Teacher Longevity and Career Satisfaction in the Secondary Agricultural Education Classroom

Abstract

This study investigated the characteristics and rationale for teacher longevity and success in the secondary agricultural education classroom. The population was 7,300 (N = 7,300) secondary agricultural education teachers in the United States instructing grades 6-12 during 2017-2018. The sample frame was obtained through the National Association of Agriculture Educators membership list and a random sample (n = 187) of the population was selected using the Cochran's (1977) formula for continuous variables. The instrument used to collect data for this study was developed from a review of existing literature and consisted of 80 statements organized in four categories: influencers for career choice, employer characteristics, role of the FFA Advisor and FFA involvement, personal characteristics and professional growth, and personal characteristic questions. Participants who identified the overall characteristics which reflect their classroom longevity and success were feeling secure in their employment, developing their program, high satisfaction levels received from teaching and the variety of the lessons, and indicated former teachers having the greatest influence on their decision to pursue secondary agricultural education. The findings indicated that there are significant areas of success that should be investigated and revisited to determine the motivation for teachers to remain in the field.

Teacher Retention: A Relational Perspective

“…The importance of administrative support is not foreign to SBAE work. Multiple studies have identified the importance of perceived support among colleagues and administritators within a district to directly affect teacher longevity and success (Clemons & Lindner, 2019;Hasselquist et al, 2017). Professional development (Coldwell, 2017;Rodgers & Skelton, 2014) and teacher mentoring programs (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004;Ingersoll & Strong, 2011;Hope, 1999) have been identified as methods for building school connectivity.…”

“…The third construct, curricular connectivity, describes the level of connection SBAE teachers perceive to the curriculum they teach. Existing research suggests the importance of curricular connectivity, with higher teacher autonomy and knowledge of the curriculum relating to increased job satisfaction and intentions to remain in the classroom (Clemons & Lindner, 2019;Kauffman et al, 2002). Thus, teachers with more say in their curriculum, passion, and preparation will perceive higher levels of curricular connectivity.…”

“…On average, SBAE teachers face more tasks than other teachers, averaging 55 to 60 hour work weeks (Sorensen et al, 2016). SBAE-unique expectations include teaching a wider variety of content areas, advising the FFA chapter, facilitating supervised agricultural experience (SAE) programs, and working with community stakeholders (Clemons & Lindner, 2019;Murray et al, 2011;Sorensen et al, 2016). A fresh perspective on teacher retention within SBAE, one that explores new predictors, could uncover promising avenues for research and practice.…”

Exploring Curriculum Congruence and Connectivity within School-Based Agricultural Education

“…In fact, SBAE teachers log an average of 55 to 60 hours of work each week (Sorensen et al, 2016). External expectations for SBAE teachers include managing work-based learning programs, collaborating with state and local Career and Technical Education (CTE) officials, managing the local FFA chapter, and engaging with community members and businesses (Clemons & Lindner, 2019;Murray et al, 2011;Sorensen et al, 2016).…”

“…A recent study found the connections teachers have inside and outside the classroom relate to career commitment (Moser & McKim, 2020). Connectivity has been an underlying concept among various areas of focus in SBAE, including self-efficacy, work-life balance, teacher empowerment and professionalism, job satisfaction, school culture, and emotional support (Clemons & Lindner, 2019;Hasselquist et al, 2017;Moser & McKim, 2020;Pearson & Moomaw, 2005;Rinke, 2007;Sass et al, 2011;Sorensen et al, 2016Sorensen et al, , 2017Sorensen & McKim, 2014). Each of the aforementioned concepts intersect with teacher attrition and retention.…”