EXPLORING TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND PERSPECTIVES IN SASKATCHEWAN AND WEST VIRGINIA A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This descriptive study explored and compared what recruitment and retention policies and practices school divisions in Saskatchewan, Canada and West Virginia, United States used to staff their schools and whether or not, and to what degree, institutional isomorphic forces influenced those policies and practices. Survey data from 21 Saskatchewan and 19 West Virginia school divisions and semi-structured interview data from five self-identified survey respondents was collected. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques and simple qualitative descriptive techniques were used to analyze the data.\nThis study corroborated the suggestion in the literature that school divisions have similar staffing administrative functions, regardless of their location in Saskatchewan or West Virginia; and further that the policies and practices used to recruit and retain teachers are comparable. By extension, school divisions generally have administrative functions, such as staffing, that may be described and compared aculturally. The data supports this assertion. Further, the study also found that institutional isomorphic (coercive, mimetic, and normative) forces affected policies and practices related to recruitment and retention of teachers. All respondents indicated at least some effect on policies and practices by each isomorphic force. The data showed the effect of coercive influencing forces indicates that the Saskatchewan school divisions have a greater degree of autonomy and self-governance than their counterparts in West Virginia. \nFurther, significant findings from the survey data in this study indicated recruiting and retention in rural/remote school divisions was more difficult than non-rural/remote school divisions; recruiting and retention were more difficult for school divisions in West Virginia than school divisions in Saskatchewan. Additionally, the data indicated recruiting and retention challenges and issues in West Virginia were more often related to financial factors compared to Saskatchewan school divisions where non-financial factors were more of an issue.\nAnalysis indicated statistically significant differences between West Virginia and Saskatchewan school divisions around challenges they face when recruiting teachers. These challenges included low/uncompetitive salaries (p=.000), certification requirements (p=.000), degree requirements (p=.002), and uncompetitive benefits (p=.002). Likewise, statistically significant differences between West Virginia and Saskatchewan were also revealed regarding the challenges school divisions face when retaining teachers. The challenges that affected teacher retention were low/uncompetitive salaries, certification requirements, degree requirements, closer proximity to higher paying divisions, and uncompetitive benefits. West Virginia had much more difficulty and faced greater barriers in recruiting and retaining teachers than Saskatchewan. When looking at specific recruitment and retention strategies, West Virginia schools were more likely to rely on assisting teachers in obtaining full license/certification as a strategy than divisions in Saskatchewan, which is likely related to the use of alternative certification practices and provisionally licensed staff in West Virginia.\nThis study illustrated recruitment and retention policies and practices overall are similar among school divisions in Saskatchewan and West Virginia. However, although both school divisions face similar challenges, the West Virginia school divisions were affected more by financial factors, while the Saskatchewan school divisions were affected more by non-financial factors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».