Why do early career teachers leave inner-city schools? A qualitative study of the revolving door in Winnipeg, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ‘revolving door’ (Ingersoll, 2001) is a term applied to a situation in which teachers begin their careers in a high needs school in the inner city, accrue enough experience, and then move on to schools in more affluent communities. This leaves vacancies that are typically filled by novice teachers, and the cycle repeats itself over and over again. This problem is not specific to any one country but is happening internationally among low socio-economic status communities. To explore this problem in a Canadian context, a qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with nine participants to learn more about why they had left the inner city. The participants were teachers who had started their careers in the inner city of Winnipeg, Manitoba in an area known as Point Douglas. The theoretical lenses of habitus, cultural discontinuity and social capital were used to frame the study and guide the research. Findings showed that none of the participants had grown up in the area where they began teaching and none of the participants felt they were fully prepared for the stresses of starting their teaching career in the inner city. When looking at why participants stayed in the inner city, administrative support and collegial networks of trust (social capital) were almost unanimously cited. When asked about why they chose to leave the inner city, participants cited a lack of administrative support, standardized assessment practices, family and community violence, neglect, and trauma that all lead to a sense of burnout. The study’s findings also remind educators that as long as they fail to acknowledge that there are differences in habitus between most teachers and students in the inner city, they continue to perpetuate a form of misrecognition. Instead, educators must focus their efforts on building on students’ strengths rather than highlighting their deficits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".