IS THE GRASS REALLY GREENER?

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF TEACHER

REFLECTIONS ON THEIR DECISION TO MIGRATE FROM SMALL RURAL

DISTRICTS TO LARGER SCHOOL DISTRICTS

_______________________________________

A Dissertation

presented to

the Faculty of the Graduate School

W
at the University of Missouri-Columbia
IE
_______________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment
EV
of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

_____________________________________________________
PR

by

DEANNA L. JURKOWSKI

Dr. Sandy Hutchinson, Dissertation Supervisor

JULY 2020
 W
IE
EV
PR

© Copyright by Deanna L. Jurkowski 2020

All Rights Reserved

The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the

dissertation entitled

IS THE GRASS REALLY GREENER? A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF TEACHER

REFLECTIONS ON THEIR DECISION TO MIGRATE FROM SMALL RURAL

DISTRICTS TO LARGER SCHOOL DISTRICTS

presented by Deanna L. Jurkowski,

a candidate for the degree of doctor of education,

W
and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.
IE
EV
Dr. Sandy Hutchinson

Dr. Barbara N. Martin

PR

Dr. Doug Thomas

Dr. Steve Ritter

 DEDICATION

An endeavor of this magnitude is not accomplished in isolation. Simply put, while

my name may be the one on the diploma, many people kept me moving toward the goal

of finishing this dissertation. From the reboot of my educational journey in 2009, my

family has supported me 100%. I feel as if Odin knew what I needed to do even before I

did and gave me the not so gentle shove into the educational abyss out of which I am

climbing. He has supported me from the day we met and knew that while my education

was important, there was a time our children took priority. He saw that I was not happy

defining myself as a college dropout (multiple times over), and when our family was

W
complete, he took on more of the home tasks to support me as I went back to school.
IE
There are no words to describe how much I love this man who loves me enough to keep

me focused on my goals. Throughout this journey, Odin has been my hero. He has
EV
balanced his career, our large family, and his crazy wife, who works out of town and is

always taking another class, working on homework, or staying until closing time at the

library.
PR

Our children also have had to deal with another parent taking on the insane task of

writing a dissertation, and for that I am both sorry and proud. They were so young when

their father completed his dissertation and did not see the sleepless nights, the frustration

when something did not go just right, and the physical and emotional demands of this

process. While I am sorry they had to deal with a mom who is busy, tired, and emotional

as the end is getting near, I am proud to set the example for them. I know they are strong

young men and women who will take on the world and change it for the better. Had they

been unsupportive of my pursuit at any time, I do not think I could have managed to go
on. Instead, they let me know which events were important to them so I could make those

a priority. They were gracious and understanding that I could not be at everything, and

they know that I love them.

Others that need to be mentioned are both my parents and my in-laws. Both my

parents and Odin's parents have been supportive of me as I pursue this degree. I have not

always wanted to talk about it, especially when things were not going well. Many phone

calls would end with, "we aren't talking about that today," in response to them asking

how I was doing regarding my research. I knew I could always share the highs and lows

with them, but mostly chose to share the highs. I have no doubt my parents wanted to see

W
me reach my goal and their love and support was unconditional.
IE
Finally, I could not have made it through this process without the support of my

co-workers and friends. My co-workers in both school districts have been understanding
EV
when I could not stay late due to class or research. They kept me on track and were

willing to send me gentle reminders knowing that at times my mind may be focused

elsewhere. My friends, particularly those on this same journey, have been an invaluable
PR

asset. They understand the specifics of this program, the excitement and frustration that

happens during the research process, and the physical and emotional toll of the entire

EdD experience. These are the people who have seen me at my best and my worst and

still care for me anyway.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several important people whom I would like to acknowledge. My

dissertation committee has been extremely supportive throughout this process by

providing guidance and insight along the way through coursework, the design of my

study, and ultimately the presentation of my findings. This group of professionals

encouraged me to view my research as important and helped me take steps toward

sharing my preliminary findings with the world. Thank you, Dr. Sandy Hutchinson, Dr.

Barbara N. Martin, Dr. Doug Thomas, and Dr. Steve Ritter for the gift of your time and

expertise.

W
I have a special place in my heart for Dr. Sandy Hutchinson, the Chair of my

dissertation committee. I am lucky to call her a friend as well as an advisor. Without her
IE
encouragement, I do not know if I would have ever found it in myself to not only call

myself a leader but to endeavor to answer some of my many questions about rural
EV
education through a research study. Dr. Hutchinson celebrated milestones with me,

encouraged me through the rough patches, and more than once told me to trust my

instincts because I was ready. There are not enough ways in the world to say thank you. I
PR

hope to pay your gift of generosity, encouragement, leadership, and support on to others

throughout my lifetime.
Finally, those who chose to answer the email in the affirmative when asked to

participate in this study should be acknowledged. Without their candor, I would continue

to wonder, "but why, really." These individuals shared their time and stories with me,

trusting a stranger to share their secrets without sharing their names. These individuals

are brave and should be recognized for their contribution to education in rural schools

across Missouri.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. ii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................x

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi

SECTION

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION-IN-PRACTICE ............................1

Background of the Study .........................................................................................2

Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................3

W
Problem of Practice ......................................................................................3
IE
Existing Gap in the Literature ......................................................................4

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6

EV
Research Questions ..................................................................................................7

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................7

Design of the Study ................................................................................................11

PR

Setting ........................................................................................................11

Participants .................................................................................................12

Data Collection ..........................................................................................18

Data Analysis .............................................................................................19

Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Controls ...................................................21

Limitations .................................................................................................21

Assumptions...............................................................................................22

Design Controls .........................................................................................23

iii
Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................................23

Research Questions Answered ...............................................................................25

Research Question One: Why Do Teachers Leave Rural School Districts

to Teach in Larger School Districts? ...................................................25

Money and Finances ............................................................................25

Workload ..............................................................................................32

Family ..................................................................................................38

Administration and Support .................................................................41

Opportunity ..........................................................................................45

W
Inevitable Migration .............................................................................47

Summary ..............................................................................................48
IE
Research Question Two: How Do Teachers View Their Experience
Teaching in a Small, Rural School District? ........................................48
EV
Challenges ............................................................................................49

Positive Experience ..............................................................................56

Negative Experience ............................................................................68

PR

Recommend Other Teachers Should Have This Experience ...............73

Summary ..............................................................................................75

Research Question Three 3: What Do Teachers Perceive to be the

Differences Between Rural School Districts and Larger School
Districts? ..............................................................................................76

Hiring Practices and Orientation ..........................................................76

Demographics ......................................................................................82

Discipline .............................................................................................84

Resources .............................................................................................86

iv
 Professional Development ...................................................................87

Instructional Practices ..........................................................................90

Workload..............................................................................................91

Administration ...................................................................................100

Support ...............................................................................................101

Looking Back .....................................................................................104

Summary ............................................................................................105

Research Question Four: What Do Teachers Perceive to be the Similarities

Between Rural School Districts and Larger School Districts? ..........105

W
General Workload ..............................................................................106

Professional Development .................................................................107

IE
Instructional Practices ........................................................................108

Relationships ......................................................................................109
EV

Administration ...................................................................................111

Resources ...........................................................................................112
PR

Summary ............................................................................................113

Research Question Five: How Do These Teachers View Their Decision to

Leave a Rural School District for a Larger District? .........................114

Inevitability ........................................................................................114

Positive Decision ...............................................................................115

Regrets ...............................................................................................118

Looking Back .....................................................................................119

Summary ............................................................................................122

v
 Research Question Six: What Motivation and Hygiene Factors do
Teachers Reference When They Discuss Their Experiences in a Rural
School District?..................................................................................122

Discussion ................................................................................................127

Why Teachers Leave Small, Rural School Districts ..........................127

Teachers Reflections on Teaching in a Small, Rural School District 131

Similarities and Differences ...............................................................133

Recommendations ....................................................................................134

Recruitment, Hiring, Orientation, and Induction ...............................134

Administration ...................................................................................135

W
Financial Compensation.....................................................................136
IE
Workload............................................................................................137

Support ...............................................................................................137
EV
Advocate ............................................................................................138

Significance of the Study .........................................................................138

Recommendations for Further Research ..................................................140

PR

Summary ..................................................................................................141

2. PRACTITIONER SETTING FOR THE STUDY ...............................................143

Introduction to Practitioner Setting for the Study ................................................144

History of the Organization .................................................................................144

History of Education in the United States................................................144

History of Education in Missouri.............................................................147

Organizational Analysis .......................................................................................151

Structural Frame.......................................................................................151

vi
 Human Resource Frame ...........................................................................152

Political Frame .........................................................................................153

Symbolic Frame .......................................................................................155

Leadership Analysis .............................................................................................156

Implications for Research in the Practitioner Setting ..............................158

Summary ..............................................................................................................160

3. SCHOLARLY REVIEW FOR THE STUDY .....................................................162

Introduction ..........................................................................................................163

History and Characteristics of Rural Schools ......................................................164

W
History of Rural Education in Missouri ...................................................164
IE
Characteristics of Rural Schools ..............................................................168

Review of the Extant Scholarship ........................................................................170

EV
Teacher Retention ....................................................................................170

Student Achievement ...............................................................................173

Challenges for Rural Teachers .................................................................174

PR

Challenges for Rural Districts ..................................................................178

Summary ..............................................................................................................180

4. CONTRIBUTION TO PRACTICE .......................................................................182

Dissemination of Practitioner Contribution .........................................................183

National Rural Education Association .....................................................183

Missouri Association of Rural Education ................................................183

Presentation for Dissemination at Conferences ...................................................184

5. CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOLARSHIP ...............................................................234

vii
 Target Journal .....................................................................................................235

Rationale for this Target ......................................................................................235

Journal Article ......................................................................................................236

6. SCHOLARLY PRACTITIONER REFLECTION ................................................263

Influence of Dissertation on Researcher's Practice as an Educational Leader.....264

Influence of Dissertation Process on Researcher as a Scholar ............................267

APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................270

A. Interview Protocol ................................................................................................271

B. Interview Questions Linked to Research Questions ............................................273

W
C. Individual Interview Consent Form .....................................................................274
IE
D. Introductory Email to Teachers ...........................................................................275

E. Introductory Email to Administrators in the CRPDC Region and CRPDC

Employees .........................................................................................................276
EV

F. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval ........................................................277

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................279
PR

VITA ................................................................................................................................291

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Participants' Background .......................................................................................14

2. Participants' Education ...........................................................................................15

3. Participants' Career Path ........................................................................................17

4. Motivation and Hygiene Factors Referenced by Participants..............................123

W
IE
EV
PR

ix
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE)

Behavior Intervention Support Team (BIST)

Central Regional Professional Development Center (CRPDC)

Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP)

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA)

W
Local Education Agencies (LEA)
IE
Missouri Association of Rural Education (MARE)

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

EV
Missouri National Education Association (MNEA)

Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA)

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

PR

National Rural Education Association (NREA)

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

Parent Teacher Organization (PTO)

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

Professional Development (PD)

University of Central Missouri (UCM)

x
 ABSTRACT

Teacher retention in rural schools continues to be an area of concern. This qualitative

study examines why teachers migrate from small, rural school districts to teach in larger

districts by interviewing teachers who have already made the move and who have taught

in both environments. It also shares the perceptions of teachers as they reflect on their

experience in the small district as well as how they now feel about their decision to leave

the small rural district. Findings indicate that teachers look back fondly at their time in

small rural schools and, while they do not regret their decision to leave, they do think

more teachers should have that experience. Teachers discussed the similarities and

W
differences of the district sizes and gave their personal reasons for leaving. Findings
IE
reveal teachers primarily leave small rural districts for financial concerns and enjoy a

smaller workload at the secondary level in the larger districts. Workload at the
EV
elementary level seemed to be similar. Recommendations for small rural school district

leaders are presented.

PR

xi
 W
IE SECTION ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION-IN-PRACTICE

EV
PR

1
 Background of the Study

Education continues to be a much-discussed topic in the news. With the

confirmation of Betsy DeVos as the United States Secretary of Education in 2017, the

public has been promised, " 'the president believes strongly that our nation's success

depends on education of our students … [DeVos] will ensure that every student has

access to a good school…'” (Spangler, 2017, par. 3). Now, more than ever, research is

needed to ensure students have access to a quality education whether they live in an

urban, suburban, or rural area.

Parents in the United States have several options for educating their children

W
(Flavin, 2016). The options vary based on where a family lives and include options such
IE
as traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools, parochial schools, and

virtual schools (Flavin, 2016). Students living in rural areas do not always have the same
EV
options as a student living in a more populated area. However, their education is still a

priority as evidenced by DeVos’ statements.

Presently, research indicates teachers in rural schools face different challenges

PR

than in suburban or urban schools (Beesley, Atwill, Blair, & Barley, 2010; Monk, 2007).

Consequently, the research on teacher retention conducted using participants in suburban

or urban schools cannot be generalized to fit the rural context (Burton et al., 2013). For

example, teachers in rural schools face isolation when compared to those in larger

schools, and this isolation is often geographic as well as professional (Burton et al., 2013;

Fishman, 2009; Monk, 2007). At the same time, the workload in rural schools can be

difficult to manage (Monk, 2007). A secondary teacher will find having more than four

2
preps daily is typical in a rural school, and it is not uncommon to have added to this extra

duties including lunch, committee work, and other meetings (Barley, 2009).

Statement of the Problem

Problem of Practice

Of the 3.4 million public school teachers in the United States, each year

approximately 12 percent move to a new position or leave teaching altogether (Alliance

for Excellent Education, 2008; Alliance for Excellent Education, 2014). It is estimated

that annually, one million teachers begin teaching careers, move out of the profession, or

migrate to a new school or position (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2014).

W
Unfortunately, the research emphasis for teacher retention and turnover has been placed
IE
on teachers leaving the profession rather than on teachers migrating from one school or

district to another (Ingersoll, 2001). Those who move to a new district or position are
EV
often seeking better working conditions which may be found in districts considered to be

wealthy and high-performing (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2008). It is estimated

that “more than one million teachers, including new hires, transition into, between, or out
PR

of schools annually” (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2014, p. 2). The impact of this

teacher attrition and migration has a significant impact on student achievement and has

serious financial implications for school districts (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2014;

Ingersoll & Smith, 2003).

When discussing rural teacher retention, the research specific to teacher

recruitment and retention in rural districts is limited (Beesley et al., 2010; Ulferts, 2016).

The literature states teacher shortages are a problem for rural districts, and vacancies in

rural districts happen at a higher rate (Monk, 2007; Ulferts, 2016). In fact, teacher

3
vacancies in rural districts are “4% higher than city, suburban or urban” (Barley, 2009, p.

10), and districts with less than 300 students have the highest turnover rate (Ingersoll,

2001). These teacher vacancies “may negatively impact a small or rural school more than

a larger school” (Beesley, Atwill, Blair, & Barley, 2010, p. 1). As it is difficult for

districts to find teachers to fill vacancies, rural districts may hire teachers who are less

than qualified for the content or grade (Beesley et al., 2010; Berry et al., 2011; Monk,

2007). This practice of assigning courses to less than qualified teachers can create a self-

perpetuating cycle leading to further attrition (Berry et al., 2011).

Existing Gap in the Literature

W
In the United States, during the 2008-2009 school year, approximately 20% of
IE
students attended a rural school (Strange, Johnson, Showalter, & Klein, 2012). However,

the number of journals specific to rural education number just three: Journal of Research
EV
in Rural Education, The Rural Educator, and Rural Special Education Quarterly. Since

the 1970s, over half of the articles included in a narrative analysis of qualitative research

conducted specifically on rural teachers were published in these three journals, with just
PR

nine being found in general education journals (Burton, Brown, & Johnson, 2013).

Burton, Brown, and Johnson (2013) contended the lack of research focused on rural

teachers in general education journals is of concern, leaving “many education

researchers…unaware of issues related to rural education and research in this field” (p.

8). Hardre (2008) reported as little as six percent of the empirical research in the field of

education focuses on rural education.

A clear example of the considerable lack of empirical research specific to rural

education is evidenced when reviewing the literature on teacher retention. In general

4
education journals, teacher retention is a common discussion. A quick search in

Education Research Complete using the term teacher retention returns over 4,000 items.

When that search is narrowed to articles in peer reviewed journals, there are still nearly

3,000 items returned. However, narrowing the search to return items that specifically

discuss teacher retention in rural school districts within the United States of America

significantly drops the number of items returned to less than 100. These studies specific

to rural teacher retention often discuss components related to teacher satisfaction.

However, it is unclear if the challenges for teacher retention in rural districts are similar

to the challenges in suburban and urban districts. Granted, this is a simple search limited

W
to one database, but the results of a preliminary review of the literature seem to indicate
IE
this is the case across this field of study.

More research specific to rural teachers and schools is needed. As stated above,
EV
data in this area are limited not only due to a small number of journals specific to rural

education, but also as articles specific to rural schools in general education journals

appear infrequently (Burton et al., 2013; Hardre, 2008). Recently, Ulferts (2016)
PR

investigated why teachers stay in the smallest rural districts in Illinois. While this study

provided current data, Ulferts did not find out why teachers originally chose to work in

rural districts and then leave the district. Admittedly, both quantitative and qualitative

research has been conducted targeting the challenges of teaching in rural schools as well

as teacher induction and retention. Research cited in the literature review for this study

regarding rural teacher retention often discuss components related to teacher satisfaction.

However, there is a lack of evidence and discussion as to why teachers choose to teach in

a rural school only later to decide to leave that position to teach in a larger school district.

5
It is unclear if the challenges regarding teacher retention in rural districts are similar to

the challenges in suburban and urban districts. Even with Ulferts’ (2016) recent study,

research specific to rural school teacher retention and recruitment is quite limited.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of why teachers leave

small, rural schools to teach in larger school districts. By interviewing teachers who have

experienced working in a rural district and who then chose to continue their teaching

career in a larger school district, the researcher hoped to change the conversation from

being just about the challenges and benefits to teaching in a rural district to one that looks

W
at perspectives of those who have worked in both environments (Colquitt & George,
IE
2011). Ideally, the researcher thought an understanding of why teachers migrate to a

larger district and their subsequent feelings about their choice would give insight to
EV
small, rural district administrators. In turn, rural districts may be able to adjust their

hiring practices to better recruit teachers who are likely to remain in a small, rural district.

Additionally, understanding why teachers are leaving rural districts may also allow rural
PR

districts to examine their current working conditions, employment policies, and climate

to retain teachers currently employed.

Generalizable, quantitative data are not sufficient in this case to truly understand

the problem of retaining rural teachers. Information beyond what can be gathered in a

quantitative analysis is required to understand the perceptions of these teachers.

Considering 20% of students across the nation attend rural schools (Strange et al., 2012),

research in this area was needed to assist school leaders in the examination of their

6
current practices in the areas of recruitment and retention and make adjustments as

needed.

Research Questions

The research questions guiding this study are:

1. Why do teachers leave rural school districts to teach in larger school districts?

2. How do these teachers view their experience teaching in a rural school

district?

3. What do teachers perceive to be the differences between rural school districts

and larger school districts?

W
4. What do teachers perceive to be the similarities between rural school districts
IE
and larger school districts?

5. How do these teachers view their decision to leave a rural school district for a
EV
larger school district?

6. What motivation and hygiene factors do teachers reference when they discuss

their experience in a rural school district?

PR

Theoretical Framework

Based on the literature, it could be stated that teachers leave rural districts because

they are not satisfied with their current position (Huysman, 2008). As such, job

satisfaction may be the key to why teachers leave rural districts to teach in larger districts.

Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) sought to determine “whether the worker’s

attitude toward his job makes any difference in the way he works on in his willingness to

stick with it” (p. 7). They hypothesized job satisfaction is not on a simple continuum but

is instead a two-factor theory, in contrast to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow,

7
1943). While both theorists agree individuals seek happiness and self-actualization,

Herzberg (1966) theorized “man has two sets of needs: his need as an animal to avoid

pain and his need as a human to grow psychologically” (p.71). Maslow’s pyramid, in

contrast, requires all other needs to be met first (Maslow, 1943).

When developing their study, Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) based

their hypothesis on the idea there are factors relating to job satisfaction that are

considered satisfiers and other factors that are considered to be dissatisfiers. From their

perspective, an individual could be both satisfied and dissatisfied or not dissatisfied and

not satisfied at the same time. Other combinations of the factors are also described,

W
creating a more complex lens through which to view job satisfaction. In his two-factor
IE
motivation-hygiene theory, Herzberg (1966) found “five factors stand out as strong

determiners of job satisfaction - achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and

EV
advancement - the last three being of greater importance for lasting change of attitude”

(p. 72-73). These more intrinsic factors relating to job satisfaction are also referred to as

motivators. On the other side, Herzberg (1966) referred to hygiene issues or factors that
PR

are more extrinsic and causes of dissatisfaction, which include “company policy and

administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, and working conditions” (p.

72).

At first glance, it may be difficult to connect the terms motivator and hygiene to

the factors of satisfaction and dissatisfaction; however, Herzberg, Mausner, and

Snyderman (1959) were purposeful in the use of these words as descriptors. Motivators

are defined as “the factors that lead to positive job attitudes do so because they satisfy the

individual’s need for self-actualization in his work” (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 114).

8
 Hygiene is used to refer to factors which are connected to the context of doing the job.

The rationale behind this is linked to hygiene in the medical field (Herzberg et al., 1959;

Herzberg, 1966). “Hygiene operates to remove health hazards from the environment of

man. It is not a curative; it is, rather, a preventative” (Herzberg et al., 1959, p.113).

Hygiene factors, when removed as concerns, allow an individual to not be dissatisfied

with the work conditions (Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1966). “...when there are

deleterious factors in the context of the job, they serve to bring about poor job attitudes.

Improvement in these factors of hygiene will serve to remove the impediments to positive

job attitudes” (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 113).

W
Much of the work done by teachers, no matter where they work, is similar when
IE
one considers they instruct students with the goal of growth and achievement. According

to Herzberg et al. (1959), individuals need to like their work for them to continue the
EV
work. This factor, along with recognition and achievement, is long-lasting when it comes

to job satisfaction. This may be why teachers in rural areas talk about what they like

about their teaching jobs (Burton & Johnson, 2010). Conversely, job dissatisfaction, in
PR

regard to items tied to the working conditions, leadership, and salary, are included in the

number of items stated as challenges for rural teachers.

Herzberg et al. (1959) determined “the factors...that made people happy with their

jobs turned out to be different from the factors that made people unhappy with their jobs”

(p. 111). Unhappy feelings about the job were connected to the working conditions,

whereas happy feelings are connected to the work itself. For example, teachers may love

what they do, but may not be happy in their current position, school, or community. An

employee who is not unhappy would be considered neutral as it would not make them

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.