Why leave the teaching profession? : A longitudinal approach to the prevalence and persistence of teacher turnover intentions

Vol.:(0123456789) Social Psychology of Education https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09567-x 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach totheprevalence andpersistence ofteacher turnover intentions KatariinaRäsänen1 · JannePietarinen2· KirsiPyhältö3,4· TiinaSoini5· PerttiVäisänen2 Received: 26 August 2019 / Accepted: 19 May 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Teacher turnover has been recognized as a significant problem in the education worldwide. This study focuses on exploring reasons behind the turnover intentions, and persistence of such intentions in 5-year follow-up among Finnish teachers. Longitudinal survey data were collected from Finnish comprehensive school teachers in 2010 (T1 n = 2310) and 2016 (T2 n = 1450). The results showed that 50% of the teachers had turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were remarkably persistent, but the reasons for them varied significantly. Lack of professional commitment and factors related to the school system and workload were the main reasons for teacher turnover intention. The results suggest several factors that should be improved simultaneously in the teaching profession to increase teacher job satisfaction and retention. Keywords Teacher turnover· Teacher attrition· Teacher job-dissatisfaction· Teacher career· Teacher retention * Katariina Räsänen katar[email protected] 1 School ofApplied Educational Science andTeacher Education, University ofEastern Finland, Yliopistonkatu 2, PL 111, 80101Joensuu, Finland 2 School ofApplied Educational Science andTeacher Education, University ofEastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland 3 Faculty ofEducational Sciences, University ofOulu, Oulu, Finland 4 Centre forUniversity Teaching andLearning, University ofHelsinki, Helsinki, Finland 5 School ofEducation, University ofTampere, Tampere, Finland K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 1 Introduction Teacher career turnover is identified globally as a serious occupational hazard in the field of education (ASTI 2018; OAJ 2018). In many countries, the estimated teacher turnover rate ranges from 13 to 15% annually (Ingersoll 2001; Nissinen and Välijärvi 2011), and of those who exit the profession, only a third are estimated to return (Sutcher etal. 2016). Even in Finland, where the teaching profession has been traditionally highly appreciated and where teachers have been very committed to their profession, there is a rising concern about teacher jobsatisfaction, the attractiveness of the teaching career, and an increase in turnover (VAKAVA Statistics 2017). Teacher turnover has severe consequences for the quality of instruction, for students and their learning, and more broadly, for the school community. For instance, there is research evidence proves that teacher turnover negatively affects student engagement and achievement as well as school leadership and the dynamics of the professional community (Guin 2004; Ingersoll 2001; Ronfeldt etal. 2013). A school loses institutional memory due to significant staff changes; changes in staff raise the need for additional resources for recruiting and familiarising new members with the everyday practices adopted by that school community (Borman and Dowling 2008; Ingersoll 2001; MacDonald 1999; Ronfeldt etal. 2013). Some teachers reflect on possible professional turnover owing to several changes and requirements in the teaching profession (Heikonen et al. 2016; Pyhältö etal. 2011). Teachers perceive that their working conditions are evolving in a negative direction, such as lack of financial resources, or diverse expectations on teaching work. Previous studies have showed that the teaching profession has become considerably more complicated (Hargreaves etal. 2007). Teachers perceive they are working under pressure (Buchanan 2010) and, at the same time, public appreciation for teaching has diminished (Webb et al. 2004). Teachers also perceive that they are simultaneously and continuously facing new developmental tasks in the form of ongoing school reforms and educational innovations. This means less time to perform increased amount of work. Hence, working as a teacher requires more and more the capacity to tolerate continuing change, insecurity, unfinished tasks and personal incompleteness (Husu and Toom 2016). Teacher turnover intentions have been investigated in several studies (Borman and Dowling 2008; Brill and McCartney 2008; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2011). A teacher’s final decision to leave the teaching profession has typically preceded long-lasting consideration for the reasons, motives, and risks related to and the resources necessary to carry out a significant professional turnover (Clandinin etal. 2009; Heikonen etal. 2016). Moreover, the number of teachers considering a career change seems to increase over time (Ministry of Education and Culture 2007). For instance, recent studies showed that 40–50% of teachers have reported turnover intentions in Finland (Jokinen etal. 2014; Pyhältö etal. 2015). It is also estimated that 10–15% of these teachers realised actual turnover behaviour (Nissinen and Välijärvi 2011). Previous studies have mainly focused on the novice teachers’ turnover that is found to be a critical career phase in terms of leaving the teaching profession. 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… However, recently, it has also been found that the experienced teachers perceive the increasingly complex working conditions similarly challenging to cope with. For instance, teachers retire earlier than average when compared with other human service professions (Ingersoll and Merill 2012; OECD 2015). However, long-lasting turnover intentions that are not immediate choices made in a particular single event have not been widely studied (DeAngelis etal. 2013). Hence, this study approaches teacher turnover as a pre-phase to the actual teacher attrition process when intentions to leave the teaching profession become more persistent. Accordingly, this study aims to bridge the gap in the literature on teacher career turnover by longitudinally exploring the sources and persistence of teacher turnover intentions. By analysing the consistency of teacher turnover intentions over time, our study contributes to educational development literature by identifying the prolonged reasons that may push teachers to leave their profession. This provides new insight about the proactive means that can help sustaining teaching profession meaningful and promote teacher retention. 1.1 Teacher turnover intentions Teacher career turnover is commonly used to describe transitions in the teaching profession. Teacher turnover refers either to area transfer within the teaching profession, such as changing the subject(s) to be taught, to migration from one school to another or to leaving the teaching profession (Boe et al. 2007; Ingersoll 2002; Macdonald 1999). We use the term turnover to refer to intentions to leave the teaching profession entirely. A teacher’s turnover intention can be seen as a pre-phase of career turnover (Clandinin etal. 2009; Locke 1968) and one of the strongest predictors of actual career turnover (Griffeth etal. 2000; Locke 1968). The relationship between intention and the implementation of such behaviour has been confirmed by intentionbehaviour studies (e.g. Ajzen etal. 2009). For instance, DeAngelis etal. (2013) have implied that if a novice teacher’s intention to quit is prolonged, then it significantly predicts actual turnover behaviour. Whether turnover intention leads to actual turnover or not, it is likely to reflect low-level job satisfaction (Saeed etal. 2014), which has been shown to be related to reduced teacher effectiveness, effort and quality of teaching (Ladd 2011). 1.2 Factors increasing risk forteacher turnover Previous studies suggest that teacher turnover is affected by multiple factors. Both individual attributes, such as personal crisis, stress or frustration (DeAngelis etal. 2013; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2011), and contextual attributes, such as time constraints, salary or lack of opportunities for personal and professional development, can bring about teacher career turnover (Borman and Dowling 2008; Brill and McCartney 2008; Hughes 2012; Mäkelä and Whipp 2015; Parker 2015; Schaefer et al. 2012). Nevertheless, typically multiple attributes, rather than a single individual or contextual one, contribute to actual turnover behaviour (Clandinin etal. 2014). K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 Previous literature has also identified that, emotional exhaustion, burnout, depersonalization, or feelings of low personal accomplishment in the teaching profession increase the risk for teacher turnover (Goddard and Goddard 2006). Additionally, teachers’ views of themselves as professionals might influence their decisions. Teacher turnover is closely associated with continuously developing teachers’ sense of professional self or identity (Hong 2010). Even if turnover intention leads to staying in the profession, as a protective strategy, a teacher might provide less energy or commitment to teaching to modify or reconfigure her professional identity (Day, Elliot and Kington 2005; Day and Gu 2014). The factors that activate teacher turnover intention have been found to vary at different career points, in teacher sub-groups and over time (Johnson etal. 2005). In contrast to most earlier studies (Guarino etal. 2006; Ingersoll 2001; Luekens etal. 2004), the latest research has shown that male teachers have higher turnover rates (Passy and Golden 2010) and greater dissatisfaction with the teaching profession (OECD 2015) than their female counterparts. Salary and improving career opportunities by pursuing another career also have a greater impact on the male intention to quit than on the female intention. Health issues or perceived deconstructive changes in teachers’ work have a greater impact on female teacher intentions to quit (Luekens etal. 2004). Previous studies have also identified that the highest turnover rates occur among novice teachers (within the first 5years) (Goldring etal. 2014; Ingersoll and Smith 2003) and the most experienced teachers, whose are approaching retirement age (Guarino etal. 2006). Novice teachers are usually distracted from teaching either by the work itself (e.g. excessive workload) or by problems that occur in social interaction in the school community (e.g. teacher-student interaction and the professional community) (Lindqvist etal. 2014). The intensification of a teacher’s workload is one of the greatest factors that challenge novice teacher’s beliefs, attitudes, and understanding of their work (Smethem 2007). Hence, novice teachers’ turnover intentions are often related to a perceived mismatch between their perceptions of the teaching profession and their experienced reality of the everyday work that may become an emotional burden to them (Hong 2010). In turn, research findings suggest that a positive collegial climate and social support seem to be essential for keeping novice teachers in the teaching profession (Pogodzinski etal. 2013; Pomaki etal. 2010). Above all, administrative support, such as giving teachers more desired responsibilities and providing opportunities for professional development and time for collaboration and planning, is most consistently associated with teacher decisions to remain in or leave the profession (Ingersoll and Kralik 2004; Ladd 2011; Leung and Lee 2006). Teachers who find their administrators to be unsupportive are more than twice as likely to leave as those who feel supported by educational administration (Sutcher etal. 2016). In turn, the decision to leave the profession in late career typically has personal reasons: the desire to spend more time with family or the intention to retire earlier than expected (Borman and Dowling 2008). Yet, it is estimated that only about 12% of teacher turnover results from early retirement (Ingersoll 2001). Financial factors, feelings of emotional exhaustion and dissatisfaction with nonteaching-related workload (such as meetings and paperwork) have an important influence on teachers’ 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… retirement decision (Van Droogenbroeck and Spruyt 2014). Experienced teachers describe that the nature of their work has changed as expected and the workload has increased (Buchanan etal. 2013). Moreover, health issues and aging have a greater effect on experienced teachers´ decision to leave the teaching profession earlier than planned (Day and Gu 2009). However, the nature of the teachers’ work includes change as a natural and permanent state, so it is understandable that current work no longer resembles what it was in the beginning of a teacher’s career. The educational reforms in schools are simultaneously often experienced as challenging and may lead to increased teacher stress, risk for burnout, and career turnover (Little and Bartlett 2002). According to Ashforth (2001), career change situations are also associated with the pressure from work (e.g. job dissatisfaction) or weak professional prospects that make other options attractive (e.g. rival and interesting offers from other sectors). Accordingly, teacher turnover intentions can be affected positively or negatively by regulating several internal and/or external factors. Individual teachers have different expectations and priorities for their work and their working environment. Therefore, it is impossible to specify a simple set of factors that contribute retaining teachers. Accordingly, the sources of teacher turnover intention, the gradually proceeding decision-making in terms of chancing teaching profession, and further, the multiple ways of supporting teachers’ retention and job-satisfaction should be more in-depth understood (Heikonen etal. 2016; Johnson etal. 2005; Soini etal. 2010). 1.3 Aims This study aims to gain a better understanding of teacher career turnover by exploring the sources and persistence of teacher turnover intentions. Prolonged reasons that may push a teacher to leave their profession and the consistency of teacher turnover intentions over time are explored. The following research questions were addressed: (1) To what extent do teachers have career turnover intentions; what factors push teachers to consider career change; and how persistent are identified turnover intentions and the factors that activated them over time? (2) Are the factors and actual turnover intentions related to teacher gender, different teacher groups (i.e. primary, subject or special education teacher) or career phase? 2 Method 2.1 Research context Nearly all (95%) Finnish teachers are fully qualified (Kumpulainen 2017). The high level of training is seen as necessary as teachers in Finland are very autonomous K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 professionally. Primary school teachers complete a 5-year university Master of Arts in Education degree after which they receive a formal qualification to teach grades 1–6. Subject teachers who typically teach grades 7–9 (lower secondary school) usually have a Master’s degree in a subject domain with an additional compulsory 1year of study (60 credit points) in educational science. Special education teachers who teach in both grades 1–9 have a Master’s degree in special education. Principals in Finland are required to be qualified to teach at the level of the school they lead, and they must complete a university programme in Educational Leadership (see Finnish National Agency for Education). Finland has no private school system; comprehensive schooling is publicly funded. Comprehensive school (grades 1–9) offers a similar basic education to all children. No separation of students into academic or vocational studies is made during these years. This means that only a few opportunities for career advancement in teaching exists in Finland because educational institutions do not have hierarchies based on pay or other forms of appreciation. A teacher may extend their teaching qualifications and apply for a teaching position at a higher level of education; a primary school teacher, for example, can become a qualified subject teacher. Some teachers progress to headmaster positions during their careers, and some move on to other educational professions. (OECD 2003; Toom and Husu 2016). The average age of Finnish teachers is high: 39% are over 50years old, which increases the number of retirements in the near future (Kumpulainen 2017). Accordingly, the age structure for teachers in Finland is similar than in many European countries (OECD 2012). 2.2 Participants This study used data collected from Finnish comprehensive school teachers in a national longitudinal survey that utilised probability sampling (N = 6000). The longitudinal research design included a 5-year follow-up with two measurement points. Research ethical principles were taken into account in the data gathering phase. Participation in the study was voluntary, which was made clear for the respondents in the survey, and the collected data was anonymised before analysing and storing it. Time 1 The first data collection (measurement T1) was conducted in 2010. Altogether, 2310 comprehensive school teachers, including primary (n = 815; 35%), subject (n = 729; 32%), and special education teachers (n = 761; 33%) completed the survey at (T1). The total response rate was 39%. The mean age of the respondents was 45.3 years (SD = 9.84; Min/Max: 25/68 years). The majority of the respondents were female (n = 1878; 81%) and the minority were male (n = 429; 19%). All respondents had MA degrees, and they were in various phases of their careers. Hence, the response rates for the different teacher groups (primary, subject, and special education teachers) were also acceptable. The schools in which the participants worked varied in terms of size and grades taught. Time 2 The second data collection (measurement T2) in 2016 involved 1504 teachers, including primary (n = 526; 36%), subject (n = 465; 32%), and special 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… education teachers (n = 486; 33%). Accordingly, the response rate of the followup research design was 65%. The mean age of the respondents was 48.8 years (SD = 9.40; Min/Max: 30/69years). The majority of the respondents (83%) were female teachers (n = 1219), and the minority were male teachers (n = 254; 17%). The non-response analysis, i.e. comparing the sample with teacher population statistics in Finland, showed that the sample representation was moderately plausible (see Table1). (See also the National Board of Education 2010, 2017.) 2.3 Measurements anddata analysis Teacher turnover intentions were measured with one item: “Have you considered to leave the profession?” (yes/no). The one item measure has been used and validated in prior studies as a reliable measure of teacher turnover intention (e.g. Goddard and Goddard 2006). Any respondent who stated that intention to leave was classified as a potential leaver. Respondents who had reported turnover intentions were asked to further clarify why they had considered changing their profession (Actual question: “Why”). Teachers’ open-ended responses to this question were qualitatively content analysed (see also Bauer and Gaskell 2000; Berelson 1952). T1 and T2 responses were separately analysed utilising the same analysis protocol. The content analysis consisted of complementary phases. At first all the text segments in which a teacher reported a reason for their career turnover intentions were coded into the same category. The five categories were: • Multiple factors Several (more than one) broad-based and equally important school system, school level, and/or individual level factors perceived by a teacher that cover different combinations of the following single-factor categories Table 1 The non-response analysis N 2307/2310 1473/1450 Sample T1 Population 2010 Sample T2 Population 2016 Gender Female 1878 1684 1219 1134 Male 429 623 254 339 Age < 40 878 738 276 412 40–49years 693 761 508 486 ≥ 50years 739 807 667 574 K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 • The school system The reasons for which a teacher perceives that she/he cannot influence in her/his work in terms of resources, employment contracts, salary and teacher job description or work performance • Challenges of interaction The perceived challenges of social interaction with school staff, students, parents or educational stakeholders in the teacher’s work • Workload Teachers’ affective and/or physical responses to perceived heavy workload • Lack of commitment Perceived alienation from the professional goals, values and personal investments that guided the career choice, committed to the teaching profession and strived for using the best effort in the school’s everyday work. Both measurement timepoints were used for mapping intentions to leave and to observe the prevalence (frequencies) and the persistence of the career turnover intention. The analysis resulted in 2283 responses at T1, 1470 responses at T2, and 1427 responses from both measurement times. The aim of this study was to identify the prolonged reasons that may push a teacher to leave their profession, and for this reason, solely follow-up data was used. Hence, the teachers who only responded at T1 856 (37.5%) or only at T2 43 (2.9%) were not included in the final analysis. The focused data group of teachers with persistent turnover intentions was formed from those respondents that, at both the measurement times, reported turnover intentions and responded to the open-ended question. This group (n = 313 teachers) was given closer examination in order to explore the persistence of turnover intentions and the factors that push teachers to consider leaving. Finally, different reasons for turnover intentions and teacher background variables were cross-tabulated with the intention of determining if those reasons were related to gender (female/male), teacher group (primary, subject, and special education teacher), and/or work experience in the teaching profession (novice teachers 0–5years, mid-career teachers 6–20years, the most experienced teachers > 21years). 3 Results 3.1 The prevalence andpersistence ofteacher career turnover intentions The results showed that teacher intentions to leave the teaching profession were quite common. Half of the teachers (49.5%, n = 707) had turnover intentions either momentarily (25.5%, n = 363) or persistently (24.1%, n = 344). The other half 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… (50.5%, n = 720) reported that they had not considered a career change at either measurement time. In terms of the prevalence of turnover intentions, male teachers considered career change more frequently than their female counterparts. The difference between genders was also statistically significant (χ2 (2) = 11.798, p = 0.003). A comparison between teacher groups did not show any statistically significant difference. However, those who had 6–20years working experience most frequently reported turnover intentions (46.3%, n = 534). A third of those who had been working 5years or less (34.5%, n = 98) and less than a third (29.3%, n = 244) of the experienced teachers (21 or more years of working experience) had considered a career change. The persistency of teacher turnover intentions was also significant. Table 2 shows that, at the both measurement times, a significant number of the teachers had reported career turnover intentions. Male teacher turnover intentions dropped noticeably during the 5-year follow-up period while female teacher turnover intentions fell more moderately (see Table2). Perceived turnover intentions were similar across the primary, subject and special education teacher groups. Results indicate that turnover intentions remained consistent over time; 62% (n = 344) of those teachers who had initially reported turnover intentions still considered leaving the profession 5years later. 3.2 The reasons forteacher turnover intention Further investigation showed that teachers’ (n = 3131) reasons for considering a career turnover remained consistent at the 5-year follow-up (see Fig.1). Teachers were typically able to identify the major reason for their profound consideration of a career change. The five reasons identified were attributed to system-wide, schooland personallevels that launched and sustained teacher turnover intentions: multiple factors, the school system, challenges of interaction, workload and the lack of commitment. However, the minor changes in the perceived significance and emphasis of the reasons were detected over time. At the both time points, teachers emphasized the lack of commitment, high workload and disappointment towards the school system as the main reasons for their turnover intentions. Table 2 Turnover intentions at T1 and T2% T1 T2 N 2283 1470 Female 37 (n 686) 33.8 (n 412) Male 45.7 (n 193) 34.6 (n 88) Total 38.6 (n 881) 35 (n 508) 1 313 out of 344 teachers that have considered a career change also described the reason for their turnover intentions. K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 the school and their personal, professional and collective identity and commitment (Day etal. 2005). The results in this study do not support previous findings about the higher turnover rates or turnover intentions of novice teachers (Goldring etal. 2014; Elferset al. 2017). Instead, mid-career teachers reported more turnover intentions than novices or the most experienced teachers. This finding points out the system-wide need for developing multiple opportunities for professional learning throughout the entire teaching career. Mid-career teachers may experience an impasse, having a lot of expertise and responsibility but no opportunities to advance in their career (Day and Gu 2007). It can be speculated that mid-career teachers lack support to thrive and develop professionally. Turnover intentions in this teacher category are especially harmful for the professional community. Teachers at the high point of their career are a valuable resource for mentoring early career teachers; they have cumulative knowledge and skills necessary to make changes and involve themselves in the school’s pedagogical development (e.g. Elfers etal. 2017). It was also found that male teachers repeatedly reported more turnover intentions than female teachers. The lower number of intentions to quit within 5years was mainly due to the lower proportion of male respondents at T2 than female (i.e. non-response ratio in T2: male teachers 18.7% vs. female teachers 13.3%). This, in turn, might indicate that male teachers make bolder career changes (see also Luekens etal. 2004). The results indicate that especially male teachers consider a lack of commitment to the teaching profession as the main cause for turnover intention. The working life experiences of female and male teachers appear to differ, and this difference should be considered in terms of teacher retention. Lack of commitment was also the most persistent reason for considering a career change. This may reflect the ongoing process in which the teaching profession is changing so that the profession no longer offers a clear object of attachment (Lindén 2010). It may also reveal an unsuccessful career choice or lack of alternative career choices. Hence, personal suitability and commitment to the teaching profession should be profoundly evaluated in the process of student selection for teacher education (e.g. Kari 2002). Lack of commitment as a source of teacher turnover is alarming not only because it may lead to actual turnover. Teacher professional commitment is positively related to teacher efficacy (Chan etal. 2008) and predicts organisational citizenship behaviour toward students, for example participatory decision-making. (Somech and Bogler 2002). Moreover, teachers who are highly committed to their profession tend to invest extra efforts to stimulate students’ learning (Day and Gu 2007, 2009). Teachers also reported that a heavy workload was one of the main reasons for considering a career change. However, workload was not as dominant a factor in turnover intentions in the present study as in previous ones (Smithers and Robinson 2003; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2011). Nevertheless, a perceived high workload is a crucial stress factor that drains emotional resources and makes it harder to continue in the profession until retirement (Droogenbroeck and Spruyt 2016). The perceived problems in social interaction were also a source of career change consideration. In the school’s social environment, teachers perceived leadership practice as one of the most significant pulling or pushing determinants of turnover intentions. Instances included perceived unequal treatment and top-down leadership practices. Teachers 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… face challenges in terms of sustaining constructive interaction with colleagues, students, and parents. Teachers perceived that struggling with the multiple tasks of meeting all the academic and emotional needs of individual learners (Coates 2015) and providing sufficient support, especially to children with special needs, were significant sources of feelings of inadequacy. Results suggest that the meaning of social relations in teaching is higher for female than for male teachers, which has been found in previous research (Zou 2015). The results are also in line with previous findings that female employees report both overall higher workloads and levels of emotional exhaustion than male employees (Maslach etal. 1996; Lau etal. 2005; Droogenbroeck etal. 2016). System-wide factors, such as disappointment in the school system, were the third biggest category triggering turnover intentions. Teachers perceived that the lack of opportunities to influence their work (e.g. large class sizes combined with heterogenous student groups), an expansive job description, and low salary contributed increased discrepancy between the perceived work demands and insufficient resources in the teaching profession, and caused them to consider other career choices (e.g. Droogenbroeck and Spruyt 2014; Johnson etal. 2005). This is a significant finding in the sense that teachers in Finland are regarded as highly autonomous experts with substantial influence on their work and are broadly appreciated in society (Pollari etal. 2018). The criticism of the school system and restrictions on autonomy of the work may reflect critical orientation and ownership in terms of the teaching profession. However, this criticism may also reflect the change in working conditions experienced by professionals in the educational system in recent years. This criticism could also be a sign of teachers’ dissatisfaction with the simultaneous educational reforms and the lack of resources to commit to and fulfil those reforms or dissatisfaction with the increased bureaucracy in the school communities (Coates 2015; Southern 2018). 5 Limitations ofthestudy The longitudinal data were collected from 2310 comprehensive school teachers around Finland. Because of the distinctive features of the Finnish educational system (e.g. emphasis on teacher autonomy), one must be cautious in generalising the results to school contexts in other countries. Moreover, even though the sample size was notable, it was not completely representative of Finnish school teachers. More specifically, female teachers (T1: Chi-square 46.342; p < 0.001 and T2: Chi-square 15.254; p < 0.001) and teachers less than 40years of age (T1: Chi-square 18.133; p < 0.001 and T2: Chi-square 34.191; p < 0.001) were over-represented in the samples at both measurement times, and hence, a generalisation of the results should be considered with caution. However, due to the large sample size and the rich quantified data, the findings are transferable to other studies aimed at understanding the dynamics of teacher turnover intentions and the gradually developing process of teacher attrition. The longitudinal data analysis was cross checked by two of the authors to optimise the power of the [researcher] triangulation, and to further increase the K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 confirmability and transferability of the results (e.g. Bauer and Gaskell 2000). In practice, the consistent criteria and clear distinction between the categories related to career turnover intentions were proactively developed in the data-driven process. Finally, the aim of the study was to understand the sources and persistence of teacher turnover intentions and, hence, actual behaviour in terms of leaving the teaching profession was not possible to identify. Accordingly, a combination of teacher intentions and actual behaviour would be needed for future longitudinal teacher attrition research designs. 6 Conclusion The results showed that half of the teachers had turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were remarkably consistent over time, but the reasons for them varied significantly. Even though teachers typically gave one major reason for considering a career change, presumably several factors exist behind the actual turnover (Clandinin etal. 2014; Johnson etal. 2005). Findings here indicate that the factors that have launched prolonged turnover intentions reflect the biased fit between the teacher and their working environment. This has, in turn, translated over time into a dysfunctional coping strategy, especially for exhausted and/or alienated teachers in their everyday work. Consequently, to prevent teacher turnover intentions at school and individual levels, the teacher–working environment fit needs active monitoring and developing in the professional community. In turn, at the system-wide and societal levels, appreciation of the teaching profession is not purely sustained by developing societal structures, such as compatible payment. Balancing the top-down-bottom-up dialog is also needed to promote meaningful and ambitious enough professional learning for autonomous teachers and contribute to the further development of the educational system. Acknowledgements Open access funding provided by University of Eastern Finland (UEF) including Kuopio University Hospital. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Culture under Grant (6600567); the Academy of Finland under Grant Number (295022) and the Doctoral Programme in Educational Studies, Philosophical Faculty, University of Eastern Finland. Compliance with ethical standards Conflict of interest There is no potential conflict of interest. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/. 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… References Ajzen, I., Czasch, C., & Flood, M. G. (2009). From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1356–1372. https :// doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00485 .x. Ashforth, B. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ASTI (Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland)/RED C. (2018). Teachers´ work: Work demands and work intensity, March 2018. Retrieved 23 March 2018 from https ://www.asti.ie/uploa ds/media / ASTI_-_Surve y_of_teach ers_-_March _2018.pdf. Bauer, M., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. A practical handbook. London: Sage. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: The Free Press. Boe, E., Cook, L., & Sunderland, R. (2007). Trends in the turnover of teachers from 1991 to 2004: Attrition, teaching area transfer, and school migration. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Borman, G., & Dowling, N. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409. Breakwell, G. M., Hammond, S., & Fife-Schaw, C. (Eds.). (2000). Research methods in psychology. London: Sage Publications. Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention. Politics & Policy, 36(5), 750–774. https ://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00133 .x. Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 199–211. https ://doi.org/10.1080/02188 79100 37219 52. Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Burke, P. (2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 112–129. https :// doi.org/10.14221 /ajte.2013v 38n3.9. Chan, W.-Y., Lau, S., Nie, Y., Lim, S., & Hogan, D. (2008). Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 597–630. https ://doi.org/10.3102/00028 31208 31825 9. Clandinin, D. J., Downey, C. A., & Huber, J. (2009). Attending to changing landscapes: Shaping the interwoven identities of teachers and teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 141–154. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13598 66090 28063 16. Clandinin, D. J., Long, J., Schaefer, L., Downey, C. A., Steeves, P., Pinnegar, E., etal. (2014). Early career teacher attrition: Intentions of teachers beginning. Teaching Education, 26(1), 1–16. https :// doi.org/10.1080/10476 210.2014.99674 6. Coates, M. (2015). Principals’ perceived influence over new teacher retention. Doctoral Dissertation 2/288. Retrieved from https ://schol arwor ks.umass .edu/disse rtati ons_2/288. Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 563–577. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423–443. https ://doi.org/10.1080/03054 98070 14507 46. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2009). Veteran teachers: Commitment, resilience and quality retention. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 441–457. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13540 60090 30572 11. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2014). Resilient teachers, resilient schools. Building and sustaining quality in testing times. London: Routledge. https ://doi.org/10.4324/97802 03578 490. DeAngelis, K., Wall, A., & Che, J. (2013). The impact of preservice preparation and early career support on novice teacher’s career intentions and decisions. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 338–355. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00224 87113 48894 5. Droogenbroeck, F., & Spruyt, B. (2016). I ain’t gonna make it. Comparing job demands-resources and attrition intention between senior teachers and senior employees of six other occupational categories in Flanders. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 83(2), 128–155. https :// doi.org/10.1177/00914 15016 64772 9. Elfers, A., Plecki, M., & Van Windekens, A. (2017). Understanding teacher retention and mobility in Washington state. Final report, University of Washington. Retrieved from https ://educa tion.uw.edu/ sites /defau lt/files /profi les/facul ty/elfer s/UW_Teach er_Repor t_Jan20 17.pdf. K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 Goddard, R., & Goddard, M. (2006). Beginning teacher burnout in Queensland schools: Associations with serious intentions to leave. The Australian Educational Researcher, 33(2), 61–75. https ://doi. org/10.1007/BF032 16834 . Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012–13 teacher follow-up survey. First look. NCES 2014–077. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 23 February 2018 from https ://nces.ed.gov/pubse arch. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlations of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01492 06300 02600 305. Guarino, C., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173–208. https ://doi. org/10.3102/00346 54307 60021 73. Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(42), 1–25. Hargreaves, L., Cunningham, M., Hansen, A., McIntyre, D., Oliver, C., & Pell, T. (2007). The status of teachers and the teaching profession in England: Views from inside and outside the profession. The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge. Retrieved 14 December 2018 from https ://webar chive .natio nalar chive s.gov.uk/20130 32301 0453/https ://www.educa tion.gov.uk/ publi catio ns/eOrde ringD ownlo ad/RR831 A.pdf. Heikonen, L., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., & Soini, T. (2016). Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher-student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 250–266. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13598 66X.2016.11695 05. Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1530–1543. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2010.06.003. Hughes, G. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics, organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(4), 245–255. https ://doi. org/10.1080/00220 671.2011.58492 2. Husu, J., & Toom, A. (2016). Opettajat ja opettajankoulutus—suuntia tulevaan. Selvitys ajankohtaisesta opettajaja opettajankoulutustutkimuksesta opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisohjelman laatimisen tueksi. [Teachers and teacher education—Directions for the future. Report of the current teacher and teacher education research to support their further development; in Finnish]. Ministry of Education and Culture. Publications 33. https ://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-425-2. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. Association of secondary school principals. NASSP Bulletin. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01926 36502 08663 103. Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the research says. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, GSE Publications. Ingersoll, R., & Merill, L. (2012). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. https ://www.cpre.org/ sites /defau lt/files /worki ngpap ers/1506_7tren dsapr il201 4.pdf. Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33. Johnson, S., Berg, J., & Donaldson, M. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. https ://asset s.aarp. org/www.aarp.org_/artic les/NRTA/Harva rd_repor t.pdf. Jokinen, H., Taajamo, M., & Välijärvi, J. (2014). Pedagogical expertise in transition: Challenges of tomorrow. University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research. https ://jyx.jyu.fi/bitst ream/handl e/12345 6789/44968 /978-951-39-6021-6.pdf?seque nce=1. Kari, J. (2002). Opettajan ammatin suosio ja opettajaksi hakeutumisen ongelmat. In Räihä, P., & Kari, J. (Eds.), Opettajaksi soveltuvuuden moni-ilmeisyys. Opiskelijavalinta valtakunnallisesti puntaroituna. University of Jyväskylä. Publications in Education 74. Kumpulainen, T. (Eds). (2017). Teachers and principals in Finland 2016. National Board of Education. Publications 2. Retrieved 23 March 2018 from https ://www.oph.fi/downl oad/18537 6_opett ajat_ja_ rehto rit_Suome ssa_2016.pdf. 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… Ladd, H. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261. Lau, P. S. Y., Yuen, M. T., & Chan, R. M. C. (2005). Do demographic characteristics make a difference to burnout among Hong Kong secondary school teachers? Social Indicators Research, 71, 491–516. https ://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3602-7_17. Leung, D., & Lee, W. (2006). Predicting intention to quit among Chinese teachers: Differential predictability of the components of burnout. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 19(2), 129–141. https ://doi. org/10.1080/10615 80060 05654 76. Lindén, J. (2010). An occupational calling transformed to basic labour? The changing nature and logic of teacher’s work. Tampere University Press. https ://urn.fi/urn:isbn:978-951-44-8001-0. Lindqvist, P., Nordänger, U., & Carlsson, R. (2014). Teacher attrition the first five years—A multifaceted image. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94–103. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.005. Little, J., & Bartlett, L. (2002). Career and the commitment in the context of comprehensive school reform. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13540 60021 00000 486. Locke, E. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189. Luekens, M., Lyter, D., Fox, E., & Chandler, K. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility. Results from the teacher follow-up survey, 2000–01. U.S. Department of Education. Lundström, U. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of New Public Management. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. https ://doi.org/10.3402/nstep .v1.28144 . MacDonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 839–848. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual. Mountain View, CA: CPP. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2007). Teacher training 2020 (p. 44). Publications 2007. https ://julka isut.valti oneuv osto.fi/bitst ream/handl e/10024 /79634 /tr44.pdf?seque nce=1. Mäkelä, K., & Whipp, P. (2015). Career intentions of Australian physical education teachers. European Physical Education Review, 21(4), 504–520. https ://doi.org/10.1177/13563 36X15 58408 8. National Board of Education. (2010). Teachers in Finland [The healthy organization barometer]. Retrieved 3 April 2018 from https ://www.oph.fi/julka isut/2011/opett ajat_suome ssa_2010. National Board of Education. (2017). Teachers and Principals in Finland. Reports 2017:2. Retrieved 23 March 2018 from: http://www.oph.fi/downl oad/18537 6_opett ajat_ja_rehto rit_Suome ssa_2016.pdf. Nissinen, K., & Välijärvi, J. (2011). Forecasts for teacher demand and teacher training needs in Finland. University of Jyväskylä. Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Occasional Papers 43. https :// jyx.jyu.fi/bitst ream/handl e/12345 6789/37587 /978-951-39-4622-7.pdf?seque nce=1. OAJ, The Trade Union of Education in Finland. (2018). Working life barometer 2017. Publications 5. Retrieved 15 February 2019 from https ://www.oaj.fi/cs/oaj/Opetu salan %20tyo oloba romet ri%20201 7. OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. Paris, France. Retrieved 23 March 2019 from https ://www.oecd.org/educa tion/schoo l/34990 905.pdf. OECD. (2015). Teaching and learning international survey TALIS 2013. Examining teachers and principals in primary and secondary education. Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Publications 4. https ://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-332-3. OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results (volume I): What students know and can do. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. https ://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c 754-en. OECD. (2019ba). TALIS 2018 results (volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. Paris: TALIS, OECD Publishing. https ://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc 92a-en. OECD Report. (2003). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Country Background Report in Finland. Retrieved 2 November 2018 from https ://www.oecd.org/educa tion/schoo l/53287 20.pdf. Parker, G. (2015). Teachers’ autonomy. Research in Education, 93(1), 19–33. https ://doi.org/10.7227/ RIE.0008. Passy, R., & Golden, S. (2010). Teacher resignation and recruitment survey. Slough: NFER. Retrieved 1 March 2019 from https ://www.nfer.ac.uk/publi catio ns/LGK01 /LGK01 .pdf. Pogodzinski, B., Youngs, P., & Frank, K. (2013). Collegial climate and novice teachers’ intent to remain teaching. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 27–54. https ://doi.org/10.1086/67312 3. K.Räsänen et al. 1 3 Pollari, P., Salo, O.-P., & Koski, K. (2018). In teachers we trust—The finnish way to teach and learn. Inquiry in Education, 10(1), 4. Pomaki, G., DeLongis, A., Frey, D., Short, K., & Woehrle, T. (2010). When the going gets tough: Direct, buffering and indirect effects of social support on turnover intention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1340–1346. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.007. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2015). When teaching gets tough—Professional community inhibitors of teacher-targeted bullying and turnover intentions. Improving Schools, 18(3), 1–14. https :// doi.org/10.1177/13654 80215 58966 3. Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Pietarinen, J. (2011). A systematic perspective on school reform: Principals’ and chief education officers’ perspectives on school development. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 46–61. https ://doi.org/10.1108/09578 23111 11020 54. Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. https ://doi.org/10.3102/00028 31212 46381 3. Saeed, I., Waseem, M., Sikander, S., & Rizwan, M. (2014). The relationship of turnover intention with job satisfaction, job performance, leader member exchange, emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. International Journal of Learning and Development, 4(2), 242–256. https ://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v4i2.6100. Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., & Clandinin, D. J. (2012). Questioning the research on early career teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58, 106–121. Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001. Smethem, L. (2007). Retention and intention in teaching careers: Will the new generation stay? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practise, 13(5), 465–480. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13540 60070 15616 61. Smithers, A., & Robinson, P. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ decisions to leave the profession. Research Report 430. London: Department for Education and Skills.https ://dera.ioe. ac.uk/4759/1/RR430 .pdf. Soini, T., Pyhältö, K., & Pietarinen, J. (2010). Pedagogical well-being: Reflecting learning and wellbeing in teachers’ work. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 735–751. https :// doi.org/10.1080/13540 602.2010.51769 0. Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 555–577. https ://doi. org/10.1177/00131 61022 37672 . Southern, R. K. (2018). Teacher autonomy and centralization: Predicting school effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama. Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https ://learn ingpo licyi nstit ute.org/produ ct/comin g-crisi s-teach ing. Toom, A., & Husu, J. (2016). Finnish teachers as makers of the many. Balancing between broad pedagogical freedom and responsibility. In H. Niemi & A. Toom (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practises of teaching and learning in Finnish schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. VAKAVA Statistics. (2017). Retrieved February 2018, from https ://www.helsi nki.fi/fi/verko stot/vakav a/vakav a-koe/tilas toja. Van Droogenbroeck, F., & Spruyt, B. (2014). To stop or not to stop an empirical assessment of the determinants of early retirement among active and retired senior teachers. Research on Aging, 36(6), 753–777. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01640 27513 51944 9. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Hämäläinen, S., Sarja, A., Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2004). Pressures, rewards and teacher retention: A comparative study of primary teaching in England and Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 169–188. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00313 83042 00019 8530. Zou, M. (2015). Gender, work orientations and job satisfaction. Work, Employment & Society, 29(1), 3–22. https ://doi.org/10.1177/09500 17014 55926 7. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3 Why leave theteaching profession? Alongitudinal approach… Katariina Räsänen is a Ph.D. student at the Doctoral Programme in Educational Studies, School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland. Her research interest is in teachers’ work-related well-being and retention. Janne Pietarinen, Ph.D. is a professor of teacher education at the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland, and Adjunct Professor at the University of Tampere. His research interests are in educational transitions, pupil and teacher learning, and well-being in the context of sustainable school development. He is Co-PI in the Learning and Development in School research group together with Tiina Soini and Kirsi Pyhältö. Kirsi Pyhältö, Ph.D. is at the faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oulu, and Centre for University Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. She is a research director at the Centre for University Teaching and Learning, University of Helsinki and professor of Educational Science at the University of Oulu. Her research interests include learning and the wellbeing and professional agency of in-service teachers. She is a Co-PI in the Learning and Development in School research group together with Tiina Soini and Janne Pietarinen. Tiina Soini, Ph.D. is a research director at the Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University and Adjunct Professor at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests are in the learning and wellbeing of educational communities, with a special focus on teacher communities in comprehensive school. She is a Co-PI in the Learning and Development in School research group together with Kirsi Pyhältö and Janne Pietarinen. Pertti Väisänen, Ph.D. is a professor of Educational Sciences and Research on Learning and Teaching at the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland. His research interests include learning and studying in higher education, student motivation, learning strategies and performance, teacher education, teaching practice and pre-service teachers’ professional development.