Teaching's Conscientious Objectors Principled Leavers of High-Poverty Schools

Teachings Conscientious Objectors:
Principled Leavers of High-Poverty

Schools
DORIS A. SANTORO
Bowdoin College
with
LISA MOREHOUSE
Background/Context: Most accounts of teacher attrition fall into one or both of the following categories: teacher life cycle and workplace conditions. Many educational researchers
have described and analyzed teaching in moral and ethical terms. Despite the numerous
articles and books that study the personal convictions of teachers, a sustained consideration
of how moral and ethical factors may contribute to educators decisions to leave the profession is absent from nearly all the literature on teacher attrition and on the moral life of teaching. This article couples these two literatures to highlight the moral and ethical dimensions
of teacher attrition through the experiences of 13 experienced and committed former teachers
from high-poverty schools.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This study asks: Why do experienced and committed teachers in high-poverty schools leave work they love? This article
explores how the former teachers in this study weighed the competing calls to teach right
and their responsibilities to society, the profession, their institutions, their students, and
themselves. The participants principles, or core beliefs, are analyzed in light of John Deweys
description of a moral situation. Following Dewey, it is shown that in deliberating on their
moral dilemmas, principled leavers ask not only, What shall I do? but also What am I?
Population/Participants/Subjects: The research participants are 13 former teachers from
high-poverty schools with tenures ranging from 6 to 27 years of service.
Research Design: The study is a philosophical inquiry combined with qualitative analysis
of portraits of former teachers.
Teachers College Record Volume 113, Number 12, December 2011, pp. 26702704
Copyright by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
Principled Leavers 2671
Conclusions/Recommendations: This article introduces a category of teacher attrition that

is rooted in the moral and ethical aspects of teaching: principled leavers. Akin to conscientious objectors who refuse to fight wars they deem unjust, principled leavers resign from
teaching on grounds that they are being asked to engage in practices that they believe are
antithetical to good teaching and harmful to students. The category of principled leaver
enables teachers to call on a tradition of resigning for moral and ethical reasons rather than
viewing their departures as personal failures and the result of individual weakness.
Principled leaving, as a category of teacher attrition, provides a vocabulary for such resignations and may enable community to arise rather than isolation to prevail. Just as principles may motivate teachers to enter the profession, principles may provide justification for
leaving, even for teachers who envisioned themselves as committed, long-term educators.
When experienced teachers who expected to work in high-poverty schools for the long haul
leave, it should command attention. Policy makers and educational leaders need to attend
to the moral and ethical dimensions of teaching when developing pedagogically related policies and in crafting retention efforts.
A sense of what is good and right in professional practice impales some

experienced and committed teachers on the horns of a dilemma: stay
and teach in a way that compromises their vision of good work, or leave
the vulnerable populations they serve well? Teachers faced with this professional impasse encounter moral and ethical questions that test the limits of good teaching. Through their dilemmas, these teachers reveal their
abiding commitments to and core beliefs about their work, their students, and the project of education. This article introduces a category of
teacher attrition that is rooted in the moral and ethical aspects of teaching: principled leavers. Akin to conscientious objectors who refuse to
fight wars they deem unjust, principled leavers resign from teaching on
grounds that they are being asked to engage in practices that they believe
are antithetical to good teaching and harmful to students. Just as principles may motivate teachers to enter the profession, principles may provide justification for leaving, even for teachers who envisioned themselves
as committed, long-term educators.
This study looks specifically at how teachers weigh the competing
responsibilities of what they consider good teaching in relation to their
responsibilities to society, the profession, their institutions, students, and
themselves. Teachers in this study left when accumulated conflicts
encroached on their core beliefs about good work, not only specific policy or leadership changes, creating what John Dewey called a moral situation (Dewey & Tufts, 1909). Using the term principled leaver does not
mean that principles were the sole reason for their leaving or that the former teachers interviewed for this study would necessarily describe themselves in these terms. Similarly, describing one category of attrition as
2672 Teachers College Record
principled does not imply that teachers who leave for other reasons are
unprincipled. However, there is something particular to this category of
leavers that is distinct from other kinds of attrition described in the literature. The teachers in this study were loath to be simply successful
teachers.1 Rather, they consistently wove the idea of the good into their
visions of teaching. As Sonia Nieto (2009) argued, Too many teachers
are leaving the profession because the ideals that brought them to teaching are fast disappearing (p. 13). This study highlights the content of
those ideals and how ideals, or principles, can provide justification for
leaving.
WHY DO TEACHERS LEAVE?
Most accounts of teacher attrition fall into one or both of the following
categories: teacher life cycle and workplace conditions. Beginning with
Lorties (1975) sociological work on the nature of teaching, the profession has always contended with high levels of turnover. In fact, Lortie
argued, teaching was institutionalized as high turnover work during the
nineteenth century and the modern occupation bears the mark of earlier
circumstance (p. 15). Lorties historical prcis serves as a reminder that
initially, men served as teachers until they could find better work. When
women first gained entry into the work of teaching, it was on the condition that they would leave if they became married. Today, in heterosexual couples, womens work often is viewed as secondary or supplemental
income that is abandoned if the couple has children or if other family
caretaking responsibilities take precedence (Borman & Dowling, 2008;
Kersaint, Lewis, Potter, & Meisels, 2007). Yet, not all teacher turnover
takes on the mark of past patterns. Moore Johnson and the Project on
the Next Generation of Teachers (2004) have documented the wider
range of options available to women and people of color, thus rendering
less attractive the relatively lower salary, lower status work of teaching,
especially for those who are academically gifted (Buckley, Schneider, &
Shang, 2005).
The better opportunity explanation accounts for entry into the profession. In terms of career longevity, Moore Johnson distinguished
between long-term and short-term career expectations in the new generation of teachers (Moore Johnson & the Project on the Next
Generation of Teachers, 2004). Many teachers entering the profession in
the last 10 years, unlike those in previous generations, do not view teaching as a lifelong, or even long-term, career. Rather, they see it as an
opportunity to do meaningful work before embarking on another career
path. Teaching may also serve as a change of environment from previous
work experiences, following the trend in the United States to change jobs
and perhaps career interests several times over the course of a lifetime.
Studying graduates from UCLAs Center X teacher preparation program,
Quartz et al. (2008) and Olsen and Anderson (2007) generated greater
specificity in the language of teacher attrition by noting the subcategories
of role changers and role shifters, respectively. Olsen and Anderson
argued that role shifters should not be simply considered leavers
because they continue to serve urban youth as principals and teacher
educators, and in other positions that enable them to expand their
spheres of influence.
These contemporary analyses of teacher life cycles update and situate
Hubermans (1993) work in the context of U.S. teaching environments
and policies. However, these studies do not address teachers who, despite
trends of frequent role changing, shifting, or career changes, intended
on teaching for the long haul or who had already made shifts to remain
in schools in new roles. Huberman highlighted that all teachers tend to
go through a reassessment phase in which they face some sort of existential crisis, typically around years 715. Margolis (2008) suggested that
the period of reassessment occurs much earlier, perhaps even as soon as
46 years into teaching. Kukla-Acevedos (2009) analysis of the National
Center for Education Statistics surveys on teacher mobility revealed that
first-year teachers leave for reasons distinct from those of their more
experienced peers. She recommended that research into teacher attrition be differentiated based on tenure.
Although folk wisdom suggests that pay is the most significant factor in
teacher dissatisfaction and attrition, careful studies show that pay
emerges as a significant concern only when other conditions that enable
teachers success with students are not met (Lobe, Darling-Hammond, &
Luczak, 2005; Moore Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Moore Johnson & the
Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, 2004), when teachers feel
constricted by the inability to engage in meaningful ongoing learning
(Margolis, 2008), and when the poor quality of school facilities is
omnipresent (Buckley et al., 2005). Teachers are more frustrated by a
lack of collegial interdependence, rigid curriculum mandates, testing
that seems more punishing than problem-solving, and hierarchical decision-making than by low pay.
An absence of a sense of success with students seems to contribute
most to teachers decisions to leave (McLaughlin, 1993; Moore Johnson
& Birkeland, 2003; Moore Johnson & the Project on the Next Generation
of Teachers, 2004). That lack of efficacy may be due to inadequate
teacher education and ongoing professional development, impotent and
isolating professional communities, and perceptions of ineffective and
unsupportive school leadership. With the advent of No Child Left

Behind, a feeling of a lack of success with students has become much
more public and, in some circles, defined in terms of test results. Buckley
et al. (2005) suggested that NCLB itself may be working against improvement of the nations stock of quality teachers because of the increasing
time requirements for test preparation and test-taking and the shame of
working in schools labeled in need of improvement or failing (pp.
11101111).
These studies uncover important changes and ongoing trends in
teacher life cycles. They also address certain pressures that weigh on
teachers sense of success with students and in their professions. Yet, they
do not account for why the teachers in this study left even when they were
afforded the hybrid roles of teaching and leadership that Moore Johnson
mentioned as a chief concern for ambitious and well-prepared educators
(Moore Johnson & the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers,
2004). The teachers studied here left even though they had persevered
in high-poverty schools for 627 years. They left despite believing they
served their students well, that is, they had a sense of success. Looking
at attrition through the lens of the moral and ethical dimensions of
teaching can offer a more accurate picture of why these committed, successful, and experienced teachers left work that they found important
and fulfilling.
WHY DOES THE MORAL MATTER?
The moral and ethical aspects of teaching take center stage in this study
of committed and experienced teachers who left their work. Following
Higginss (2003) distinction between professional ethics and moral professionalism, for the purpose of this study, the ethical dimension involves
teachers pursuing the good life in their professional and personal
endeavors. In relation to the ethical, teachers might ask, How is what I
am doing bettering the world or my self? The moral dimension harnesses sanctioned and prohibited activities. For instance, teachers might
wonder, Is this approach a good method for teaching my class given
what I know about best practices? The ethical and the moral are often
intertwined. For instance, violating moral principles (engaging in teaching practices that seem wrong to the practitioner) may affect ones ethical life (the practitioner may sense a diminishment of his or her goodness
as a teacher and person).
In one of the only studies that examine the role of values in teacher
attrition, Miech and Elder (1996) investigated the effect of motivation
for service on persistence in teaching. They suggested that being an
idealist or altruist can be a liability because of the uncertain rewards

of teaching. As a result of not having tangible proof of their contribution
to society, idealists, Miech and Elder claimed, do not represent a good
fit with the teaching environment (p. 239). However, Yees (1990) work
contradicts their findings. She explained, Professional identification
implies attachment to goals and values as well as active effort; the object
of loyalty is to the occupation, not the employing organizationa point
pertinent to why teachers stay in the profession (p. 4). To be a good fit
teacher, said Yee, values connected to the profession must be present to
sustain the work. However, Yees study still suggests that good-fit leavers
resign because of dissatisfaction with their accomplishments with students (p. 101). How can the role of values in teaching be reconciled in
light of these studies? It seems unreasonable to presume that possessing
values in relation to the work can predict attrition. Moreover, it seems
downright dystopic if we must presume that the teachers who will stay are
those who do not hold ideals about their work.
David Hansen (1995, 2000, 2001a, 2001b) explained that for many
teachers, their work is a vocation or calling, one replete with notions of
moral and ethical commitments to their practice and the students with
whom they work. Others have also shown that morals, values, and principles compose the essence of teaching (Buchmann, 1986; Campbell, 2008;
Carr, 2006; De Ruyter & Kole, 2010; Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990;
Jackson, 1992; Jackson & Belford, 1965; Lortie, 1975; Margolis & Deuel,
2009; Pring, 2001; Purpel, 1999). Despite the numerous articles and
books that study the personal convictions of teachers, a sustained consideration of how moral and ethical reasons may contribute to educators
decisions to leave the profession is absent from nearly all the literature on
teacher attrition and on the moral life of teaching. Those studies that
consider the moral in lay terms such as mission or altruism have
focused on early-career teachers (Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Freedman &
Appleman, 2009; Ng & Peter, 2010; Stotko, Ingram, & Beaty-OFerrall,
2007).
This study shows that major dilemmas arise when teachers practice
fails to align with their vision of good teaching (Crocco & Costigan, 2007;
Fenstermacher & Richardson, 2005). What good teaching entails is not
simply that teachers are successful with their students, but also that they
feel as though they are teaching right. Put differently, the moral aspect
of teaching involves doing what one thinks is right in terms of ones students, the teaching profession, and oneself. This sense of what is right
need not be highly personalized or idiosyncratic (Buchmann, 1986);
rather, there are senses of what is right integral to most professional
domains, and teaching is no exception. Fenstermacher and Richardson
argued that good teaching depends on morally defensible practices and

adheres to the terms of excellence designated by the profession in its logical, psychological, and moral elements, as well as the subject being
taught. Unlike good teaching, there is no necessary moral component to
successful teaching. One could be a successful teacher of inappropriate
material, or a successful teacher who uses reprehensible methods.
The fact that most teaching takes place within institutions further complicates the possibility of good teaching. Darling-Hammond explained,
It is unethical for a teacher to conform to prescribed practices that are
ultimately harmful to children. Yet that is what teachers are required to
do by policies that are pedagogically inappropriate to some or all of their
students (quoted in Colnerud, 2006, p. 377). De Ruyter and Kole (2010)
argued that it is beyond the states (or other governing bodys) purview
to give a substantive account of pedagogical ethics. Institutional mandates may render teachers ethical judgment suspect, and teachers may
question the legitimacy of their moral misgivings (Colnerud; Pope,
Green, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2009). Colnerud attributed the problem of
teachers hesitancy in the face of ethical discussion partly to teachers
dual allegiance to their employing institution and to their students, and
partly to teachers lack of fluency in moral reasoning and its attendant
language. De Ruyter and Kole recommended that teachers be given
school time to articulate their professional ideals. However, moral and
ethical pedagogical reasons appear to carry little weight in the current
policy environment, at least in the United States. De Ruyter and Kole may
provide an explanation for the dearth of moral language in current discussions about teaching: The more detailed and concrete the [teaching]
competencies are defined [by a government agency], the more the moral
dimension of teaching is filtered out (p. 209).
The most sustained consideration of the dilemmas faced by practitioners who felt as though they were being asked to be successful through
methods they did not think were right comes from the field of psychology. Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, and Damon (2001) explored what it
means to do good work in difficult times (p. 5). They show that, faced
with a professional crisis (specifically in the realms of genetics and journalism), individuals examine their core values and beliefs about the practice. This process, argued Gardner et al., has the possibility of
strengthening the individuals sense of self as well as clarifying the purposes and best practices of a profession. In particular, dilemmas about
what constitutes good work require practitioners to examine their
responsibilities to society, the domain (in this case, the teaching profession), others (especially those they serve), self, and workplace.
This sort of dilemma is captured in part by Sizers (1992) Horace
Smith, who bemoans his inability to serve students as he believes he

should. Sizers fictional composite character struggles with his ideals for
the practice of teaching and a sense of defeat, particularly in the face of
what he considers an apathetic and misguided public that sets policy.
Gardner et al.s (2001) study sustains a conversation about competing
responsibilities that takes a more empowered stance on practitioners
sense of what is right and good in relation to their profession. Gardner et
al. showed that work, when conducted primarily with the purpose of serving others or contributing to a higher purpose than ones livelihood
alone, contributes to ones moral identity.
Some studies have considered morals and ethics in ways that are not
connected intimately to teachers core beliefs about their practice.
Joseph and Efron (1993) studied teachers dilemmas by asking direct
questions regarding moral conflictssuch as, Have you ever had a
moral conflict with administrators?and analyzed the ensuing narratives. The authors found that teachers do not categorize conflicts with
administrators as simply differences of opinion, but as moral conflicts (p.
12). The authors speculated that the most significant source of moral
conflict is when teachers work in communities that hold different norms
and values from their own. They wondered if value conflicts could contribute to a sense of inefficacy and frustration, yet the value conflicts they
described are less about what it means to teach right and more about
issues such as religion, drugs, and student behavior. Shapira-Lishchinsky
and Rosenblatt (2009) analyzed teachers perceptions of organizational
ethics and found that when teachers perceive the ethics of their organizations as dissatisfying, they may become less committed to their jobs and
may react with dysfunctional work attitudes such as considering leaving
(p. 729). Yet, the ethics that they addressed had little to do with pedagogy
or the mission of the school and related more to issues of workplace climate, such as fairness among coworkers.
Intractable dilemmas arise when teachers are asked to engage in practices that run counter to their core beliefs about good teaching. Hatch
and Freeman (1988a) described these dilemmas as philosophy-reality
conflicts (p. 158). They argued that conflicts surface when what teachers
have learned to be best practice or developmentally appropriate practice
is at odds with mandated pedagogical methods or curriculum. Hatch and
Freeman (1988b) mentioned that these sorts of conflicts alienate teachers from their work and could lead to attrition. To attenuate pressures to
practice unethically from individual administrators, Helton and Ray
(2009) recommended forming ethical alliances with peers. However, this
strategy may prove impotent when faced with ethical dilemmas posed by
district, state, and federal mandates.
The language of philosophy-reality conflicts will not be used in this

analysis. Hatch and Freeman (1988a, 1988b) set up philosophy and reality as a dichotomy in which philosophy (a term that seems to stand in for
what is good and right practice) indicates a realm separate from reality. Many teachers in this study did not experience a philosophy-reality
conflict for a significant period of their practice. Reality, for several teachers in this study, involved what Gardner et al. (2001) called authentic
alignment (p. 27). For some period, teachers were able to teach in a way
that they felt was good and right. Philosophy and reality were not at odds,
but existed in negotiated and productive tension.
METHODOLOGY
This qualitative/philosophical study focuses on teachers who worked in
high-poverty schools. Interviewees responded to an advertisement in a
progressive teacher-oriented periodical or were referred by colleagues
familiar with this research project. To be included in the study, interviewees had to satisfy all the following criteria: (1) They taught in a highpoverty school where 50% or more of the students received free or
reduced-price lunch. (2) They taught for more than 5 years, exceeding
the tenure cited as the time for greatest attrition. (3) They spoke of
teaching and their students with fondness and affection in screening conversations. (4) They did not shift into administrative roles within their
schools or districts. (5) They did not transfer to another school to continue teaching, but left teaching altogether.2 (6) They taught prior to and
following the 2001 enactment of No Child Left Behind. The 13 participants represent a range of grade levels, subjects, years of experience, and
geographic areas (see Appendix A). Most came to the profession through
teacher education programs, although some pursued alternate routes to
their certification. For John R., Maggie, Rick, and Susan, teaching was a
career choice pursued after other work experiences and/or family commitments.
Following Lightfoot (1983) and Lawrence-Lightfoot and Hoffman
Davis (1997), the interviewers posed questions that enabled them to
serve as generous interlocutors who simultaneously pushed the participants to clarify, justify, and substantiate their claims (see Appendix B).3 As
Lightfoot found, conducting these interviews was revealing for the interviewers and for the participants in the study. Reflecting on her work,
Lightfoot explained, For the first time, many of the [interviewees] were
being asked to reflect upon and think critically about their work, their
values and their goals; and as they talked out loud, they discovered how
they felt (p. 371). The participants, by speaking through their experi-
ences, often for the first time in a systemic way, gained new perspectives
on their decisions to leave. None of the experienced teachers in this
study was asked to participate in an exit interview at his or her school or
district upon resignation. For example, Susan taught for 10 years in the
same urban elementary school where she had sent her children and
where she had volunteered prior to becoming a teacher. Over the course
of the interview, she came to articulate that her decision was one that
involved contradictions in the practice of teaching, and not simply a personal disagreement with enacted policy. She explained, I would say, if I
looked back on it, maybe I didnt know it at the time, but I was becoming
increasingly uneasy about the profession and what was being asked of
me. The researchers interest in the moral and ethical dimensions of
teacher attrition came into sharper focus as certain lines of follow-up
questions were pursued, and especially in reading, interpreting, and analyzing the transcribed interviews.
Portraiture, as described by Lightfoot (1983), fits well with the praxis
of philosophy and qualitative inquiry, especially from a research perspective informed by Deweyan pragmatism and feminist theories. Portraiture
eschews dualisms such as subjective and objective, reality and philosophy, and personal and political. Portraiture seeks to reveal how
subjects make sense of their experiences and to explore aspects of their
lives and experiences that would not be illuminated, save for the portraitists work. Meaning is co-constructed between the portraitist and the
subject of the portraitand that meaning is mediated by the theories
that frame the inquiry. The interplay between qualitative research and
philosophical inquiry brings the abstract to light and enables lived experiences to be illuminated in new ways (see Fields & Feinberg, 2001;
Garrison & Rud, 2009; Hansen, 1995, 2001a; Jackson, Boostrom, &
Hansen, 1993; Knight Abowitz, 2000; Mayo, 2004; Smith, 2001).
The interviews took place between 2006 and 2008, before the height of
the current economic crisis in the United States. Most of the interviewees
left teaching without another job in place, and all the interviewees pay
was reduced if they moved on to new jobs elsewhere. The bleak unemployment picture in the education sector and the rest of the U.S. job market serves as a stark reminder that leaving ones work can be a luxury.
Future research on moral and value conflicts in teachers work will need
to look at those who struggle through the dilemmas described here while
remaining in their jobs in schools, in addition to those who leave.
The interviews, or sittings, took place at a location of the participants
choosing and tended to last between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours. The interviews
were transcribed and then read several times for repetitive refrains and
resonant metaphors (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Hoffman Davis, 1997).
These refrains and metaphors led to four broad categories that were used
to code a subset of the transcripts: core beliefs about teaching, value conflicts with institution/policy, value alignment with institution/policy, and
moral reasoning for leaving. After analyzing the results of initial coding,
the categories were simplified to align with the questions arising from the
moral and ethical focus of conceptual framework: What does it mean to
teach right? What are the conditions that lead to teachers feeling that
they cannot teach right? The final three categories that were then
explored in the complete set of transcripts were: core beliefs about teaching, sources of conflict, and moral dilemmas. The former teachers may
not have used the language of moral or ethical in describing their
dilemmas or conflicts, yet their responses were coded as such when the
concern touched on their sense of rightness, goodness, or justice in relation to the work of teaching. This article focuses on the teachers core
beliefs about teaching and the dilemmas they faced in weighing competing responsibilities in their profession.
PRINCIPLED LEAVERS
As a result of analyzing these portraits through an ethical and moral lens,
a new category to describe certain forms of teacher attrition is necessary.
Attention to what constitutes the good in teaching entails engaging with
the moral and ethical dimensions of the work. Although some may cringe
at the notion of the moral dimension of teaching, it is important to keep
in mind that the moral does not require adherence to a fixed set of
dogma or taking on a smug or condescending tone. The moral means
how we affect others and ourselves for the better and the worse. There is
not a single moment of teaching that cannot be considered moral in the
sense that teachers, by virtue of their positions as leaders in the classroom, are enacting and communicating values, often in subtle, indirect
ways (De Ruyter & Kole, 2010; Goodlad et al., 1990; Hansen, 2001a,
2001b; Jackson et al., 1993).
John Dewey described a moral situation as one in which there is an
incompatibility of ends (Dewey & Tufts, 1909, p. 207). The dilemmas
described by the former teachers in this study are concrete exemplars of
Deweys philosophical problem; the choices they have to make appeal to
distinct goods, each worthwhilethe commitment to good teaching and
the commitment to the well-being of ones students and/or himself or
herself. Ideally, these goals would not be at odds, but when they are perceived to be, they have the makings of a moral situation. Dewey posited,
We have alternative ends so heterogeneous that choice has to be made;
an end has to be developed out of conflict (p. 207). This situation is not
about cold-blooded calculation. The experience of being in a moral situation can be intensely personal because the incompatible ends can be
equally desirable or repugnant. Said Dewey, This is the question finally
at stake in any genuinely moral situation: What shall the agent be? (p.
210). The choice demanded calls out not only what one in a moral situation should do, but also who he or she is.
Principles do not prescribe particular actions or make choices in moral
situations straightforward. Dewey explained that the object of moral
principles is to supply standpoints and methods which will enable the
individual to make for himself an analysis of the elements of good and
evil in the particular situation in which he finds himself. No genuine
moral principle prescribes a specific course of action (Dewey & Tufts,
1909, p. 333). Dewey argued for principles in judging, and these principles will serve as tools for analysis in moral situations. Dewey did not
argue for principles in morality in which good and evil would be determined independent of the context of the situation. Moral situations are
experiences that have the potential to be educative. As a result, ones
principles will change as ones experiences grow. The conflicts experienced by the participants in this study provide an opportunity to learn
about the living, dynamic principles that motivate the work of these
teachers.
Principled leavers do not need to proclaim the moral high ground or
tout inflexible moral yardsticks that cannot accommodate the complications of everyday professional life in public schools. The principled
leavers in this study first compromised the way they believed they should
teach in order to negotiate ways to teach well within the system and serve
their students. After accommodating their visions of good teaching to
remain working with a high-poverty population, they arrived at a juncture
at which their work was incompatible with their visions for good teaching,
working with students, and their own sense of the good life.
RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY
Elizabeth, who taught for 27 years, articulates succinctly the moral
dilemma faced by many of the teachers in this study. After transferring to
three different schools in the last 5 years of her tenure, she came to the
realization that her vision of good teaching was incompatible with the
pedagogy required in schools in her area that served poor students. Her
decision to leave hinged on the fact that she could not compromise further her dual commitment to teaching right and serving the neediest
populations:
I knew that I could find a teaching position where I could teach

the way I wanted to teach. And I knew I could find a teaching
position where I was teaching the kids I wanted to teach. But it
became more and more evident to me that I couldnt depend on
finding a position that had both of those things, and I was completely committed to both things: to being with poor kids of
color and teaching in a holistic way.
Elizabeths statement highlights two core beliefs about her work: She is
dedicated to working with a high-poverty population in the public
sphere, and she believes that good teaching involves addressing the
whole child.
Only by looking at the core beliefs, or principles, of the teachers in this
study can we address how they responded to violations of their commitments. Although interviewees were not asked directly to articulate their
beliefs about good teaching, all of them incorporated statements of core
values and principles during the interviews. All the interviewees made it
clear that they found teaching in high-poverty schools important and
rewarding work and that they saw themselves as serving the population
well; that is, they had a sense of success for a significant period of time
in their careers (McLaughlin, 1993; Moore Johnson & Birkeland, 2003;
Moore Johnson & the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers,
2004). For example, Colin, whose work as a debate coach presented
opportunities to work in private schools and who was teaching Advanced
Placement history and serving as the English Department chair, opted to
leave teaching altogether after 6 years because his passion was for working with urban public school students:
Lots of places you could go teach, but if youre gonna do it, it
seems to me like you should go to the place where its most necessary. I dont wanna be some guy in a tweed jacket with the
patches on the elbows pontificating about something that the
kids are going to be able to digest and regurgitate and move on.
I wanna be someplace where Ill be able to see significant
progress on a basic level . . . thats why I wanna remain in public
education.
Colins commitment to working in high-poverty schools signals a moral
commitment, what is right and what should be done, and an ethical
vision for himself, an ideal he wants to embody through practice.
Stephanie S. found fulfillment and satisfaction in her work as an
English teacher and as a team leader of her middle school. Yet, instructional effectiveness was not enough when she had become worn down by
what she viewed as anemic or slapdash approaches to teaching and
school policy that neglected students needs. She knew that there were
easier places to teach, but easy was not why she taught:
I loved feeling a part of something bigger and better. I think I
knew I was going to do some kind of social change work, and
even though teaching wasnt paying that well and even though it
was really frustrating to me on a lot of levels personally and professionally, I felt I could go home at night saying I felt good about
what I did. [Unlike other teachers who left for a charter school,]
Im gonna stick it out here and do the best I can for these kids,
cause they dont have the option to leave.
Stephanie S. also combines the moral and ethical in her reasons for
pursuing and remaining in teaching for 9 years. Her view of the moral
aspect of teaching issues an injunction that she should not leave the
school for a better environment if the students are not able to make that
change. Her ethical development is supported through her participation
in something bigger and better than her individual commitments.
Tanessalyn, who taught for 10 years, had moved from a rural school in
South Carolina to work in the city schools in Atlanta. She believed she
generated resentment from teachers who did not appreciate the high
expectations she set for her students and the ensuing successes they
enjoyed.
Here in Atlanta, I taught again in the inner-city schools because
I found that [was] when I was the most valuable. Thats where I
felt my passion was. So, I got here to Atlanta, got in the inner-city
school. Loved it. . . .The new administrator just loved what I was
doing for the kids. Again, these were kids who had been in trouble; they were on their way out of the school . . . but I turned
them around.
Tanessalyns moral commitments involved holding high expectations
for her students and instilling clear codes of conduct that would generate respect for her class. Her ethical self-image was fed by the success of
students who had previously known failure and disorder.
In these excerpts, the teachers speak to a sense of moral and ethical
value in their work, alluding to the social responsibility it carries. Others
used terms such as mission (Maggie and Susan) or sacred duty (Rick), and
Marney said the work of teaching comes from a higher authority

source. All the teachers viewed their work as transformative: For Lisa
(the contributor to this article), going into teaching was an activist
move, and John P. spoke of teaching as a revolutionary act. Given that
they are not freshly minted teachers, they also speak with the understanding that they were able to help students acquire the skills necessary to
lead empowered lives. They experienced efficacy and pride in their work
that contributed to their ethical selfhood and were able to achieve success through methods they viewed as moral or right.
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PROFESSION
These educators did not only consider their work service, but they also
found it to be satisfying intellectually and a source of personal dignity.
They believe that teaching is a creative and intellectual endeavor that
enabled them to use and hone their talents while contributing to goals
greater than their own self-satisfaction. At the same time, taking on the
role of teacher, they contend, should confer a certain amount of respect.
These beliefs emerged when conflicts challenged aspects of their chosen
profession that they had taken to be axiomatic: that the work should be
intellectual and creative, that teachers should model lifelong learning
and inquiry, and that there should be collaboration and respect among
colleagues.
Stephanie F. taught core subjects in Spanish for 14 years in an innovative language immersion program. Her conception of good teaching
required that she constantly assess and respond to students academic
needs. That aspect of her work became impossible when her school and
district adopted mandated curricular materials and fidelity to a regimented curriculum sequence.
I just think that I am fundamentally not interested in enacting
other peoples plans. Theres no creativity in that. There is no
opportunity to use what I know in that situation, and also I think
its a slap in the face to me as a professional. If I cant use my
brain . . . if I cant have a voice or any ownership, then I dont see
a point [in teaching].
For years, Stephanie F. had found teaching to be an intellectually stimulating endeavor that required her to draw on what she knew about subjects such as science, her understanding of her students, and her
language skills. She viewed the faithful application of uniform curriculum to her unique classroom as not teaching. Her resistance to the
scripted curriculum blended the ethical and moral dimensions of her

work. Although her sense of the good life, as accessed by her chosen profession, is obviously diminished, she also indicts the scripted curriculum
on moral grounds. She wonders how the script responds to students,
their needs, and the unique teaching environment.
Marney taught for 12 years and was baffled by the assumption that she
would be motivated to improve her practice if she had to prepare her students to take a standardized test. Marney was already positioned as a
learner of her classroom; interested in her students metacognitive skills,
she had set tape recorders around the room to listen in on their conversations and then used the recordings to show her kindergartners and first
graders how they already thought through problems.
I feel like Ive always been a teacher thats tried to grow and
improve my skills and learn more about how kids learn and how
to teach . . . I feel like as a teacher, Im someone who has constantly tried to learn and read on my own. . . . So the fear about
testing did not feel like a healthy fear that would motivate me to
get better, because I felt like I was already motivated to get better.
Marney shows that she views teaching right as being a learner of ones
students and to be an intrinsically motivated learner. The pressure of testing infringed on her desire to help students explore their interests and
her well-being as a teacher.
Marney and Stephanie F. articulate core beliefs about teachingthat it
should be responsive to students needs and interests, that it should be a
product of what teachers know about their students, that it should be
focused on student engagement, questioning, and understanding, rather
than merely acquisition. In their statements of belief, they also begin to
highlight their moral dilemmas about the profession as they draw parallels between the expectations of them as teachers and the messages students glean about learning. Both Marney and Stephanie see the loss of
the creative, intellectual, and responsive aspects of their work as impacting their students in negative ways. What they view as good and right in
teaching is impinged on by the increasingly standardized curricula, scope
and sequence of teaching topics, and focus on testing. Stephanie had
developed original science curricula for her district to align with the state
of Virginias Standards of Learning, yet that teacher-developed curricula
were scrapped and replaced with textbooks. Marney also was happy to
align her lessons to address Arizonas Academic Standards. Theirs is not
a case of outright resistance to standards or accountability, but a concern
about the larger project of what it means to teach and learn. They found
it impossible to do good work when they felt they were sending messages
to students that were antithetical to their core beliefs as they sought to
implement policy mandates.
Budget shortfalls and local politics also impact the sustaining ethical
features of the work. At the beginning of his 10-year teaching career,
John P. had attended summer workshops at Harvard on portfolios and
authentic assessment, but the money to support that level of professional
development dried up. Lisa had built a thriving journalism program and
was a new teacher coach, but those responsibilities were eliminated
because of funding constraints. However, Lisa also viewed the decision to
cut the positions as retribution for being a squeaky wheel in her denunciation of the schools reinstatement of tracking. Part of Susans decision
to leave involved her losing the student teachers who invigorated her
practice when the local university ended its partnership with her school.
Nearly all the teachers mentioned that they were teaching at their best
and felt the most positive about the profession when they were involved
in collaborative problem-solving with colleagues and with the support of
outside programs such as the Annenberg Foundation, AmeriCorps, the
Boston Writing Project, the Bay Area Coalition of Equitable Schools, the
College Board, and other reform initiatives that involved teachers in
developing standards, curriculum, and mastery assessments.
School leadership changes affected profoundly many of the teachers in
this study. Former alliances with likeminded principals enabled the
teachers deviations from scripted curricula because their students were
performing well. Or, teachers special projects were supported because
they were viewed by administrators as providing an important community
service. These experienced teachers viewed new, and often younger, principals as insecure and having something to prove, or as just merely ineffectual. The moral and ethical import of these conflicts with school
leadership relates to the dignity of the profession. For Rick, who taught
for 11 years, the institution of public schools impinges on the professionalism of teachers. He explains,
The way we set up our public schools, and Ive always thought
this, but the way we set them up is just cruel, its cruel to teachers. It says to teachers, Youre a jerk. Youre kind of a loser.
Youre really, youre just trying to slide out and not do any work,
so you need to see 5 classes, and you need to do this, you need
to do that. And it really doesnt allow us to be professionals.
For Maggie, who taught for 27 years, the disrespect surfaced at a time
of leadership change.
I was just a kind of very active person [on school committees and
projects] and when [the new principal] came in he brought
some of his own people and that was difficult. Because you had
to defer to him the things that you had been able to do before
and you couldnt do it anymore because it was almost like people
dont trust you. Dont trust you to do the right thing. Maybe they
had experience in their [previous] school with deadbeat teachers, which happens everywhere. . . . Especially for them to establish their authority as the new principal or the new assistant, they
have to kind of take this hard line so that they can get respect. A
lot of times they dont get the respect, they just hear the disdain.
Both Maggie and Rick speak to the presumption that they are losers
and deadbeats, which diminishes the ethical standing of the profession
by ascribing to teachers the qualities of incompetence and untrustworthiness. A butterfly garden planted at her Newark school in partnership with
the local conservancy and suburban womens clubs was a point of pride
for Maggie. Without being notified, the organizations were directed to
meet with another teacher. Later, the garden was mowed down at the
principals directive. Such actions motivate the teachers to ask, What does
it say about me if I am part of this profession? Briefly, other examples of
what the teachers viewed as professional transgressions were: Tanessalyn,
a married woman, was called into the principals office and accused of
having an affair with a male colleague with whom she was collaborating.
Susan approached her principal with a years worth of documentation on
a student to discuss a possible action plan. The principal suggested that
she take the student home to live with her. John P. had been issued a
warning regarding the number of Ds and Fs he assigned in his math class.
He wrote a letter to the assistant principal requesting a meeting to discuss
strategies for assessing student work, but a meeting was never granted.
John R., who taught for 16 years, was told by his principal that he was put
on a growth plan, but he was never given a copy or informed of the recommendations for growth. Colin resented that on an in-school professional development day, after several hours of no guidance from school
leadership, teachers were instructed to create midterm exams as an afterthought.
Finally, the teachers resisted the standardization of teaching itself. John
R. explained that with the emphasis on testing, he couldnt be a real
teacher. Instead, he was rendered a technician and argued that with
scripted curricula, anyone could do this. Noelle also bristled under
the focus of standardization and the accompanying paperwork. She said,
I have knowledge of how kids learn to read, and I saw needs in my
building that I couldnt do anything about because I had to do this grunt

work. So, for me, it became a nonintellectual job. If anyone can do the
work of teaching, it no longer provides the ethical sustenance the teachers enjoyed for a significant portion of their tenure.
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE INSTITUTION
All the teachers described their work as transformative, using terms such
as liberatory (John P.) and democratic (John R.), and these core beliefs
emerged when they resisted what they termed a factory model (Rick)
of education. They may have viewed their schools as special places where
their resistance to the status quo was welcomed, or they understood that
tension would be endemic to the work but that, at least in their own classrooms, they could resist what they viewed as the repressive aspects of
schooling. Typically, the teachers compromised their practice in order to
fulfill an abiding commitment to working with students in high-poverty
public schools. Yet, they reached their limits when they had altered their
practice to the point of being inconsistent with the principles of teaching
that had kept them in schools: developing strong teacher-student relationships, assessing and addressing students learning needs, and engaging the community both in and outside the school.
Consistent with their transformative bent, the teachers criticized models of schooling that were based on efficiency and standardization. John
R. was appalled that the schools new principal said his management
approach was based on the Wal-Mart model. Stephanie S. said that her
school leadership emphasized increasing productivity with fewer
resources. She explained that she could not buy into the factory paradigm: These are students, theyre not woodchips. Its not a project. Its
not a report. Theyre children. Susan viewed the emphasis on standardized testing for first graders a reflection of a business model theyre trying to apply to human beings.
As the lead teacher in a new small school-within-a-school, Lisa
described her efforts as ethical in ensuring that her team maintained
the same proportion of special education students and English language
learners as in the rest of the school. She and her team sought to do right
by the students and the school by taking a representative cross-section of
the student body and meeting their needs through a collaborative
approach. After teaching for 12 years, Lisa explained, There is a tension
because doing what I think is right is impossible now, and it used to not be.
With smaller classes and working in a small-school environment, Lisa was
able to track down truant students, work collaboratively to create opportunities to engage resistant learners, and support her commitment to
social justice by working in untracked classrooms. In Lisas case, she saw

her school become tracked, her class sizes double, lessons become
scripted, and opportunities to problem solve and collaborate with her
colleagues evaporate. She explained, I would not apply for the job that
I had the last two years. I wouldnt apply to teach in a tracked school. I
wouldnt apply to teach 175 students without support for my special ed
kids. I wouldnt apply for that.
Rick also struggled with how his vision of good teaching was undermined by institutional limitations. Although he taught in a small schoolwithin-a-school, he believed that blanket institutional requirements
thwarted the schools success and his ability to teach right. The wins for
the small school, such as common teacher planning time, came at a high
cost that Rick described as combat fatigue.
[We were] balancing what we know [are] best practices for making kids smart with all the requirements of the testing regimes
and the gate-keepers that make them dumb. I feel like the assessment problems, including the testing regime, and lack of control
of time, is just toxic to good education. [The school is] barely on
the cusp of surviving and getting slaughtered any minute. And I
hate that. Why should I live like that?
Both Lisa and Rick questioned why they should continue teaching in
schools that actively thwarted their abilities to teach right and serve
their students to the best of their abilities. For Lisa, the situation was
more frustrating because the school once enabled her to teach right.
Noelle, a teacher for 10 years, also longed for the job she was hired initially to perform. Even though she was assured that her position as a lead
teacher supporting others in developing their literacy practices would be
90% related to instruction, she was spending most of her time placing
stickers on test booklets and cataloguing books.
Id just expended so much energy on things that dont matter
and things that have nothing to do with educating children . . . I
want to do the job that I was first hired to do . . . So when Im
missing it, Im not missing that job. No ones letting me do that
anymore.
The teachers in this study, who taught prior to and following the enactment of No Child Left Behind, argued that teaching had changed for the
worse. The far-reaching accountability measures, which in high-poverty
schools often take the form of scripted curricula, lock-step scope and
sequence of units, and mandated test preparation that narrows the curriculum, squeezed out all protected institutional space.
Before resigning, Elizabeth struggled to find a way to remain in teaching. Her reaction to the scripted reading program in her district was no
mere resistance to change. She wrote to the programs publisher asking
for research to support approaches that she viewed as miseducative for
her students.
I really felt like I had spent a couple of years trying to work with
the system, talking to people about what the most egregious
things were, trying to figure out how to get around them without
doing anything as drastic as we did [publicly voicing opposition
to a scripted reading program]. I really felt like Id done my best
to do that, so for me, I felt like I had three options at that point.
I could quit, I could shut my door and do my own thing and stay
out of the fray, or I could stand up for what I thought was important for children.
Like Elizabeth, Stephanie F. took a stand for her moral convictions. She
and a group of colleagues attempted to empower parents to resist narrowed curricula and standardized testing. They also wrote letters to the
editor of the Washington Post:
For a long time, we thought that where we could change [the
school system] was in our own classrooms. . . . No matter what
came down from above, if we closed our doors and we did what
we believed was right, we could go forward. But that turned out
not to be the case because what started to come down from
above just got worse and worse and worse, and the pressure
became so great that there was no way around it. And I think
thats the most insidious part of itthe idea that if you havent
prepared your kids for all of this, that youre putting them in a
bad place.
Stephanie F. worried that by capitulating to her districts directives to
focus primarily on testing, she would be complicit in harming children.
However, she also points to the paradox that by refusing to engage in
practices that she believed were not conducive to good teaching (such as
teaching to the test), she likewise could be accused of harming her
students.
Elizabeth and Stephanie F.s experiences highlight three strategies that
most of the teachers in this study attempted to employ, if possible. They
spoke up about what they saw students needing and why they felt students
needs were not being met, they attempted to work within the expectations
set by their schools and districts, and finally, they left. It is possible that the
classroom door is no longer the impermeable membrane that isolates
(and also protects) teachers and their work. Even behind closed doors,
the teachers in this study found it impossible to pursue their visions of
good work in the current pedagogical policy environment.
RESPONSIBILITY TO STUDENTS
For the teachers represented in this study, no one event or policy catalyzed their decision to leave. Rather, they ceased to feel joy at work,
found themselves consistently impatient, or sensed, as Rick put it, the
edges of burnout. In assessing their current practice, they found that
they no longer recognized their teaching selves, and they did not like
what they saw. By compromising and being willing to adjust their practice
in order to comply with relatively small and gradual external demands,
they eventually were teaching in a way that was inconsistent with their
vision of good work.
Lisa told her class that she would not be returning the following year
by explaining to the students that they deserved more than she was able
to offer.
I said, You know that teacher who you kind of feel like should
have left a long time ago because they arent really in it and they
get mad all the time and you kind of feel like they should just
step back a few years ago? And theyre like, Oh, yeah! and they
were all trying to name them. You know? [Laughs] They all
wanted to say, Yeah, so and so, she really should have left. And
I said, Well I dont want to be that person and Im not that right
now, but I kind of feel it and so I want to step back before Im
that person.
Self-described as a rebellious believer in kids, Lisa knew she had to
make a change when she sensed she was giving up on students she would
have normally done everything in her power to reach. Colin also based
his decision to leave in part on the fact that he was losing patience with
students. He explained, I felt, I feel like I worked up until the last day at
seeing students progress. And thats the other reason why I had to go.
He did not want to have on his conscience that he did not teach to the
best of his ability, and so he left midyear.
Colins decision was not without consequence. He became physically
sick to [his] stomach when passing by the school after he resigned

because he was aware that, in all likelihood, the students were now being
taught by someone less qualified and less effective than he. Many of the
teachers mentioned that their students were exceeding state goals
(Tanessalyn) or performing higher than average for their district (Lisa).
The moral dimension of these teachers leaving is that they base their
decisions not on the fact that they were ineffective; rather, they decided
to leave because of their convictions regarding the standards of practice
that they ought to uphold and they believe the students deserve. The
teachers in this study opted to exit the classroom rather than participate
in practices or adopt attitudes that would violate what they viewed as
right, just, and good for students.
Marney felt that she spent more time documenting what she was supposed to be doing in her classroom than addressing the standards as she
felt she always had prior to receiving policy directives. Most significantly,
she no longer found that her work positioned her as an advocate for
children:
I decided I wasnt going to teach anymore because I feel like that
is what the state or the nation is defining education in this way.
And that is totally opposite of what I think it should be, you
know? And so, its time for me not to do it anymore . . . I almost
feel like, in a way, Im oppressing them. Im oppressing the kids.
John R.s background as a factory worker-turned-teacher fueled his
drive for education to contribute to social justice. He lamented that
teaching no longer was a way for him to work for liberation:
I think we should be educating our kids to make historyto
change the circumstances of their lives. Thats what were there
for. Thats what America is about. And now theyre going to turn
[education] into this sort of, Sit down, shut up, stand up, do
this, walk over here. Come on. Thats not [teaching]. I dont
know if theres a place for me in that set-up anymore.
Many of the teachers in this study echoed John R.s sentiment: I dont
know if theres a place for me in teaching. These teachers did not leave
because they were incapable of doing the work or disliked the work (at
least as they once knew it). They left because they did not see the work
that they were currently doing as fitting into their definitions of good
teaching. Current policy constructions of teacher did not align with
their professional self-image.
Noelle explained that she had to leave teaching because her continued
presence at the school signaled complicity with the districts mandates for
high-stakes testing and teacher-centered curriculum:
I dont believe in any of this. I cant be a part of any of this if you
are doing wrong by children. Its sort of like, being involved is
tacit approval for something that I fundamentally disagree with
. . . I think thats in my core; thats what I believe.
Maggie also spoke of high-stakes testing as traumatizing the newcomers
to English whom she taught. She felt that inflicting such pain was antithetical to her role as an ESL teacher. Susan pushed back against the
expectations for standardized testing for her first-grade students and
refused to have 6-year-olds take an exam for 2 1/2 hours with no breaks:
I left the woman who was delivering the [test] books in my room
and I said, I have to go talk to the principal about this. And I
just walked down to her office and I said, Im not going to do
this. My assessment as a teacher of the students in my room . . .
I said, If Im going to ask them to do this, I have to do it in conditions that I think are going to be the least offensive to their sensibilities. And, umm, she said that she couldnt allow that. And
I said, Well, that is what Im going to do, and I guess were going
to have to talk about consequences later.
Despite Susans willingness to challenge practices she deemed wrong
and harmful to students and to voice her concerns with school and district leadership, she could not brook the onslaught of curricular and
assessment requirements. By the time she left, first graders were expected
to take 28 formal written assessments over the course of the school year,
and she was unwilling to serve as a willing party in those practices.
The teachers refused to teach in ways they believed were harmful to
children, whether due to policy requirements or their own demoralization in the face of the overwhelming conflicts and dilemmas presented
by the work. They found practices expected by their school leaders and
articulated in educational policy unrecognizable in relation to their
visions of good education and teaching right. When Elizabeths principal asked her why she might not return to teach, she responded, [The
school has] completely changed from a place that is engaged in educating kids to a place thats engaged in instructing and testing kids. As a
consequence of the changes that altered teachers relations to students,
they no longer recognized themselves in the role of teacher within their

school environments.
RESPONSIBILITY TO SELF
Returning briefly to Deweys description of a moral situation, what is
called forth is the self. The questions that one must respond to are not
only What shall I do? but also What shall I be? And the self faces a
question in which choosing between the conflicting possibilities can be
amenable or despicable in equal measure. In the case of all the teachers
in this study, at some point, they faced the dilemma: stay and serve the
students, or leave and preserve oneself? What makes this predicament
a true dilemma is that teaching students well had been a source of
moral and ethical sustenance for their selves that became increasingly
inaccessible.
John P. described his teaching as having an untenable intensity. He
describes the pressures of working in a high-poverty school and the
intense energy necessary to work with resistant students as sapping his
ability to harness the ethical dimensions of the work.
I need to have joy and I need to have creativity . . . my experience
of being a teacher ceased to be fun, joyful, or creative. And it
kind of only remained meaningful and right. But, but that, but
meaningful and right and correct werent sustainable. I never
checked out in front of the students. But it was just . . . I was on
vapors.
John P. acknowledged that the moral legitimacy of teaching (it was
meaningful and right) is still present, albeit diminished. However, he
could not sustain his ethical responsibility to himself while meeting what
he saw as the moral demands of the work. Significant to John P., and as
mentioned by Rick, Lisa, and Colin earlier, was that he maintained his
high expectations for teaching students up until the time he left rather
than remain and occupy the role of burnt-out teacher.
The teachers cared a great deal about maintaining their personal and
professional integrity. Susan explained that her schools insistence on
uniformity, the increasing demands on her work with fewer resources,
and the lack of support from new school leaders made her realize that
she could not do the work any longer.
It was demoralizing on a personal level and a professional
level. And the scripted-ness, the insistence on the same kind of
teaching everywhere, cookie-cutter kind of stuff, took the passion out of teaching as well . . . I wasnt getting up in the morning wanting to be [at the school] because it was just toouh,
bogus or disheartening on too many levels. And the bureaucracy
at every level kindve saying the problem was me.
Susans description of her experience as demoralizing highlights the
significance of the moral and ethical dimensions of her work. When the
moral and ethical benefits of teaching begin to erode, as they also did
with John P., the reserves to persevere in challenging environments are
depleted. Likewise, for teachers who identify strongly with their work and
for whom it is an ethical source of sustenance, the appearance that policy is made on the presumption that teachers are deadbeats or losers
can be a grave source of discouragement.
Personal dignity also factored into the teachers decisions to leave.
Despite commitments to students, the profession, and the social import
of their work, they opted for what they described as self-preservation
(Stephanie F.), respect (Colin), and mental health (Lisa). In a profession where selflessness is often lauded, heeding ones responsibility to
self can present a challenge. The teachers, such as Stephanie S., felt the
need to justify prioritizing their personal well-being: Teachers are so
underpaid and so underappreciated and so degraded and they never
stand up for themselves, because theyre either dependent on their job,
or theyre so committed to it, they just keep accepting compromises. I
guess I was neither of those things.
Tanessalyn had to come to terms with the fact that she was not able to
do the work she felt was so important and function in her family:
I would come home from work, even though I had an eight-,
nine-month-old, I would just fall into bed and just cry, dreading
the next day that I would have to go into work. And that was taking a toll on my family . . . at some point you have to say, Well,
youve been in the field this many years, and youve made a mark
on some lives, you hope that in the future you can make change
in a different way. But at some point, you have to say, Enough
is enough. Ive done all that I can do.
Most of the teachers in this study enjoyed what Gardner et al. (2001)
called authentic alignment (p. 27). The teachers core beliefs were
once aligned closely with the values of the institution, and this alignment
enabled a sense of professional well-being. The dissonance caused by the
clash of the teachers values and the school administrators expectations
of them led to professional misrecognition and, ultimately, resignation.

Without a doubt, disagreements over policy mandates, curricular
choices, assessment requirements, and leadership styles factored into
these teachers reasons for leaving. However, when placed in relation to
the teachers core beliefs, the significance of these sometimes minor, and
sometimes sweeping, changes takes on a moral and ethical tenor. Only by
approaching teachers reasoning through a moral and ethical lens do we
go beyond theories of accommodation and resistance or explanations
that hinge on fitness for the task of teaching in high-poverty schools.
Clark (1990) explained,
Overarching principles have been agreed on in our society and
within the teaching professionprinciples dealing with honesty,
fairness, protection of the weak, and respect for all people. The
real work of teaching, morally speaking, is carried out when a
teacher rigorously struggles to decide how best to act in relation
to these general principles. Just as teacher decision making in
intellectual and pedagogical matters has been shown to be at the
heart of professional teaching, so too is decision making in the
moral domain (p. 252)
This decision-making can extend not only to how to conduct oneself
while teaching, but also to whether to continue teaching at all.
PRINCIPLES IN POLICY MAKING AND RETENTION EFFORTS
Conscientious objectors to military service may feel isolated at the time
of their decisions, but they may also reference a history and tradition of
refusing to serve on moral and ethical grounds. Teachings conscientious
objectors need to be recognized as such. Distinct from conscientious
objectors of military service, who refuse to engage in activities that may
lead to killing others, teachings conscientious objectors refuse to participate in practices that harm students and diminish the profession.
Looking only at the outward reasons the teachers in this study decided
to leave their work offers a well-worn picture of teacher attritionconflicts with administrators, dissatisfaction with the work environment,
resistance to policies that affect classroom practice. Yet, taken in light of
the moral situation as described by Dewey, these sorts of conflicts reflect
a deeper problem. The dilemmas these teachers face are moral because
the heterogeneous ends are equally repugnant. Lisa captured the conundrum succinctly: This choice: do work thats important, and fade out,
right? Or take care of yourself and feel empty. What a [expletive]
decision that is. Looking only at teachers sources of conflict, independent of their core beliefs, might make their reasoning seem petty or idiosyncratic. These sources of conflict take on greater significance when
taken in consideration with their core beliefs about teaching and learning. They take on moral and ethical weight when placed in dialogue with
the questions, What is good? What is right? What is just?
When teachers work is invested with moral and ethical import, there
is a personal toll in resigning. Nearly all the teachers interviewed for this
project spoke of recovering from the process of leaving. Maggie taught
for 27 years and still aches from her decision to leave the inner-city
schools where she worked throughout her career.
This feels like a personal failure. Were kind of looked at, as
teachers are, like we are in the noble profession. [People say],
Youre doing such wonderful things and Schools need people
like you. And when you feel like you cant live up to the expectations or you cant deal with the stress level or cant deal with
people constantly expecting more and more of you because you
are a good teacher. Then, if you kind of buckle under this stress,
you feel like youre a personal failure, and that you cant do your
service. You cant, you cant fulfill the mission that you wanted to
fulfill when you became a teacher.
The category of principled leaver enables teachers such as Maggie and
the others in this study to call on a tradition of resigning for moral and
ethical reasons rather than viewing their departures as personal failures
and the result of individual weakness. Principled leaving as a category of
teacher attrition provides a vocabulary for such resignations and may
enable community to arise rather than isolation to prevail.
Certain kinds of teacher attrition should be given greater attention.
When experienced teachers who expected to work in high-poverty
schools for the long haul leave, it should command attention, at the
very least, at the school and district levels. The costs borne by highturnover schools (which tend to be high-poverty schools) are high
(Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009). Borman and Dowling (2008)
and Lobe et al. (2005) illuminated the problem from an organizational
perspective. Losing experienced teachers results in weakened collective
knowledge; a drain on school finances in terms of recruiting, hiring, and
retraining; a lack of mentors; repetitive professional development that
consistently attempts to catch up new hires and frustrates experienced
teachers; and shame for experienced teachers who remain (Lobe et al.).
Few schools and school districts require or recommend exit interviews
for teachers who resign. Comprehensive data on teachers who leave the
profession are even more difficult to find. Kersaint et al. (2007)
explained, Ideally, one would identify teachers most likely to resign
while they are still teaching, and then meet their needs (p. 786). Yet,
without an understanding of what precipitated the leave-taking of those
teachers whom schools would hope to keep, there is little guiding this
kind of preventive work. Quartz et al. (2008) highlighted the costs of
teachers moving into nonteaching professional roles on their schools and
their students, even considering that the former teachers were still working within the school system. They explained, Policy makers currently
struggle with how best to sanction or encourage attrition among bad
teachers, yet there is virtually no attention paid to all the ways that the
educational system sanctions attrition of the nations most well-prepared
teachers (p. 245, see also Coggshall & Ott, 2010). In the case of highpoverty schools, the concern should be even more urgent. It has been
well documented that schools with poor populations and students who
fall into the many of the disaggregated subgroups that need to show
progress each year under No Child Left Behind (English language learners, poor students, Black and Latino students, special education students) feel the effects of wide-sweeping policy mandates in more
Draconian formsrelentless test preparation, scripted curriculum, and
public shaming.
Further research into the causes and conditions of experiencedteacher attrition in high-poverty schools needs to be conducted. Gardner
et al. (2001) explained, When a professional realm loses some its most
thoughtful people because of constraints that they see as endemic, it has
ventured into dangerous territory (p. 141). The conflicting responsibilities described here point to a larger concern regarding how teachers
retain integrity in their work. The conflicts the teachers experienced
were symptoms of a larger concern: Am I doing good work? Am I living
a good life? Ultimately, these teachers responded in the negative and left.
As John P. explained, All jobs have contradictions . . . teaching is not special, but deeper. His point is confirmed by Ng and Peter (2010), who
found that psychic rewards are the most significant reason for pursuing
teaching and remaining in the profession (see also Stotko et al., 2007).
Attention to the moral and ethical dimensions of teaching is necessary,
but not sufficient. Material conditions must support, or at least not substantially hinder, teachers visions of good work. Marilyn Cochran-Smith
(2004) recognized the limits of moral commitments. She explained,
Good teachers are still lovers and dreamers. . . . But these reasons are
not enough to sustain teachers work over the long haul . . . teachers
need school conditions where they are successful and supported

(p. 391). Similarly, Fenstermacher and Richardson (2005) explained that
the onus of good teaching cannot fall solely on the educator. Good teaching requires an environment in which doing good work can take place.
The findings of the Retaining Teacher Talent study
consistently indicate that to retain more teachers of all generations, the most powerful thing that policymakers and others can
do is to support teachers ability to be effective with their students. Teachers who can see that they are making a difference in
their students learning will stay in the profession longer.
(Coggshall, Ott, Behrstock, & Lasagna, 2010)
Cohen (2009) argued that school leaders and policy makers should
embrace the trickle-down theory because happy adults make happy
children (p. 489).
This study was undertaken with the hypothesis that the No Child Left
Behind Act was primarily responsible for experienced and committed
teachers leaving high-poverty schools. What this study reveals is that
NCLB provides an opportunity to illuminate the moral and ethical
dimensions of teacher attrition and that it is but one example of how
moral and ethical conflicts impact teachers work. This study shows that
violating teachers principles about good work can lead to attrition,
regardless of whether the source is national educational policy or a
school-based initiative. Policy makers and educational leaders have an
opportunity to consider how teachers visions of good work impact their
decisions to leave.
Acknowledgments
My thanks to the anonymous reviewers and Lyn Corno for their helpful criticism; to Rosetta Marantz
Cohen, Charles Dorn, David Hansen, and Nancy Jennings for their feedback on earlier versions of this
article; to Bowdoin College for support through Faculty Research Awards and a Faculty Leave
Fellowship; and to the following Bowdoin students for their assistance in transcribing the interviews:
Ramaa Chitale, Kaitlin Daley, Samantha Francis, William Holland, Elaine Tsai, and Rosalind
Worcester.
Notes
1. Consider the teacher in Jonathan Kozols (2005) Still Separate, Still Equal who,
after successfully giving a number of hand signals to manage her classroom, turned to Kozol
and said, I can do this with my dog (p. 49).
2. John R. worked as a per diem teacher following his resignation to support himself
during graduate school. Maggie wrote in June 2010 that she missed the community aspect
of her former school and returned as a substitute.
3. The contributor to this article shared responsibility for conducting the interviews.
References
Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility
in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED505882)
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic
and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 367409.
Buchmann, M. (1986). Role over person: Morality and authenticity in teaching. Teachers
College Record, 87, 529543.
Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2005). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington, D.C. Teachers College Record, 107, 11071123.
Campbell, E. (2008). The ethics of teaching as a moral profession. Curriculum Inquiry, 38,
357385.
Carr, D. (2006). Professional and personal values and virtues in education and teaching.
Oxford Review of Education, 32, 171183.
Clark, C. M. (1990). The teacher and the taught: Moral transactions in the classroom. In J.
I. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp.
251265). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Stayers, leavers, lovers, and dreamers: Insights about teacher
retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 387392.
Coggshall, J. G., & Ott, A. (2010). Retaining teacher talent: Convergence and contradictions in
teachers perceptions of policy reform ideas. New York: Public Agenda. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED508143)
Coggshall, J. G., Ott, A., Behrstock, E., & Lasagna, M. (2010). Retaining teacher talent: The
view from Generation Y. New York: Public Agenda. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED508142)
Cohen, R. M. (2009). What it takes to stick it out: Two veteran inner-city teachers after 25
years. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 471491.
Colnerud, G. (2006). Teacher ethics as a research problem: Syntheses achieved and new
issues. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 365385.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the
age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42, 512535.
De Ruyter, D. J., & Kole, J. J. (2010). Our teachers want to be the best: On the necessity of
intra-professional reflection about moral ideals of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 16,
207218.
Dewey, J., & Tufts, J. H. (1909). Ethics. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in
teaching. Teachers College Record, 107, 186213.
Fields, A. B., & Feinberg, W. (2001). Education and democratic theory: Finding a place for community participation in public school reform. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Freedman, S. W., & Appleman, D. (2009). In it for the long haul: How teacher education
can contribute to teacher retention in high-poverty, urban schools. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60, 323337.
Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics
meet. New York: Basic Books.
Garrison, J., & Rud, A. G. (2009). Reverence in teaching. Teachers College Record, 111,
26262646.
Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (Eds.). (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hansen, D. T. (1995). The call to teach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hansen, D. T. (2000). The place of ideals in teaching. In L. Stone (Ed.), Philosophy of education 2000 (pp. 4250). Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Hansen, D. T. (2001a). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Toward a teachers creed. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hansen, D. T. (2001b). Teaching as a moral activity. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 826857). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Hatch, J. A., & Freeman, E. B. (1988a). Kindergarten philosophies and practices:
Perspectives of teachers, principals, and supervisors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3,
151166.
Hatch, J. A., & Freeman, E. B. (1988b). Whos pushing whom? Stress and kindergarten. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70, 145147.
Helton, G., & Ray, B. (2009). Administrative pressures to practice unethically: Research and
suggested strategies. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 11, 112119.
Higgins, C. (2003). Teaching and the good life: A critique of the ascetic ideal in education.
Educational Theory, 53, 131154.
Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers (J. Neufeld, Trans.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Jackson, P. W. (1992). The enactment of the moral in what teachers do. Curriculum Inquiry,
22, 401407.
Jackson, P. W., & Belford, E. (1965). Educational objectives and the joys of teaching. School
Review, 73, 267291.
Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. T. (1993). The moral life of schools. San
Joseph, P. B., & Efron, S. (1993). Moral choices/moral conflicts: Teachers self-perceptions.
Journal of Moral Education, 22, 201221.
Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, P., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors that influence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 775794.
Knight-Abowitz, K. (2000). Making meaning of community in an American high school: A feministpragmatist critique of the liberal-communitarian debates. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kozol, J. (2005). Still separate, still unequal: Americas educational apartheid. Harpers
Magazine, 311(1864), 4154.
Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in
teacher mobility decisions. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 443452.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Hoffman Davis, J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San
Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York: Basic
Books.
Lobe, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict
teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 4470.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Margolis, J. (2008). What will keep todays teachers teaching? Looking for a hook as a new
career cycle begins. Teachers College Record, 110, 160194.
Margolis, J., & Deuel, A. (2009). Teacher leaders in action: Motivation, morality, and money.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 264286.
Mayo, C. (2004). Disputing the subject of sex: Sexuality and public school controversies. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers workplace context? In J. W.

Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp.
79103). New York: Teachers College Press.
Miech, R. A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1996). The service ethic and teaching. Sociology of Education
69, 237253.
Moore Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a sense of success: New teachers
explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 581617.
Moore Johnson, S., & the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. (2004). Finders and
keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ng, J. C., & Peter, L. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Examining the career choices of
alternatively licensed teachers in urban schools. Urban Review, 42, 123142.
Nieto, S. (2009). From surviving to thriving. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 813.
Olsen, B., & Anderson, L. (2007). Courses of action: A qualitative investigation into urban
teacher retention and career development. Urban Education, 42, 529.
Pope, N., Green, S. K., Johnson, R. L., & Mitchell, M. (2009). Examining teacher ethical
dilemmas in classroom assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 778782.
Pring, R. (2001). Education as a moral practice. Journal of Moral Education, 30, 101112.
Purpel, D. E. (1999). Moral outrage in education. New York: Peter Lang.
Quartz, K. H., Thomas, A., Anderson, L., Masyn, K., Lyons, K. B., & Olsen, B. (2008).
Careers in motion: A longitudinal retention study of role changing among early-career
urban educators. Teachers College Record, 110, 281249.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Rosenblatt, Z. (2009). Organizational ethics and teachers intent
to leave: An integrative approach. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 725758.
Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horaces compromise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Smith, S. (2001). The democratic potential of charter schools. New York: Peter Lang.
Stotko, E. M., Ingram, R., & Beaty-OFerrall, M. E. (2007). Promising strategies for attracting and retaining successful urban teachers. Urban Education, 42, 3051.
Yee, S. M. (1990). Careers in the classroom: When teaching is more than a job. New York: Teachers
College Press.
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Interviewee Information
Name
Alternate
Route?
Years
Teaching
Subject/Grade
Teaching Locations Leadership Positions
Colin
No
Social studies/HS
Washington, DC
Department chair, debate coach,

AP teacher
Stephanie
S.
Yes, then
credential
program
English/MS
Phoenix, AZ
Mesa, AZ
San Lorenzo, CA
Oakland, CA
San Francisco, CA
Baltimore, MD
Middle school team leader,

library media specialist
John P.
No
10
Social studies, math,

science, computers,
peer resource
coordinator/MS, HS
San Francisco, CA
Technology resource
development, school reform/
restructuring committee
Noelle*
Yes, then
credential
program
10
Elementary
Milwaukee, WI
Boston, MA
Baltimore, MD
School site committee, literacy

coach, district curriculum
planning, school testing
coordinator
Susan*
No
10
Elementary
Marshville, MA
Community activist, student

teacher mentor, site-based
management team
Tanessalyn No
10
Elementary
Greenville, SC
Computer specialist, math
Atlanta, GA
specialist
Dekalb County, GA
Rick
No
11
Social studies/HS
Berkeley, CA
Head teacher of small schoolwithin-a-school, newspaper

adviser, youth radio adviser
Lisa
Yes, then
credential
program
12
English/HS
Saundersville, GA
San Francisco, CA
Led in-school professional

development, small schoolwithin-a-school leader,
journalism adviser
Marney
Yes
12
Early childhood and

elementary special
education/
elementary inclusion
Phoenix, AZ
Tempe, AZ
Tucson, AZ
Bradley, AZ*
Pursued masters degree (not

required in AZ); literacy
consultant
Stephanie
F.
No
14
Math & science

Spanish immersion
ESL/Elementary
Falls Church, VA
Founded the Heritage Language

Club after-school program;
curriculum development for
small learning community;
developed science curriculum
for district
John R.
No
16
Elementary; dropout Santa Fe, TX

recovery center;
El Paso, TX
English & history/HS
Teachers union president and

vice president, collective
bargaining representative,
school-based union
representative, lead signatory of
a 12-employee class action
grievance, testing administrator
Maggie
No
27
ESL, HS/elementary
Started school garden

conservancy and Puerto Rican
Cultural Program and school
improvement committee;
established school as
International Peace Site
Elizabeth
No
27
Elementary; reading & Berwyn, IL

literacy specialist,
Seattle, WA,
elementary/MS
Albany, CA
San Pablo, CA
Oakland, CA
Newark, NJ
* Names and/or school locations are pseudonyms at participants request.
In-house consultant, reading

specialist, staff developer
Appendix B: Interview Protocol

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
What are the reasons that you decided to leave teaching?

[Get clarity on structural issues at district/school/NCLB-influenced levels.
Ask: What was the official word? What was your take on the changes that
were taking place?]
Tell me more about your decision-making process/reasons for leaving.
How was your decision to leave teaching received by colleagues? By your
students? By others?
How do you feel about your decision?
How did you arrange your leave: sabbatical, leave of absence, resignation?
How and why did you begin teaching?
What kept you going for so long at [school]? What changed?
Describe what it was like when you were teaching at your best.
It seems you were able to handle many challenges at [school]. What
changed?
Why didnt you feel like you could keep teaching?
Did you consider shutting the classroom door and doing your own thing?
Did you consider taking another position at the school/district? Starting a
charter school? Etc.
What, if anything, could have enabled you to continue teaching?
Can you envision yourself returning to teaching? Under what conditions?
What do you need to teach the way you want to teach?
DORIS A. SANTORO is assistant professor of education at Bowdoin

College. Her research interests in philosophy and education include the
ethics of teaching, John Dewey, and feminist theories. She is the chair of
the Philosophical Studies in Education Special Interest Group of AERA
and the author of Womens Proper Place and Student-Centered
Pedagogy (Studies in Philosophy and Education) and Teaching to Save the
World: Avoiding Circles of Certainty in Social Justice Pedagogy
(Philosophy of Education, 2009).

Teaching&#39;s Conscientious Objectors Principled Leavers of High-Poverty Schools

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Teaching&#39;s Conscientious Objectors Principled Leavers of High-Poverty Schools

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Teachings Conscientious Objectors:

Principled Leavers of High-Poverty

Principled Leavers 2671

Conclusions/Recommendations: This article introduces a category of teacher attrition that

A sense of what is good and right in professional practice impales some

2672 Teachers College Record

Principled Leavers 2673

2674 Teachers College Record

unsupportive school leadership. With the advent of No Child Left

Principled Leavers 2675

idealist or altruist can be a liability because of the uncertain rewards

2676 Teachers College Record

argued that good teaching depends on morally defensible practices and

Principled Leavers 2677

Smith, who bemoans his inability to serve students as he believes he

2678 Teachers College Record

The language of philosophy-reality conflicts will not be used in this

Principled Leavers 2679

2680 Teachers College Record

Principled Leavers 2681

2682 Teachers College Record

I knew that I could find a teaching position where I could teach

Principled Leavers 2683

2684 Teachers College Record

Marney said the work of teaching comes from a higher authority

Principled Leavers 2685

scripted curriculum blended the ethical and moral dimensions of her

2686 Teachers College Record

Principled Leavers 2687

2688 Teachers College Record

building that I couldnt do anything about because I had to do this grunt

Principled Leavers 2689

social justice by working in untracked classrooms. In Lisas case, she saw

2690 Teachers College Record

Principled Leavers 2691

2692 Teachers College Record

sick to [his] stomach when passing by the school after he resigned

Principled Leavers 2693

2694 Teachers College Record

they no longer recognized themselves in the role of teacher within their

Principled Leavers 2695

2696 Teachers College Record

of them led to professional misrecognition and, ultimately, resignation.

Principled Leavers 2697

2698 Teachers College Record

Principled Leavers 2699

need school conditions where they are successful and supported

2700 Teachers College Record

Principled Leavers 2701

2702 Teachers College Record

McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers workplace context? In J. W.

Teaching Locations Leadership Positions

Department chair, debate coach,

Middle school team leader,

Social studies, math,

Principled Leavers 2703

School site committee, literacy

Community activist, student

Head teacher of small schoolwithin-a-school, newspaper

Led in-school professional

Early childhood and

Pursued masters degree (not

Math & science

Founded the Heritage Language

Teaching's Conscientious Objectors Principled Leavers of High-Poverty Schools

Teaching's Conscientious Objectors Principled Leavers of High-Poverty Schools