Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDarling, Robert
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-07T18:19:18Z
dc.date.available2016-10-07T18:19:18Z
dc.date.issued2016-06-25
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11803/499
dc.descriptionInterviews from former provisional teachers who continued working in rural schools for at least five years to determine what leadership practices, and/or other components attributed to their retention. Also interviewed the principals of these same teachers to identify why they felt they were successful in retaining new teachers in rural schools. Responses from both groups were compared and there were some noticeable differences between why principals felt teachers stayed and why teachers reported they continued working in the rural schools.en_US
dc.description.abstractThis qualitative applied research study addressed the challenges public school principals in rural school communities face with regard to retention of provisional teachers. The two research questions that guided this study were: (a) What are principals in some rural schools in Educational Service District 105 in Central Washington State doing to successfully retain provisional teachers? (b) What support did provisional teachers from those schools in ESD 105 report as having the biggest impact on their decisions to remain teaching at their respective schools? Principals and teachers from five schools with high retention rates for provisional teachers were interviewed to identify components implemented in their schools to support provisional teachers. The teachers revealed the impact that induction program components had on their decisions to remain teaching at their respective schools beyond their provisional status years. Relationships between induction program components and teacher retention were identified. Teachers also identified other factors that influenced their decisions to continue working in the same school. Responses were categorized using the constant comparative method and categorized by themes: professional development, time to interact with colleagues, supportive school leadership, positive school culture, and location and community. Teachers identified common leadership style among the five principals that can be classified as Responsive Leadership. The singular factor unrelated to induction or principal impact identified by teachers was their desire to work and reside in the same rural community.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/
dc.subjectRetention in rural schoolsen_US
dc.subjectResponsive leadershipen_US
dc.subjectNew teacher retentionen_US
dc.subjectPrincipal leadershipen_US
dc.subjectNew teacher induction programsen_US
dc.subjectProfessional Learning Communitiesen_US
dc.subject.lcshFirst year teachers--Washington (State)
dc.subject.lcshFirst year teachers--In-service training
dc.subject.lcshFirst year teachers--Social networks
dc.subject.lcshTeachers--Selection and appointment--Washington (State)
dc.subject.lcshProfessional learning communities
dc.titleAn Analysis of Successful Induction Programs for Early Career Teachers in Rural Central Washington Stateen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineEducational Leadershipen_US
thesis.degree.grantorCity University of Seattleen_US
thesis.degree.levelDoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Educationen_US
cityu.schoolSchool of Applied Leadershipen_US
cityu.siteSeattleen_US
cityu.site.countryUnited Statesen_US


Files in this item

PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States