the retention of secondary school teachers

8/14/2019 The Retention of Secondary School Teachers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-retention-of-secondary-school-teachers 1/22

EXCELLENCE IN CITIES

THE RETENTION OF SECONDARYSCHOOL TEACHERS

Philip Noden

Report 10/2003 October 2003



CONTENTS

page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THE AGE PROFILE OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION 2

3. TEACHER RETENTION 4

4. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND

PUPIL ATTAINMENT 10

5. CONCLUSION 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

APPENDIX 16



1

1. INTRODUCTION

The problems of teacher recruitment and teacher retention have both had a high

profile in recent years. At the launch of Excellence in Cities (EiC) in 1999, improving

teacher recruitment and retention in urban areas was identified as an aim of the policy.

Of course, when deciding to enter or leave the teaching profession (or a particular

school) the Excellence in Cities policy may not be expected to make a major

contribution compared with, for example, the age, sex or seniority of the individual,

economic conditions, teachers’ pay and conditions of service and, in the case of those

considering leaving the profession, teachers’ workload or pupils’ behaviour.

Consequently, this paper addresses some of the crucial issues relating to teacher

recruitment and retention, namely regional variations in the age profile of secondary

school teachers, factors associated with an increased likelihood of leaving theprofession and, finally, the relationship between teaching experience and pupils’

attainment.

The focus of this paper is on the relationship between teacher retention and

Excellence in Cities. Retention, in this instance, refers to retention in the teaching

profession rather than retention by a particular school or LEA. In a previous paper

(Noden, 2001), it was noted that, as regards teacher characteristics, the major

distinction appeared not to be between teachers working in EiC areas and those in

non-EiC areas but rather between those teaching in London and those teaching in

other areas of England. Consequently, in the analysis presented in this paper regional

differences are investigated. Other recent research has also noted regional variation in

the likelihood of leaving the profession (Smithers and Robinson, 2003).

Section 2 of this paper briefly discusses the age profile of secondary school teachers

in England by way of introduction to the main research question. Section 3 then

addresses the main research question: are teachers in EiC schools any more or less

likely to leave the teaching profession than their counterparts in non-EiC schools?

Section 4 addresses a separate but nevertheless pertinent research question in the

context of the evaluation of EiC: what is the relationship between teacher experience

and pupil attainment?



2

2. THE AGE PROFILE OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION

London has a relatively young teaching force (Noden, 2001). The most recent report

from the School Teachers Review Body (2003) expressed concern about the age

profile of London teachers, the relatively high levels of vacancies, and also staff

turnover in the capital. The Review Body consequently sought to produce a larger

pool of potential applicants for senior posts in London by enhancing the pay spine for

experienced and effective teachers who have met the criteria for crossing the

performance threshold. Notwithstanding the very real problems of staff recruitment

and retention experienced in London, it is however important to consider the age

structure of the London population as a whole and of the teaching profession.

Using the Database of Teacher Records for 2001, we identified full-time teachers inservice on 31 March of that year. The age profile of teachers was then compared with

the 2001 Census results for the following month. The percentage of teachers, and of

the population as a whole, falling into five-year age bands (from 25 to 64 for men and

25 to 60 for women) in the English regions is shown in Table 1.

It is clear that London had a young population. The Census recorded larger

proportions in the 25 – 29, 30 – 34 and 35 – 39 age ranges for London than for any

other region. London’s full-time secondary school teachers were also over-

represented in these age ranges relative to teachers working in the other regions.

However, these proportions always fell short of the general London population. It is

also immediately clear that, in every region, full-time teachers were substantially

over-represented in the 45 – 49 and 50 – 54 age ranges compared with the general

population. These two age bands accounted for between 34 per cent (London) and 45

per cent (North East) of full-time teachers compared with only 22 per cent (London)

and 28 per cent (North East) of the population.

London thus had a young teaching force compared with the other regions. However,

in all regions the teaching force was relatively mature when compared with the ‘over

25’ working-age population. Given that many teachers are lost to the profession soon

after qualifying (Smithers and Robinson, 2003), it is important to take the age profile

into account when examining teacher retention.



3

Table 1. Percentage of the population aged between 25 and retirement age, and percentage of full

and retirement age, in five year age bands

25 – 29 30 – 34 35 – 39 40 – 44 45 – 49

Census 2001 11.8 14.2 15.6 14.6 13.3North East

Full-time teachers 2001 11.5 10.6 9.8 14.4 23.1

Census 2001 12.4 14.8 15.5 14.0 12.8North West


Census 2001 12.5 14.9 15.4 14.1 12.7Yorkshire &

Humberside Full-time teachers 2001 11.8 11.6 11.2 14.9 21.8

Census 2001 12.1 14.8 15.4 14.0 12.8East

Midlands Full-time teachers 2001 12.2 11.4 10.5 15.1 23.1

Census 2001 12.5 15.0 15.2 13.7 12.7West

Midlands Full-time teachers 2001 12.9 11.6 10.1 15.2 22.4

Census 2001 12.4 14.8 15.5 13.9 12.7Eastern


Census 2001 18.1 18.2 16.6 13.4 10.9London


Census 2001 12.3 14.7 15.7 14.2 12.8South East


Census 2001 11.6 14.1 15.1 13.8 13.0South West

Full-time teachers 2001 12.5 12.2 11.7 14.6 21.4 Source: Database of Teacher Records March 2001 (data supplied by DfES) and National Census 2001



4

3. TEACHER RETENTION

It was possible to match individual teacher records from the Database of Teacher

Records for 1999 and 2000. Consequently, taking full-time teachers employed on 31

March 1999, it was possible to identify where or whether they were teaching (full-

time or part-time) one year later.1

For each LEA, the proportion of full-time teachers

in March 1999 who were either no longer teaching (and had not retired) in March

2000, or who had moved to another LEA by that time, are shown in the Appendix. It

is immediately clear that EiC LEAs (shown in the table in bold type) appear

throughout the list and dominate both the top and bottom of the rankings. LEAs

losing the largest proportions of teachers tended to be those located in and around

London while many northern EiC LEAs appeared to have very little problem with

staff retention (not including retirements).

In keeping with recent research on teachers leaving the profession (Smithers and

Robinson, 2003), larger proportions of women and of teachers with fewer years of

service had left the profession one year later. In addition, teachers closer to retirement

age were less likely to leave the profession. Figure 1 shows the proportion of men

and women in different age bands who were full-time teachers in March 1999 but

were no longer teaching one year later. The greater likelihood of women leaving the

profession is most marked in the 25 – 34 age range, presumably reflecting women

taking on childcare responsibilities, and in the 45 – 59 age range. Figure 2 shows that,

while the proportion of teachers with more than three years’ experience leaving the

profession decreased for more mature age bands, among relatively inexperienced

teachers (those with less than three years’ service) the proportion leaving remained

relatively high – although it should be noted that there are relatively few teachers with

less than three years service in the over 45 age group.

1 Of the 178,250 full-time teachers in secondary schools in March 1999, some 98 per cent of records

were successfully matched to the 2000 Database of Teacher Records.



5

Figure 1. Full-time teachers leaving teaching by sex and age

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Under 25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 Over 60

Age band

% l e

a v i n g t e a c h i n g

Men Women

Figure 2. Full-time teachers who leave teaching (other than for

retirement) by age band and experience

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Up to 25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 Over 45

Age band

% w

h o l e a v e t e a c h i n g

>3 years service <3 years service



6

In order to examine the relative likelihood of teachers with different characteristics

leaving the teaching profession, logistic regressions were carried out. This statistical

technique is appropriate when the dependent variable is a ‘black or white’ event. In

this case, a teacher either leaves the profession or does not leave the profession – there

are no shades of grey. Logistic regression reports results in terms of ‘odds’ and ‘odds

ratios’. The ‘odds’ of an event occurring, in this case of a teacher leaving the

profession, is the number of cases in which this event occurs divided by the number of

cases in which the event does not occur. The ‘odds ratio’ should be understood as the

odds of teachers with a particular characteristic leaving the profession divided by the

odds of leaving for teachers without that characteristic (controlling for other factors).

Odds ratios greater than one therefore imply that a teacher with the particular

characteristic is more likely to leave the profession than an otherwise similar teacher

who does not have that characteristic.

A data file drawn from the Database of Teacher Records was matched with school-

level information from the Annual Schools Census and LEA level information

relating to house prices (derived from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003).2

A

range of explanatory variables were considered for inclusion in the model, including

sex, teaching experience, the number of years left until reaching retirement age,

region, average house prices within the LEA, participation in EiC and the level of

eligibility for free school meals at the school. Descriptive statistics for these variablesare shown in Table 2. The aim was to identify a relatively parsimonious model.

Results for the best fitting model are shown in Table 3, and a graphical presentation of

the odds ratios for the different characteristics is shown as Figure 3.

2 Four LEAs were excluded from the analysis (Lewisham, Oldham, Slough, Lambeth) because the

two indicators for whether the teacher was in service one year later (on 31/3/2000) were discrepant

for more than 10 per cent of teachers. This reduced the dataset from 178,250 teachers to 174,818.

A further 5,496 teachers were identified as employed by an LEA but not attached to a particular

school (e.g. peripatetic teachers) and so school-level data could not be matched for these

individuals. Of the remaining 169,322 teachers, it was possible to match data from the AnnualSchools Census and house price data to 164,859 which represents 97 per cent of the school-based

full-time teachers from 146 LEAs.



7

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for predictor variables included in logistic

regression

Variable Mean Standard deviation

Number of years until retirement 21.5 9.7

% eligibility for free school meals at

the teacher’s school

16.7% 14.1%

Average house price in the LEA £103,207 £49,767

Percentages

Less than 3 years’ service 16.5%

Woman v. man 52.5%

In EiC LEA 27.8%

Range

Region 5.9% (North East) to 15.1% (South East)

Based on data for 164,859 teachers

Table 3. Odds ratios for full-time secondary school teachers in March 1999

not being employed in teaching one year later

Variable Odds ratio Significance (p=)

Less than 3 years’ service v. 3 or more years’ service 1.807 0.000

Woman v. man 1.379 0.000Decades until retirement (increase/decade) 1.340 0.000

10 per cent difference in school FSM 1.048 0.000

£50,000 difference in average house price in LEA 1.099 0.000

School in EiC* LEA v non-EiC LEA 1.043 0.246

North East v. West of England 0.862 0.045

North West v. West of England 0.861 0.010

Yorkshire & Humberside v. West of England 0.756 0.000

East Midlands v. West of England 1.372 0.000

West Midlands v. West of England 1.018 0.749

Eastern v. West of England 1.219 0.000

London v. West of England 1.433 0.000

South East v. West of England 1.330 0.000

* Phases 1, 2 and 3

The outcome of interest, i.e. leaving teaching, was a relatively rare event and only 4.6

per cent of those teaching full-time in March 1999 (other than those who retired) were

not teaching in March 2000. Nevertheless, certain characteristics had a statisticallysignificant relationship with the odds of leaving the profession.



8

For teachers with less than three years’ teaching experience, the odds of leaving the

profession were some 81 per cent higher than for an otherwise similar teacher with

greater experience. This is shown in Table 3, which shows that the relevant odds ratio

is 1.807. This is also shown in Figure 3.3

Similarly, the odds of women not being in

the teaching service a year later were 38 per cent greater than for men. The odds of

teachers leaving the profession were lower for older teachers. For ease of

comparison, this tendency is presented as the number of decades until retirement age.

For each additional decade until retirement age, the odds of leaving teaching increased

by 40 per cent.

Figure 3. Odds ratios for full-time teachers not being employed in teachingone year later

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

W o m a

n

D e c

u n t i l r

e t i r e m

e n

a d e s

t

1 0 % i n c r e

a s e i n s c h

o o l F S M

£ 5 0 k i n

c r e a s e

i n a v e r a

g e h o u s e

p r i c e

i n L E

A

L e s s t h

a n 3 y e a r s s

e r v i c e

N o r t h

E a s t

N o r t h W e

s t

Y o r k s h i r e

& H u

m b e r s i d e

E a s t M i d

l a n d s

W e s t M

i d l a n d s

E a s t e

r n L o n

d o n

S o u t h

E a s t

E i C L E A

Again for ease of presentation, the increased odds of leaving associated with the

proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) is presented per ten per cent

difference in FSM. In this instance the odds were only five per cent greater for each

additional ten per cent of pupils eligible for free school meals. This indicates that

pupil deprivation, as measured by school-level entitlement to free school meals, had a

relatively weak link with the decision to leave the teaching profession.

3 In Figure 3, the small square indicates the value of the relevant odds ratio, and the vertical line

shows the 95% confidence interval.



9

For each £50,000 increase in the average house price in the LEA, the odds of leaving

the profession increased by ten per cent. Even having taken into account teachers’

age (as the number of decades until retirement) and average house prices, the odds of

associated with leaving teaching showed some statistically significant variation

between regions. The odds ratios shown for the regions are relative to teachers in the

West of England and so reflect whether the odds of leaving teaching were

significantly greater or smaller for teachers in other regions. In particular, the odds of

teachers leaving the profession in Yorkshire and Humberside, the North West and

North East were significantly smaller than for those in the West of England, while the

odds of teachers leaving the profession in London, the East Midlands, the South East

and the Eastern region were significantly greater.

Taking these variables into account, teaching in an EiC area (Phase 1, 2 or 3) did not

significantly affect the odds of leaving teaching. If, however, we considered only

Phase 1 areas (these being the only areas participating in EiC during the period in

question), then the odds of leaving the profession were some 22 per cent greater,

while the results for the other variables remain substantially the same. It is not

possible to say whether such a difference arises from participation in EiC, pre-existing

characteristics of these areas, or factors relating to why teachers choose to work in

particular areas or schools.



10

4. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND

PUPIL ATTAINMENT

Earlier in this paper, it was noted that London had a younger teaching force than the

other regions of England. In this section, we use multilevel modelling to explore therelationship between teacher experience and pupil attainment: is teacher experience

related to pupil attainment, taking into account other factors known to be related to

attainment? This research question was addressed by aggregating data from the

Database of Teacher Records for 2000 to school level to identify the proportion of

teachers with different lengths of teaching experience within each school. We

calculated the percentage of full-time teachers within the school with less than four

years’ teaching experience and the percentage with more than 20 years’ teaching

experience. This data file was then merged with a pupil level dataset including GCSEdata for 2001, and including 1996 key stage 2 test results and a range of school

characteristics shown to be associated with pupil attainment and progress in previous

papers for this evaluation (Schagen, 2002). For each pupil, we used the average point

GCSE point score as a measure of achievement. In order to improve the statistical

properties of the model, a cubic term was included for average key stage 2 test results,

and a quadratic term was included for the proportion of pupils eligible for free school

meals. Descriptive statistics for the variables included in the final model are shown in

Table 4, and results for the best fitting model are shown in Table 5. The results are

based on 456,338 pupils clustered in 3,079 schools located in 147 LEAs.



11

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for variables used in multilevel modelling

Mean Standard

deviation

KS2 average level 3.68 0.74

KS2 average level squared 14.06 5.17

KS2 average level cubed 55.44 29.04

KS2 English level 3.64 0.86

KS2 maths level 3.64 0.86

KS2 science level 3.76 0.78

Percentage eligible for free school meals 17.4% 14.6

Percentage eligible for free school meals squared

(divided by 100)

5.16 8.55

Percentage of full-time teachers with less than 4

years’ experience

18.41% 12.95

Percentage of full-time teachers with more than 20

years’ experience

37.59% 17.46

Categorical variables Percentages

Girl 50%

Girls’ school 7.3%

Boys’ school 6.0%

School with sixth form 57.7%

Grammar school 5.2%

Interaction term Mean

Grammar school * KS2 average level 0.16 0.84

Based on results for 456,338 pupils in 3,079 schools in 147 LEAs

In Table 5, we see that the variance is very substantially reduced from the base model

(which does not include any background variables) to the final model (including

background variables), particularly at LEA and school level. In other words, much of

the observed variation between LEAs, schools and, to a lesser extent, pupils is

accounted for by differences in the background variables included in the model Prior

attainment is taken into account through the three key stage 2 average terms and also

the separate effects of the three individual key stage 2 subjects (English, mathematics

and science).

As would be expected, girls made more progress than boys, by about 0.3 of a level.

For girls attending single-sex schools, the effect was even greater. Boys attending

single-sex schools made more progress than did boys attending mixed schools.

Grammar schools were seen to be positively associated with pupil progress, and thiswas especially so for those with relatively lower prior attainment (reflected in the



12

negative coefficient for the grammar school * key stage 2 average level interaction

term). The negative signs for school level eligibility for free school meals and for

schools with a sixth form indicate that progress was less in schools with high levels of

entitlement to free school meals, and in schools with a sixth form.

Table 5. Multilevel analysis of average GCSE score including predictor

variables for teacher experience

Parameter Estimate Standard

Error

Base model

LEA variance 0.10 0.02

School variance 0.61 0.02

Pupil variance 2.15 0.00

Final model

LEA variance 0.02 0.00

School variance 0.08 0.00

Pupil variance 1.11 0.00

Fixed coefficients

Key stage 2 average level -3.18 0.10

Key stage 2 average level squared 1.11 0.02

Key stage 2 average level cubed -0.09 0.01

Key stage 2 English level 0.27 0.02Key stage 2 maths level 0.18 0.03

Key stage 2 science level 0.08 0.03

Girl 0.29 0.00

Girls’ school 0.29 0.02

Boys’ school 0.11 0.03

School with sixth form -0.05 0.01

Grammar school 3.36 0.01

Grammar school*key stage 2 average level -0.68 0.03

Ten per cent difference in eligibility for free schoolmeals (FSM)

-0.42 0.01

Percentage FSM squared (divided by 100) 0.05 0.00

Ten per cent difference in percentage of full-time

teachers with less than 4 years’ experience

-0.02 0.01

Ten per cent difference in percentage of full-time

teachers with more than 20 years’ experience

-0.03 0.01

All estimates are statistically significant at 0.05 level



13

Interestingly, controlling for all these variables, both of the teacher experience

variables had negative coefficients. That is, not only was a higher than average

proportion of teachers with less than four years’ teaching experience associated with

(very slightly) lower GCSE results, but so too was a larger than average proportion of

teachers with more than twenty years experience. That is, there may be reason to be

concerned about a relatively inexperienced teaching force but there are also reasons to

be concerned about a relatively experienced teaching force. Care must be taken in

interpreting this finding: although the model demonstrates a relationship between

teachers’ experience and pupils’ achievements, it does not demonstrate a causal link.



14

5. CONCLUSION

The evidence presented in this paper has suggested that, while there was regional

variation in the age profile of teachers, older age groups were over-represented in the

teaching force relative to the population generally. It also suggests that, at LEA level,

there is great variation in the proportions of teachers who either left teaching or

moved to another LEA from 1999 to 2000 and that EiC areas feature prominently at

both ends of a ranking of LEAs. Taking other factors into account such as sex, age,

property prices and levels of eligibility for free school meals, the odds of teachers in

EiC areas leaving the profession were not significantly higher than in other areas.

However, the odds of teachers in Phase 1 EiC areas leaving the profession from 1999

to 2000 were slightly higher than for those in non-EiC areas. Finally, although the

proportion of inexperienced teachers at a school is negatively associated with progressfrom key stage 2 to GCSE, the same is true of the proportion of very experienced

teachers (that is, those with more than 20 years’ experience).



15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (2003). Census 2001: National Report for

England and Wales. London: The Stationery Office.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (2003). Housing Statistics, Table585 [online]. Available:

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_hous

e_609380.xls.

NODEN, P. (2001). Teacher characteristics, expectations and attitudes (Excellence in

Cities Report 9/2001) [online]. Available:

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/documents/EIC/9-2001.doc [18 July 2003].

SCHAGEN, I. (2002). Analysis of Enhanced National Value-Added Dataset from KS2

1996 to GCSE 2001 to Investigate Potential Impact of the ‘Excellence in Cities’

Initiative (Excellence in Cities Report 12/2002) [online]. Available:http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/documents/EIC/12-2002.doc [18 July 2003].

SMITHERS, A. and ROBINSON, P. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ decisions to

leave the profession (DfES Research Report 430). London: DfES.

School Teachers Review Body (2003). Twelfth Report . London: The Stationery

Office.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_house_609380.xls






16

APPENDIX

Percentage of full-time teachers employed on 31 March 1999 who, one year later,

were no longer teaching or had moved to another LEA

LEAs participating in EiC are shown in bold type

LEA

Left

teaching Rank

Moved

LEA Rank Total RankCity of Westminster 17.8 1 6.1 19 23.9 2

Islington 16.7 2 7.5 2 24.2 1

Southwark 11.4 3 7.2 6 18.5 3

City of Nottingham 11.0 4 4.6 48 15.6 8

Merton 10.6 5 7.2 4 17.8 4

Sutton 10.5 6 5.4 29 15.9 6

Barnet 10.3 7 5.4 31 15.7 7

Medway 9.8 8 5.4 28 15.3 9

Richmond Upon Thames 9.7 9 6.9 9 16.6 5

Bexley 8.6 10 3.9 68 12.5 22

Hounslow 8.2 11 5.6 26 13.8 14

Wandsworth 8.1 12 6.8 11 15.0 10

Tower Hamlets 8.0 13 4.4 54 12.4 24

Hertfordshire 7.7 14 3.9 69 11.6 29

Southampton 7.7 15 5.6 24 13.3 16

Greenwich 7.4 16 7.2 5 14.6 11

Croydon 7.3 17 7.1 8 14.4 12

Luton 7.3 18 4.8 39 12.1 26

Northamptonshire 7.2 19 2.7 108 9.9 48

Waltham Forest 7.2 20 6.6 15 13.8 13

West Berkshire 7.2 21 4.5 51 11.7 28Gloucestershire 7.1 22 2.8 102 9.9 46

Oxfordshire 7.1 23 3.9 67 11.0 32

Brent 7.1 24 5.7 23 12.7 19

Newham 7.0 25 6.6 16 13.6 15

Kensington and Chelsea 7.0 26 3.0 97 10.0 45

Hackney 6.9 27 5.7 22 12.6 20

Wokingham 6.5 28 4.0 65 10.5 37

Reading 6.4 29 6.7 13 13.2 17

Derbyshire 6.4 30 2.9 100 9.2 56

Buckinghamshire 6.3 31 3.8 71 10.1 42

Sunderland 6.3 32 2.3 123 8.6 67

Bromley 6.1 33 4.7 42 10.8 33Rutland 6.1 34 2.6 110 8.8 64

Kent 6.1 35 3.2 89 9.3 54

Camden 6.0 36 4.6 44 10.6 35

Haringey 5.9 37 6.4 17 12.3 25

Royal Borough of Windsor &

Maidenhead 5.7 38 5.3 32 11.0 31

Surrey 5.6 39 4.4 53 10.1 43

Hammersmith and Fulham 5.6 40 5.1 35 10.7 34

Bedfordshire 5.6 41 3.4 85 9.0 61

Birmingham 5.6 42 3.5 80 9.1 57

Manchester

5.6 43 4.9 37 10.5 36

Darlington 5.6 44 3.1 94 8.6 66

Thurrock 5.4 45 7.4 3 12.9 18



17

LEA

Left

teaching Rank

Moved

LEA Rank Total RankSouthend 5.4 46 7.2 7 12.6 21

Ealing 5.4 47 6.2 18 11.5 30

Harrow 5.3 48 5.1 34 10.5 38

Havering 5.2 49 4.7 43 9.9 47Brighton and Hove 5.2 50 4.2 58 9.4 51

East Sussex 5.2 51 3.2 88 8.4 71

Bracknell Forest 5.1 52 6.6 14 11.7 27

City of Bristol 4.8 53 4.6 49 9.3 53

Halton 4.7 54 5.3 32 10.1 44

Hillingdon 4.7 55 5.5 27 10.2 40

South Gloucestershire 4.7 56 3.7 73 8.5 70

Cumbria 4.7 56 1.7 139 6.4 101

Leicestershire 4.7 58 2.8 105 7.5 84

Hampshire 4.6 59 4.0 63 8.7 65

Kingston Upon Thames 4.6 60 4.4 55 9.0 60

Solihull 4.6 61 4.7 41 9.2 55Portsmouth 4.4 62 8.1 1 12.5 23

Bath and North East Somerset 4.4 63 4.1 61 8.5 68

Redbridge 4.4 64 5.9 20 10.4 39

Herefordshire 4.4 65 2.9 99 7.3 88

North Somerset 4.4 66 3.6 79 8.0 75

Stockport 4.4 67 4.1 60 8.5 69

Essex 4.3 68 4.5 52 8.8 63

Walsall 4.3 69 4.6 46 8.9 62

Dorset 4.2 70 2.3 125 6.5 99

Wigan 4.2 71 3.5 82 7.6 81

Cambridgeshire 4.2 72 3.7 74 7.9 76

Sandwell 4.2 73 3.3 86 7.4 85

City of Peterborough 4.2 74 4.9 36 9.1 58

Staffordshire 4.1 75 2.6 112 6.8 94

Redcar and Cleveland 4.1 76 3.6 77 7.8 78

Barnsley 4.1 77 2.5 117 6.6 95

Warwickshire 4.0 78 4.1 62 8.1 73

Salford 4.0 79 5.4 30 9.4 52

Isle of Wight 4.0 80 1.3 143 5.3 128

Milton Keynes 4.0 81 5.6 25 9.5 50

Cornwall 3.9 82 1.6 140 5.4 123

Norfolk 3.9 83 2.3 126 6.1 105

Knowsley 3.8 84 3.8 70 7.7 80Lincolnshire 3.8 85 3.1 92 7.0 90

Tameside 3.8 86 3.7 75 7.6 82

Bolton 3.7 87 2.8 104 6.5 97

Blackpool 3.7 88 4.6 45 8.3 72

Dudley 3.7 89 4.2 57 7.9 77

City of Derby 3.6 90 2.8 101 6.5 98

Northumberland 3.6 91 2.3 124 5.9 110

Sefton 3.6 92 2.6 113 6.2 102

West Sussex 3.6 93 2.4 119 6.0 106

Telford and Wrekin 3.6 94 2.2 127 5.8 115

Sheffield 3.6 95 2.1 131 5.6 117

Lancashire 3.5 96 1.8 136 5.3 127Bradford 3.5 97 1.9 134 5.4 124



18

LEA

Left

teaching Rank

Moved

LEA Rank Total RankDoncaster 3.5 98 4.6 47 8.1 74

Bournemouth 3.4 99 2.8 103 6.2 103

Leicester City 3.3 100 4.2 59 7.5 83

Stoke on Trent 3.3 101 2.7 107 6.0 108Swindon 3.3 102 5.7 21 9.0 59

Barking and Dagenham 3.3 103 6.9 10 10.1 41

Wakefield 3.3 104 3.8 72 7.0 89

East Riding of Yorkshire 3.3 105 2.5 116 5.7 116

Somerset 3.3 106 2.0 133 5.2 129

Suffolk 3.3 107 2.7 109 5.9 111

Liverpool 3.2 108 2.6 111 5.9 113

Worcestershire 3.2 109 2.2 129 5.4 125

Durham 3.2 110 2.7 106 5.9 112

Cheshire 3.1 111 2.5 115 5.6 118

City of Kingston Upon Hull 3.1 112 4.2 56 7.3 87

Coventry 3.1 113 3.7 76 6.8 93Trafford 2.9 114 2.4 120 5.3 126

North Tyneside 2.8 115 3.6 78 6.4 100

Rochdale 2.8 116 4.9 38 7.7 79

Poole 2.8 117 6.8 12 9.6 49

Wiltshire 2.8 118 4.0 64 6.8 92

Leeds 2.7 119 2.4 121 5.1 132

York 2.7 120 2.5 114 5.2 130

Wolverhampton 2.7 121 3.4 83 6.1 104

Shropshire 2.7 122 1.4 141 4.1 138

North East Lincolnshire 2.7 123 4.7 40 7.4 86

North Yorkshire 2.7 124 2.3 122 5.0 133

Newcastle Upon Tyne 2.7 125 3.2 91 5.8 114

Nottinghamshire 2.7 126 2.2 128 4.9 134

Bury 2.6 127 3.4 84 6.0 109

St Helens 2.6 128 2.9 98 5.5 121

Calderdale 2.6 129 4.0 66 6.5 96

Blackburn with Darwen 2.5 130 3.5 81 6.0 107

Warrington 2.5 131 3.0 95 5.5 122

City of Plymouth 2.4 132 3.1 93 5.5 120

Torbay 2.4 133 4.5 50 6.9 91

Middlesborough 2.4 134 3.2 90 5.6 119

South Tyneside 2.1 135 2.1 130 4.2 136

Kirklees 1.9 136 3.2 87 5.2 131Wirral 1.9 137 1.4 142 3.2 143

Rotherham 1.8 138 1.7 138 3.6 140

Devon 1.8 139 1.8 137 3.6 141

North Lincolnshire 1.8 140 2.5 118 4.2 137

Stockton-on-Tees 1.6 141 1.8 135 3.4 142

Hartlepool 1.6 142 3.0 96 4.6 135

Gateshead 1.6 143 2.0 132 3.7 139

EiC areas shown in bold

The ’Total’ column may differ from the sum of the ’Left teaching’ and ‘Moved LEA’ columns because

of rounding.

Four LEAs have been excluded from the list ( Lambeth, Lewisham , Oldham , Slough) because of discrepancies between to the 1999 and 2000 datasets.

the retention of secondary school teachers

Documents