Steven Kolber - 15,000 words - Final Draft - Research Project

1
Steven Kolber 576312 Teachers’ career intentions, school facilities and resources.
Graduate Certificate in Educational Research. EDUC90558: Research Project.
Teachers’ career intentions,
school facilities
and resources.
Steven Kolber
576312
Supervisor
Dr. Suzanne Margaret Rice
Ethics ID
1544077.1
Word Count: 15,388

2
Abstract
This study sought to examine the relationships between school facilities, school resources and
teacher career intentions. The hypothesis of this study is that teachers are affected by their
teaching context, as manifested through the facilities and resources that they have available to
them. It is hypothesised that this effect of the teaching context impacts upon teachers’
enjoyment, motivation, and satisfaction, of and for teaching. Further, it is predicted that this
impact upon enjoyment, motivation and satisfaction will ultimately impact upon teachers’
career intentions, and likelihood of remaining at their current school, and more widely, within
the teaching profession. The key research question the study addressed was: ‘What is the
relationship between teacher career intentions and teaching resources and facilities?’ In
addition, a series of sub-questions were imbedded in the research. The first sub-question was
‘What facilities do teachers most value in respect to their ability to teach effectively?’ The
second was ‘What resources do teachers most value to allow them to teach effectively?’ The
third was ‘What is the connection between teaching experience and self-reported likelihood
of teacher movement?’ This study found that teachers’ intentions were affected by their
resources and facilities, with resources being more impactful than facilities. It also suggest
that teachers have different perceptions of the resources and facilities at their school,
depending upon their intentions to move schools or leave the profession.

3
Table of Contents
1……………………………………… .Abstract………………Page 2
2……………………………………… .Table of contents……..Page 3
3………………………………………..Definitions…………….Page 4
4………………………………………..Literature Review……Page 5
5………………………………………..Methodology………….Page 23
6………………………………………..Results………………..Page 30
7………………………………………..Discussion…………….Page 48
8………………………………………..References……………Page 62
9………………………………………..Appendices…………...Page 80

4
Section 3 – Definitions
1-to-1 / 1:1: One computer, per student, equipped and provided by the school, in a
standardised way.
Attrition: This term encompasses two types of teacher loss: wastage, (teachers leaving the
profession); transfer, (teachers moving from their current school).
Density: The number of students in relation to the space available in a classroom, a high-
density classroom is one with many students in it in relation to the space available.
Facilities: Rooms and areas that students and teachers access for teaching and learning. This
includes science labs, gyms, computer labs, woodwork rooms and so on.
Information Communication Technology (ICT): Is an umbrella term that includes any
communication device or application.
Retention: Retention can refer to teachers remaining either in teaching, or at their current
school, and is used in both senses in the literature.
Stayer: A more casual phrase used in the literature for a teacher not moving from their
current school setting.
Teacher self-efficacy: A teacher’s belief in their capacity to influence student learning
positively.
Transfer: This refers to a teacher’s intention to change to a new school site.
Turnover: The rate at which employees leave a workforce and are replaced.
Wastage: Wastage refers to teachers who leave the profession entirely.

5
Literature Review
The Issue
Teacher turnover is a significant problem in education systems across the world (Kearney &
Mareschal, 2014; Manuel, 2003). This concept encompasses attrition from the profession
(henceforth referred to as ‘wastage’ (Smithers & Robinson, 2003), and movement between
schools within the profession (henceforth referred to as transfer). The reasons for teacher
wastage from profession are numerous and complex (Cochran-Smith, 2004) and require a
range of macro- and micro-level actions and policy actions to address them. Generally
speaking, education systems are trying to minimise teacher turnover, and increase teacher
retention (Goddard and Goddard, 2006; Ingersoll 2001a; 2001b; Kearney & Mareschal, 2014;
Manuel, 2003)
Defining terms
Teacher turnover encompasses teachers leaving the profession (wastage), as well as teachers
transferring from their current site to a new school. It also includes teachers leaving for
personal reasons such as retirement, family leave, and so on (Struyven & Vathournout, 2014).
Both teacher transfer and wastage have powerful impacts on society, the education system,
individual schools and the individual teachers (Berry, 2004; Carnoy & et al., 2015). Policies
to increase teacher retention may halt unnecessary wastage of teachers, and this research will
offer only suggestions in this regard. However, it must be noted that there is also ‘wastage’
that Struyven and Vathournout (2014) refer to as occurring due to ‘natural causes’ that
include retirement, family leave, temporary leave, secondments, and other career

6
interruptions. Both Hanushek (1971) and Darling-Hammond (2000) note that how recently
teachers have taught, has an impact on how well they perform as teachers. Therefore even
these natural breaks within teacher’s careers can be viewed as problematic at a system level.
The abovementioned reasons can also be contrasted against ‘unnatural’ wastage, where
teachers leave due to dissatisfaction with their profession or professional conditions, which is
the primary focus of this piece of research. It also must be stressed that some level of teacher
movement and wastage is desirable (Boyd & Grossman & et al., 2008; Ingersoll, 2003). The
ideal level of turnover, though not closely studied in educational settings, is a contentious
research problem (Dalton & et al., 1981; Gleebeek & Bax, 2004; Meier & Hicklin, 2008;
Park & et al., 1994; Siebert & Zubanov, 2009). Harris, Tang, and Tseng (2006) argue that the
ideal level of turnover in an organisation is 0.22% per annum. A more large-scale study
(Wyatt, 2005), provide three different levels of turnover, and further breaks these percentages
down, to include different levels of ‘voluntary’, and ‘involuntary’ turnover. These categories
are: “low turnover” (2% voluntary + 3% involuntary = 5%), “moderate turnover” (9%
voluntary + 6% involuntary = 15%), and “high turnover” (25% voluntary + 18% involuntary
= 43%). The literature notes ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ forms of turnover, where the
two forms are differentiated by the needs of both the employee and the employer (Abelson &
Baysinger, 1984). That is to say that turnover is functional when the employee wants to leave,
and the employer is ‘unconcerned’ (p6), whilst it is dysfunctional when the organisation
wants to retain the leaving employee. Teachers who are unsuited to the teaching profession,
or who cannot cope with the stress associated with the career improve the education system
when they leave it, and this can be defined as functional turnover. However, teachers who are
effective and leave a school or teaching because of dissatisfaction represent dysfunctional
turnover.

7
The disconnect between the levels of “high turnover”, 43% defined by Wyatt (2005) and the
levels of turnover and wastage experienced by early career teachers, is something that is
widely noted in the education research (Barnes & et al., 2007; Harris & Adams, 2007;
Ingersoll, 2001, 2001b; Loeb & et al., 2005). So, though it is difficult to be precise about
what turnover is functional, and what is dysfunctional at the individual school level, it is clear
that the levels of turnover across systems are problematic (Mason & Matas, 2015).
What are the costs to society when teacher wastage is significant?
Where teacher wastage is high, society loses the returns to its investments into education.
Governments subsidise teacher education courses with the expectations that they will produce
productive teachers to educate the population.
What are the costs to educations systems?
Within the education system losing teachers results in lost expertise, which also has an
impact on students, worsening learning outcomes (Ronfeldt & et al., 2013), as a litany of
inexperienced teachers is disruptive and has a negative effect on students’ learning overall
(Peske & Haycock, 2006). Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) note that there appear to be
important gains in teaching quality in the first year of experience, and smaller gains over the
following years. Teachers who fill graduate teacher vacancies, and then leave teaching or
move schools, are then replaced with other new, graduate teachers. These new, graduate
teachers, both those that leave, and those who replace them, lack experience, and localised
school knowledge, which negatively affects their ability to teach effectively. Further, the
costs of time used by the system to identify staff to replace those who leave are also

8
significant (Ingersoll, 2011; Lonsdale & Ingvarson, 2003; Ramsey, 2000; Skilbeck &
Connell, 2003, 2004; Williams, 2003). Replacing teachers is expensive (Ingersoll, 2003a;
2003b), with some researchers noting that “Chicago Public Schools lose $17,872 on every
teacher who leaves the district” (Barnes & et al., 2007, p73).
What are the costs of teacher turnover at the school level?
At the individual school level (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Ingersoll, 2002a; 2002b; 2003a; 2003b;
2004a; 2004b) high teacher turnover (whether through teacher attrition or teacher movement
to other schools) results in negative impacts on staff time, school cohesion and community,
teacher effectiveness, and students’ achievement. When teachers leave a school, the school
incurs costs in the form of lost expertise, staff time, and money taken to advertise, sort, and
interview prospective teaching staff (Connell, 2007; Korthagen, 2004; Schuck & et al., 2012).
Another concern at the school level is the loss of organisational memory that the departing
teachers possess (Buchanan, 2009, 2010). This organisational memory can represent
important skills, knowledge of processes, understandings of students’ backgrounds and
preferences. It is this loss, as well as the impact of lower teacher effectiveness through
multiple early career teachers (Scale & McEwin, 1994) that may reduce achievement for the
students in affected schools (Ronfeldt & et al., 2013).
What are the costs to individual teachers?
For the individual teachers who leave the profession, the costs may also be significant
(Connell, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001a; 2001b: Korthagen, 2004; Schuck & et al., 2012).They may

9
have associated feelings of failure and inadequacy (Smithers & Robinson, 2003). Further,
teachers do not receive a return on their investment of time and forgone income in
undertaking a teacher education course.
Potential Policy Responses to Teacher Transfer and Wastage
The problems associated with teacher wastage and transfer are significant. However,
economic policy responses in the form of monetary incentives may not be effective. For
example, teachers do not respond to pay incentives as powerfully as other professions (Baugh
& Stone, 1982; Vegas & Umansky, 2005; West & Mykerezi, 2011). Hirsch, Emerick,
Church, Reeves and Fuller (2006) used a far wider concept of working conditions that
includes principal leadership, resources and facilities, and showed that these conditions are a
powerful lever that education systems can use to reduce the teacher attrition. Further they
found that teachers with positive perceptions of their working conditions are far more likely
to stay at their current school, than those with negative perceptions of their conditions. The
fact that in-school conditions affect teachers’ attrition from the profession, means that
improving school conditions could potentially assist education systems and schools in
retaining teachers. For the purpose of this study, conditions include those factors that directly
affect teachers core duty, teaching. The full range of factors can be understood by referring to
the methodology section.
Facilities
Providing facilities is one of the largest and most important expenses of education systems
(McGowen, 2007). Facilities have been widely studied, and it has been reported that the

10
quality of school facilities may influence student achievement, with higher quality facilities
being associated with higher student achievement levels (Dawson & Parker, 1998; Hines,
1996; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012; Johnson et al., 2001; Lowe, 1990; Riveria-Batiz &
Marti, 1995; Tanner, 2000 Lewis & et al., 2000; Tanner, 2000). In these studies the quality of
facilities is defined by the quality of various factors referred to later in the thesis, such as: air
quality; thermal environment; acoustic quality; and the availability of artificial and natural
light.
Facilities Research Overview
The majority of research into facilities is dated (Roots, 2007), and takes a pragmatic,
empirical and simplistic view of facilities. This research typically makes use of tick-sheets,
and diagrams of human movement through spaces and rating scales (Cash, 1993; McGuffey,
1974; 1978). Importantly, this research generally does not consider the thoughts, feelings or
perceptions of teachers (Cash, 1993; Dawson & Parker, 1998; Hines, 1996; Lowe, 1990;
McGuffey, 1982; Riveria-Batiz & Marti, 1995). The key focus of these studies is the
relationship between various aspects of school facilities and student achievement. The factors
that have been studied in this rigorous way include: light, temperature, acoustics, space, and
aesthetics. This research found its conceptual basis in environmental psychology which had
begun to consider the effects of the environment on its inhabitants, primarily the students, but
also, to a lesser extent the teachers (Dawson and Parker, 1998, Hines, 1996, Lowe, 1990;
Riveria-Batiz & Marti, 1995). More recently, the research of Johnson, Kraft and Papay,
(2012); Lewis, Liu, Kars, Kauffman, Preske and Johnson (2000); and Tanner (2000), has
looked at the effects of teachers’ conditions on students’ achievement. This type of research

11
shows that where there are dysfunctional and emotionally unsupportive work environments,
teachers will tend to move away (Johnson & et al., 2011).
Facilities – Lighting
The ability to control the amount of light in the classroom has been found to promote
confidence among teachers (Benya & Leban, 2011; Heschong Mahone Group, 2000). A well-
lit classroom has been found to promote clearer communication, which is integral for teachers
to effectively perform their job (Gifford, 2007; Jago &Tanner, 1999; Lemasters, 1997;
Phillips, 1997). Both Jago and Tanner (1999) and Earthman and Lemasters (1997a, 1997b)
completed meta-analyses of previous research which confirmed that well-lit classrooms, and
teachers’ ability to control lighting, were associated with increased student achievement.
Facilities – Thermal Environment
The thermal environment of a classroom also impacts on teacher and student achievement,
with Earthman (2004) listing it among the most important environmental elements for student
achievement. de Dear, Kim, Candido and Deuble (2014) note that Australian students
reported 22.5 degrees as their neutral and preferred temperature for classrooms, which is
likely impossible to achieve in many Australian classrooms during summer, in the absence of
access to air conditioning. They suggest that possibly Australian students are habituated to
air-conditioning, and have adapted to its presence. They do note however, that students have
limited ways to adapt to the temperature within their room. Overbaugh (1990) studied 38
state Teachers of the Year in 1988 in regards to how school facilities affected their ability to

12
function as professionals; these teachers listed the ability to control the temperature of their
rooms among the most important environmental supports to effective teaching.
Facilities – Acoustics
The acoustics of a classroom environment are also very important to students’ speech
perception ability, which is crucial for their ability to learn within their setting. Schneider
(2003) found that teachers in Chicago and Washington D.C. felt their classrooms and
hallways were so noisy that their students’ learning was negatively affected. This potentially
may impact on teacher satisfaction, and from there on retention in a school or in teaching.
Studies completed into classroom acoustics provide recommendations for ideal acoustic
classroom (ASHA, 2005; Berg & et al., 1996; Crandell 1991; Crandell & Bess, 1986;
Crandell & et al., 1995; Crandell & et al., 1995; Crandell & Smaldino, 1996; Earthmann &
Lemaster, 1997a; Hegarty & et al., 1981). However, Nabeleck and Nabeleck (1994) note that
these recommendations are rarely achieved in everyday learning environments. It is unlikely
that the dated school buildings in Australia, many as old as 100 years old or greater, are able
to meet the recommendations cited above.
Resources
For the purposes of this study, resources comprise, Information, Communication, Technology
(ICT) resources, audio-visual (AV) resources, textbooks, paper supplies and photocopying,
resources for teaching such as whiteboards or art supplies, and resources to display work and
beautify classrooms. School resources have not been as extensively researched as school

13
facilities. Tapper (1995) studied first-year teachers in New York City public schools, and she
found that ‘teachers spent significant sums of their own money on classroom supplies’ (p.8),
with half of first year teachers spending their own money on resources, suggesting inadequate
resourcing of schools. More recently, Kloberdanz (2010) noted that Californian teachers
used an array of strategies to procure the instructional materials they deemed necessary,
including entering competitions and saving coupons, again suggesting that school resourcing
is inadequate from teachers’ perspectives. Though the funding structure in the United States
of America (USA) is very different to Australia, the possibility that this practice also occurs
in Australia is too compelling to overlook. Further, these two examples are notable because
they come from two first-world, urban settings, and the possibility of teachers spending their
own funds, or time to procure the necessary resources is something rarely addressed in the
literature. Chapman, Snyder and Blanchfield (1993) found that the supply of resources to
classrooms by the government was viewed by teachers as an act that supported them, and
their efforts. One study has found that teachers’ perceptions of their school’s resources and
teaching materials differed based upon their career intentions, with ‘leavers’ and ‘movers’
reporting less access to, and quality of, resources than stayers (Hirsch & et al., 2006). This
pattern could indicate a certain level of overall dissatisfaction rather than the actual quality of
the resources and facilities. This finding also further underlines the importance of perception,
whereby perceptions lead to actions. In this situation, the actual facts are not impactful on
actions in the same way as perceptions. This pattern will be considered in the discussion
section.
1:1 computers

14
Currently, 1:1 computers are a pervasive and expected part of both students’ and teachers’
equipment in Australia, as the High Court recently agreed (ABC Online, 2015). In Australia
the ‘Digital Education Revolution’ was introduced in 2007 (Rudd & et al., 2007), a policy
initiative which funded laptops in schools. At the individual school level, this was interpreted
in many idiosyncratic ways.
AV Resources
Audio-visual (AV) resources can include, but are not limited to: radios, screens, records, film
clips, TV broadcasts, film recorders, films, projectors and transparencies (Bizimana &
Orodho, 2014). AV resource research has mostly been undertaken in the 1960s, in third-
world countries, and in language classes (Cates, 1990; Voller & Widdows, 1993). These
studies were mostly focussed on learning outcomes associated with the adoption of these
technologies. This raises the possibility that these resources and their effect on teachers’
movement have been overlooked in research.
Textbooks
Textbooks are similarly under-researched, but their sheer ubiquity is difficult to deny. It is
especially worth reconsidering textbooks because of the potential to replace them with digital
textbooks (Australian School of Business, 2010; Davy, 2007; Dougherty, 2010; Hains &
Nelson, 2010; Milby & Rhodes, 2007; Shiratuddin & et al., 2006; Young, 2009)(or ‘e-
books’), and even to do away with them entirely (Bonis & Bonis, 2011; Gibson, 2011;
Kupetz, 2008; Sapers, 2012). As Mohammad and Kumari (p3, 2007) note, the textbook is

15
‘the heart of the school’ and the ‘ubiquitous text’. These scholars believe that as technology
becomes more pervasive, the role of high quality course materials becomes even more
important. They even suggest that textbooks can serve as guidance for untrained or
inexperienced teachers in the third world. Ball & Cohen (1996) also state that textbooks, as
well as teacher guides, can be used to support teachers. Collopy’s (2013) research suggested
that it may be possible for textbooks to function as a form of professional development, for
some teachers in the United States, but not for all. Koski & Weis (2004) note that California
as an area where resources and facilities are of a particularly poor standard, whilst Darling-
Hammond (p1, 2004) noted that some schools in California lack what she called ‘the most
basic elements of schooling’: buildings, textbooks, materials and qualified teachers. Oakes &
Saunders (2002) found a relationship exists between teachers’ satisfaction at their current
school site and access to sufficient supplies of textbooks. Among those teachers who rated
their job satisfaction as ‘fair’, 48% of these respondents also noted a shortage of textbooks for
students to take home, as well as 30% noting that their textbooks and materials were of ‘fair’
or ‘poor’ quality. This suggests that textbooks are important to teachers, especially in
circumstances where teachers lack experience, or appropriate levels of training.
Classroom resources – Location
Location and context may influence the quality of classrooms and facilities. For example,
there is an observable pattern that classroom resources tend to be worse in rural and remote
areas in Australia (Sullivan & et al., 2013; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011), whilst a great deal of
research in the USA has shown that inner-city, urban schools are poorly resourced (Corcoran
& et al., 1988; Levin & Quinn, 2003; Loeb & et al., 2005; Schneider, 2003; Buckley & et al.,
2004; 2005).

16
Classroom environment – Space
Overall, research suggests that limited space and high-density conditions affect social
interactions between teachers and students (Gifford, 2007), and may increase student
aggression (Moore, 1979). Moore (2010) also noted that smaller, more high-density
classroom environments may promote more teacher-centred lessons. Further, some research
has found that as density increased, so too did pupil movement and distraction (Lackney,
1994), though it was noted that movement could be influenced by teachers by modifying the
classroom layout. The impact on teacher movement and satisfaction has not yet been
identified in research. However, increased student aggression and distraction, together with
the inability to teach in a student-centred way may potentially decrease teacher satisfaction
and increase turnover and/or wastage.
Classroom environment – Displays of student work
The display of work has been shown to improve student motivation (Killeen & et al., 2003),
and makes the school feel more welcoming to all school users (Maxwell, 2000). There is
little examining the value teachers place on the capacity to display student work.
Ability to control aspects of classroom environment
Notably, teachers feel that they are partly responsible for factors in their environment, even if
they are actually unable to control them (Lackney, 1997; Martin, 2002). Trancik & Evans

17
(1995) showed that teachers’ ability to control their classroom environment allowed them to
feel a sense of accomplishment and independence whereas a lack of control could potentially
result in feelings of helplessness. This further illustrates that teachers’ perceptions are
important in that the ideal state of a teacher’s mentality in regards to their classroom
environment is of ‘control’, whilst the opposite, ‘out of control’, can lead to feelings of
helplessness, which in turn is likely to affect teacher wastage.
Resources – Conclusion
These specific resources have clear associations with teachers’ interactions within the
classroom. There are also indications that they may impact upon teacher wastage and
transfers through an impact on satisfaction. Notably, Corcoran, Walker and White (1998)
found that facilities have some relationship with teacher satisfaction. McGowen (2007) was
able to add that poor facilities affected teacher attendance, resulting in more sick days and
teacher absences. Dawson and Parker (1998) found that by surveying staff prior to, and
following, a facilities renovation, that teachers perceived an observable improvement in
teaching and learning, which has been supported by other studies (Berry 2002; Sommer &
Olsen, 1980). Lastly, and most surprisingly it has been found that in third world countries,
improving facilities is more impactful on teacher retention that increasing teachers’ wages
(Bennell, 2004; Chapman, 1994; Farrell & Olieveira, 1993; Kemmerer, 1990; MacDonald,
1999).
Attrition – Leaving the Profession/Wastage

18
The most challenging form of teacher turnover is wastage, teachers leaving the profession.
Worldwide attrition from the profession occurs most commonly within the first five years of
a teacher’s career (Kim & Loadman, 1994; Goddard & Goddard, 2006; Manuel, 2003;
Struyven & Vanthournout, 2014). Hirsch, Emerick, Church, Reeves and Fuller (2006)
conclude that working conditions generally are a powerful lever that education systems can
use to reduce teacher attrition, with resources and facilities being one aspect of these
conditions. The fact that in-school conditions affect teachers’ attrition from the profession,
means that education systems could leverage this information to improve facilities, and
possibly improve teacher retention. Goddard and Goddard’s (2006) small-scale research in
Queensland found that 21 percent of beginning teachers were considering leaving their
current job, with 50 percent of this 21 percent considering transfer whilst the remainder were
considering leaving the profession. Manuel (2003) called for a research agenda that seeks a
qualitative explanation for teacher wastage within the first five years of their careers. Further,
it should be noted that experience (years spent teaching) does not necessarily correlate with
expertise, but it has been found that a positive correlation does exist, though it is not always
significant or linear (Carnoy & et al., 2015; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Klitgaard & Hall,
1974; Murnane & Phillips, 1981). Further, it must be noted that due to the high rates of
wastage among early career teachers (ECT), the older teachers are often overlooked in
regards to attrition research (Day & Gu, 2009). Ingersoll (2001b) refers to the problem of
teacher shortages as a ‘revolving door’ of teachers training to be teachers, and then moving to
other careers. He states that teacher attrition from the profession is a sizeable phenomenon
that is the major factor behind the demand for new hires. His work (2001a; 2001b; 2003a;
2003b; 2004a; 2004b) also emphasises that working conditions play an important role in
teacher movement.

19
Attrition from individual schools – Transfer
Ingersoll (2001) states that teacher movement within the profession accounts for half of all
teacher turnover at a school level. Research indicates that teachers tend to move away from
low socio-economic status (SES) schools (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Loeb & et al., 2005).
Further, they tend to move away from schools with a high proportion of minority, low
income students (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011) and from low-achieving schools (Boyd & et
al., 2005; Hoglund & et al., 2015). In settings where there is a pay differential between
schools, teachers tend to move towards better pay (Boyd & et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond,
2004).
In summary, teacher movement is more closely-linked to student make-up, the students that
teacher have to teach, than pay incentives (Hanushek & et al., 2011). It has also been noted
that teachers tend to move from rural, or remote schools to urban schools (Sullivan & et al.,
2013; Plunkett & Dyson, 2011). Each of these patterns may be harmful to the community as a
whole, and pose problems to education systems. However, teachers also move within the
system in subtle and understandable ways. For example, teachers tend to move towards
schools that are near where they live (Boyd & et al., 2005). As such, research needs to control
for instances of natural, reasonable, unchallenging transfers such as these, but note that they
also contribute significantly to the overall level of turnover. One of the most complex factors
for transferring school is when teachers seek to find a good ‘cultural fit’, or to escape from an
unsuitable cultural fit. There are two concepts that represent different aspects of a good
cultural fit, ‘school climate’, and ‘school culture’.

20
School climate “refers to the quality and character of school life” (Cohen & et al., p1, 2009),
made up of the staff’s interpersonal relationships, cultural norms and values. ‘School culture’
is more focussed on the school leadership’s impact on the school. The school’s symbols and
stories, values and beliefs form the schools culture and impact on levels of teacher
empowerment (Balkar, 2015; Edwards & et al., 2002; Hill & Huq, 2004; Shakibaei &et al.,
2012). School climate and culture are important but can be difficult for researchers to
measure (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007; Johnson, 2012; Johnson & et al., 2011; Uline & et al.,
2009). These concepts appear often in teachers’ explanations for transferring or remaining in
a school, but the interactions with career intentions are not clear. Research also exists in
regards to the school’s principal (Ladd, 2011), and their leadership style, and their decision-
making has been located as a cause of teacher stress (Litt & Turk, 1985). Johnson, Kraft, and
Papay (2012) also found that those factors captured by the concept of school culture are most
impactful upon teachers’ job satisfaction and career plans, and also include the teacher’s
relationship with colleagues. The principal’s leadership style is also impactful (Bolger, 2011;
Koh & et al., 1995) and the way that different teachers respond to this. A factor worth
considering in this equation is support from ones colleagues (Bilingsley, 1993; Johnson & et
al., 2012). The support of colleagues appears to act as a buffer to the other factors that impact
upon teachers transfer intentions, in a similar way that the mentoring and induction process
assists in retaining early career teachers (Howe, 2006).
What do we not know?
Of the research detailed above, there emerge three key areas in which the existing research
could be extended and built upon. Firstly, among the research above, only a small portion of
it places ‘teacher voice’ at the centre. Secondly, a great deal of the research makes reference

21
to resources and facilities, as one of many factors. Thirdly, and most importantly, no research
in regards to resources and facilities appears to have been completed in Australia. However a
significant amount of research has been completed in other nations. It is difficult to establish
whether or not this research applies in the Australian context, given that the quality of
resources and facilities are strongly affected by funding policies and mechanisms, and these
differ greatly between countries.
There is a small body of research that directly considers the relationship between resources,
facilities and career intentions. Schneider (2002; 2003) in his dissertation looked at a large
sample drawn from Chicago and Washington, D.C. He showed that teachers who ranked their
school resources and facilities a ‘C’ rank or lower (with A indicating high quality and F
indicting low quality) were much more likely to intend leaving teaching or transferring
schools. Buckley, Schneider and Shang (2004; 2005) in the U.S. found that as teachers’
perception of the quality of school facilities improved, so did the probability of retaining the
teacher in their school. They were also able to establish that facility quality has a larger
impact on transfer and resignation intentions than dissatisfaction with pay. Earthman and
Lemaster (2009) looked at 22 schools, 11 defined as having satisfactory facilities, and 11
defined as having unsatisfactory facilities, by the schools principals. The teachers who taught
in the ‘satisfactory’ schools viewed their classrooms more positively and had higher levels of
satisfaction in their careers. However, the study did not attempt to examine the link between
poor classroom conditions and teacher wastage or transfer intentions. Lastly, Ladd (2011)
utilised a broader definition of working conditions that included three concepts: school
leadership, opportunities for development, and the quality of facilities. She found that
teachers’ perceptions of working conditions at the school level were highly predictive of their
intentions to leave the school. Her data set was state-wide, but the data set did not

22
differentiate between ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ attrition, nor between transfer and
wastage. These studies suggest that facilities, classroom quality, and resources impact upon
teachers’ career intentions.
The key research question this study addressed was: ‘What is the relationship between
teacher career intentions and teaching resources and facilities?’ In addition, a series of sub-
questions were imbedded in the research. The first sub-question was ‘What facilities do
teachers most value in respect to their ability to teach effectively?’ The second was ‘What
resources do teacher most value to allow them to teach effectively?’ The third was ‘What is
the connection between teaching experience and self-reported likelihood of teacher
movement?’

23
Methodology
The methodology of this study is based on its exploratory nature. It seeks to develop a new
instrument for further research using a small sample of Melbourne secondary schools. The
research uses a quantitative approach. As well as allowing a conversion from qualitative data
into quantitative data (Creswell, 2009), this will allow a Chi-square analysis, as well as other
illustrative correlations only available by coding qualitative questions into numerical
categories. The quantitative approach allows the study to establish a relationship between
satisfaction with resources and facilities, and intentions to move. Each of these factors is able
to be placed on a rating scale, and then compared. For this reason quantitative data is
appropriate.
The epistemological viewpoint of this study is an ‘interpretative’ approach. It favours an
emancipatory, critical style (Gough, 2002) that seeks empathetic knowledge that is able to
produce useable suggestions and recommendations (Snyder & Tardy, 2004). The
methodology can be seen as emancipatory because findings from the study inform changes to
improve teachers’ working conditions (Punch, 2013). Focussing solely on teachers’ career
intentions means that it is possible to limit the goals of the study and thus retain internal
coherence (Zhang & Wildermuth, 2009). The value that underpins this study is that research
is most useful when it empowers and elicits responses from teachers and puts the ‘teacher’s
voice’ at the forefront.

24
Method
Each specific aspect covered below in Table 1is drawn from a significant body of research,
covered in the Literature Review. The form of a ‘Likert Scale’ was selected to allow teachers
to complete the questionnaire quickly. Also, the research question is seeking to locate those
aspects that teachers most prioritise. A Likert scale is able to show levels of strength of
feeling in regards to each of the aspects. A series of ranking questions was also included
based on other factors that teachers had expressed in the research as important. For each of
the ranking questions, an ‘Other’ option was included to allow teachers direct input into
improving the questionnaire for future rounds of this research. A more thorough overview of
the topics that this research addresses can be seen in Table 1 below, which provides an
overview of what form of measurement was used, and a brief example.

25
Table 1: Overview of questionnaire instrument
Focus or construct Elements Measure used and Example
Demographics Time spent teaching Category response: __ years __ months full time
Education qualifications Category response: TAFE certificate or diploma, Teaching
certificate, Undergraduate diploma, Undergraduate degree,
Postgraduate certificate or diploma, Master’s degree, Doctorate of
Education or Ph.D.
Currently studying Category response: Yes - No
Gender Category response: Male – Female
Age Category response: 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 51-55,
56 or older
Facilities Ability to control and monitor temperature
in classroom
Four point Likert Scale: Strongly agree-Agree-Disagree-Strongly
disagree
Ability to change seating arrangements As above
Space to change seating arrangements As above
Natural light “ ”
Artificial light “ ”
Noise level inside classroom “ ”
Noise level outside classroom “ ”
Sufficient space “ ”
Facilities support good teaching “ ”
Facilities support innovation “ ”
Facilities permit a variety of teaching and
learning activities
“ ”
Teaching spaces send a positive message
to students
“ ”
Facilities restrict pedagogical outcomes “ ”
Compare your school to your ideal school 10 point scale: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Labels: 1 = far from ideal, 5 =
acceptable, 10 = ideal.
Resources Access to ICT Four point Likert Scale: Strongly agree-Agree-Disagree-Strongly
disagree
Access to ICT to expand teaching
activities
“ ”
Access to course materials such as
textbooks
“ ”
Access to AV resources “ ”
Access to individual laptops or tablets “ ”
Access to photocopying “ ”
Access to resources to beautify the
classroom
“ ”
Access to resources to display student
work
“ ”
Money spent on classroom supplies,
previous year
Category response: $0, $1-100, $101-200
Of this money, percentage spent on
students
Category response: 0-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, 80-100%
Overall Overall satisfaction with facilities 10 point scale: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Labels: 1 = Not at all satisfied; 5
=Moderately satisfied; 10 = Extremely satisfied.
Overall satisfaction with facilities “ ”
Intentions Intentions for 2016 Category response: Remain, Transfer, Seek promotion, Other (Please
Specify).
Likelihood of moving schools within the
next 3 years
5 point Likert Scale: Very Likely, Likely, Unlikely, Very Unlikely,
Undecided
Intention to remain in teaching profession Category response: 1-3 years; 3-6 years; 6-10; 10 or more years;
Retirement Age; Other (Please specify)

26
Firstly, this research’s purpose is to establish suggestive findings. This point cannot be
laboured enough. The findings are not statistically strong, but are tentative and suggest
directions for further research. The research is instead, exploratory, as this is the first kind of
research on this topic in Australia.
Secondly, the research seeks to test the research instrument, for improvement. Most notably,
the questionnaire will be tested across contexts and feedback will be sought formally and
informally from the teachers taking part in the study.
Procedure
A maximum variation sampling strategy was followed. A list was generated of schools that
represented different levels of resources and facilities within the northern region of
Melbourne. After this list was generated, the schools were sent a ‘letter of approach’
explaining the research, addressed directly to the principal of each school. Following this
letter, a phone call was made, most often a voicemail was left, then an email explaining the
project in a simpler way, focussing on the important details of the research. Schools that
agreed to participate were delivered the questionnaires, Plain Language Statements for
participating teachers and a reply-paid envelope in which they could return the documents.
Data was gathered over the period of a single school term, Term 4, 2015.
Limitations
The scope of this project was limited by the timeframe of one year which reduced the
capacity to involve a large number of schools in the project. For this reason, the number of

27
schools approached was small, all located within one easily accessible school region. In
addition, when approaching schools seeking participants, the request was for 5 or more
teacher participants per school, which assisted with schools’ willingness to assist, but also
limited the sample size significantly.
Sampling
The procedure for producing this sample was begun by shortlisting a number of schools that
are located within the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne. Schools were selected
using a maximum variation sampling strategy to include schools with a wide range of
resourcing levels, from very well resourced to poorly resourced. The participants for this
research are high school teachers drawn from schools within the northern metropolitan region
of Melbourne. The sample of this research was a total of 40 secondary school teachers.
Secondary schools were selected due to familiarity with this system. Within the sample, 26
were female, 13 were male, and 1 respondent elected not to select either of these options.
The sample represented a wide variety of levels of teaching experience, from less than 1 year
to 38 years. Notably, 12 of the 40 teachers were within their first five years of teaching
because this group of teachers is considered most at risk of leaving the profession.
Participants ranged in age from 21 to 56 and above years of age.
Overview of region
The research took place within the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne. These suburbs
show a high level of diversity of populations, with overall low SES populations, but with
pockets of inner-urban wealth. It features a high level of students with language backgrounds
other than English. This area also features low level of parental education, and high
unemployment among the parents of the students.

28
Overview of schools
School 1
School 1 is a government secondary school that is co-educational, and is focused around
using ICT in the classrooms. The buildings are old, perhaps 1970s, but have been repurposed
to support a more modern, open-plan learning environment. The student pathways at this
school are 36% to university, 41% to vocational study and 0% of students in employment,
with the remaining percentage being unaccounted for. The school has 27% of students with a
language background other than English. The school did not report their students’ ICSEA
data, and as such it cannot be accessed from the MySchool website. The school has put aside
textbooks and libraries, and classrooms feature only token, small-sized whiteboards. The
school has a small cohort of 129 students, catered for by 27 teachers.
School 2
School 2 is a government, co-educational high school, catering for students from Year 7 to
Year 12. It is situated on large grounds, with a focus on the sustainability of the school
grounds. The school boasts a radio and TV studio, as well as a commercial kitchen, making it
ideal for VCAL and VET enrolments. The school has 171 VET placements, and 79 school-
based apprenticeships and traineeships. The school has an increasingly affluent community,
with a large student community of 1192. Of these students, 44% have a language background
other than English,and 4% of the school cohort is Indigenous. The school has “Well-
resourced modern facilities, including comfortable air-conditioned classrooms” (Department
of Education and Training, 2015). Of the 1192 enrolments, 742 them are boys, with only 450
girls, catered to by 84 teachers. The ICSEA distribution shows that 30% were in the ‘bottom
quarter’, and 16% were in the ‘top quarter’.

29
School 3
School 3 is an inner-city secondary government school that draws students from beyond its
surrounding areas for some of its specialist programs. The school is relatively large with
1,303 students catered to by 108 teachers, with a diverse student population; 59% of its
students have a language background other than English. The school is situated in large
grounds with relatively new buildings, including a new science lab building. The school has
an ICSEA score higher than the mean, with 58% of students drawn from the top 25% of the
ICSEA. 83% of students go on to study at university, which suggests that the school has an
aspirational focus for students and parents. The school teaches students from Year 7-12 in a
co-educational setting. The original 1930s buildings have had progressive additions and
renovations, in 2004 and 2007. Students are encouraged to take control of their own learning.
School 4
School 4 is an inner-city, co-educational, Government Secondary school that teaches students
from Years 7 to 12. The school has a student population of around 900, catered to by around
70 teachers. The student gender breakdown is reasonably even. The population has 1%
Indigenous students, and only 15% of the students have a language background other than
English. The ICSEA distribution showed that only 4% were in the bottom quartile, and 66%
were in the top quartile. The student pathways were 59% to University, 11% to TAFE /
vocational study, and 3% to employment. The school is located on relatively small grounds,
but has access to shared facilities, especially in regards to sports facilities. The buildings date
back to the 1970s, and have witnessed a number of renovations. The school makes reference
to the stability of its teaching population in their promotion materials.

30
Coding
After the data was collected it was organised and collated using Microsoft Excel. When re-
organised it was entered into SPSS which was used for the statistical analysis. The Likert
scale questions were analysed with those questions that were mostly positively and negatively
responded to were separated and further analysed. With each of the four options being coded
as numbers, then correlations between different categories being sought.
In regards to demographic data, each schools opinions on resource perception were analysed
using a Chi square to seek relationships between the school sites and the participants views
on resources and facilities.
Ethics
The research was approved by the Melbourne Graduate School of Education Human Ethics
Advisory Group (MSGE HEAG) and by the Department of Education and Training
(Victoria). Every possible avenue was pursued to protect the participants’ rights. Specifically,
all questionnaires were returned anonymously, with no identifiers ever being attached to the
documents. Pains were taken so that the schools, or the teachers, that participated were not
able to be identified. In addition, all data was stored securely in locked facilities, or on
password protected computers. The data will not be retained beyond 5 years, and will be
destroyed after this time. Schools are referred to by pseudonyms.

31
Results
What is the relationship between teacher career intentions and teacher perceptions of
resources and facilities?
Looking at the main question of this study, we must seek a relationship between six key
points of correlation. Relationships between intentions to move, intentions to remain, and
perceived expectations regarding length of time at the school and perceptions of school
facilities, resources, and resources compared to an ideal school will be examined.
Relationships will be sought between the three aspects of teacher movement intentions and
the three questions in regards to the perception of resources and facilities.
The questions asked in regards to perceptions were the following:
 Overall how satisfied are you with the resources at your school?
 How do you feel your school facilities compare to your ideal school?
 Overall how satisfied are you with the facilities at your school?
Respondents were asked to respond to each of these statements on a 10 point scale, from 1-
10. The question that called for a comparison between facilities and ideal schools, also
included the following descriptors along its 10-point scale, with 1: Far from ideal, 5:
Acceptable, 10: Ideal.
The following question was asked in regard to teacher movement:
 What are your intentions for 2016?

32
Responses to this question required selection of a category there were three options: ‘Remain
at the same school’; ‘Transfer to another school in an equivalent position’; ‘Seek promotion
in another school’, or ‘Other (Please specify)’, which provided a number of different
responses.
 How likely are you to move to a different school within the next 3 years?
Responses to these questions were again using a Likert scale with the following options:
‘Very Likely’, ‘Likely’, ‘Unlikely’, ‘Very Unlikely’, and ‘Undecided’.
 How long do you intend to stay in teaching?
Respondents were required to select one of the following possible categories: ‘1-3 years’; ‘3-
6 years’, ‘6-10 years’; ’10 or more years’; ‘retirement age’; ‘Other (Please specify)’.
Table 2 displays the correlations between participants’ responses to the question ‘How likely
are you to move to a different school within the next 3 years?’, “How long do you intend to
stay in teaching?” and the three ranking questions in regards to their perception of facilities at
their schools.

33
Table 2: All Schools: Pearson’s Correlation for Perception of resources and facilities and
Intentions
Move Likelihood Significance How long to stay Significance
Facilities versus ideal -.319 .047 .003 .984
Overall Facilities -.407 .010 .107 .518
Overall Resources -.458 .003 .161 .328
As would be expected, the strongest positive correlation is between the three aspects of
resource and facilities, each rated along a 10-point scale. ‘Overall facilities’ positively
correlates with ‘facilities compared to an ideal school’ at .910 (P = 0.01). ‘Overall facilities’
also positively correlates with ‘Overall resources’ at .911 (P = 0.01). This indicates that there
is a high level of agreement between the overall scores selected for all three aspects of
resources and facilities.
Most notably, neither perceptions of ‘Overall resources’, ‘Overall facilities’, nor ‘Facilities
compared to an ideal school’ revealed any significant correlation with how long respondents
intended to remain in the teaching profession. This suggests that the perceived quality of
resources and facilities has no impact on respondents’ long-term plans in regards to leaving
the profession (wastage).
The factor that most clearly displayed a relationship was the self-reported likelihood of
movement to a new school within the next three years and all low levels of satisfaction with
three aspects of resource and facilities perception. In regards to the likelihood of movement
within the next three years there was an observable relationship with perceptions of resources
and facilities. The relationship was strongest in regards to resources, with a negative

34
correlation of -.458, (P = 0.01). That is, teachers who were most negative about the quality of
resources at their current schools were more likely to indicate that they intended to transfer
schools in the next three years. The relationship between facilities and intentions to move
was less strong but nevertheless significant, displaying a negative correlation of -.407 (P =
0.05). This suggests that teachers who were most negative about their school’s facilities were
also more likely to consider moving schools.
There was a negative correlation between facilities compared to an ideal school, and
intentions for the next three years, (R =-.319, P = 0.47). This suggests that teachers do
consider an ideal school when planning for the next three years, but less so than perceived
poor quality resources and facilities.
This seems to indicates that teachers do consider ideal schools when carrying out semi long-
term planning (as indicated by their three year intentions) overall. However, this has less of
an impact on intentions than their immediate working conditions, which have a stronger
impact on their likelihood of movement within the next three years. It is notable that overall
dissatisfaction with resources was more strongly correlated with movement intentions than
overall dissatisfaction with facilities. This could indicate that resources have a stronger effect
on teacher turnover at a school level than facilities. This possibility will be addressed in the
discussion section.
How satisfied are secondary teachers with facilities at their current school?
Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation in response to facilities questions from all
participants, with the standard deviation for each item presented. To produce this table, the 4
point Likert scale was coded numerically to produce an indicative mean score.

35
Participants responded to each statement by selecting a ‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’,
‘Agree’, or ‘Strongly Agree’ response. These were coded as follows: Strongly Agree as 4,
Agree as 3, Disagree as 2, and Strongly Disagree as 1.
Table 3: All Schools: Mean and standard deviation in response to facilities questions
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Facility 1: I am able to control and monitor the temperature in my classrooms
2.12 .97
Facility 2: I am able to make changes to seating arrangements
3.25 .78
Facility 3: I have room to make changes to seating arrangements
2.98 .70
Facility 4: I am able to control the natural light within my classrooms
2.50 .88
Facility 5: I am able to control the artificial light within my classrooms
3.00 .88
Facility 6: I can control the level of noise inside my classroom
2.90 .90
Facility 7: I can control the level of noise outside my classroom
2.05 .90
Facility 8: The classroom and teaching spaces are sufficient for my students
2.88 .85
Facility 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching.
2.73 .81
Facility 10: The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to
innovate
2.70 .82
Facility 11: The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to
perform a variety of teaching and learning activities
2.80 .79
Facility 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the
students
2.79 .73
Facility 13: The facilities at my school force teachers to use certain teaching and
learning activities
2.73 .78

36
The statements that respondents showed high levels of agreement with were centred on
seating, artificial light, noise inside the classroom, sufficiency of resources and teaching
spaces, their ability to use a variety of teaching activities, and that facilities forced teaching
into using into specific teaching styles.
The statements with which participants were most likely to agree with:
 I am able to make changes to seating arrangements (Mean = 3.25)
 I am able to control the artificial light within my classrooms (Mean = 3)
 I have room to make changes to seating arrangements (Mean = 2.975)
 I can control the level of noise inside my classroom (Mean = 2.9)
 The classroom and teaching spaces are sufficient for my students (Mean = 2.87)
 The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to perform a
variety of teaching and learning activities (Mean = 2.8)
Overall, these statements did not display high levels of agreement, which suggests that there
is room for improvement in regards to facilities.
The statements that were met with only moderate levels of agreement related to natural light,
and whether the classroom sends positive messages, supports good teaching, and allows
innovation.
The statements that elicited these types of responses were:
 The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the students (Mean
= 2.79)
 The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching (Mean = 2.72)
 The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to innovate
(Mean = 2.7)
 I am able to control the natural light within my classrooms (Mean = 2.5)

37
Overall, the moderate agreement with these statements suggests that teachers do not believe
strongly that their classrooms support good teaching, or allow innovation. Only moderate
agreement in regards to the positive message the facilities at their schools send might suggest
either that respondents do not perceive that their facilities achieve this, or that respondents
themselves may not value this aspect of facilities. Lastly, and most simply, the lack of
agreement in regards to controlling natural light within classrooms indicates that facilities at
participants’ schools may be poorly designed, or lack functional blinds or similar apparatus
for controlling natural light.
The two statements that generated relatively high levels of disagreement among participants
focused on the degree of control teachers had over temperature and noise outside the
classroom.
The statements that drew these responses were as follows:
 I am able to control and monitor the temperature in my classrooms (Mean = 2.12)
 I can control the level of noise outside my classroom (Mean = 2.05)
Overall, the level of disagreement with these two factors shows that teachers do not feel they
can control the temperature of their teaching environment. Notably, the levels of
disagreement are not extreme, which may suggest that teachers are generally positive in
regards to their facilities, or alternatively that temperature inside and noise outside their
classrooms are not among their primary concerns. In regards to facilities, the aforementioned
factors were most impactful, which elements were most impactful in regards to resources?

38
‘How satisfied are secondary teachers with resources at their current school?’
The statements with which participants indicated high levels of agreement were centred on
ICT access, and its use to expand teaching, AV resources, laptops and tablets, and
photocopying. These statements are listed below:
 My students have access to individual laptops or tablets (Mean = 3.22)
 My access to photocopying is sufficient (Mean = 3.20)
 I have appropriate access to ICT resources to carry out my teaching (Mean = 3.15)
 My access to ICT allows me to expand my teaching activities (Mean = 3.05)
 I am able to access audio-visual resources as needed (Mean = 2.97)
The statements that were met with moderate levels of agreement were those probing access to
textbooks, resources to display work, and to beautify the classroom.
 All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials such as textbooks
(Mean = 2.6)
 I have access to resources to display student work (Mean = 2.52)
 I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms (Mean = 2.35)
There were no statements that elicited overall disagreeing responses (that is, a mean of 2 or
less).
Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation in response to resource statements from all
schools. To produce this data the four possible responses, ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’,

39
‘Disagree’, and ‘Strongly Disagree’, were coded numerically as follows: Strongly Agree as 4,
Agree as 3, Disagree as 2, and Strongly Disagree as 1.
Table 4: All Schools: Mean and standard deviation in response to resource statements
Mean Standard
Deviation
Resource statement 1: I have appropriate access to ICT resources to carry out my teaching
3.15 .62
Resource statement 2: My access to ICT allows me to expand my teaching activities
3.05 .60
Resource statement 3: All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials
such as textbooks 2.60 1.01
Resource statement 4: I am able to access audio-visual resources as needed
2.98 .80
Resource statement 5: My students have access to individual laptops or tablets
3.23 .70
Resource statement 6: My access to photocopying is sufficient
3.20 .79
Resource statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms
2.35 .83
Resource statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work
2.53 .87
Was there a relationship between responses to specific facilities statements and
movement intentions for the following three years?
Responses to the statement, “How likely are you to move to a different school within the next
3 years?” displayed a correlation with the following factors: ‘overall resources’ at -.458 (P =
.003); ‘overall facilities’ at -.407 (P = 0.10)’ and ‘facilities compared to an ideal school’ at -
.319 (P =.047). This significant level of correlation explained in more detail above, suggests
that a closer study of the responses to the individual statements for each of these factors may
be fruitful. To achieve this both resources and facilities statements were analysed seeking to

40
locate a relationship between responses to each individual statement and movement
intentions.
In regards to facilities, the statements that were most of interest are those provided below.
These statements showed a reasonable level of correlation, on par with the findings in regards
to the main research question, and they indicate that there may be some relationship between
perception of facilities and movement intentions. This pattern appears at least as it regards
their likelihood of moving within the next three years.
Facilities statements
Table 5 displays the correlation between likelihood of movement for the next three years
(recorded on the table as ‘move likelihood’), and specific statements.
Table 5: All Schools: Pearson’s correlation of move likelihood and responses to
statements of interest for facilities
Correlation Significance
Facilities statement 7: I can control the level of noise outside my classroom -.406 .010
Facilities statement 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good
teaching.
-.474 .002
Facilities statement 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of
success to the students
-.447 .005
The statements that were mostly responded to with a ‘disagree’ were statement 1: “I am able
to control and monitor the temperature in my classrooms”, which did not have a notable
correlation with movement intentions. Whilst statement 7: “I can control the level of noise
outside my classroom”, which had a negative correlation with “likelihood of movement

41
within the next 3 years” was -.406 (P =.010). This suggests that the ability to control and
monitor the temperature in a classroom does not factor in semi-long term planning, but that a
perceived level of noise outside of the classroom may impact on teachers’ intentions. Those
who disagree on their ability to control this factor also being more likely to intend to move
schools within the next three years.
The statements that exhibited high levels of standard deviation were:
 Statement 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching (SD = 0.81)
 Statement 10: The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school allows me to
innovate (SD = 0.81)
 Statement 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the
students (SD = 0.73)
 Statement 13: The facilities at my school force teachers to use certain teaching and
learning activities. (SD = 0.78)
Of these statements, only three had notable correlations. Interestingly, statement nine: ‘The
classroom spaces at my school support good teaching.’ was negatively correlated with move
likelihood, with -.474 (P = .002). Statement 10: ‘The range of classroom and teaching spaces
in my school allows me to innovate’ displayed a negative correlation of -.324 (P = .044).
Further, Statement 12, “The facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the
students”, had a -.447 (P = .005) correlation with move likelihood over the next three years.
That is, participants who were disagreed with the statement that their facilities support good
teaching, and send a positive message of success to students, were also more likely to intend
to leave their current school within the next three years. In addition, teachers who responded

42
negatively to the teaching spaces at their school allowing innovation were more likely to
intend to leave within the next three years. It is difficult to ascertain individual teachers’
conceptions of a classroom that allows innovation, but their perceptions of this factor is
impactful upon their movement intentions. The remaining statements showed non-significant
correlations. Overall, there was a relationship between only three of the six statements
considered. With these three statements each having a relationship between poor perceptions
of these factors and the intended likelihood of moving schools within the next three years.
Conversely, a respondent that agreed with ‘classroom spaces support good teaching’, ‘I can
control the level of noise outside my classroom’ and ‘facilities send a positive message to
students’ is likely to intend to remain at their school for the next three years.
Is there a relationship between responses to resource statements and three year
movement intentions?
In regards to resources, the questions that were most of interest were those provided below.
These questions showed a stronger level of correlation even than the main research question,
and the earlier questions in regards to facilities, although it must be noted that this level of
correlation is still only considered ‘moderate’. However, these levels of correlation are the
highest recorded in this study. It also indicates that there may be a relationship between
respondents’ views of the resources at their school and their likelihood of movement within
the next three years.
Table 6 displays the correlation between likelihood of movement for the next three years
(recorded on the table as ‘move likelihood’) and perceptions of school resources.

43
Table 6: All participants: Correlations between likelihood of moving and school
resources
Correlation Significance
Resource statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms -.599 .000
Resource statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work -.504 .001
Resource statements with the highest level of standard deviation
 Statement 3: All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials such
as textbooks (SD = 1.000)
 Statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms (SD = .833)
 Statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work (SD = .876)
Similar to facilities statements, only a small number of resource statements showed a
moderate correlation with move likelihood within the next three years.
Responses to the statement about textbook sufficiency were negatively correlated with move
likelihood for the next three years at -.309 (P = .056), and there was a .658 positive
correlation (P = .000) between responses to the statement about access to resources to
beautify the classroom and perceived likelihood of moving in the next three years. Lastly,
statement 8 “I have access to resources to display student work” revealed a .725 positive
correlation (P = .000 level) with movement intentions for the next three years. This suggest
that the provision of textbooks, access to resources to beautify classrooms, and to resources to
display student work may impact on teacher movement decisions. Respondents who did not
feel they had appropriate access to course materials and textbooks were more likely to intend
to move schools. By contrast, respondents who perceived their schools as providing resources

44
to display students work and beautify their classrooms were more likely to intend remaining
at the school. This may be because respondents at these schools feel that this lack of access
to resources represents a lack of appreciation for their work as teachers, or alternatively, that
these two aspects of resources are indicative of a more generalised lack of resources at these
respondents’ sites. The negative correlations for these particular questions are some of the
strongest overall recorded in this study, which may suggest possible solutions for teacher
turnover, and movement between sites. This will be addressed in greater detail in the
discussion section.
What is the relationship between teaching experience and likelihood of teacher
movement?
Previous research indicates that teachers tend to move schools more often within the first five
years of their teaching careers (Barnes & et al., 2007; Harris & Adams, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001,
2001b; Manuel, 2003; Loeb & et al., 2005). As this connection was commonly found in the
literature, a number of different aspects were considered in regards to teacher experience. The
concept of experience was broadened not only to include the amount of time for which
teachers had been teaching, but also their level of education, whether or not they were
currently studying, and whether or not they were in their first five years of teaching. None of
these factors had any significant relationship with these respondents’ answers in regards to
their likelihood of movement within the next three years, or how long they intend to remain
in the teaching profession. The reasons for this will be considered more closely in the
discussion section.

45
Do intending ‘leavers’, ‘stayers’, and ‘movers’ perceive the resources and facilities at
their schools differently?
Table 7 displays the mean responses to overall to resources and facilities, grouped by
respondent’s intentions. The questions for overall satisfaction with facilities was ‘Overall
how satisfied are you with the facilities at your school?’, whilst for resources it read ‘Overall
how satisfied are you with the resources at your school?’ It seeks to identify if those
intending to move perceive the quality of their school’s facilities and resources differently
from those intending to stay.
Figure 1: All Schools: Histogram Graph, Responses to Overall Facilities and Overall
Resources, grouped by 2016 Intentions.
Remain at school (N=32), Transfer to another school (N=6), Leave the profession (N =1).

46
Figure 1 above shows the mean scores in regards to facilities and resources, separated out by
the intentions of these groups. Firstly, the small sample-size overall, and secondly, the
relatively small size of the comparison groups means that these findings are very tentative.
Respondents were separated into the following three categories ‘remain’ for those
respondents who intend to stay at their school, ‘transfer’ for those who intended to move
schools, and lastly, ‘wastage’ for those intending to leave the profession. The ‘Remain’ group
represents 32 participants, there are 6 participants in the ‘Transfer’ group, which leaves
‘Wastage’ represented by 1 participant. In addition, one respondent selected ‘Other’ and
noted they intended to ‘Combine study with teaching’, which was included in the ‘remain’
group. 1 participant failed to select any option for this section. Despite these reservations in
regards to the overall sample, and specific examples within this, it is possible to see a
difference between these groups with intending “stayers” being almost 2 full points more
positive in regards to both facilities and resources than intending “movers”, and the one
participant that represents ‘Wastage’ placed between these two groups. Therefore, differences
appear to exist between the three groups but the size of the wastage and transfer groups
means no firm conclusions can be drawn. A chi-square test was completed to compare
groups. Movement intentions were significantly related to perceptions of overall resources,
χ2 (24) = 38.993, p = .027. This test supports the fact that respondents who intended to
remain at their school viewed resources more positively, whilst respondents who intended to
transfer to a new school viewed their resources comparatively less positively overall. The
relationship with facilities was not significant. The reasons behind this pattern could be
numerous, and these will be pursued in more detail in the discussion section. However, three
compelling possibilities are as follows. It could suggest that respondents who know they do
not intend to remain at their school begin to see faults in their current school. Alternatively,

47
respondents who perceive resources and facilities more poorly are more likely to move
schools. Or, that the schools with the most high quality resources and facilities perform more
effectively at retaining their teachers. These and other possible explanations will be pursued
in the discussion section.
Conclusion
Overall, the findings of this study are as follows. Respondents showed that they perceived
resources and facilities similarly, and there was a high level of agreement between these two
factors. Perceptions of resources and facilities as shown by any of the measures applied
during this study, did not have any significant relationship with how long teachers intended to
remain in the profession. There was a relationship between perceptions of resources,
facilities, and movement intentions within the next three years. Overall though, the quality of
resources had the strongest relationship with movement intentions, followed by facilities, and
lastly, facilities compared to an ideal school. Generally speaking teachers were overall
positive about their facilities and resources, but not to a strong degree. Five clear items
emerged as most strongly related to movement intentions within the next three years. These
statements, in order of significance were as follows:
 Resource statement 7: I have access to resources to beautify my classrooms (-.658, P
= .000)
 Resource statement 8: I have access to resources to display student work (-.725, P =
.000)
 Facilities statement 9: The classroom spaces at my school support good teaching. (-
.474, P = .002)

48
 Facilities statement 12: The facilities at my school send a positive message of success
to the students (-.447, P = .005)
 Facilities statement 7: I can control the level of noise outside my classroom (-.406, P
= .010)
It also established that no aspect of experience had any significant impact on movement
intentions within the next three years. Lastly, it established that grouping respondents by their
movement intentions showed that each group had different perceptions of the resources and
facilities at their school.

49
Discussion
The findings from this study suggest that teachers’ perceptions of resources and facilities do
have an impact on movement intentions, which confirms the work of Schneider (2002; 2003).
Schneider’s research looked at a large sample drawn from Chicago and Washington, D.C.
and found that teachers who ranked their schools’ facilities a ‘C’ rank or lower (where A was
highly positive and F negative) were more likely to consider moving schools or leaving the
profession, with 40 percent considering transfer and 30 percent considering leaving the
profession altogether. This study cannot be replicated here, due to the low numbers of
respondents who intended to transfer (6) and those intending to leave the profession (1).
However, this study confirms the pattern that perceptions of facilities do have a relationship
with movement intentions in that respondents who were more dissatisfied with facilities were
more likely to report intending to move schools or leave the profession.
Teachers in this study were overall satisfied with their resources and facilities, but more
positive in regards to resources than facilities. This study did not establish a relationship
between years of teaching experience and likelihood of teachers transferring schools.
It found that grouping teachers by their intentions revealed different patterns of perceptions
of resources and facilities. The pattern was that teachers intending to remain at their current
schools viewed their schools resources and facilities overall positively whilst those intending
to transfer schools or leave the profession had a comparatively less positive view of their
school’s resources and facilities.

50
It also found relationships between specific aspects of resources and facilities and movement
intentions, which will be covered below.
Whilst these findings are drawn from a small sample (40 respondents, from 4 schools), they
replicate the results from a number of larger scale studies, especially a small number of
studies which inspired this study. As such, attention will be paid to how the findings of this,
small study fit within the broader body of research in regards to the topics addressed.
In regards to teacher satisfaction, the work of Dinham and Scott (1996, 1998, 2000) has been
especially influential. In their 1997 study, they found on surveying 892 teaching staff that
regardless of experience and job retention, most teachers identified the same intrinsic
motivators were linked to positive teacher satisfaction. These intrinsic factors are all linked to
engaging with students, ‘light-bulb moments’ and improving the behaviour or work output of
challenging students. They also suggest that aspects of schools that limit, or inhibit teachers’
ability to achieve these intrinsic forms of motivation are ultimately dissatisfying. This
discussion illustrates a number of factors that teachers were dissatisfied with, which may well
be due to the ways that their provision or access impacts upon their teaching. This also
connects with the motivator-hygiene model of Herzberg (1966), which posits that there are
two forces: those that satisfy and those that are required to allow satisfaction to occur.
Looking at the factors referred to by respondents indicates a number of factors that inhibit
their ability to enjoy the intrinsic satisfactions of their job which come from teaching
students.

51
Resources and intentions to move schools or leave the profession
It is worth noting that firstly, the largest and most broadly interesting finding of the study was
that resources displayed a more powerful relationship than facilities with regards to
movement intentions, in that those who were more negative about their school’s resources
were more likely to be intending to transfer schools.
This is a clear and consistent pattern across all of the results of the study. It is worth pausing
to consider the reasons for this pattern at a school level, as well as more broadly at a system
and societal level. Within the studied inner-city schools, teachers noted that they had
sufficient access to classrooms, which could suggest that facilities are not in a state of deficit
or concern. This is true at least at the four schools being studied, or potentially more broadly,
in all inner city schools. This could be due to these schools being located in the city, rather
than in a rural or remote community which are typically less well resourced (Monk 2007;
Plunkett & Dyson 2011; Welch & et al., 2007). However, it could also be that resources are
viewed as the essential tools that enable teachers to perform their work.
The difference found between the importance placed on resources and facilities could also be
due to teacher perceptions about what poor facilities or resources mean. At a school level
teachers may interpret poor resources and facilities differently. The general perception may
be that facility improvement is funded by the state government, or at the level of the
education department, whilst resourcing is provided at the school level. So, poor resources
might be interpreted as indicating that the school leadership does not value teachers or their
work, while poor facilities might be taken less personally, as being the result of decisions by
distant bureaucrats. For this reason, poor resourcing might increase teacher dissatisfaction
more than poor facilities, leading to decisions to transfer schools.

52
The study provided this list of resources for respondents to consider: Information &
Communication Technologies (ICT), Audio-visual (AV) resources, textbooks / instructional
materials, laptops / devices, photocopying, resources to display student work, and resources
to beautify classrooms.
Teachers were overall satisfied with ICT, AV resources, laptops / devices, and access to
photocopying. These resources could be considered some of the essential teaching elements
of modern classrooms, so it is a positive sign that respondents were satisfied with their access
to them. This suggests the four school sites surveyed do not need to focus on these aspects.
The factors that are most closely linked with teacher intentions to transfer and those which
generated the most disagree responses are those that these school sites should improve, which
may improve teacher retention at their school.
The items for which respondents expressed most dissatisfaction referred to access to
textbooks and instructional materials, resources to display students’ work and resources to
beautify classrooms.
Dissatisfaction with resources to beautify and display student work was strongly correlated
with movement intentions. Resources to beautify classrooms and display work are clearly
additive aspects beyond the minimal requirements of a classroom. However, participants’
responses suggest that teachers see them as important. Though these two aspects are
different, they will be addressed together here, as the possible reasons and potential
recommendations are similar. These two factors are more commonly considered in relation to
primary schools, and the majority of research is also focused at this level (Barrett & Barrett &

53
Zhang, 2016). However, the link between these aspects and transfer intentions appear to
suggest either that respondents value these factors in themselves, or that they feel that
provision of or access to these resources reflect the valuing of their work. Findings here are
similar to those of Gronberg, Jansen and Taylor (2011), who argued that quality resources are
“an important, unmeasured dimension of school quality” (p8). The clearest response to this
concern would be for schools to provide funds for resources for this purpose (such as display
cabinets). However, this alone is not sufficient.
Discussing a statement drawn from the facilities area seems logical here. The statement, ‘The
facilities at my school send a positive message of success to the students’ displayed a
significant negative correlation with movement intentions. This statement can be viewed as
another summary statement, due to the fact that it has a positive correlation with both ‘I have
access to resources to beautify my classrooms’ and ‘I have access to resources to display
student work’. This suggests that for teachers, an ideal classroom is one that is beautiful,
decorated, and sends a positive message of success to students, one in which students’ work
is displayed.
This statement, ‘All students at my school have sufficient access to course materials such as
textbooks’ was negatively correlated with movement intentions. There could be several
reasons for this. Firstly, textbooks are generally expected to be provided by students’
families, except in cases where additional funding can be accessed to redress disadvantage.
As such, the responses to this statement could indicate that dissatisfaction with this factor
reflects a high percentage of low-SES students in the school, as these students are most likely
to be unable to afford textbooks. The school that had ‘banned’ textbooks (School 1) showed
that each school has different levels of dissatisfaction, but also that this site was not the only

54
site of dissatisfaction with textbooks. Alternatively, this data could indicate that where there
is a gap between expected levels of textbook provision and actual, respondents expect the
school administration to address this gap through funding.
Facilities and intentions to move schools, or leave the profession
Satisfaction with facilities also showed a relationship with movement intentions in that a low
level of satisfaction with facilities increased the likelihood of participants reporting that they
intended to move schools, or leave the profession. This aligns with the findings of Corcoran,
Walker and White (1998) who noted a positive relationship between the quality of facilities
and teacher satisfaction. It also aligns with the work of McGowen (2007), who found that
poor facilities were associated with increased teacher turnover. With support spaces,
classrooms that service and support the main classroom space, having a positive impact on
teacher retention when present, and turnover when absent.
In regards to facilities, teachers were asked to respond to the following items: seating
arrangements, artificial light, room to change seating, noise inside the classroom, sufficiency
of classrooms, ability to perform a variety of activities, facilities send a positive message,
classrooms support good teaching, allow innovation, natural light, noise outside classroom,
and temperature in classrooms.
Overall, respondents were relatively satisfied with these factors: seating arrangements,
artificial light, room to change seating, noise inside the classroom, sufficiency of classrooms,
able to perform a variety of activities, facilities send a positive message, classrooms support

55
good teaching, allow innovation, and natural light. This suggests that the schools studied met
the majority of the basic requirements of teachers in regards to classroom spaces.
The statements ‘I am able to control the natural light within my classrooms’ was overall
responded to with agreement which confirmed earlier research, whilst, ‘I am able to control
the artificial light within my classrooms’ only elicited moderate agreement. However,
teachers in this study only responded moderately positively with their ability to control
natural light within their classrooms, which may mean that blinds, and similar ways of
controlling natural light would be an improvement at the schools studied. The ability to
control natural light is notable due to being a design factor, and may be particularly important
if teachers wish to ‘black-out’ classrooms for the purpose of presentations and projections.
This raises the question of whether the ability to control natural light was linked to teachers’
perception of whether their classrooms support good teaching, and whether they allow them
to innovate. Correlations bear this out as likely, with a positive and significant correlation for
these two statements with ‘I am able to control natural light within my classrooms’. This
suggests that this basic requirement of teachers in their classrooms has a strong relationship
with their perception of whether the classrooms support good teaching and allow innovation.
Artificial light is a simple issue to address in schools, whilst natural light is less so, due to
being more closely tied to wider design aspects in schools, and classrooms specifically. It is
worth considering which schools had the highest level of disagreement with statements in
regards to these two forms of light. School 1 and 4 showed the highest proportion of low
levels of satisfaction with their perceived ability to control natural light. A further study could
be considered, that was targeted at these factors, and looking for the design features that
support control of natural light for teachers. It is interesting to note that School 1 is unique
from the other three schools studied in the respect that it features a number of buildings that
are relatively newly built and designed. These buildings utilise an ‘open plan’ layout and

56
feature numerous internal and external glass walls. This could suggest that teachers are more
comfortable when they have control over natural light, which may be easier to achieve in
more dated, or traditional facilities, rather than in the more modern, open-plan facilities.
The statement, ‘I can control the level of noise outside my classroom’ is doubly impactful
because it displays a high level of negative responses as well as a relationship with movement
intentions, so it will be addressed first. Responses to this statement were significantly
correlated with movement intentions - those who disagreed with this statement were
significantly more likely to report intending to move schools. It seems likely that this control
is important to teachers in the respect that it impacts upon their intrinsic enjoyment of the
teaching role. Schneider (2003) found that teachers in Chicago and Washington D.C. felt
their classrooms and hallways were so noisy that their student’s learning was negatively
affected. Schneider noted that these conditions impacted on teacher satisfaction and that
“many believed that school conditions affected their career decisions” (p.1). Responding to
teachers’ concerns about the level of noise outside the classroom is complex, as the quality of
classroom acoustics is largely determined by the design and construction of these classrooms,
and the hallways, and atriums.
Participants’ responses suggest issues with school design or student processes. Possible
solutions in regards to this are firstly and most affordably, to alter the timetable, or the
movement and management of students before, between, and following class times. These are
the times when there are likely to be most problematic noise concerns for teachers in adjacent
classes. Alternatively, at a system level, funding could be provided to improve schools which
have problematic designs, such as School 1. Small scale additive improvements could be
applied to these schools to improve the acoustics in troublesome areas within the school, for

57
example, by adding sound-absorbent materials to walls. Lastly, as Nabeleck and Nabeleck
(1994) noted the acoustic recommendations encouraged by research are rarely followed in
everyday learning environments. However, the relatively small connection with movement
intentions despite the high level of disagree responses indicates that this factor is rightly
overlooked, or considered as a lesser priority to address through intervention.
Participants overall disagreed with ‘The range of classroom and teaching spaces in my school
allows me to innovate’. The research on classroom innovation, is often framed in terms of
access to ICT, particularly access to individual laptops and devices. However, responses to
the statements: ‘My students have access to individual laptops or tablets’, ‘I have appropriate
access to ICT resources to carry out my teaching’, and ‘My access to ICT allows me to
expand my teaching activities’, were among the most positively responded aspects of the
study. This seems to indicate quite strongly, that across the four schools studied, there is a
high level of access to ICT, both for the teachers, and the students. This contrasts with a low
level of agreement by participants with the statement that their classrooms allow them to
innovate. So it appears that good access to ICT facilities is not necessarily perceived by
teachers as highly important in facilitating innovation. Looking at individual schools, School
1 emerges as a prime candidate for improvement, with two ‘Strongly Disagrees’, seven
‘Disagrees’ from eleven respondents. However, as noted earlier School 1 features ‘open-
plan’, modern classrooms, which may indicate that teachers do not view ‘open-plan’
classrooms as particularly conducive to innovation.
The types of facilities that would allow teachers to feel they can innovate is not clear, as ICT
access, and newer, open-plan classrooms do not seem to provide the solution. This illustrates

Steven Kolber - 15,000 words - Final Draft - Research Project

Steven Kolber - 15,000 words - Final Draft - Research Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Steven Kolber - 15,000 words - Final Draft - Research Project

Similar to Steven Kolber - 15,000 words - Final Draft - Research Project (20)

More from Steven Kolber

More from Steven Kolber (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Steven Kolber - 15,000 words - Final Draft - Research Project