In the 2023-2024 academic year, U.S. public elementary and secondary schools employed about 3,842,997 instructional staff (i.e. teachers etc.) according to projections. If by “instructors” you meant all teachers public and private in K-12, the number is approximately 4 to 4.1 million (source: https://www.thinkimpact.com/how-many-teachers-in-the-us/).
In February 2024, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (via NCES / JOLTS) reported that about 56,000 quits in public state and local education happened that month alone (source: https://nces.ed.gov/national-center-education-statistics-nces/blogs). A survey reported that in 2023 around 51,000 educators (teachers and other educational staff) quit their jobs in the U.S. (source: https://www.devlinpeck.com/content/teacher-shortage-statistics). Another source estimated that from 2020 through 2022, some 2.6 million educators and staff had quit public education jobs (K-12 and higher education) during the pandemic period. By the end of that year, almost one-third of the instructors were in transition, either starting at a new school with new coworkers and children or getting ready to leave their existing one. Whether instructors leave for another school across town or quit teaching entirely, the daily reality for a school losing staff at this rate is the same: the coherence, continuity, and community that are essential to successful schools are disrupted. Because of this frequent worker turnover, school managers are constantly looking for new hires.
As people depart to start families or seek better job opportunities, some turnover is to be expected. However, when turnover revitalizes organizations, particularly if those departing have not been productive, it can be beneficial. However, high teacher turnover places a heavy financial burden on our schools, especially in low-income urban and rural populations.
The cost of turnover is something we can and should quantify. First, if we are to increase teacher retention rates and foster high-quality teaching and learning, a realistic analysis of high turnover would probably indicate that a significant public investment in tuition and tax support for teacher preparation is being undermined by a persistent disregard for school conditions that could — and in fact, must — be improved.
The cost of turnover at the school district level must also be quantified. The annual financial cost of putting our instructors through this cycle is enormous, according to preliminary calculations. For instance, the total annual cost of teacher turnover for American school districts is not a single figure but varies by district size, with the Learning Policy Institute estimating per-teacher replacement costs of $11,860 for small districts, $16,450 for medium districts, and $24,930 for large districts as of 2024. These costs are incurred from separation, recruiting, hiring, and training new teachers and significantly impact budgets, with previous estimates placing the national cost at over $7 billion annually (source: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/2024-whats-cost-teacher-turnover).
We present these data as a challenge: The actual costs of teacher attrition and turnover need to be precisely tracked and evaluated by each state and district. It is no longer acceptable to consider high attrition and turnover to be typical operating expenses.
Strong schools are characterized by a feeling of community, continuity, and coherence, all of which are severely weakened by high turnover. This makes it more difficult to establish and maintain professional teaching communities in our schools. The good sense of community among families, teachers, and students—which education specialists have long considered to be one of the most significant markers and characteristics of successful schools—could be gravely undermined by such substantial flow-through.
Not to mention that school improvements are undermined in high turnover schools by the incapacity to maintain robust learning communities. This loss has not yet been quantified, yet high teacher turnover rates wipe out significant investments in instructional progress. When teachers leave schools before innovations can become ingrained, they deprive them of the crucial capacity to maintain school development. This is particularly true in struggling schools, where a persistent feeling of “not yet” can result in everything from discouragement to outright skepticism about improvements.
High teacher turnover has the most detrimental effects on student success and instructional quality. It is frequently discovered that more seasoned teachers are noticeably more successful than inexperienced ones, defined as those with less than two to three years of expertise. For instance, according to research by the American Association of School Administrators, “the vast majority of high school principals are convinced that teacher experience matters.” More experienced instructors in their schools had greater expertise in curriculum, assessment, and instruction. The financial and human resources of schools are drained by concentrations of unskilled and underprepared instructors. Feeling “lost at sea,” new teachers are placed in schools with high turnover and few possibilities for mentorship by more experienced educators.
While a precise, recent percentage of former American teachers who would choose to teach again isn’t directly available, trends show declining morale and a decreased likelihood of recommending the profession. A 2024 EdChoice survey found only 15% of current teachers would recommend teaching to a friend or family member, a significant drop from past years, indicating negative sentiment that likely extends to former teachers. A Gallup poll found 75% of current U.S. K-12 teachers say they would still decide to be teachers if they had to do it over again (source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231572/teachers-consider-career-change-safety-fears.aspx). And a survey by Merrimack College / EdWeek found 46% of K-12 educators said they’d be “fairly” or “very likely” to choose teaching again (source: https://penncapital-star.com/education/survey-less-than-half-of-u-s-teachers-say-theyd-tell-younger-selves-to-enter-profession/).
Without seeing the benefits of increased student accomplishment, schools with high teacher turnover must constantly invest in hiring new teachers and providing them with professional development. The demands of both their students’ and their colleagues’ requirements feel like they are overwhelming other educators, especially the handful who could act as mentors. Funds are used annually to reteach new instructors the fundamentals of educational practice, who far too frequently depart before they are proficient, rather than for much-needed academic advances. Our most troublesome schools continue to suffer because teachers who profit from low-performing schools’ staff-development initiatives either quit their jobs or go on to more “desirable” teaching positions in more affluent communities.
The students with the lowest incomes suffer the most, as is customary. For young people, life must be stable. Children’s emotional and social development is negatively impacted when school personnel change frequently. Student success and teaching quality are being negatively impacted by high teacher turnover in low-income urban and rural regions. Large urban schools with the highest proportions of minority and impoverished students also tend to have the highest turnover rates; these schools also have the highest proportions of first-year teachers, teachers with fewer than five years of experience, and veteran accomplished teachers. For instance, in California, schools with significant minority and low-income student populations are frequently staffed with more underqualified instructors.
About a quarter of high school students and over half of middle school students in the country are being taught core academic subjects by teachers who are either uncertified in those subjects, did not major in them in college, or both. For example, ~¼ of students taking high school English classes were taught by teachers without a major or minor in English. For mathematics, about one-quarter of students (in those years) were taught by teachers who did not have a major or minor in mathematics or mathematics education (source: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/96040.asp). About 26% of secondary‐level science and math students in public schools were taught by teachers who did not have both a subject major and/or state “in-field” certification. Most reports talk about “out-of-field” (missing subject expertise) rather than strictly “uncertified” (i.e. lacking formal credential/licensure). Once more, this out-of-field teaching trend is more prevalent in low-income areas. “Uncertified” is a strong term — many teachers may have certification, but not in the specific subject; or may have degrees/majors not well aligned with what they teach. The distinction matters: lacking subject‐matter preparation is different from having zero certification.
Too frequently, teachers in these institutions are viewed as interchangeable components that may be moved from one teaching position to another. Children with the highest learning requirements will probably be taught by inexperienced teachers year after year in these conditions.
Simply put, the environment in these institutions does not support high-quality instruction. For instance, according to a California survey, teachers in low-income, high-minority schools report much worse working conditions, such as larger class sizes, fewer administrative support services, less access to textbooks and supplies, and subpar facilities. Teachers are also much more likely to say they intend to leave a school soon as a result of these unfavorable working conditions. A later examination of these data verified that school working conditions and pay scales had a greater impact on turnover issues than do the characteristics of the students attending these institutions.
Because their teacher’s departure creates a true no-win situation for them, pupils in low-income and high-minority schools are most adversely impacted by high turnover. They are compelled to attend classes given by the most recent inexperienced substitute or replacement after losing their teacher, despite the fact that their prospects of receiving a top-notch education are dwindling every day. Children who had the least effective instructors for three consecutive years showed scholastic success improvements that were 54% less than those of children who had the most effective teachers for three consecutive years. The implication is that teaching quality matters — it matters a lot. Students who are unlucky enough to have multiple unsatisfactory professors in a succession have a very poor chance of succeeding.
The ongoing staff turnover in our schools has significant consequences when considered collectively and at all levels. Because of this, far too many schools are in a downward spiral that lowers the aspirations of our children and staff. It’s critical to figure out how to get out of this tailspin. Stronger initiatives to retain and compensate our current teachers must be balanced with our efforts to prepare and recruit new teachers. The only way to keep the revolving door spinning is to simply replace those who depart with temporary solutions.
Until the country addresses the underlying causes of excessive teacher turnover, it will not be able to successfully address the teacher retention crisis:
– Conditions for instruction: Educational institutions must be set up to provide high-quality instruction in professional learning communities.
– Teacher preparation: To guarantee quality, all teachers must be properly trained and licensed.
– Teaching as a profession: compensation and compensation systems that acknowledge teachers as professionals must be designed in order to reward career routes for instructors from induction to completed teaching.
We must address the reasons behind high attrition and turnover if we are to address the teacher retention challenge. Teachers’ motives for leaving a school are influenced by a variety of factors. Both pay and working circumstances are important factors in teachers quitting, albeit the relative weight of these factors varies based on the experiences of the individual teacher. For instance, teachers leaving low-income schools, where working conditions are frequently more stressful, are more likely to report issues including inadequate time, classroom intrusions, lack of influence, and poor administrative support. Teachers leaving more affluent institutions mention salaries a little more frequently.
Effective supervised introduction and high-quality teacher preparation also have an impact. A sense of failure and early burnout are often the results of strategies that eschew rigorous academic preparation, student teaching, and the mentorship that allows recruits to gain knowledge from experienced veterans. It is frequently penny-wise and pound-foolish to take a recruitment strategy that prioritizes ease of entrance above thorough preparation. It accelerates the revolving door and jeopardizes a school’s capacity to retain a steady faculty. Actually, compared to their more prepared peers, new teachers who have not participated in robust teacher preparation programs have twice as high turnover rates.
Additionally, there is growing evidence that creating fulfilling career pathways that promote professional recognition and rewards for successful teachers and start with guided induction by knowledgeable colleagues improves teaching quality and teacher retention.
There isn’t a single uniform set of working conditions standards for schools that applies everywhere in the U.S., because much depends on state law, local district policies, and whether a school is public, private, or tribal. But there are many federal laws, regulatory frameworks, and guidelines that set minimum requirements.
Key Federal Laws & Regulations:
1) Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), Source: https://www.osha.gov/indoor-air-quality/schools.
Generally, requires workplaces (including schools, in many cases) to be free from recognized hazards that could cause death or serious harm. That includes safety of classrooms, labs, maintenance areas, etc.
– Indoor air quality is specifically regulated under guidance (e.g. EPA, OSHA) to ensure ventilation, absence of mold, etc.
– Hazards like extreme heat must be addressed under OSHA or applicable state-level plans.
2) Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42713
Covers wages, minimum wage, overtime, and child labor. It limits how many hours minors can work, what jobs are considered hazardous, etc. For school employees, this may apply to non-instructional staff or other employees.
3) Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/825.600
Special rules apply for school employees, especially in terms of eligibility and the number of required employees. School boards/local education agencies are considered under FMLA definitions in certain circumstances.
4) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_Hazard_Emergency_Response_Act
This mandates schools to inspect for asbestos-containing materials, develop management plans, and perform abatement or response actions to reduce exposure in school buildings.
5) State Plans & Local Laws
States often have OSHA-approved plans or their own safety regulations. They might set additional standards (e.g. for temperature in classrooms, building codes, teacher-student ratios, etc.). Local districts may also have negotiated contracts with teachers that add working conditions like prep time, workload, class size, etc.
Working Conditions Aspects Typically Covered
Here are some of the main areas that “working conditions” for schools tend to include:
– Physical environment: Clean, safe buildings; lighting; ventilation and air quality; heating/cooling; absence of hazardous materials (asbestos, lead, mold, etc.); safe furniture, playgrounds.
– Health and safety: Fire safety, emergency exits, chemical safety (e.g. labs), safe maintenance practices, protective gear if needed. Also, policies around infectious diseases.
– Hours, workload, scheduling: Teacher prep periods; maximum teaching loads; duty free lunch/recess coverage; limits on working beyond contracted hours unless compensated. For non-teachers, rules about overtime, rest breaks, etc.
– Child labor protections (for minors working): If students are employed in some capacity (work-study, student aides) there are limits on how many hours, what work is permitted, whether it occurs during school hours, etc.
– Compensation and benefits: Pay (including minimum wage, overtime where applicable), leave (sick, medical, maternity/paternity), retirement benefits, insurance.
– Contractual and collective bargaining protections: Policies around teacher contracts, non-renewal, dismissal, collective bargaining rights, due notice, etc.
– Workplace policies and fair treatment: Non-discrimination laws, harassment policies, accommodations for disabilities, equal opportunity, etc.
Standards / Guidelines & Best Practices
In addition to legal minimums, there are guidelines and standards that many schools follow to promote better conditions, sometimes required by state law or accreditation bodies, or negotiated by teacher unions. These can include:
– Class size limits (e.g. maximum number of students per teacher).
– Minimum time for lesson planning/preparation.
-Non-instructional duties limits (how much time teachers spend on administrative tasks, supervision, etc.).
– Safety drills (fire, lockdown, emergency).
– Access to professional development.
Working conditions are one of the strongest factors shaping U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction. Research shows that teachers’ feelings about their work are not only about pay or workload but also about the school environment, leadership, and resources. Here’s a breakdown:
Key Ways Working Conditions Affect Teacher Satisfaction
1) Workload & Administrative Tasks
– Heavy workloads, large class sizes, and excessive paperwork reduce satisfaction.
– Teachers often spend long hours outside the classroom (grading, planning, mandated reporting), which contributes to stress and burnout.
– When workloads are manageable, teachers report more enthusiasm and commitment.
2) Supportive Leadership
– Principals and administrators who are responsive, transparent, and supportive boost morale.
– Lack of autonomy or poor communication from leadership is a major driver of dissatisfaction.
– Teachers are more satisfied when they feel trusted to make instructional decisions.
3) Collegial Relationships
– Collaboration with colleagues improves job satisfaction.
– Toxic or competitive environments lower satisfaction and increase turnover.
– Strong professional communities (mentoring, peer support) help teachers persist.
4) Student Behavior and Safety
– Teachers in schools with high levels of disruption, discipline issues, or safety concerns often report lower satisfaction.
– Clear discipline policies and support from administrators improve conditions and job outlook.
5) Resources and Infrastructure
– Adequate teaching materials, technology, and classroom resources reduce stress.
– Lack of supplies forces teachers to spend their own money, which erodes satisfaction.
– Facilities (heating/cooling, safety, cleanliness) also affect daily well-being.
6) Professional Development and Growth
– Access to high-quality training and career advancement opportunities increases motivation.
– When professional development is poorly designed or irrelevant, teachers feel undervalued.
7) Work-Life Balance
– Teaching often extends beyond school hours, interfering with personal time.
– Schools that respect boundaries (flexible scheduling, realistic expectations) see higher satisfaction.
Research Findings
– RAND (2022): Stress is the most common reason U.S. teachers leave the profession; poor working conditions are more decisive than pay alone (source: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1121-2.html).
– Learning Policy Institute: Teacher retention improves significantly in schools with supportive working conditions, especially strong leadership and collaboration (source: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/leandro-teaching-and-learning-conditions-brief).
– MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Declining satisfaction over the last decade has been strongly linked to heavier workloads and reduced autonomy (source: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED519278&q=met+life+teacher+surveys).
American teachers’ job satisfaction is deeply tied to working conditions — especially leadership support, manageable workloads, school climate, and access to resources. Improving these areas can increase teacher retention and make the profession more sustainable.
The results of the polls, which are still being examined at the time of writing, unequivocally support a long-standing worry among educators: they do not have enough time to complete their work, prepare, and collaborate. The statewide data has some clear implications, but there are also a lot of specific areas where individual schools and systems can focus their resources to enhance teacher working conditions.
Jeff Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://ebookace.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.
