and to come from upper-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Comparatively, a high proportion of the career changers were Black or from working-class backgrounds; approximately 20% were both Black and working class, whereas the same held for only 14% of career explorers and 7% of recent graduates. Although they were statistically no more likely to be White than others, 32.8% of career explorers were both White and middle class, whereas the same held for only 24.3% of career changers and 24.0% of recent graduates. Compared with their counterparts, relatively few career explorers were Latinx, whereas relatively few career changers were of Asian descent.

Reasons for Entry

NYCTF mathematics teachers entered teaching for generally similar reasons, irrespective of their prior career experience. As Table 2 shows, “[wanting] a job with purpose or meaning” was the highest cited item for recent graduates, career explorers, and career changers alike, and their responses did not differ significantly by subgroup. However, for the other two reasons for entry items under the meaningful job scale, the teachers’ responses did clearly differ by subgroup. In particular, the career seekers were significantly less likely than others to have reported entering the field to “try teaching out.” For their part, recent graduates were significantly less likely than their career-experienced counterparts to have cited being “tired of [their] previous job,” which makes sense given their limited prior career experience.

Table 2

Reasons for Entry Items Organized by Factors (N = 389).

Scale	Items	M (SD)	Recent graduate	Career seeker	Career changer
Meaningful job	I wanted a job with purpose or meaning	4.35 (0.78)	4.37 (0.78)	4.29 (0.93)	4.35 (0.67)
	I wanted to try teaching out	3.59 (1.12)	3.66 (1.03)	3.26* (1.27)	3.65 (1.26)
	I was tired of my previous job	2.33 (1.50)	1.93** (1.37)	2.87** (1.49)	3.08** (1.45)
Altruism	I wanted to make a social difference	4.09 (0.96)	4.16 (0.89)	3.94 (0.97)	3.97 (1.13)
Altruism	I wanted to help lower achieving students achieve success in math	3.77 (1.01)	3.77 (0.98)	3.77 (0.91)	3.76 (1.21)
Alternative certification	I liked the subsidized master’s degree	4.00 (0.94)	3.94 (0.97)	4.13 (0.82)	4.12 (0.90)
Alternative certification	I wanted to start paid teaching before completing the state certification requirements	3.68 (1.31)	3.60 (1.35)	3.79 (1.27)	3.83 (1.20)
Job benefits	I needed a job with a decent salary	3.51 (1.12)	3.52 (1.07)	3.73 (0.94)	3.26 (1.36)
Job benefits	I liked the job benefits and/or security of teaching	3.49 (1.11)	3.45 (1.11)	3.73 (1.06)	3.44 (1.15)
NA Additional reasons for entry	My passion for mathematics	3.18 (1.14)	3.01** (1.20)	3.43 (0.89)	3.51** (0.97)
	I wanted to become a career teacher or teach until retirement	2.89 (1.31)	2.67** (1.32)	3.09 (1.21)	3.30** (1.20)
	I was seeking a route to career advancement	2.51 (1.26)	2.50 (1.25)	2.97** (1.34)	2.17** (1.15)
	I thought that being a Teaching Fellow would look good on my resumé	2.29 (1.13)	2.47** (1.17)	1.97 (0.92)	1.94 (0.97)

Note. The survey items listed in the second column are organized by their loadings onto the “reasons for entry” factors listed in the left column. Significance is based on Kruskal–Wallis H tests. NA = not applicable.

Significance at the .05 level. **Significance at the .01 level.

Contrary to what some literature suggests, the career changers were no more likely than the recent graduates to cite altruistic reasons or the features of alternative certification as motivating their entry. Moreover, the different career subgroups also did not cite entering for job benefits at significantly different rates. However, they did differ on certain reasons for entry items that did not cluster onto any of the four main reasons-for-entry scales (Table 2). Specifically, the career changers were significantly more likely than others to cite a “passion for mathematics,” whereas recent college graduates were significantly less likely than others to have cited this reason for entry; 56% of career changers cited a passion for mathematics as a “very” or “extremely” important reason for entry, whereas the same held for only 45% of career explorers and 38% of recent graduates.⁴ Perhaps because they considered teaching to be a second or third career, the career changers also were significantly more likely than their counterparts to report having entered to “become a career teacher or teach until retirement”; in contrast, lacking comparative career experiences, the recent graduates were significantly less likely to have done so. For their part, the career seekers were more likely than others to have entered NYCTF in search of a “route to career advancement.” In contrast, the career changers were significantly less likely to have cited this as an important reason for entry. Finally, recent college graduates were significantly more likely than their career-experienced counterparts to have entered teaching thinking that “being a Teaching Fellow would look good on [their] resumé[s].”

During NYCTF: Preservice Leavers, In-Service Leavers, and Program Completers

The teacher candidates and teachers left NYCTF and the district at a fairly steady rate during the program’s preservice and in-service phases. Approximately 35 candidates exited during NYCTF’s preservice training component in summer 2006 or summer 2007. The remaining 620 received alternative certification (i.e., New York’s transitional teaching license) after completing this training. A total of 617 teachers began full-time paid teaching in the district the following school year. Most (>75%) found their positions through interviews with school administrators at job fairs, while others (<20%) were placed by NYCTF in consultation with the district. For various reasons, 34 started teaching after the school year began. Of these, 22 began as substitute teachers, and of these, 10 eventually became teachers of record and 12 either left voluntarily or were released by the district.

Of the 617 teachers who started paid teaching, 502 completed the 2-year commitment to the district and, with a few exceptions, the master’s certification coursework, becoming NYCTF completers and fully certified teachers. Of the 115 who did not fulfill the 2-year commitment to the district, 100 had left by the end of their first year and another 15 by the end of their second year. The first-year leavers included 60 who left the district during the first semester, 15 who left during the second semester, and 25 who left before the second year.

Reasons for Leaving Before Fulfilling the 2-Year Commitment

Some preservice leavers left NYCTF voluntarily before entering paid teaching, concluding that teaching secondary mathematics in an urban public school was not for them. More departed involuntarily, for repeatedly failing New York’s content specialty test or for demonstrating a lack of fit with teaching. Being “discontinued” during the preservice program could be contentious. One preservice leaver reported being “unjustly discharged from NYCTF” because the summer school principal “did not like” her. After being dismissed during the preservice program for “unprofessional behavior,” another Fellow, a former lawyer, threatened NYCTF with a lawsuit.

The in-service leavers (i.e., those who entered but left the district before completing 2 years of service) were more likely than preservice leavers to leave of their own accord; in particular, 90 of 115 in-service leavers seemed to have left voluntarily. That said, the line between voluntary and involuntary attrition was thin; many voluntary in-service leavers were subjected to what they perceived as administrator mistreatment—even “harassment.” Realizing that they were in vulnerable positions, many chose to leave before being fired.

Of the 25 involuntary in-service leavers, five started as substitutes and were “terminated” by the district 10 weeks into the first semester for repeatedly failing the state’s mathematics specialty content test. Another nine were involuntarily “excessed” by their first school principal during the last 6 weeks of the first school year; rather than find a position in another school, they left the district voluntarily. One such semivoluntary leaver reported “struggling . . . right out of college” and “shaking during [his] end-of-year meeting with [his] principal and assistant principal [and deciding] to get out of the public school business while [he] still had teaching certificate intact.”

In addition to the 115 in-service leavers, there were 73 in-service teacher movers who voluntarily or involuntarily migrated to a second, and sometimes third, district school in their first 2 years. This meant that, of the 617 NYCTF mathematics teachers who started paid teaching, 188 (30.5%) left their first school within their first 2 years. The earliest first-school leavers (i.e., who left their first school during the first year) left for different reasons than later first-school leavers (i.e., who left their first school at or after 1 year of service). As Table 3 shows, the earliest first-school leavers reported problems with student discipline and school safety at significantly higher rates than did later first-school leavers. One reported leaving “on the second day of school after citing safety concerns,” and another resigned 2 weeks into teaching after having “an eye injury during a chaotic episode in the classroom.”

Table 3.

First-School Leavers’ Reasons for Leaving by Time of Exit.

Reasons for leaving	Left during Year 1 (%)	Left after Year 1 (%)
Student discipline problems were an issue	53**	31
I was dissatisfied with the principal	37	35
I was dissatisfied with workplace conditions (e.g., facilities, classroom resources)	35**	24
I became disenchanted with teaching mathematics	33**	15
I was dissatisfied with administrator(s) other than the principal	27	28
I was dissatisfied with staff dynamics or teacher professionalism	25	23
I was concerned about my safety	24**	8
I was dissatisfied with the support I received for preparing my students for standardized tests	24**	8
I had a change in residence or wanted to work in a school more convenient to my home	7*	22
	n = 41	n = 266

Note. Analysis used a dichotomous variable, where 1 = strongly agree or agree, and 0 = strongly disagree, disagree, or neither agree nor disagree.

Significance is based on chi-square tests of independence with one degree of freedom (n = 301), where asterisks indicate the following: *significance at the .05 level and **significance at the .01 level.

The earliest first-school leavers also voiced considerable concern about the lack of school support for preparing students for standardized mathematics exams (Table 3). In addition, they cited a disenchantment with teaching school mathematics at a comparatively high rate. This was consistent with the result that those NYCTF mathematics teachers who expressed a preference for teaching something other than secondary mathematics were overrepresented among the earliest district leavers. Specifically, 52% of the earliest in-service leavers would have preferred teaching a different subject, compared with 42% of in-service leavers who left after the 1 year but before the 2-year mark and 31.5% later district leavers who left at some point after completing the 2-year commitment. A chi-square test showed that these differences were significant at the .05 level: χ²(2, N = 256) = 6.29, p = .043 (see Note 4).

Compared with the recent graduates, the career changers and career explorers seemed to have greater difficulty adjusting to the demands of teaching or their school contexts in the first year. Specifically, 24% of career seekers and 20% of career changers left their first school during the first year, whereas only 9% of recent graduates did the same. A chi-square test showed that these differences were significant: χ²(2, N = 384) = 7.31, p = .026. Consistent with the results in Table 3, the career changers and explorers who left their first school during the first year cited student discipline, unsupportive administrators, and workplace conditions as the driving reasons for their early departures. To be clear, just over half of the teachers who left their first school during their first year transferred to another NYC public school, whereas the remainder left the district. The opposite held for those who left at the end of their first year or during their second year.

After NYCTF Training: Staying, Shifting, Leaving, and Sometimes Returning

Of the 502 teachers who completed NYCTF’s 2-year master’s certification program, 57 left the district immediately after that, another 63 left by the end of their third year, and another 164 left between the 3- and 8-year marks. The remaining 218 worked in the district for 8 or more years as teachers, teacher leaders, school administrators, or in another role (e.g., technology or testing coordinator).

With the exception of first-year turnover, which was near 18.5%, NYCTF mathematics teachers’ district attrition was fairly constant, at about 11% annually; about 89% of the previous year’s population returned each school year. In contrast, their first school attrition—which included district leavers and school movers—was between 24% and 27% in the first 4 years, before falling to 19% to 23% in subsequent years. Moreover, most district leavers left the district and their first schools at the end of, rather than during, each school year. Once again, the exception was Year 1, which witnessed a lot of midyear turnover. Figure 2 depicts this stepwise pattern of district attrition and the midyear turnover in Year 1.

Figure 2 also captures the proportion of stayers who were in teacher leadership or administrator roles in a given school year. The teacher leadership roles, which included master teacher, mathematics department chair, new teacher mentor, and instructional coach, were mostly part-time, which meant that the teachers continued to teach. In contrast, the administrative roles were mostly full-time. These included principal, assistant principal, vice principal of student support, and dean of student affairs. With the exception of deans, the administrative positions required state licensure. In addition, although not evident in Figure 2 because of the small number, six NYCTF mathematics teachers transitioned into roles such as testing coordinator, technology coordinator, and school psychologist.

NYCTF mathematics teachers started to become school administrators in their fifth and sixth years. In Years 7 to 9, those who were still in the district were as likely to be in an administrative or teacher leadership role as in a teaching-only role. Surprisingly, about 15% of the surveyed teachers reported being assigned to a teacher leadership role (e.g., department chair, master teacher) in their first (7.5%) and second (10%) years. As some explained it, this was due to starting in schools with few, if any, experienced mathematics teachers who otherwise might have served in those roles. However, post hoc regression analyses estimated that the teachers who were assigned a leadership role in their first 2 years would stay in their first school for almost a year less and the district about 2 years less, on average, than those who were not. They also indicated that career changers were no more likely than others to be assigned to these roles.

It should be noted that the career trajectories of some teachers were not captured well by Figure 2, nor, for that matter, by the “stayer–mover–leaver” schema used in this and other retention studies. First were the trajectories of district stayers who moved in and out of teacher leadership positions and, to a lesser extent, administrative positions. Of the 617 teachers who entered paid teaching, 40% worked in a teacher leadership or school administrative role (in the district) at some point in their first 8 years; of these, at least 20% returned to a teaching-exclusive role in a later year. Second were the trajectories of 44 of the 399 district leavers who left teaching for a hiatus of a year or longer, only to return to teaching. This included 20 “leavers” who returned to NYC public schools and 24 “leavers” who returned to teaching but in a different K–12 system.

Nine years after entry, more than 55% of the surveyed NYCTF mathematics teachers were working as teachers, teacher leaders, or school administrators in NYC public schools or another K–12 system (e.g., international schools; Table 4).⁵ The rest were working outside K–12 education in the health, financial, engineering, arts, and legal sectors or, in a few cases, were no longer in the workforce. Moreover, about 10% of the teacher leavers were working in the non-K–12 education sector in nonprofit or philanthropic organizations, in postsecondary institutions as adjunct instructors, or privately as tutors. As of 2016, some were in mid-level positions such as a “program officer in education at a private foundation” and “math instructional specialist for a non-profit organization.” At most seven had risen to leadership positions in the education sector, including a career explorer who became the “National Program Director” of a small education nonprofit and a (former) recent graduate who started an educational nonprofit.

Table 4.

Most Recent Jobs, 9 Years After Starting as NYCTF Mathematics Teachers.

Most recent job	Recent graduate (%)	Career seeker (%)	Career changer (%)
Teacher in NYC public schools	20.8	25.8	32.9
Teacher leader in NYC public schools	11.6	6.5	14.5
Administrator in NYC public schools	8.4	6.5	9.2
Teacher in other K−12 system	10.8	14.5	6.6
Teacher leader in other K−12 system	2.4	6.5	1.3
Administrator in other K−12 system	1.6	1.6	1.3
Education sector (non-K−12)	10.4	16.1	5.3
Work outside of education	26.0	14.5	18.4
Graduate school	4.8	4.8	0
Out of the labor force	3.2	3.2	10.5
	n = 250	n = 62	n = 76

Note. A chi-square test of independence showed that the group-based outcomes—with all outcomes included in one test—were significantly different: χ²(18, N = 388) = 30.0, p = .037. NYCTF = New York City Teaching Fellows; NYC = New York City.

Although in many ways similar, the teaching and postteaching career trajectories of the career changers, career seekers, and recent graduates differed in some key regards (Table 4). In particular, the career changers were the most likely to have remained in NYC public schools, in any role, and to have left the workforce. The career seekers were the most likely to have moved to another school district or K–12 school setting (e.g., an international school) and to have moved into the (non-K–12) education sector. The recent graduates were the most likely to be working outside education. A chi-square test showed that these differences in their trajectories were significant and, hence, likely nonrandom. A post hoc analysis indicated that they were due principally to career changers’ higher rate of leaving the workforce and recent graduates’ higher rate of working outside education.

Reasons for Leaving and Sometimes Returning

The district leavers left their last NYC public school—which, for 52%, was their first school, 35% their second school, and 13% their third to fifth school—because of dissatisfaction with student discipline, school administrators, staff dynamics, high-stakes accountability, job benefits, and instructional assignments, as shown in Table 5. Although these results are consistent with the teacher turnover literature, an unexpected result was that about 20% of district leavers cited a “disenchantment with teaching mathematics” as a “very important” or “extremely important” reason for leaving. Table 5 results were not disaggregated by career subgroup because nonsignificant chi-square tests on the individual items showed that the career changers, career seekers, and recent graduates left their last NYC public school for largely similar reasons.

Table 5.

District Leavers’ Most Cited Reasons for Leaving Last NYC Public School and District (n = 297).

Factor	Items	M (SD)	Highly important (%)
Dissatisfaction with school administrators	I was dissatisfied with the principal	2.52 (1.66)	32.7
	I was dissatisfied with administrator(s) other than the principal	2.30 (1.58)	26.9
	I was dissatisfied with staff dynamics or teacher professionalism	2.10 (1.49)	22.2
Concerns with discipline and safety	Student discipline problems were an issue	2.46 (1.64)	32.7
Concerns with discipline and safety	I was concerned about my safety	1.60 (1.17)	11.4
Dissatisfaction with standards-based accountability	I was dissatisfied with how student assessments and/or school accountability measures impacted my teaching	1.94 (1.38)	17.5
Dissatisfaction with standards-based accountability	I was dissatisfied with the influence standardized tests had on the curriculum	1.94 (1.38)	16.8
Dissatisfaction with job benefits	I wanted a higher standard of living than my salary provided	1.53 (1.13)	9.8
Dissatisfaction with job benefits	My salary did not allow me to meet my financial obligations	1.36 (0.91)	6.4
Dissatisfaction with instructional assignments	I was dissatisfied with the grade level I taught	1.34 (0.87)	4.7
Dissatisfaction with instructional assignments	I was dissatisfied with the grade-level subject area I taught	1.28 (0.79)	3.7
NAAdditional reasons for leaving	I became disenchanted with teaching mathematics	2.02 (1.44)	20.2
NAAdditional reasons for leaving	I was dissatisfied with the lack of influence I had over school policies and practices	1.95 (1.32)	17.2

Note. The survey items listed in the second column are organized by their loadings onto the “reasons for leaving” factors listed in the left column. The mean values in the third column are based on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (extremely important). The right column lists the percentage of teachers citing the item as either extremely important or very important. Reasons for leaving data were not disaggregated by career subgroup because their responses were not statistically different (at the .05 level). NYC = New York City; NA = not applicable.

Nine district leavers who returned to the district after a year to several-year break provided short narrative accounts about their decision to return. Four reported returning after failing to find a job with comparable benefits. As one explained,

I didn’t feel successful as a teacher and disliked my supervisor so much that I left the teaching profession. Unfortunately for me, I resigned right at the start of the Great Recession. I couldn’t find other employment and was forced to go back into teaching more than a year later.

Two others found noneducation jobs in other cities, only to end up back in NYC and, eventually, as teachers in NYC public schools. Three others quit the district for familial or health-related reasons, only to return several years later.

Reasons for Staying and Shifting Roles

Of the 617 NYCTF mathematics teachers who entered paid teaching in 2006 or 2007, 104 were first-school stayers who worked in their first NYC public school for 8 or more years. On the 2016 survey, 64 first-school stayers named the personal and school attributes that they believed contributed to their retention. The personal attributes cited included their knowledge of mathematics (47%), sense of humor (32%), commitment (23%), cultural competence (20%), flexibility and patience (20%), care for students (17%), and relationships with students and their families (15%).⁶ The school attributes named were teacher collegiality and relationships (68%), supportive school leaders (66%), engaged and talented students (28%), teacher influence (22%), and school location or facilities (18%). A few also cited the job benefits (e.g., salaries, health and retirement plans, vacation time) of working in and, as discussed later, career advancement opportunities in NYC public schools.

Sixty-three of the district stayers who had become teacher leaders (n = 38) or school administrators (n = 25) in NYC public schools also explained their career decision-making on the 2016 survey. The teacher leaders attributed their transition into leadership to their having been selected, and frequently mentored, by a school administrator (53%), personal drive (37%), and/or involvement in an external program (e.g., Math for America) that developed them as teacher leaders (16%). Whereas a clear majority indicated that they had actively sought a teacher leadership position, others reported moving into them unexpectedly and sometimes even reluctantly. The school administrators attributed their transitions into administration to their individual ambition (64%), encouragement or mentoring from school administrators (40%), and/or encouragement from colleagues (8%). Most also had served in teacher leadership roles prior to becoming administrators.

The district movers who left NYC public schools to work in another K–12 system cited the following reasons for their decision: (1) to be closer to home or family (33%); (2) to leave behind unsupportive administrators in NYC public schools (26%); (3) to escape negative evaluations or respond to being excessed from an NYC school (16%); (4) to work in private, international, or charter schools (14%); and (5) to pursue better salaries and job benefits (9%).

Discussion

This study was designed to examine the career trajectories of mathematics teachers from a selective alternative certification program, namely, NYCTF, and, as part of this, compare those of career changers, career explorers, and recent graduates (Figure 1). To accomplish this, the study incorporated longitudinal data on more than 600 NYCTF mathematics teachers. The longitudinal nature of the study is a strength because only a handful of retention studies (e.g., Lindqvist et al., 2014; Quartz et al., 2008; Redding & Henry, 2018; Zumwalt et al., 2017) track teacher cohorts beyond the first 2 years. Furthermore, the study tracked both teacher stayers and leavers to gain insights about their different, if overlapping, career outcomes.

With this in mind, this research makes three main contributions. First, as discussed in the “Implications for Research” section, it adds to a small number of studies that show that the career trajectories of new generations of teachers range from the straightforward to the complex (e.g., Lindqvist et al., 2014; Quartz et al., 2008) and, in so doing, challenges several widely held assumptions in the retention literature. On the straightforward side were the teachers who taught for a few years in one district school and then left to work outside education. On the complex side were the district leavers who returned after a long hiatus, and the district stayers who moved in and out of leadership positions.

Second, the study also deepens our understanding of teachers’ career decision-making as it unfolds over time. For example, it documents that the district leavers emphasized different reasons for leaving, depending on when they left (Table 3). Furthermore, while some of their reasons for leaving are well documented, such as a lack of administrator support, others are not, such as mathematics teachers’ disenchantment with secondary mathematics. In addition to examining why leavers leave, the study also provides insights about why some district stayers move into teacher leadership and administrative roles while others continue to teach full-time.

Third, the study shows that, although in many ways similar, the career trajectories of the career changers, career explorers, and recent graduates differed in key regards. For example, although they left their schools at a significantly higher rate during their first year, the career changers were significantly more likely than the recent graduates to remain in the district in the long run (Table 4). Although this might be explained by their prior work experience, as a group, the career changers entered the field with stronger ties to NYC and its schools, which also might have been a factor (49% were NYC high school graduates; see Table 1). Other project research shows that the NYC high school graduates were much more likely to be retained in the district than their counterparts (Brantlinger et al., 2020, 2021). With this is mind, isolating the effects of teachers’ prior career experience on their retention is something that future research might address.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, because of space limitations, the relationship between the teachers’ race and social class and their career trajectories was not a study focus, although it will be in a future project study. In addition, although addressed in other project research (see Brantlinger et al., 2020, 2021), the current study ignored the influence of training and induction on the teachers’ career trajectories. Second, it also relied on teachers’ retrospective survey reporting about their career decisions. Teachers’ memories about events can change over time, and, in some places, they also might provide socially desirable responses. As such, survey data may not be entirely reliable, accurate, or “true.” Third, as indicated, survey selection bias also was an issue because the teachers who left the district during the first year were undersampled. This may have influenced the results, particularly those about first-year turnover (Table 3). However, a missing data analysis suggested that the survey sample otherwise was representative of the full project sample. Fourth, being specific to NYCTF mathematics teachers, the results may not generalize well to other early-career teachers. However, as argued in the next section, the results point to phenomena (e.g., mid-first-year and involuntary turnover) that should receive greater scholarly attention.

Implications for Practice

By recruiting high-achieving recent graduates and professional career changers, selective alternative certification programs such as NYCTF figure prominently among the policy solutions to teacher shortages in hard-to-staff urban schools. However, at least at current levels of production, such programs likely will not meet these schools’ future demands for teachers. Moreover, NYCTF mathematics teachers left their first schools and the district at high rates. Nine years after entry, only 35% were still working in NYC public schools. Thus, while selective alternative route programs may help districts and high-turnover schools to meet immediate staffing needs, they seem to maintain high levels of turnover in the long run. Arguably, given the massive expenditure and the problems associated with high turnover, NYC citizens might expect better outcomes from taxpayer-funded programs like NYCTF (Brantlinger, 2020).

However, as noted in the introduction, proponents of selective programs like NYCTF and Teach For America (TFA) argue that the retention of program alumni in the public sector needs to be considered when weighing program impact (Higgins et al., 2011; Mead et al., 2015). By that metric, NYCTF shows some signs of success. Nine years after entering NYCTF, a majority of the mathematics teachers were working in a public or private K–12 setting, including the 35% who remained in the district and another 20% to 25% in another K–12 setting (Figure 1, Table 4). An additional 10% were working in non-K–12 roles in the broader education sector, including in nonprofit and philanthropic organizations. An assumption is that these program alumni will become educational leaders and advocate for students like those they taught in NYC public schools. However, this issue merits future study because it is unclear what these program alumni actually do and advocate for.

In sum, given the scale of teacher turnover and the lack of clarity about what the leavers actually do that might benefit students, it seems clear that more needs to be done to retain teachers from selective programs and, for that matter, other teachers in hard-to-staff schools. In addition, because teacher recruitment strategies, inclusive of selective alternative certification programs, seem insufficient to address long-standing teacher shortages in these schools, teacher retention strategies need to be prioritized (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ingersoll, 2001; Quartz et al., 2008). However, to ensure that these strategies are effective, the field needs to better understand why some people are motivated to teach in hard-to-staff schools, why some of them leave, and why some of them stay for years. Although single studies are always insufficient, this study helps by explaining why career changers, career seekers, and recent graduates enter teaching through NYCTF and how mathematics teaching in hard-to-staff district schools fits into their career plans. It specifically shows that, compared with the recent graduates, the career changers initially had greater trouble adapting to teaching than the recent graduates, but they were more likely to stay in NYC public schools as the years progressed. This is consistent with prior research that finds that, as a group, midcareer teachers experience considerable problems adjusting to teaching, but if they get through the survival stage, they eventually settle into the profession (e.g., Watters & Diezmann, 2015; Wilkins, 2017). In terms of retention strategies, this suggests that training and induction likely should be tailored to meet the different needs of career changers and recent graduates.

Finally, the study results also can help to improve retention strategies by confirming prior results about the relationship between teacher retention and certain features of school climate, including administrator support and high-stakes accountability (Boyd et al., 2008; Grant & Brantlinger, in press; Ingersoll, 2001; Simon & Johnson, 2015). In addition, some of the more nuanced results such as the time-varying effects of certain school climate issues on the teachers’ decisions to leave also should inform retention strategies. In particular, Table 3 indicates that disciplinary and safety issues were of greater concern to the teachers at the start of their first year but diminished in importance as time progressed. An implication is that mentoring and induction support make this an initial focus.

Implications for Research

As with other longitudinal studies, this study challenges several key assumptions in the (cross-sectional) retention literature—for example, that midyear turnover is sufficiently small that it can be ignored and that teacher leavers do not return to K–12 teaching. Moreover, the finding that NYCTF mathematics teachers’ attrition rate from the district was near 11% annually in the period from 2007 to 2016 challenges the often-cited result that teacher turnover is “U-shaped”—that is, that teachers are more likely to leave at the beginning and end of their teaching careers than midcareer (see, for example, Papay et al., 2017). Of course, as Zumwalt et al.’s (2017) comparative study of alternative and traditional route teachers would suggest, it is possible that longitudinal patterns of NYCTF mathematics teacher turnover are different from those of the general teacher population.

The study also makes new contributions to the literature by finding relationships between mathematics teacher retention and (1) their initial dispositions toward teaching secondary mathematics and (2) their assignment to a teacher leadership role in their first 2 years. First, 20% of the district leavers cited a “disenchantment with teaching mathematics” as an “extremely” or “very” important reason for leaving, and the earliest district leavers cited this reason as important at significantly higher rates than later leavers (Table 3). Although prior research has examined the relationship between teacher turnover and grade-level assignments and teaching loads, the relationship between teachers’ subject-matter preferences and retention has received little attention. The assumption seems to be that teachers generally are satisfied with the subject matter they teach. Second, 15% of the surveyed teachers reported being assigned a teacher leadership—but not school administrative—role in their first or second year. This seemed to impact them, as they left their first schools and the district at significantly higher rates than those who were not assigned an early leadership role. Whether this phenomenon generalizes to other types of teachers or teachers in different school contexts merits future study.

The study also challenges the assumptions that teacher turnover is largely voluntary and, related, that voluntary turnover is easy to distinguish from involuntary turnover. As Grissom et al. (2016) observed, researchers tend to dismiss involuntary turnover because they believe it to be too small of a concern or too difficult to measure. However, this study shows that involuntary turnover is not inconsequential; more than 20% of the earliest district leavers did so involuntarily. Moreover, many of the “voluntary” leavers did not leave entirely of their own volition, given that the line between involuntary and voluntary turnover was thin. As indicated, some study teachers were involuntarily excessed from their first schools and then left after failing to find a position in another district school. While their departures might be labeled “voluntary” or “involuntary” depending on one’s perspective, “semivoluntary” might be the best descriptor. More broadly, rather than a binary outcome, the voluntary–involuntary nature of teacher turnover might better be thought of as falling on continuum.

The study also shows that, at least for NYCTF mathematics teachers, mid-first-year turnover is sizable; this was somewhat unexpected given that they signed a 2-year commitment to teach in a district school, which, in theory, required them to pay back a portion of the program costs if they left early. TFA teachers sign a similar 2-year contract, but they apparently exhibit very little mid-first-year turnover (Redding & Henry, 2018). It may be that TFA places a greater emphasis on its 2-year commitment than NYCTF does, but it also may be that the greater presence of career changers and career seekers in NYCTF contributes to early leaving because they, and not the recent graduates, were particularly likely to leave their first schools during their first year. It is worth noting that the sizable amount of mid-first-year turnover among NYCTF mathematics teachers is particularly concerning because in general, midyear turnover poses greater problems for schools and students than end-of-year turnover (Redding & Henry, 2018).

Ultimately, this study raises important questions about how teacher turnover generally is understood and measured. Specifically, these are as follows: What is lost when studies fail to distinguish between midyear and end-of-year turnover? How much teacher turnover is truly voluntary, versus semivoluntary or involuntary? Would theorizing teacher turnover as falling on a continuum from voluntary to involuntary, or as negotiated rather than an individual’s sole decision, help to advance the field? How many “teacher leavers” eventually return to teaching? Should teachers who become full-time administrators be counted as leavers? And how should the trajectories of teacher leavers who end up in educational nonprofit or philanthropic organizations be evaluated?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant #1535251: Examining the Career Trajectories of Urban Math Teachers from a Selective Alternative Certification Program.

Notes

Author Biography

Andrew Brantlinger is an associate professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership at the University of Maryland. His research interests pertain to critical theory, mathematics education, and teacher recruitment, training, and retention. Recent publications appear in Urban Education, Education Policy, and the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

References

Boyd

Grossman

Ing

Lankford

Loeb

O’Brien

Wyckoff

(2011). The effectiveness and retention of teachers with prior career experience. Economics of Education Review, 30(6), 1229–1241.

Boyd

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2008). The impact of assessment and accountability on teacher recruitment and retention: Are there unintended consequences? Public Finance Review, 36(1), 88–111.

Brantlinger

(2020). The meritocratic mystique and mathematical mediocrity in hard-to-staff schools: A critique of the best and brightest teacher agenda. Urban Education, 55(7), 1076–1104.

Brantlinger

Grant

A. A.

Cooley

(2021). Mathematics teacher preparation and retention in an urban school district: An interactional and intersectional analysis. [Manuscript submitted for publication].

Brantlinger

Grant

A. A.

Miller

Viviani

Cooley

Griffin

(2020). Maintaining gaps in teacher diversity, preparedness, effectiveness, and retention? A program theory evaluation of mathematics teacher training in the New York City Teaching Fellows. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820951117

Brantlinger

Smith

(2013). Alternative teacher certification and the new professionalism: The pre-service preparation of mathematics teachers in the New York City Teaching Fellows program. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1–44.

Callahan

Brantlinger

(2021). Altruism, jobs, and alternative certification: Mathematics teachers’ reasons for entry and their retention [Manuscript submitted for publication].

Carver-Thomas

(2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How to recruit and retain teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/diversifying-teaching-profession-report

Carver-Thomas

Darling-Hammond

(2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-turnover-report

10.

Chin

Young

J. W.

(2007). A person-oriented approach to characterizing beginning teachers in alternative certification programs. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 74–83.

11.

Cooley

Brantlinger

Hannaford-Simpson

Shahid

(2021). Presumed proficiencies, credentialism, and the pedagogy of poverty: Mathematics teachers from selective alternative route programs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(1), 61–87.

12.

Creswell

Plano-Clark

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.

13.

Djonko-Moore

C. M.

(2016). An exploration of teacher attrition and mobility in high poverty racially segregated schools. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(5), 1063–1087.

14.

Foote

M. Q.

Brantlinger

Haydar

H. N.

Smith

Gonzalez

(2011). Are we supporting teacher success: Insights from an alternative route mathematics teacher certification program for urban public schools. Education and Urban Society, 43(3), 396–425.

15.

Glazer

(2018). Leaving lessons: Learning from the exit decisions of experienced teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 24(1), 50–62.

16.

Grant

A. A.

Brantlinger

(in press). Demography as destiny: Explaining the turnover of alternatively certified mathematics teachers in hard-to-staff schools. Teachers College Record.

17.

Grissom

J. A.

Reininger

(2012). Who comes back? A longitudinal analysis of the reentry behavior of exiting teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 7(4), 425–454.

18.

Grissom

J. A.

Viano

S. L.

Selin

J. L.

(2016). Understanding employee turnover in the public sector: Insights from research on teacher mobility. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 241–251.

19.

Higgins

Hess

Weiner

Robison

(2011). Creating a corps. Education Next, 11(3), 15–21.

20.

Hodkinson

Sparkes

A. C.

(1997). Careership: A sociological theory of career decision making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(1), 29–44.

21.

Huberman

(1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 31–57.

22.

Hurst

Brantlinger

(in press). Patterns in critical incidents: Understanding teacher retention through career decision making. Teaching and Teacher Education.

23.

Ingersoll

Merrill

Stuckey

(2014, April). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force (CPRE Report No. RR-80). Consortium for Policy Research in Education. https://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/workingpapers/1506_7trendsapril2014.pdf

24.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.

25.

Johnson

(2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. Wiley.

26.

Johnson

Peske

(2004). The next generation of teachers. In Johnson

S. M.

(Ed.), Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools (pp. 19–48). Wiley.

27.

Johnson

S. M.

Birkeland

S. E.

(2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.

28.

Kelly

Northrop

(2015). Early career outcomes for the “best and the brightest” selectivity, satisfaction, and attrition in the beginning teacher longitudinal survey. American Educational Research Journal, 52(4), 624–656.

29.

Kokka

(2016). Urban teacher longevity: What keeps teachers of color in one under-resourced urban school? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 169–179.

30.

Levy

(2000, September 9). Why the best don’t teach. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/09/opinion/why-the-best-don-t-teach.html

31.

Lindqvist

Nordänger

U. K.

Carlsson

(2014). Teacher attrition the first five years—A multifaceted image. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94–103.

32.

Maier

(2012). Doing good and doing well: Credentialism and Teach For America. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 10–22.

33.

Mead

Chuong

Goodson

(2015). Exponential growth, unexpected challenges: How Teach For America grew in scale and impact. Bellwether Educational Partners.

34.

Meagher

Brantlinger

(2011). When am I going to learn to be a mathematics teacher? A case study of a novice New York City Teaching Fellow. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 4(2), 96–130.

35.

Morettini

(2014). Going back to school: Why STEM professionals decide to teach through alternative certification programs. Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 9(2), 3–23.

36.

Nieto

(2003). What keeps teachers going? Teachers College Press.

37.

Olsen

Anderson

(2007). Courses of action: A qualitative investigation into urban teacher retention and career development. Urban Education, 42(1), 5–29.

38.

Papay

J. P.

Bacher-Hicks

Page

L. C.

Marinell

W. H.

(2017). The challenge of teacher retention in urban schools: Evidence of variation from a cross-site analysis. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 434–448.

39.

Podgursky

Monroe

Watson

(2004). The academic quality of public school teachers: An analysis of entry and exit behavior. Economics of Education Review, 23(5), 507–518.

40.

Quartz

Thomas

Anderson

Masyn

Lyons

Olsen

(2008). Careers in motion: A longitudinal retention study of role changing among early-career urban educators. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 218–250.

41.

Redding

Henry

G. T.

(2018). New evidence on the frequency of teacher turnover: Accounting for within-year turnover. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 577–593.

42.

Redding

Smith

T. M.

(2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086–1125.

43.

Rinke

C. R.

(2013). Teaching as exploration? The difficult road out of the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 98–106.

44.

Rinke

C. R.

Mawhinney

(2017). Insights from teacher leavers: Push and pull in career development. Teaching Education, 28(4), 360–376.

45.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.

46.

Schonfeld

I. S.

Feinman

S. J.

(2012). Difficulties of alternatively certified teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44(3), 215–246.

47.

Simon

Johnson

(2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36.

48.

Sutcher

Darling-Hammond

Carver-Thomas

(2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/coming-crisis-teaching

49.

Tigchelaar

Brouwer

Korthagen

(2008). Crossing horizons: Continuity and change during second-career teachers’ entry into teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1530–1550.

50.

Varadharajan

Buchanan

Schuck

(2020). Navigating and negotiating: Career changers in teacher education programmes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2019.1669136

51.

Waddell

(2004). Fostering relationships to increase teacher retention in urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4(1), 70–85.

52.

Watters

J. J.

Diezmann

C. M.

(2015). Challenges confronting career-changing beginning teachers: A qualitative study of professional scientists becoming science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 163–192.

53.

Wilhelm

Dewhurst-Savellis

Parker

(2000). Teacher stress? An analysis of why teachers leave and why they stay. Teachers and Teaching, 6(3), 291–304.

54.

Wilkins

(2017). “Elite” career-changers and their experience of initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(2), 171–190.

55.

You

Conley

(2015). Workplace predictors of secondary school teachers’ intention to leave: An exploration of career stages. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 561–581.

56.

Zahner

Chapin

Levine

Afonso

(2019). Examining the recruitment, placement, and career trajectories of secondary mathematics teachers prepared for high-need schools. Teachers College Record, 121(2), 1–36.

57.

Zumwalt

Natriello

Randi

Rutter

Sawyer

(2017). Recruitment, preparation, placement, and retention of alternate route and college-prepared teachers: An early study of a New Jersey initiative. Teachers College Record, 119(14), 1–32.