Journal of Research in

Music Education
Volume 57 Number 2
July 2009 92-107

National Estimates of © 2009 MENC: The National

Association for Music Education

Retention, Migration,
10.1177/0022429409337299

and Attrition
A Multiyear Comparison of Music
and Non-music Teachers
Carl B. Hancock
The University of Alabama

This study was designed to estimate the magnitude of retention, migration, and attrition
of music teachers; the transfer destinations of those who migrated; the career path
status of those who left; and the likelihood that former music teachers would return to
teaching. Data, which were analyzed for music (n = 881) and non-music teachers (n =
17,376), came from the 1988–1989, 1991–1992, 1993–1994, and 2000–2001 adminis-
trations of the National Center for Education Statistics’s Teacher Follow-up Survey, a
national survey designed to compile comprehensive data concerning changes in the
teacher labor force. Results indicated that between 1988 and 2001, 84% of music teach-
ers were retained by schools, 10% migrated to different schools, and 6% left the profes-
sion every year, in rates similar to non-music teachers. Transferring music teachers
migrated primarily to different school districts in the same state. One year after leaving
the profession, former teachers were attending college (28%), retired (23%), out of
teaching (21%), in education but not as a teacher (14%), or working as a homemaker
(12%). Approximately one third of former music teachers planned to return to teaching
within 5 years, and an additional quarter planned to return after 5 or more years.

Keywords:  music; teacher attrition; teacher migration; teacher retention; teacher

follow-up survey

The considerable amount of teacher turnover in U.S. public schools is a consequential

and disconcerting phenomenon. National estimates suggest that schools perennially
face the task of filling almost 500,000 teacher vacancies, created by 15% of all teach-
ers leaving the workforce or moving to new teaching assignments (Gruber, Willey,
Broughman, Strizek, & Burian-Fitzgerald, 2002). Meeting this demand for more
teachers takes an immense toll on education budgets because the annual price tag for
recruiting, hiring, and training replacement teachers is more than $7 billion (Barnes,
Crowe, & Schaefer, 2007), an amount greater than the K–12 education budgets of 28

Address correspondence to Carl B. Hancock, The University of Alabama, School of Music, Box 870366,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487; e-mail: chancock@bama.ua.edu.

92
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   93

U.S. states (cf. National Education Association, 2007). Moreover, the incidental price
includes reduced program stability, student achievement, and teacher quality (Grissmer
& Kirby, 1997; Podgursky, Monroe, & Watson, 2004; Price, 1989), which especially
affects the fragile conditions found in at-risk schools (Barnes et al., 2007). It is interest-
ing that although this costly crisis is charged to taxpayers year after year, detailed
information about the magnitude of teacher turnover remains scarce for some fields
such as music education (Byo & Cassidy, 2005).
At present, several reports from national organizations provide a glimpse into the
magnitude of music teacher turnover with some reporting unfilled positions, exces-
sive demand at the state level, and demand for teachers in specialty areas based on
regional frames of reference. For example, the National Association for Music
Education (MENC) and the National Association for Schools of Music (NASM)
reported that more than 5,000 music teacher openings remained unfilled every year
as new university graduates could meet only 50% of the reported demand (Kimpton,
2005; Lindeman, 2004). The U.S. Office of Postsecondary Education (2008)
released data indicating that some 24 state departments of education had a “critical
demand” for music teachers and requested funding to increase matriculates into
teacher preparation programs. In contrast, the American Association for Employment
in Education (2007) reported that education deans and career counselors generally
perceived that the United States had an adequate amount of music teachers to meet
schools’ needs; however, regional demands for music teachers within specific spe-
cializations (e.g., instrumental, vocal, general) were a concern. It is interesting that
when in-service music educators were asked about teacher supply and demand issues,
many identified unfilled positions in their communities and noted with concern a
growing number of vacancies after 1 year (Hamann, Gillespie, & Bergonzi, 2002).
Music education researchers have attempted to estimate the extent to which turn-
over affects the teacher supply by examining declared intentions to leave the field
(e.g., Hancock, 2008; Killian & Baker, 2006; McLain, 2005; Russell, 2008). Their
estimates suggest that 11% to 27% of music teachers plan to leave the profession
every year. Although career intentions have been shown to be a reliable measure of
turnover (Vandenberg & Barnes-Nelson, 1999), intentions do not always lead to
overt behaviors (Madsen & Madsen, 1998). However, studying intentions has
helped researchers at least to understand who is most at risk for leaving the profes-
sion, which could lead to refined interventions designed to decrease attrition. It is
clear that measuring exactly what teachers actually do would provide a more accu-
rate picture of year-to-year changes in music teacher supply; however, direct mea-
surement of the career status of individuals in a profession comprising more than
132,000 members (Market Data Retrieval, 2008) is extremely difficult.
One concern with assessing the profession’s demand for more teachers is the dif-
ficulty in distinguishing reliably between when a teacher leaves the profession (attri-
tion) and when a teacher leaves one school to move to another school (migration;
Ingersoll, 2001). Indeed, attrition rates seem to differ by reporting unit, with local
school districts reporting greater attrition than states, and states reporting rates
94   Journal of Research in Music Education

higher than national rates (Grissmer & Kirby, 1987). It is evident, from a school
district’s point of view, that a teacher leaving a school to assume a post in a different
district or to leave the teaching profession entirely is reported as teacher attrition.
However, state officials would report a teacher moving to a different school district
as teacher migration and thus retained by the profession. An analogous argument for
a teacher assuming a post in a different state can be made, with officials in the for-
mer state reporting the loss as attrition, although from a national perspective, the
teacher has migrated. Further complexity is introduced when we consider that some
teachers move to another school within a school district or are retained as school
administrators; how are these career changes reported and to whom? Until schools
and states routinely conduct exit interviews of departing teachers and track their
career plans after leaving, reports based on state and district data will continue to
include some compromises (Barro, 1992; Grissmer, 1992).
To address these data limitations and more accurately generate national estimates,
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) created two surveys: the
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its companion, the Teacher Follow-up
Survey (TFS; Luekens, Lyter, & Fox, 2004). The SASS has been administered every
3 to 5 years since 1987 and was designed to obtain detailed information about U.S.
schools and teachers’ working conditions. The TFS has been administered 1 year
after every SASS to determine which teachers continued teaching at the same
school, transferred to a different school, or left the teaching profession.
One analysis of the 2000–2001 TFS data examined turnover data from a nation-
ally representative sample of fine arts teachers and reported that after 1 year, 11%
transferred to another school and 8% experienced attrition—leaving primarily for
retirement, health concerns, additional education, and other careers (Luekens et al.,
2004). These percentages were notably higher than the turnover reported for non-
arts teachers. Nevertheless, specific application of these results to music teachers is
mitigated by the findings of several teacher turnover studies suggesting that attrition
rates varied according to subject area even among analogous fields (Guarino,
Santibanez, & Daley, 2006; Murname, Singer, Willet, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991).
In light of reported national teacher shortages and the turnover experienced by the
profession at large, it is important that a national estimate be compiled to provide a
comprehensive picture of the state of music teacher turnover. An investigation spe-
cifically comparing turnover between music and non-music educators has not been
done, nor have rates of attrition, migration, or retention been estimated nationally
based on the actual career choices of music educators. Furthermore, efforts to
improve retention through mentoring, recruitment, and incentives may be enhanced
by clarification of what music educators do after leaving a position, whether migrat-
ing or leaving altogether, and the likelihood of their return. The purposes of this
study were to construct national estimates for the magnitude of attrition, migration,
and retention of music teachers; destinations of music teachers who move to differ-
ent schools; paths taken by music educators who leave the profession; and likelihood
of former music teachers to return to the profession. The secondary purpose was to
compare these estimates with those for non-music teachers.
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   95

Method

Data Sources and Participants

To address the purposes of this study, data provided by the NCES1 in August 2007
were examined for the 1988–1989, 1991–1992, 1993–1994, and 2000–2001 admin-
istrations of the TFS. The NCES created the TFS to “improve estimates and projec-
tions of teacher supply and demand by teaching field” (Boe & Gifford, 1992a, p. 56),
and it was designed to provide data for analysis of “teacher attrition rates . . . occupa-
tions or activities for those [teachers] who leave teaching, and career information for
those who are still teaching” (Luekens et al., 2004, p. 45). Furthermore, the TFS was
a 1-year follow-up of teachers who participated in the NCES’s SASS (Gruber et al.,
2002). By partnering both surveys and comparing the change in teaching status from
the SASS (i.e., all employed) to the respective TFS, a measure of nationwide reten-
tion and turnover can be created.
The SASS is a comprehensive survey of American schools, principals, and teach-
ers at national, regional, and state levels that uses multitiered selection of partici-
pants beginning with schools stratified by state and school level followed by
selection of teachers within schools stratified by their personal and professional
characteristics (Gruber et al., 2002). Participants are selected to ensure a thorough
distribution of teachers from different subject areas (Luekens et al., 2004). With the
cooperation of the U.S. Census Bureau, the SASS administrations in 1987–1988,
1990–1991, 1993–1994, and 1999–2000 obtained high teacher response rates
(83–90%), resulting in data for nationally representative samples of 47,000 to
56,000 participants per survey. SASS contents include information about teachers’
characteristics, training, school demographics, job responsibilities, working condi-
tions, salary, and support received. Only data concerning participants’ main teaching
assignment were used for this study.
TFS participants are a subsample of SASS teachers. In brief, TFS sampling meth-
ods employ a multitiered process, with the stated objective being to provide nation-
ally representative estimates of teacher retention and turnover (Luekens et al., 2004).
Additional sampling tiers include years of experience and school level. Furthermore,
new teachers and teachers who left the profession are purposefully oversampled to
capture detailed information about them. Response rates for the 1988–1989, 1991–
1992, 1993–1994, and 2000–2001 TFS administrations were generally high (89–97%),
yielding data for nationally representative samples of 4,664 to 5,075 current and for-
mer public school teachers per survey. TFS contents include teachers’ employment
status, education activities, career plans, and teaching assignments. For a complete
description of the SASS and TFS sampling methodology, survey contents, and data
gathering processes, see Luekens et al. (2004) and Tourkin et al. (2005).
Data for music teachers were found in the TFS through disaggregation of partici-
pants by their main teaching assignment as reported in the SASS. Those assigned
96   Journal of Research in Music Education

primarily to teach band, choir, orchestra, strings, voice, general music, or music
were labeled music teachers (n = 881), and all other teachers were labeled non-music
teachers (n = 17,376). Music teachers were divided among the various TFS admin-
istrations as follows: 1988–1989 (n = 254), 1991–1992 (n = 242), 1994–1995
(n = 212), and 2000–2001 (n = 173). Non-music teachers were divided across TFS
administrations as follows: 1988–1989 (n = 4,558), 1991–1992 (n = 4,549), 1994–
1995 (n = 4,316), and 2000–2001 (n = 3,983). In general, music teachers comprised
5% of the TFS participants.

Variables Examined
Data from the 1988–1989, 1991–1992, 1994–1995, and 2000–2001 TFS were
used to construct estimates of the magnitude of retention, migration, and attrition
experienced by music and non-music teachers. This study was conducted when data
from the 2000–2001 TFS had been available to researchers for only 2 years (released
in 2005), and because these data were the most current available, I chose to use them
for a more detailed analysis. Specifically, the 2000–2001 data were used to deter-
mine the destinations of teachers who moved to different schools, career paths taken
by educators who left the profession, and the anticipated return of former teachers
to the profession. Four sets of three to seven variables from the TFS were used to
generate values for this study:

Teaching status. The teaching status of teachers participating in the 1988–1989,

1991–1992, 1993–1994, and 2000–2001 TFS was determined by comparing changes
and similarities in school and career data from the respective SASS administered a
year earlier. In brief, a participant’s teaching status was considered retention if he or
she was teaching in the same school, migration if he or she was still teaching but in
a different school, or attrition if he or she was no longer teaching at the K–12 level.
In addition, music teachers could be considered for the retention or migration cate-
gories only if they were still teaching K–12 music; otherwise, they were placed into
the attrition category. The three status categories were based on definitions used in
the teacher turnover literature, adapted from the definitions used by the NCES, and
shaped to focus on retention pertinent to staffing K–12 public schools. Magnitude
estimates were compiled separately for each TFS administration.

Migration destination. Data from the 2000–2001 TFS were examined closely to
determine whether continuing teachers held positions in the same school or in a
school located in a different state or district. These data were compiled and recoded
into four categories: (a) same school, (b) different school/same district, (c) different
district/same state, and (d) different state.

Career path status. In the 2000–2001 TFS, teachers who left the K–12 teaching
profession were asked several questions about their present career path status. Data
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   97

from these questions were compiled and recoded into six viable categories: (a) in
education but not a teacher, (b) out of education, (c) attending college, (d) home-
maker, (e) retired, and (f) other.

Anticipated return. Several 2000–2001 TFS questions asked former teachers

about their plans to return to teaching. Their responses were combined and recoded
into five categories: (a) never, (b) by next year, (c) less than 5 years, (d) 5 or more
years, and (e) undecided.

Data Analysis and Reporting

Data for the created variables (teaching status, migration destination, career path
status, and anticipated return) were imported into the statistics computer program
WesVar (5.1.16) and compared for music and non-music teachers. Chi-square tests
based on column percentages—a practice used in previous turnover studies (e.g.,
Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997)—were used for the initial comparisons. Specific per-
centages between music and non-music teachers were compared using t tests. As
recommended by the NCES, all statistical analyses used adjusted standard errors and
sample weighting to account for the complex sample designs used in the TFS and
SASS, to avoid unwarranted Type I error (Tourkin et al., 2005).
All descriptive values reported in this study—and in most studies based on
large-scale databases (e.g., Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008; Ingersoll, 2002;
Luekens et al., 2004)—reflect the use of sample weighting and therefore are con-
sidered estimated values. The NCES and the U.S. Census Bureau use a complex
sample design to ensure nationally representative samples of teachers. In
essence, sample weighting is the result of a systematic process to collect data from
a smaller number of teachers (e.g., 56,000 in the SASS; 5,000 in the TFS) to rep-
resent much larger groups possessing similar characteristics (e.g., 2.4 million). In
general, the calculation of a sample weight is the reciprocal of the probability of
an individual teacher being selected. However, this probability relies on the
stratification and clustering of the survey design because it depends on the num-
bers found within these groups. The SASS and TFS strata and clusters were
derived from the demographics of the entire U.S. teacher workforce described in
the Department of Education’s Common Core of Data, a comprehensive data
source of all schools and teachers as reported by states (Tourkin et al., 2005). The
resultant sample weight determines how many teachers a single survey participant
represents. All sample weights used in this study were provided by the NCES. For
a thorough discussion on the use of sample weights, and issues related to the
analysis of complex sample survey data, see Lee and Forthofer (2006) and Skinner,
Holt, and Smith (1989). For a detailed description of the SASS and TFS weighting
processes, see Luekens et al. (2004).
98   Journal of Research in Music Education

Results

National estimates of teaching status for music and non-music teachers based on
data from the four administrations of the TFS may be found in Table 1. Results
indicated that the turnover experienced by music and non-music teachers was simi-
lar in 1987–1988, χ2(2, N = 4,812) = .04, p > .05; 1991–1992, χ2(2, N = 4,761) =
4.48, p > .05; 1994–1995, χ2(2, N = 4,528) = 2.82, p > .05; and 2000–2001, χ2(2, N =
4,156) = 1.32, p > .05. Teacher retention was the most frequently reported teaching
status, followed by migration, then attrition. After this analysis, teaching status esti-
mates for music teachers across the four TFSs were averaged together for further
analyses. Results estimated that the national supply of K–12 public school music
teachers annually experienced approximately 84% retention, 10% migration, and
6% attrition from one year to the next between 1987 and 2001.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the subtle changes in the rates of attrition, migration,
and retention for music teachers between 1987 and 2001. It appears that the rate of

Table 1
1988 to 2001 National Estimates of Retention and Turnover
for Music and Non-music Teachers
Music Teachers Non-Music Teachers

Category National Estimate Column (%) National Estimate Column (%)

1988–1989
Retention 100,107 86.2 1,965,733 86.6
Migration 9,563 8.2 178,842 7.9
Attrition 6,490 5.6 126,441 5.6
1991–1992
Retention 100,784 83.6 2,136,536 87.8
Migration 12,936 10.7 172,724 7.1
Attrition 6,868 5.7 123,627 5.1
1994–1995
Retention 80,195 82.2 2,125,077 86.4
Migration 9,821 10.1 173,134 7.0
Attrition 7,513 7.7 160,374 6.5
2000–2001
Retention 93,857 85.3 2,436,498 85.0
Migration 10,187 9.3 218,168 7.6
Attrition 5,973 5.4 212,627 7.4

Note: Column percentages for each survey were compared between music and non-music teachers. The
3 × 2 chi-square values for the 1987–1988, 1991–1992, 1994–1995, and 2000–2001 Teacher Follow-up
Surveys were 0.04 (p > .05), 4.48 (p > .05), 2.82 (p > .05), and 1.32 (p > .05), respectively. Percentages
may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   99

Figure 1
General Trend of Attrition and Migration Experienced
by the U.S. Music Teacher Population From 1988 to 2001

Note: TSF = Teacher Follow-Up Survey.

Figure 2
General Trend of Music Teacher Retention Experienced
by the U.S. Music Teacher Population From 1988 to 2001

Note: TFS = Teacher Follow-Up Survey.

100   Journal of Research in Music Education

music teacher attrition increased in 1994–1995 when compared with 1988–1989 and
then returned to the 1988–1989 level in 2000–2001. Migration rates for music teach-
ers increased in 1994–1995 and remained higher than the 1988–1989 rate through
2000–2001. As a consequence, music teacher retention decreased from 1988–1989
to 1991–1992 and 1991–1992 to 1994–1995 but returned to the 1988–1989 rate in
2000–2001. It should be noted that these fluctuations represent the career decisions
of thousands of music teachers.
Table 2 provides a national estimate of the migration destinations (i.e., changes
in school location) music teachers traversed based on 2000–2001 TFS data. Results
indicated that most music teachers were retained by the profession in schools located in
the same state, district, and school they occupied in 1999–2000 (i.e., they did not
move), yet 5.8% moved to schools in a different school district within the same state,
whereas 3.3% moved to schools in the same school district. In general, migration
destination results for music teachers were similar to those for non-music teachers,
χ2(3, n = 2,477) = 1.56, p > .05.

Table 2
2000–2001 National Estimates of School Location
for Retained and Migrating Teachers
Music Teachers Non-Music Teachers

National National
Category Estimate Column (%) Estimate Column (%)

Same school 93,857 90.2 2,436,498 91.8

Different school, same district 3,433 3.3 98,902 3.7
Different district, same state 6,081 5.8 92,804 3.5
Different state 674 0.7 26,461 1.0

Note: The 4 × 2 chi-square for this table was 1.56 (p > .05).

Results presented in Table 3 reveal several differences in the career path status of
former music and non-music teachers, χ2(5, n = 1,679) = 80.40, p < .001, based on
data from the 2000–2001 TFS. Fewer former music teachers were employed in non-
teaching education positions compared with non-music teachers, t(88) = 2.68, p < .01;
at the same time, more former music teachers were attending college than non-music
teachers, t(88) = 2.09, p < .05, and more non-music teachers were involved in
“other” activities compared with music teachers, t(88) = 5.19, p < .001. Estimates
for former teachers working in a non-education field, staying at home, and retired
were similar for music and non-music teachers (p > .05). In general, former music teach-
ers primarily were attending college, actively retired, working in other fields, working in
education (not as a K–12 teacher), staying at home, and pursuing other ventures.
Table 4 illustrates former music and non-music teachers’ anticipated return to a
teaching career derived from the 2000–2001 TFS data. To summarize, about 39% of
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   101

Table 3
2000–2001 National Estimates of Former
Teachers’ Career Path Status
Music Teachers Non-Music Teachers

National National
Category Estimate Column (%) Estimate Column (%)

Attending college 1,684 28.2 7,025 3.3

Retired 1,399 23.4 59,908 28.2
Out of education 1,233 20.7 25,281 11.9
Education, not a teacher 847 14.2 67,311 31.7
Homemaker 713 11.9 32,076 15.1
Other 97 1.6 21,026 9.9

Note: The 6 × 2 chi-square for this table was 80.40 (p < .001). Percentages may not add up to 100% due
to rounding.

former music teachers planned to never return to a career as a K–12 music teacher,
whereas 34% planned to return eventually and an additional 11% planned to return
by the following school year. Only 6% of former music teachers were undecided.
Former music and non-music teachers’ plans to return were significantly different,
χ2(4, n = 1,679) = 33.58, p < .001. Column percentages for return to teaching
within a year were twice as high for non-music teachers compared with music teach-
ers, t(88) = 2.01, p < .05. Moreover, percentages for the undecided category were
nearly three times higher for non-music teachers compared with music teachers,
t(88) = 3.34, p < .001.

Table 4
2000–2001 National Estimates of Plans to Return
to K–12 Teaching for Former Teachers
Music Teachers Non-Music Teachers

National National
Category Estimate Column (%) Estimate Column (%)

Never 2,354 39.4 90,763 42.7

By next year 646 10.8 44,999 21.2
Less than 5 years 1,260 21.1 25,021 11.8
5 or more years 1,344 22.5 10,942 5.1
Undecided 369 6.2 40,902 19.2

Note: The 5 × 2 chi-square for this table was 33.58 (p < .001).
102   Journal of Research in Music Education

Discussion

The results from this study provide national estimates of turnover and retention
based on the overt career choices of music teachers. Specific estimates were calcu-
lated for the mean magnitude of retention, migration, and attrition, the destinations
of music teachers who changed schools in a given year, the career path status of
former music teachers, and the possibility of former music teachers returning to the
K–12 classroom. Moreover, these results were compared with all other teachers, to
provide a context.
Music teacher turnover was a sizable phenomenon during the years studied, with
schools losing 10% of music teachers due to migration and 6% to attrition in a single
year. Although it is true that teacher supply and demand is influenced by fluctuations
in the number of new teachers entering the field (Kimpton, 2005) and retiring
(Ingersoll, 2001), it seems that the national demand for music teachers may be fueled
by teacher migration and attrition. Data from the 2000–2001 TFS revealed that these
two factors alone accounted for 19,000 vacancies in a single year, lending support
to the idea that music teacher turnover is a concern for the profession (e.g., Asmus,
1999; Hill, 2003; Lindeman, 2004; Madsen, 2000) as well as for state and federal
agencies (U.S. Office of Postsecondary Education, 2008).
Rates of music teacher attrition, migration, and retention across the four TFSs
were similar to those of non-music teachers. Considering that the year-to-year loss
of music teachers may be as severe as that for other teachers, music teacher retention
efforts perhaps need to be placed on par with retention programs for general teach-
ers. Many school districts and states encourage teacher retention through a variety
of pecuniary incentives (e.g., loan forgiveness programs for science educators;
signing bonuses for highly qualified math teachers); yet, similar efforts for music
teachers are rarely available. Results of research have indicated that such financial
incentives may even be more influential in retaining music teachers (e.g., Hancock,
2008; Scheib, 2004) than some non-music teachers (e.g., Hancock & Scherff, 2009),
although salary seems to influence the career decisions of teachers in general regard-
less of experience and other conditions (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Further research
should attempt to sort out the motivations of music teachers who leave and should
determine the extent to which those motivations are unique to music teachers or
universally experienced by all teachers.
The data indicated that most music teachers who migrated moved to different
schools in the same state. This result was not surprising considering the logistic
impediments involved in relocating to a different state (e.g., certification, costs),
identification that teachers develop with members of state music associations, and
extended personal relationships that teachers forge with friends and relatives within
a state. For migration occurring within a state, twice as many music teachers moved
to a school in a different district as those who remained in the same school district.
Indeed, anecdotal evidence from practicing music teachers who were participants in
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   103

other studies suggests that our profession’s informal career ladder may be based on
relocation to schools where resources, support, and salary are more plentiful
(Madsen & Hancock, 2002). In addition, music teachers may pursue positions in
larger programs with statewide reputations after having turned around a struggling
program or having gained experience. Understanding such career ladders and how
they affect the stability of the profession are areas that need to be addressed in fur-
ther research.
For music teachers who left the profession, career path status estimates indi-
cated that they primarily were attending college, retired, working in other fields,
working in education (not as a K–12 teacher), or staying at home. It is interesting
that attending college was the status of more than 28% of the former music teach-
ers, surpassing retirement and working outside education. Although the details of
what these former teachers were studying was not examined in this study, it is
entirely possible that these teachers chose to attend graduate school to improve
their credentials, satisfy career goals, obtain a college teaching position, or simply
have a respite from the classroom. The idea that many former music teachers are
working on advanced degrees suggests that there may be a group of returning music
teachers who are more qualified and ready to take on the challenges of the class-
room after enjoying an intellectual retreat. Moreover, a teaching hiatus may be a
positive indicator of some music educators’ desire for continuous learning, which
reflects well on the profession. At the same time, it must be considered that these
teachers may be training for a different career. Compared with non-music teachers,
former music teachers were far more likely to be attending college, raising positive
questions about the role of graduate school in the music education profession.
Future studies need to examine the career paths of former music teachers more
closely, especially those who choose to return to college, to help answer questions
about the role of graduate school in music educators’ careers and the permanence
of their departure from the field.
Leaving teaching and pursuing a different career was the third highest choice
for former music teachers. This result was not surprising because many music
teachers consider several different occupations before considering music educa-
tion as a career (Bergee, 1992). The idea of examining other lines of work may
have continued, or perhaps these teachers were interested in pursuing work that
included more flexible working hours, higher salary, more supportive leadership,
or greater autonomy.
Results from this study indicated that more than 50% of former music teachers
intended to return to K–12 teaching, compared with 38% of non-music teachers.
However, most non-music teachers intending to return planned to do so within a
year, whereas most music teachers planned to do so in 2 or more years. It is likely
that rates of actual return to teaching decline as more time passes. Numbers from the
2000–2001 TFS indicated that as many as 3,100 former music teachers may have
104   Journal of Research in Music Education

returned, and almost 400 were undecided. If these experienced teachers did return or
could be convinced to return, the music education profession may have a substantial
reserve of teachers willing to work, with credentials and certification available.
Previously (Hancock, 2008), I suggested that other factors related to a teacher’s
characteristics—work environment, efficacy, support received, remuneration—and
not the subject matter of music may influence the likelihood of teacher turnover,
perhaps suggesting that the profession needs to identify what will help former music
educators decide to return to the classroom sooner. It is obvious that further research
should examine these former teachers more closely to determine what types of
incentives could encourage them to return to the profession.
Data used for this study comprised a nationally representative sample and, there-
fore, caution should be exercised when transferring these results to local music
teacher supply issues. However, the TFS data provided an unprecedented opportu-
nity to conduct a study that was truly national in scale using the resources of the U.S.
Department of Education (access to the Common Core of Data listing all schools and
teachers in the United States), the U.S. Census Bureau (distribution of the survey,
tracking of individual teachers across state lines, field agents in schools helping to
improve the return rate of surveys and accuracy of teacher status), and the staff of
the NCES (creation and testing of the surveys, cross-verification of the data with
school district and state databases). Moreover, the TFS and SASS were initiated by
the federal government to help researchers overcome validity and reliability issues
that emerge when conducting national teacher turnover research with regional, state,
and local data (Boe & Gifford, 1992b).
Much of the data for this study were collected during the 2000–2001 school year,
prior to the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act and widespread worsening
of economic conditions. It should be noted that this data set—released in 2005—
continues to inform scholars in a variety of fields and has formed the basis of many
recently published studies (e.g., Boe et al., 2008; Hahs-Vaughn & Scherff, 2008;
Ingersoll, 2006; Luekens et al., 2004; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). With this study as a
basis for comparison, a follow-up should closely examine the effects of these issues
on attrition, retention, and migration.
The amount of music teacher turnover is a substantial phenomenon, with 16% of
our population leaving schools every year. The extent of attrition and migration of
music teachers is on par with the challenges experienced by the teaching profession
at large, and it is clear that this is an indicator for the profession that more efforts are
needed from schools, administrators, peers, teacher trainers, and the profession at
large to encourage retention efforts. Meanwhile, we also need to undertake efforts to
gain a greater understanding of the motivations of those who actually leave, the role
of informal career ladders in music teacher migration, the role of graduate school in
music educators’ career decisions, and the incentives that will entice those who have
left but would consider a return.
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   105

Note
1. The author is licensed to use federally restricted-use data sets by the National Center for Education
Statistics and is certified in the use of Schools and Staffing Survey and Teacher Follow-up Survey data
by the Institute for the Education Sciences in Washington, D.C. All data were provided by the National
Center for Education Statistics.

References
American Association for Employment in Education. (2007). Educator supply and demand in the
United States 2006 executive summary. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.aaee.org/pdf/
2006execsummary.pdf
Asmus, E. P. (1999). The increasing demand for music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education,
8(2), 5–6.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five school districts: A pilot
study. Retrieved June 29, 2007, from http://www.nctaf.org
Barro, S. M. (1992). Models for projecting teacher supply, demand, and quality: An assessment of the
state of the art. In E. E. Boe & D. M. Gifford (Eds.), Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy
issues, models, and data bases (pp. 129–209). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bergee, M. J. (1992). Certain attitudes toward occupational status held by music education majors.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 104–113.
Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., & Cook, L. (1997). Whither didst thou go? Retention, reassignment, migration,
and attrition of special and general education teachers from a national perspective. The Journal of
Special Education, 30, 371–389.
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition, teaching
area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31.
Boe, E. E., & Gifford, D. M. (1992a). Summary of conference proceedings. In E. E. Boe & D. M. Gifford
(Eds.), Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy issues, models, and data bases (pp. 21–62).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Boe, E. E., & Gifford, D. M. (Eds.). (1992b). Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy issues, models,
and data bases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative
review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409.
Byo, J. L., & Cassidy, J. W. (2005). The role of the string project in teacher training and community music
education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 332–347.
Grissmer, D. W. (1992). Discussion: Teacher supply and demand research with state data bases. In E. E.
Boe & D. M. Gifford (Eds.), Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy issues, models, and data
bases (pp. 271–280). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1987). Teacher attrition: The uphill climb to staff the nation’s schools.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teachers College Record,
99, 45–56.
Gruber, K., Willey, S. D., Broughman, S. P., Strizek, G. A., & Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and
Staffing Survey, 1999–2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of
Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools (NCES 2002-313). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Guarino, C., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: Review of recent
empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173–208.
106   Journal of Research in Music Education

Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Scherff, L. (2008). Beginning English teacher attrition, mobility, & retention.
Journal of Experimental Education, 77(1), 21–53.
Hamann, D. L., Gillespie, R., & Bergonzi, L. (2002). Status of orchestra programs in the public schools.
Journal of String Research, 2, 9–35.
Hancock, C. B. (2008). Music teachers at risk for attrition and migration: An analysis of the 1999–2000
Schools and Staffing Survey. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 130–144.
Hancock, C. B., & Scherff, L. (2009). Who will stay and who will leave? Predicting secondary English
language arts teacher attrition. Unpublished manuscript.
Hill, W. L., Jr. (2003). The teacher shortage and policy. Music Educators Journal, 89(4), 6–7.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP
Bulletin, 86, 16–31.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2006). Understanding supply and demand among mathematics and science teachers. In
J. Rhoton & P. Shane (Eds.), Teaching science in the 21st century (pp. 197–211). Arlington, VA:
National Science Teachers Association Press.
Killian, J. N., & Baker, V. D. (2006). The effect of personal and situational factors in the attrition and
retention of Texas music educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(1), 41–54.
Kimpton, J. (2005). What to do about music teacher education: Our profession at a crossroads. Journal
of Music Teacher Education, 14(2), 8–21.
Lee, E. S., & Forthofer, R. N. (2006). Analyzing complex survey data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lindeman, C. A. (2004). Idea bank. Music Educators Journal, 90(3), 66–67.
Luekens, M. T., Lyter, D. M., & Fox, E. E. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the
Teacher Follow-up Survey, 2000–01 (NCES 2004-301). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Madsen, C. K. (Ed.). (2000). Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the future of music education.
Reston, VA: National Association for Music Education.
Madsen, C. K., & Hancock, C. B. (2002). Support for music education: A case study of issues concerning
teacher retention and attrition. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 6–19.
Madsen, C. K., & Madsen, C. H. (1998). Teaching/discipline: A positive approach for educational devel-
opment. Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing Company of Raleigh.
Market Data Retrieval. (2008). 2007–2008 MDR education catalog. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from http://
www.schooldata.com/pdfs/mdr_k12_catalog_07.pdf
McLain, B. P. (2005). Environmental support and music teacher burnout. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 164, 71–84.
Murname, R. J., Singer, J. D., Willet, J. B., Kemple, J. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1991). Who will teach? Policies
that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Education Association. (2007). Rankings and estimates. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://
www.nea.org/edstats/images/07rankings.pdf
Podgursky, M., Monroe, R., & Watson, D. (2004). The academic quality of public school teachers: An
analysis of entry and exit behavior. Economics of Education Review, 23, 507–518.
Price, J. L. (1989). The impact of turnover on the organization. Work and Occupations, 16, 461–473.
Russell, J. A. (2008). A discriminant analysis of the factors associated with the career plans of string
music educators. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 204–219.
Scheib, J. W. (2004). Why band directors leave: From the mouths of maestros. Music Educators Journal,
91(1), 53–57.
Skinner, C., Holt, D., & Smith, T. (1989). Analysis of complex surveys. New York: John Wiley.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning
teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714.
 Hancock / Retention, Migration, and Attrition   107

Tourkin, S. C., Pugh, K. W., Fondelier, S., Parmer, R. J., Cole, C., Jackson, B., et al. (2005). 1999–2000
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data file user’s manual (NCES 2004-3030). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Office of Postsecondary Education. (2008). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990–91
through 2007–08. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html
Vandenberg, R. J., & Barnes-Nelson, J. (1999). Turnover intentions: Examining their functionalities.
Human Relations, 52, 1313–1336.

Carl B. Hancock is assistant professor of music education at The University of Alabama. His research
interests include teacher retention, music teacher education, and the perception and cognition of music.

Submitted September 9, 2008; accepted April 8, 2009.