Abstract
School principals faced unprecedented pressure during the COVID-19 period and an increase in workload due to transitions to and from distance learning. Increased educator turnover has great consequence for students and schools and important implications for policymakers moving into the postpandemic era. In this brief, we describe principal turnover within the broader context by showing how recent increases compare to historical trends, how the nature of turnover has changed with the composition of the workforce, and whether particular student groups are disproportionately impacted. We offer recommendations for improving principal retention and equitable access to stable school leadership.
Introduction
Principals play a critical role in creating and sustaining healthy, inclusive, and effective learning environments within classrooms and schools (Bartanen et al., 2019; Grissom et al., 2015; Leithwood et al., 2021; Liebowitz & Porter, 2019; Rigby, 2014). As instructional leaders, principals oversee teacher hiring, development, and retention, help set schoolwide expectations for learning and behavior, and represent the school in the local community. As community leaders, principals are also responsible for fostering a school environment that disrupts longstanding inequities and leverages school and community resources to ensure students from all backgrounds are valued, included, and able to reach their highest potential. Principals are especially critical in times of uncertainty, including during political transitions, budget cuts, or periods of academic recovery that follow school closures and crises such as COVID-19 (Jackson, 2023; Khalifa, 2020).
Principal turnover is not always a negative event. An individual principal departure from a campus can have a positive or negative impact on a school community depending on the prior principal’s skillset and fit on the campus, the extent to which succession planning occurred prior to their departure, and whether a high-quality replacement is available (Husain et al., 2021). While moderate employee attrition can improve organizational capacity, diversifying perspectives, and bringing new ideas, chronic principal turnover can be detrimental, representing a loss of continuity, school vision, and human capital (Baker et al., 2010; Ni et al., 2015; Sun & Ni, 2016). Studies show principal turnover disproportionately impact higher-poverty schools and schools enrolling higher shares of students of color and is associated with declines in student achievement and increased teacher turnover (Béteille et al., 2012; Buckman, 2021). In short, prior research shows the dynamics and structure of the principal labor market create disparities in access to effective, stable school leadership.
Like teachers, principals have faced unprecedented pressure during the COVID-19 period and an increase in workload due to transitions to and from distance learning (Bastian & Fuller, 2023; Camp et al., 2022; Collie, 2021; Diliberti & Schwartz, 2021; Goldhaber & Gratz, 2021). Moreover, survey data suggest principals were unprepared for the transition, particularly those working in higher-poverty contexts, where fewer principals reported using a Learning Management System or providing students with individual devices prior to the pandemic (Jackson et al., 2024; Kaufman et al., 2022). Whether these patterns lead to reduced job performance and greater leadership turnover has great consequence for students, particularly as schools engage academic recovery efforts and many schools have historically struggled to recruit and retain experienced teachers and principals. While studies highlight increases in teacher attrition in recent years, limited research examines principal turnover during the COVID-19 period, when schools had access to expanded resources through federal stimulus, but faced increased challenges (Di Pietro, 2023; Goldhaber et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2022; Reid, 2022; Upadyaya et al., 2021).
Stable school leadership and the equitable distribution of effective and experienced principals are especially critical at this moment given the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. At least one quarter million U.S. children lost a caregiver during the pandemic, creating enduring trauma for students (Hillis et al., 2021; Hills et al., 2022). Because educators work closely with students and interact daily, many, including principals, experience secondary trauma, which can lead to burnout and professional exhaustion. Principals face greater pressure in under-resourced schools that may lack assistant principals, counselors, or mental health specialists. Principals have also faced challenges associated with transitions between online and in-person learning, and mediating curriculum disagreements pertaining to U.S. racial history and LGBTQ+ populations (Stanford, 2022; Turner, 2022).
In this brief, we present an analysis of principal turnover in Texas and Washington State during the COVID-19 period. We then offer recommendations for improving principal retention and equitable access to stable school leadership.
Data and Methodology
We draw on data from two statewide longitudinal data systems, Washington Education Research and Data Center, and the Education Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. Both data systems link datasets from multiple state agencies over time, allowing us to track educator turnover across the state (see Knight, 2020). We use summary statistics to describe the overall landscape of principal turnover leading up to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include school covariates to compare principal turnover among principals working in similar school settings. Additional information about our data and methodology, as well as additional results, are included in the Online Appendix. Based on prior studies of factors associated with principal turnover, our models control for district size and locale, school grade level and school demographics, and principal total years of K–12 experience, principal race/ethnicity, and gender.
Findings
Our analyses yield five key findings: (a) Principal turnover has been consistently higher than teacher turnover over the past 2 decades, although that pattern reversed in Texas during the pandemic when teacher turnover spiked; (b) the COVID-19 pandemic led to initial declines in turnover for both teachers and principals and then sharp increases; (c) a growing share of principal turnover, including prior to the pandemic, stems from principals switching to nonprincipal positions; reflecting shifts in both alternative job access and the demographics of the principal workforce, which in Texas and Washington is now younger than it was 2 decades ago; (d) principal turnover is greater among early career and late career principals; and finally (e) principal turnover disproportionately impacts schools that serve higher-poverty student populations and schools that enroll a greater share of students of color, as well as schools in small and rural districts. A key contribution of our analysis is the high consistency of these findings between states with vastly different populations and policy contexts.
Principal and Teacher Turnover Over Time
Results are displayed in Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1, with additional results described in the Online Appendix. Figure 1 compares principal and teacher turnover leading up to and 4 years into the COVID-19 pandemic for each state. In the decade leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas and Washington maintained principal turnover rates of about 23% and 20%, respectively; however, both states experienced approximately a 5% point increase. Principal turnover declined in the first year of the pandemic, but increased in subsequent years, with the largest increase for both states taking place in the third year, turnover from 2021–2022 to 2022–2023. Teacher turnover was similarly low in the decade following the Great Recession and leading into the pandemic, from 2010 to 2019, and spiked during the COVID era, but the recent increase is not as large as for principals. The two states have similar results, except teacher turnover exceeded principal turnover in Texas in 2021–2022, whereas in Washington, principal turnover remains above teacher turnover throughout the panel. This may occur because of large teacher salary increases in Washington in 2018–2019 (Sun et al., 2024).
Annual turnover rate for teachers and principals, 1995–1996 to 2022–2023.
Percent of principals who leave their school each year (Panel A, B) and percent of principals in each experience bin (Panel C, D) in Texas and Washington State, 1995–1996 to 2022–2023.
Principal and School Factors Associated With Principal Turnover, 2014–2015 to 2022–2023
Note. Pre-COVID includes 5 years from 2014–2015 to 2019–2020, while post-COVID refers to after the onset of the pandemic, which includes 4 years of turnover, from 2019–2020 to 2022–2023 (using 2023–2024 school locations). All models include year fixed effects.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. +p < .1.
The sharp increase in principal turnover implies the average district with 20 schools, which would typically need to hire and train about four new principals every year, is now replacing five new principals per year. Statewide, Texas is now facing a need to support an additional 350 principals, while Washington’s increased turnover requires hiring and supporting an additional 90 principals, roughly a 25% increase for each state.
Disaggregating Different Types of Principal Turnover
Figure 2 disaggregates the overall school-level principal turnover rate into different types of turnover, including switching to a new school in the same district, switching to a new school in another district, switching to a nonprincipal position, but remaining employed in the K–12 system, and exiting the state’s public K–12 system. The figure also displays the overall average experience profile of the principal workforce in each state. The figure shows the recent increases in principal turnover are caused by multiple sources of principal transitions, but the largest increases in turnover are among principals leaving the principalship for a different position with the K–12 system or leaving the K–12 system entirely, while school and district switching for those who stay in the principal profession—moves that are perhaps associated with job fit preferences—have not increased by as much in the COVID-19 period.
Figure 2 also indicates that the nature of principal turnover in both states has changed since 1995–1996, and those changes largely align with the experience profile of the principal workforce. During the late 1990s and through most of the first decade of the 2000s, when principal turnover hovered around 20%, the largest source of turnover, about one-third, came from principals leaving the system entirely, as indicated by the bold purple line in the top panels of Figure 2 staying above other lines from 1996 to around 2010. Beginning around 2009–2010, the greatest contributor to principal turnover became principals moving to a new position, as indicated by the long dashed line. In the most recent year of data, a total of 9.9% of principals in Washington switched to a nonprincipal position, while 7.8% left the workforce entirely, 4.3% switched schools in the same district, and 2.9% moved to a different district, for a total school exit rate of 24.9% between 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 school years. 1
The bottom panels of Figure 2 provide some insights into what may be driving this trend. From 1996 to around 2010, over 30% of principals in both states were near retirement, in their 25th or greater year as an educator, aligning with years in which exiting the workforce is most common among principal leavers. During this period of principal retirements, the principal workforce in both states shifted to include a greater share of mid-career principals. The proportion of the principal workforce in their mid-career (10–15 years in education) peaked around the 2010–2011 school year. However, beginning in 2011–2012, the proportion of novice principals increases, as does the proportion of principals in the later stages of their career (16–20 years and 21–25 years). Then, in the most recent 3 years of data, the proportion of principals near retirement (more than 25 years) finally begins increasing after a 2-decade-long decline. This increase in near-retirement principals during the COVID-19 era likely contributed to the increase in the number leaving the workforce. 2
Factors Associated with Principal Turnover
Next, we explore the principal, school, and community characteristics associated with turnover. Table 1 shows regression coefficients estimating the relationship between principal turnover and principal, school, and district characteristics, separately for each state, for all years, then separately for the period before the onset of COVID-19 (2014–2015 to 2018–2019) and after (2019–2020 to 2022–2023). Additional detail of our findings is included in the Online Appendix.
The first row of coefficients in Table 1 shows that for each state, principals with between 10 and 15 years of total experience in K–12 are less likely to turnover, 5.6% points in Texas and 1.9% points in Washington, relative to early career principals. Both states exhibit a U-shaped relationship with respect to experience and turnover, where job mobility is high, during an early career search period, stabilizes in mid-career, and later increases with retirement. The second and third set of columns for each state show these patterns were relatively stable during the pandemic period. In Texas, turnover among early career teachers increased slightly more than for other groups, while in Washington, the most veteran principal became relatively less likely to leave; however, the overall shape of the relationship did not change, and increases in turnover were experienced across the principal experience continuum.
The next set of coefficients in Table 1 show that after controlling for principal experience and school, district, and community characteristics, there are few significant differences in principal turnover across principal race/ethnicity and gender, and the patterns did not change significantly during the pandemic.
We next examine principal turnover across student demographics, school-grade levels, and district characteristics. In both states, low-income students and students of color are disproportionately exposed to higher principal turnover. The coefficients of 0.068 and 0.028 for each state (in columns 1 and 4) suggests that a school in which 75% of students identify as a Person of Color would have 3.4% and 1.4% points greater principal turnover compared to a school in which 25% identify as a Person of Color. The coefficients for student income are also significant, suggesting race and income are compounding factors independently influencing students’ access to stable school leadership.
Lastly, we find that middle schools in both states have significantly greater principal turnover than elementary schools, whereas high schools in Texas have higher turnover than elementary schools, and high schools in Washington experience turnover rates that are not significantly different from elementary schools. During the pandemic period, middle and high schools in Texas experienced slight increases in turnover relative to elementary schools, while changes in principal turnover in Washington were consistent across school grade levels.
Suburban districts in both Texas and Washington have maintained significantly lower principal turnover during the COVID period compared to urban districts. Rural districts in Washington experienced significantly greater turnover relative to urban districts and this gap increased during the pandemic.
Policy Recommendations
Track Principal Turnover Data
District, regional, and state leaders would benefit from greater access to data on principal turnover. This study focused on Texas and Washington, but many states do not track and maintain policies to examine principal workforce trends in the first place.
Provide Resources for Early Career Mentoring
Providing mentoring and support, particularly during the critical first few years in the principalship, can improve retention and longer-term effectiveness (Cieminski & Asmus, 2023; Hayes & Mahfouz, 2020). Given the large increase in new principals entering the field following the spike in turnover in recent years, a greater share of state and district resources will need to be allocated to support first-year principals. Mentoring opportunities need to be context-specific and culturally responsive to local school districts (Skrla et al., 2004). State, regional, and district leaders need to address these acute shocks to turnover, including providing additional resources and funding.
Target State Resources to Districts With High Principal Turnover
While district and regional leaders have many opportunities to support principal development and retention, state legislators must ensure districts have adequate resources to sustain those efforts. Our results highlight significant disparities in principal turnover across schools, where urban and rural districts, and students who are of low income and students of color are disproportionately exposed to greater school leadership instability, aligning with prior studies (Béteille et al., 2012; Grissom et al., 2019). State legislators must design a finance system that recognizes these differences across school districts so that all districts have the necessary resources to provide adequate supports (Knight et al., 2022).
Consider Accountability Provisions Related to Principal Turnover
State leaders could consider provisions to incentivize specific stakeholders to address high principal turnover. Because chronic principal turnover systematically impacts groups of districts across the state, responsibility for policy solutions is shared among multiple parties. State education agencies can ensure that districts have the necessary tools to provide timely supports, including mentoring, coaching, and professional development. Institutions of higher education must prepare principals in a way that promotes long-term fit and success. State legislators can ensure new accountability mandates are accompanied with necessary resources.
In summary, school leadership stability is a critical resource for creating safe, effective learning conditions in schools, and for supporting educators and students. The loss of a school leader has ripple effects on school staff, students, and the local community. Increased numbers of new school leaders may slow academic recovery efforts to address the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which disproportionately impacted families, communities of color, and working class communities (Hills et al., 2022). Inclusive, equitable, and effective schools require a dynamic school leader who has deep knowledge of a school’s history and connections to the local community. Ensuring all students have access to stable, high-quality school leadership is a shared responsibility of district leaders, regional service providers, and state education leaders.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-epa-10.3102_01623737251367056 – Supplemental material for Educator Retention in Context: Understanding Patterns in Principal Turnover in Texas and Washington State During the COVID-19 Era
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-epa-10.3102_01623737251367056 for Educator Retention in Context: Understanding Patterns in Principal Turnover in Texas and Washington State During the COVID-19 Era by David S. Knight, Min Sun, Pooya Almasi, Christopher A. Candelaria, Jinseok Shin and David DeMatthews in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2055062 and by the William T. Grant Foundation (Major Research Grant 190735). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of funders.
ORCID iDs
Notes
Authors
DAVID S. KNIGHT, PhD, is director of the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and the Center for Early Childhood Policy and Equity at the University of Washington College of Education, where he serves as associate professor of Education Finance and Policy. His research examines school finance, educator labor markets, and economic evaluation in education.
MIN SUN, PhD, is a professor at the University of Washington College of Education. She specializes in teacher learning, the school and policy contexts that support teacher learning, and artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) research and application developments in education.
POOYA ALMASI, PhD, is an assistant professor at Morgan State University and previously served as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Research Associate at the University of Washington Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. His research examines the economics of education, labor economics, and public finance.
CHRISTOPHER A. CANDELARIA, PhD, is an assistant professor of Public Policy and Education at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. His research focuses on school finance and labor markets in education.
JINSEOK SHIN, PhD, is a research fellow in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Texas at Austin and served previously as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Washington. His areas of specialization include labor economics and applied microeconomics, focusing on the economics of education.
DAVID DEMATTHEWS, PhD, is the W. K. Kellogg endowed professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on inclusive and equitable school leadership and school improvement in urban schools and districts.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
