Running Head: PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
Prevalence of Burnout in U.S. Schools and the Role of Administration
Frank Perrone
University of Virginia
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
2
Background
Teacher burnout has long been discussed as a potential problem among teachers
(e.g., Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Hock, 1985). Teacher burnout is generally defined as a
deteriorated sense of engagement with one’s work. Over time, the employee finds his or
her work “unpleasant, unfulfilling, and meaningless. Energy turns into exhaustion,
involvement turns into cynicism, and efficacy turns into ineffectiveness” (Maslach,
Jackson, & Leiter, 1996, p. 416). Teacher burnout is known to have two general
outcomes: reduced job performance and attrition from the schools or the profession.
Teachers experiencing burnout exhibit lower job performance (Maslach,
Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). This lower performance is evident in decreased productivity,
decreased overall effectiveness, and thoughts of quitting the job (Maslach et al., 2001).
Other symptoms evident in the teaching profession include more missed workdays
(Imants & Van Zoelen, 1995), deteriorated health (Hock, 1985), and lower tolerance for
classroom misbehavior (Kokkinos, Panayiotou, & Dayazolglou, 2005). Eventually,
teacher burnout can also lead to a teacher quitting for another teaching assignment or
profession (Maslach et al., 2001). The resulting job searches and school adjustments
financially and educationally harm schools (Barnes, Crowe, & Schaefer, 2007; Grissmer
& Kirby, 1997). However, perhaps the larger concern is that the burned out teacher does
not leave and persists as an ineffective teacher.
Much research has focused on both teacher attrition and teacher job satisfaction
on a national level. We know that administrative factors are closely connected to teacher
attrition and dissatisfaction (Boyd et al., 2011; Littrell, Billingsley, & Cross, 1994; Shen,
Leslie, Spybrook, & Ma, 2012; Tickle, Chang, & Kim, 2011). We also know that job
dissatisfaction is a symptom of teacher burnout (Maslach et al., 1996). However, a report
of low job satisfaction alone does not necessarily imply burnout as some describe job
dissatisfaction as a first step towards stress, which in turn leads to burnout (Pearson &
Moomaw, 2005). Nor does job dissatisfaction translate into a teacher leaving his or her
school since other factors (e.g. caring for family members, pursuit of a higher salary) may
be more influential, just as many may choose to stay because of lack of alternative
employment. Unlike measures of job dissatisfaction and attrition, our understanding of
the prevalence of actual teacher burnout in U.S. schools and the administrative factors
involved is currently lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between teacher
emotional exhaustion, the most studied aspect of burnout, and administrative practices
and behavior using three waves (2003-04, 2007-08, 2011-12) of teacher data from a
nationally representative survey of teachers. Using Maslach’s theoretical framework
(Maslach et al., 1996), this study aims to answer three specific research questions:
1) How prevalent does emotional exhaustion appear to be in the U.S. teacher
workforce?
2) Do measures of administrative practice predict emotional exhaustion?
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
3
3) Do measures of administrative practice predict teacher staying, moving, and
leaving?
Theoretical Framework
This study will utilize Maslach’s theory of burnout (Maslach, et al., 1996).
Maslach’s three-dimensional concept of burnout is the burnout model that is employed
and tested in most scientific research (Schaufelei, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009). This
concept of burnout is tested using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), considered the
“gold-standard” for evaluating burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2009), and measures three
dimensions of burnout: exhaustion, depersonalization/cynicism, and reduced personal
accomplishment/inefficacy.
The most studied of the three underlying aspects of burnout is exhaustion
(Schaufeli et al., 2009). Exhaustion is the stress aspect of burnout and includes feelings
of overextension and lower energy (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Some studies show that
emotional exhaustion is the first sign of teacher burnout. Exhaustion is the most evident
sign of burnout and most often what people are describing referring to burnout, either in
other or themselves (Maslach et al., 2001). Illustrating the pervasiveness of exhaustion in
the teaching field, Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998) found that teachers experience more
exhaustion than any other group of professionals. However, Schaufeli and Enzmann
(1998) also found that teachers’ experiences with the other two dimensions of burnout are
closer to the average professional in the U.S.
Depersonalization is the interpersonal dimension of burnout and is characterized
by a negative, detached, and cynical view of one’s clients or students (Schaufeli et al.,
2009). Lastly, reduced personal accomplishment/efficacy is the self-evaluative
dimension of burnout. A state of reduced personal accomplishment features senses of
incompetence and lack of productivity (Schaufeli et al., 2009).
Nine of the 22 questions on the MBI and MBI-Educator Survey (MBI-ES) are
intended to measure the teacher’s level of exhaustion as a part of burnout (Maslach,
Jackson, & Schwab, 1996). Using similarly phrased questions on the Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS) Public School Teacher Questionnaire, this study searches for
levels of emotional exhaustion, considered by some to be the first sign of burnout
(Brouwers & Tomic, 2000), in the national teaching force.
Prior Research on Teacher Burnout Factors
In the past, we have seen that a significant number of burned out teachers stay in
the teaching profession (Hock, 1988) and in 1991, Farber (1991) estimated that, at any
given time, 5-20% of domestic teachers were experiencing burnout. There are not any
large-scale studies of domestic teacher burnout in recent years, though we do know how
different administrative, teacher, and school factors and characteristics tend to affect
teacher burnout. Following is an overview of these factors and characteristics
measureable using the SASS Teacher Questionnaire. Factors known to contribute to
emotional exhaustion but not identifiable using the SASS (e.g. teacher personality traits,
teacher support networks) are not included in this review.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
4
Administrative Factors: Discipline, Support, and Praise
Similar to Boyd et al.’s (2011) findings in New York City that administration is
the strongest predictor of both leaving and migration, school administration is not
surprisingly a critical factor in teacher burnout. This seems logical as administrators
shape so many aspects of school and teacher life. However, looking at administrative
support, management of student behavior, and teacher praise, as isolated entities, we also
see close links to teacher burnout.
As Haberman’s (2005) review of teacher stress states, “classroom management
and discipline are cited most frequently and ranked highest as the most pervasive cause of
teacher burnout” (p. ?) and affect teachers across experience levels. An abundance of
research tells us that student behavior can play a critical part in teacher burnout (e.g.
Hastings & Bham, 2003; Friedman, 1995; Kokkinos, 2007). Though classroom
management may largely be attributed to the individual teacher, job description generally
administrators have the final say in student discipline. Administrators are also in charge
of school-wide discipline and both behavioral decisions and plans (CITE).
Demonstrating the importance of disciplinary enforcement from administrators is
Grayson and Alvarez (2008). Grayson and Alvarez (2008) found that teachers who felt
the school rules were clear and consistently enforced could focus classroom time on
learning activities, and that teachers experienced few outside interruptions felt the
greatest levels of personal accomplishment
Numerous studies (e.g. Howard & Johnson, 2004; Hepburn & Brown, 2001;
Littrell et al., 1994) have demonstrated a relationship between administrative support and
teacher burnout. An absence of supervisor support is more important than peer support to
teacher burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). Dworkin, Haney, Dworkin, and Telschow (1990)
discovered that urban schoolteachers with supportive principals exhibited less stressinduced illness behavior (i.e. absences) than teachers who perceived their principals as
unsupportive. As depersonalization is closely linked to administration via job
satisfaction, Hepburn and Brown (2001) found that the more happy with administrative
support and decisions, the more positive the teacher’s attitude about work. This is similar
to Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, and Hoy’s (2001) finding that higher levels of perceived
principal support translate into higher teacher efficacy (sense of personal
accomplishment). Furthermore, Littrell et al. (1994) discovered that teachers who receive
more principal support also report higher job satisfaction and commitment to the school
while being less likely to experience personal health problems. In addition, the
researchers reported that the teachers in their study believed emotional support was the
most important support a principal can offer, even more important than instructional
support (Littrell et al., 1994). These studies confirm the findings of earlier research that
determined administrative support to be a significant predictor of teacher burnout (Sarros
& Sarros, 1992). More recent studies also show a strong connection between
administrative support and job satisfaction, though not explicitly burnout. For instance,
Tickle et al. (2011) examined the 2003-04 SASS and determined that administrative
support is not only the most significant predictor of teacher satisfaction, but that this
administrative support appeared to ameliorate the effects of teacher experience, student
behavior, and teacher salary may have on self-reported levels of job satisfaction.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
5
Lack of reward for one’s work increases employee susceptibility to burnout
(Maslanka, 1996; Chappell & Novak, 1992). Though a principal may not be able to
reward teachers financially, she does have the ability to compensate teachers’ effort and
performance in other ways. One way of rewarding teachers this way is through
recognition or praise. Genuine and earned praise from administrators generally improves
teacher levels of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and motivation (Blase & Blase, 1999). This
praise can be oral, written, or conveyed using body language, though it must be related to
professional practice or accomplishments within the school in order to be effective (Blase
& Kirby, 2009). Blase and Kirby (2008) identifies praise as the influence strategy that
effective, transformational leaders report employing the most. However, “with few
exceptions, (e.g. Blase & Blase, 2001, 2004), praise remains conspicuously underreported
in the literature about effective school leadership” (p. 11, Blase & Kirby, 2008).
Other School Conditions – Workload, Autonomy, and Urbanicity
Research has shown that excessive workload is a leading cause of teacher
burnout, especially in terms of emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981;
Schaufeli et al., 2009; Peeters & Rutte, 2005). Researchers have consistently found that
teachers experience increased stress when they do not effectively manage time (Peeters &
Rutte, 2005). Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) also found that workload and time pressure
have strong positive correlations with teacher burnout.
Several studies have demonstrated that teacher autonomy has a negative
correlation with burnout (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009).
Overall, perceived autonomy is negatively correlated with exhaustion, depersonalization,
and feelings of reduced accomplishment (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). Of particular
interest to emotional exhaustion is that, after controlling for workload, discipline
problems, and teacher relationships with both coworkers and administrators, Skaalvik and
Skaalvik (2010) found a negative correlation, though weak, existed between teacher
exhaustion and perceived autonomy. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014) also found a negative
correlation between teacher autonomy and emotional exhaustion but warned that this
relationship is not necessarily causal.
As general demands on teachers are different in urban, suburban, and rural
schools, research indicates that burnout is experienced differently according to school
location, as well. Haberman (2005) states that stress is higher for teachers working in
urban schools. Abel and Sewell’s (1999) study of urban and rural secondary teachers in
Georgia and North Carolina showed that poor working conditions predicted burnout for
both urban and rural teachers. However, disciplinary problems and misbehavior were
burnout predictors for urban teachers while time pressure predicted burnout in rural
teachers (Abel & Sewell, 1999).
Teacher Characteristics - Gender, Age, and Experience
Literature tells us that gender is not a strong predictor of burnout (Maslach, et al.,
1996). However, it is widely accepted that males and females are more prone to different
dimensions of burnout in human service fields; men are more susceptible to
depersonalization while women are more likely to experience exhaustion and lower
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
6
senses of personal accomplishment (Purvanova & Muros, 2010). Studies generally show
this is also the case for teachers (Lau, Yuen, & Chan, 2005; Schwab & Iwanicki, 1982;
Greenglass, Burke, & Ondrack, 1990; Burke, Greenglass, & Schwarzer, 1996; Grayson &
Alvarez, 2008).
Studies generally indicate that age is a predictor of teacher burnout, especially in
terms of emotional exhaustion. Research generally reports higher levels of emotional
exhaustion and burnout in younger teachers (e.g. Russell, Altmaier, Van Velzen, 1987;
Maslach et al., 2001; Byrne, 1991). Findings regarding experience are more mixed,
though burnout is generally found at the higher and lower ends of the experience
spectrum.
There is no explicit connection between a teacher’s ethnicity alone and risk of
burnout. Grissom and Keiser (2011) have found that teachers with principals of the same
race experience less turnover and report higher job satisfaction. It is important to note
that these findings do not find ethnicity on its own to be a predictor of burnout.
The most generalizable findings regarding the relationship between ethnicity as an isolated
variable and burnout come from teacher attrition research (e.g. Ingersoll & May, 2011;
Connor, 2011).
There does not appear to be any peer-reviewed research published in the last 20
years that examines differences in burnout among elementary, middle, and high school
teachers.
Data and Methods
Sample
This study will examine the restricted-use 2003-2004, 2007-08, and 2011-12
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and their supplements, the restricted-use 2004-05,
2008-09, and 2012-13 Teacher up Survey (TFS). SASS is a nationally representative
sample survey of public and private schools and employees conducted by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at four-year intervals for the U.S. Department of
Education. The survey is intended to provide policymakers with important and useful
data to assist in making education policy decisions. SASS uses a stratified probability
sample design to collect wide-ranging data on school characteristics, teachers, principals,
school procedures, and other conditions in U.S. schools. Twelve months after
administering the SASS, the TFS is sent to the teachers sampled in the previous year’s
SASS questionnaire to track teacher movement and reasons why teachers chose to stay at
their schools, move to other schools, or leave the profession. NCES distributes five sets
of SASS questionnaires and two sets of TFS questionnaires. This study will examine the
data from the SASS Public School Teacher Questionnaire, SASS Public School Survey
and TFS Former Teacher Questionnaire.
I drop novice teachers (those within their first three years of teaching), prekindergarten teachers, and teachers who do not teach full-time within one school from the
survey panel. Novice teachers are excluded because (a) they may experience burnout
differently than veteran teachers and (b) some SASS questions (e.g. “I don’t seem to have
as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began teaching. 1) Strongly agree 2) Somewhat
agree 3) Somewhat disagree 4) Strongly disagree”) may yield answers that are misleading
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
7
to this study due to novices’ limited experience. I remove pre-kindergarten and part-time
teachers because they fall outside the scope of this study’s purposes. Additionally,
charter school teachers are excluded from the survey.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables in this study are five indicators of emotional burnout: (1)
tiredness, (2) stress not worth it, (3) lost enthusiasm, (4) desire to leave the school, and
(5) desire to leave the profession. These variables correspond with questions on the
SASS which match questions (either specific or in type) found on the MBI-ES’ emotional
exhaustion subscale. The 22-question MBI-ES asks nine questions to determine an
educator’s level of emotional exhaustion (see Appendix A for MBI-ES questions, MBIES scoring scale, and corresponding SASS questions). The measurements for teachers’
self-responses are different; the MBI-ES asks teachers to rate frequency and intensity
levels for different statements on a 7-point scale while the SASS only asks for responses
to statements on a 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree). However,
these emotional exhaustion subscale questions closely mirror several questions on the
SASS Teacher Questionnaire. For example, the MBI-ES’ “I feel fatigued when I get up
in the morning and have to face another day on the job” seems interchangeable with the
SASS’ “I think about staying home from school because I’m just too tired to go.” All
five dependent variables reflect signs of emotional exhaustion, regardless of specific
question phrasing. I measure these five dependent variables on a scale of 1-4 (the ordinal
values have been reversed so that 4=Strongly Agree, 3=Somewhat Agree, 2=Somewhat
Disagree, and 1=Strongly Disagree).
Independent Variables
The independent variables of most concern are measures directly related to
administrative practice: (1) administrative support, (2) administrative disciplinary
practices, (3) teacher recognition, (4) principal communication, and (5) a “well-run
school.” Each of these measures matches a specific question on the SASS Teacher
Questionnaire (See Appendix B). I assign binary (1=agree, 0=disagree) values to these
measures of administrative practice because the intent is to determine whether or not the
respective school administrators use these practices, not the extent to which they use the
practices.
Controls
This study measures the prevalence of exhaustion and relationships with
administrative practice first for different groups of teachers (e.g. rural, female) and
second controlling for these variables. The control variables account for teacher and
school characteristics previously covered in this paper: workload (measured in hours
spent on teaching-related work per week), age (measured in years), (measured in years)
and dummy variables for gender, ethnicity (black, white, Hispanic), school location
(urban, suburban, rural), and school level (elementary, middle school, high school).
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
8
Methodological Approaches
1) How prevalent does emotional exhaustion appear to be in the U.S. teacher workforce?
I answer the first research question by finding the weighted means for each of the
emotional exhaustion question responses. Four of the questions are measured on a 4point Likert scale and have been recoded so that Strongly Agree=4 and Strongly
Disagree=1. The response options for “How long do you plan to remain in teaching?”
changed from the 2003-04 SASS to the 2007-08 SASS. The responses to the question
“How long do you plan to remain in teaching?” changed from 2003-04 to 2007-08.
Additionally, the five possible responses to the question on all three waves of data
included in this study are not on a Likert scale. I followed Grissom, Nicholson-Crotty,
and Harrington’s (n.d.) approach to coding “intent to remain” as a binary variable. “As long
as I am able” or “Until I am eligible for retirement” (2007-8 and 2011-12 had more
subcategories for retirement) as equal to 1. Other responses were coded as 0.
2) Do measures of administrative practice predict emotional exhaustion?
I run a separate linear regression on each dependent variable in the three SASS
waves combined. Each regression uses state fixed effects, year fixed effects, and uses
weights. The five independent variables related to administrator practice and controls for
workload, age, experience, ethnicity, school urbanicity, school level, and school Title I
status. I use state fixed effects and year fixed effects in each linear regression to account
for any differential impacts that national and state education policies may have had on
teachers in separate states and years.
3) Do measures of administrative practice predict teacher staying, moving, and leaving?
I use TFS teacher stayer, mover, and leaver status as dependent variables in linear
regressions run using weights. I use the same independent variables used in my second
research question and leave emotional exhaustion variables out of all three regressions. I
use state fixed effects and year fixed effects again with the TFS to account for any
differential policy effects.
Results
Descriptives reveal generally low prevalence of reported emotional exhaustion in
the SASS (Table 1). Reports of desire to transfer, stress and disappointments not being
worth teaching, and thinking about staying home because the teacher is too tired are all
below 2.00 (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Somewhat Disagree, 3=Somewhat Agree, and
4=Strongly Agree), which implies that the emotional exhaustion is not present in the
average teacher. Reports of not having as much enthusiasm now as at the beginning of a
career are also on the lower end of the 4-point Likert scale at 2.20. Similarly, 78 percent
of teachers reported an intent to teach until no longer able to or retirement, suggesting
low levels of emotional exhaustion.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
9
Four of the five administrative factors were significant predictors of exhaustion,
all in the expected direction: the better a teacher’s perception of her administrator’s
conduct in these areas coincided with lower levels of emotional exhaustion indicators. It
is important to note that all five administrative factors were simultaneously included in
each regression while holding all non-outcome variables constant. As expected,
perceptions of the school as well run were related with lower reports of exhaustion.
However, this gives us little insight into actual administrator practices.
Holding all administrative factors constant, staff recognition had the second
largest influence on each signal of emotional exhaustion. The more a teacher agrees that
the staff receives the recognition it deserves, the less emotional exhaustion is reported.
This proved statistically significant in four of the five regressions. Administrative
support/encouragement and principal enforcement of discipline also appeared influential,
though not to the same extent as staff recognition. Administrative
support/encouragement had a larger negative coefficient than principal enforcement of
discipline with the exception of a teacher’s desire to stay home because she is too tired to
go to work. Statistical significance was recorded for administrative
support/encouragement in relation to all five outcomes; statistical significance was found
for principal enforcement of discipline in each case but plans to leave the profession.
Principal communication of vision had a small, insignificant relationship with the each
emotional exhaustion indicator and the relationships were not consistently negative.
The only administrative factor that appeared to be a predictor in teacher retention
and attrition was feeling that the school is well run. This proved to be a statistically
significant predictor of staying and moving; a teacher feeling that the school is well run is
more likely to stay and a teacher feeling that a school is not well run is more likely to
move. There were no statistically significant predictors for leaving.
Discussion
As the MBI-ES measures frequency and intensity of feelings of emotional
burnout with self-reported responses on a 7-point Likert scale (0-6), the SASS Teacher
Questionnaire gives us a measurement of intensity and frequency of similar feelings on a
self-reported 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree). Judging by basic
descriptives, there does not immediately appear to be a widespread epidemic of
emotional exhaustion in the U.S. However, the one of the next steps in this study is to
identify how many teachers report high levels of agreement (indicating high levels of
frequency and intensity) with the focal SASS questions utilized in this study.
Particularly, this will involve finding the number of teachers who respond Strongly Agree
to each of the questions 65a, 65f, and 66g (See Appendix A) and respond with either
Strongly Agree to desire to transfer or indicate that they plan an early departure from
teaching (an indication of wanting to leave teaching early may mean that transferring is
not a priority). This may give us a better understanding of the actual percentage of
teachers who appear to be experiencing emotional exhaustion. Though signs of
emotional exhaustion do not always indicate overall burnout, emotional exhaustion is
most often the first evident symptom of burnout. Some researchers claim that emotional
exhaustion appears before the other two dimensions of burnout and that it leads to
depersonalization and reduced sense of personal accomplishment.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
10
Perceptions of different administrative practices, outside of a school being well
run, did not predict teacher staying, moving, or leaving. Unfortunately, many of the
teachers in the TFS do not match to the previous year’s SASS. Thus, my sample size was
lower than I had hoped for. Much of a teacher’s decision to stay, move, or leave also
hinges on factors outside of the school (e.g. lack of alternative employment opportunities,
moving). However, perceptions of administrative practice did tend to affect the
responses to questions that indicate emotional exhaustion.
As expected and in line with previous research, administrative
support/encouragement and principal enforcement of discipline were significantly related
to most of the indicators of exhaustion. The same goes for a school that is well run,
though reporting that the school is run well does not identify any particular administrative
practice. The communication of a clear vision and message was also predictably weakly
related to emotional exhaustion indicators; clearly communicating a message does not
entail follow-through. However, this study’s findings call special attention to the practice
of a principal properly praising teachers for their work.
As Blase and Kirby (2009) notes, earned praise from a principal increases teacher
motivation, self-esteem, and sense of self-efficacy. The findings of this study appear to
reinforce Blase and Kirby’s statement that praise is an important leadership tool. Reports
of receiving proper recognition were the strongest predictors of lower exhaustion, outside
of a school being run well (which is not a specific leadership strategy). Additionally,
appropriate praise had a stronger relationship with emotional exhaustion than Title I
status, experience, etc. This appears be the most important takeaway from this study.
Blase and Kirby (2009) point out that praise “remains conspicuously underreported in the
literature about effective school leadership” (page). This study’s findings reinforce Blasé
and Kirby’s (2009) statement. Further exploration of the effects of praise on teacher
burnout and job effectiveness appears warranted.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
11
References
Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school
teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 287-293.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five
School Districts: A Pilot Study. National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher
development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(3), 349-378.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2001). The Teacher's Principal. Journal of Staff Development,
22(1), 22-25.
Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals
promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (2008). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective
principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The
influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American
Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and
perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16(2), 239-253.
Burke, R. J., Greenglass, E. R., & Schwarzer, R. (1996). Predicting teacher burnout over
time: Effects of work stress, social support, and self-doubts on burnout and its
consequences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 9(3), 261-275.
Connor, R. (2011). Examining African American teacher turnover, past & present
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Dworkin, A. G., Haney, C. A., Dworkin, R. J., & Telschow, R. L. (1990). Stress and
illness behavior among urban public school teachers. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 26(1), 60-72.
Farber, B. A. (1984). Stress and burnout in suburban teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, 77, 325–331.
Friedman, I. A. (1995). Student behavior patterns contributing to teacher burnout. The
Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 281-289.
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher
burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 13491363.
Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Ondrack, M. (1990). A Gender‐ role Perspective of
Coping and Burnout. Applied Psychology, 39(1), 5-27.
Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. The Teachers
College Record, 99(1), 45-56.
Grissom, J. A., & Keiser, L. R. (2011). A supervisor like me: Race, representation, and
the satisfaction and turnover decisions of public sector employees. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 557-580.
Grissom, J.A., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Harrington, J. (n.d.). Estimating the effects of
No Child Left Behind on teachers and their work environments, Unpublished
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
12
manuscript.
Haberman, M. (2005). Teacher burnout in black and white. The New Educator, 1(3), 153175.
Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour
patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24(1), 115-127.
Hepburn, A., & Brown, S. D. (2001). Teacher stress and the management of
accountability. Human Relations, 54, 691–715.
Hock, R. R. (1988). Professional Burnout among Public School Teachers. Public
Personnel Management, 17(2), 167-89.
Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient Teachers: Resisting Stress and Burnout.
Social Psychology Education, 7(4), 399-420.
Imants, J., & Zoelen, A.V. (1995). Teachers’ sickness absence in primary schools, school
climate and teachers’ sense of efficacy. School Organisation, 15(1), 77-86.
Ingersoll, R.M. and May, H. (2011). Recruitment, Retention and the Minority Teacher
Shortage. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. CPRE Research Report
#RR-69.
Kokkinos, C.M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A.M. (2005). Correlates of teacher
appraisals of student behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 79-89.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school
teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 229-243.
Littrell, P.C., Billingsley, B.S., & Cross, L.H. (1994). The effects of principal support on
special and general educators' stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health,
and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 297-310.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual
(3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Schwab, R. L. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory–
Educators Survey (MBIES). MBI manual.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
Pearson, L.C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The Relationship between Teacher Autonomy
and Stress, Work Satisfaction, Empowerment, and Professionalism. Educational
Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
Peeters, M. A., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time management behavior as a moderator for the
job demand-control interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
10(1), 64.
Purvanova, R. K., & Muros, J. P. (2010). Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 168-185.
Schaufeli W.B., Enzmann D. 1998. The Burnout Companion to Study & Practice: A
Critical Analysis. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and
practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204-220.
Schwab, R. L., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1982). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and
teacher burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60-74.
Shen, J., Leslie, J.M., Spybrook, J.K., & Ma, X. (2012). Are principal background and
school processes related to teacher job satisfaction? A multilevel study using
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
13
Schools and Staffing Survey 2003-04. American Educational Research Journal,
49(2), 200-230.
Tickle, B. R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating
effect on US public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2),
342-349.
Running Head: PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
Appendix A - SASS-MBI-ES Crosswalk
SASS Teacher Questionnaire
66g. I think about staying home from school because I’m just too
tired to go.
Maslach Burnout Inventory – Educators Survey
2. I feel used up at the end of workday.
3. I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face
another day on the job.
66b. How long do you plan to remain in teaching?
20. I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.
65e. I think about transferring to another school.
20. I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.
65f. I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I 1. I feel emotionally drained from my work.
began teaching.
6. Working with people all day is really a strain for me.
8. I feel burned out from my work.
65a. The stress and disappointments involved in teaching at this
school aren’t really worth it.
8. I feel burned out from my work.
13. I feel frustrated by this job.
14. I feel I’m working too hard on my job.
16. Working with people directly puts too much stress on me.
20. I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
15
TABLE 1: Descriptives: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)
Variable
N
Mean
Think about transferring
81010
1.84
Stress & disappointments not worth it
81010
1.77
Think about staying home b/c too tired 81010
1.71
I don't have as much enthusiasm now
81010
2.20
I plan to teach until retirement or
unable
81010
0.88
Administrative factors
Admin is supportive
Principal communicates clear message
Staff are recognized for job well done
Principal enforces rules and backs me
up
I like the way things are run at this
school
81010
81010
81010
0.85
0.86
0.74
0.86
SD
0.97
0.82
0.89
1.03
Min
1
1
1
1
Max
4
4
4
4
0.42
0
1
0.36
0.34
0.44
0.35
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
81010
0.75
0.43
81010
Teacher Characteristics
Total Years Experience
Age
Female
Hispanic
Black
Union Member
Hours working per week
81010
81010
81010
81010
81010
81010
81010
15.85
44.24
0.75
0.07
0.07
0.79
52.34
9.32
10.54
0.43
0.25
0.26
0.41
8.83
4
21
0
0
0
0
30.00
54
93
1
1
1
1
80
School Characteristics
Urban
81010
0.26
0.44
0
1
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
16
Suburban
81010
0.44
0.50
0
1
Rural
81010
0.25
0.43
0
1
Elementary school
81010
0.47
0.50
0
1
Middle School
81010
0.19
0.39
0
1
High School
81010
0.29
0.46
0
1
% minority students
81010
39.86
32.64
0
100
Title I school
81010
0.33
0.47
0
1
Note. Sampling weights used. Sample sizes are approximately 36,600 in 2003-04, 32,280 in 2007-08; and 37,950 in 2011-12. Sample
sizes rounded to nearest ten per NCES non-disclosure rules.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
17
TABLE 2: Impact of Administration on Indicators of Emotional Exhaustion
Think about
Stress &
Think about
I don't have as
I plan to teach
transferring
disappointments staying home b/c
much
until retirement
not worth it
too tired
enthusiasm now
or unable
Administrative
-0.22***
support/encouragement
-0.18***
-0.07**
-0.12***
-0.03**
(-0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
-0.14***
Principal enforcement of discipline
-0.12***
-0.10***
-0.09***
-0.01
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
-0.02
Principal communication of vision
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.00
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
-0.25***
Staff recognition/praise
-0.23***
-0.16***
-0.23***
-0.04***
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
-0.65***
School is well run
-0.51***
-0.32***
-0.51***
-0.09***
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.01)
80010
80010
80010
80010
80010
Observations
Standard errors in parentheses. * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. All regressions include teacher controls (age, gender, experience,
ethnicity, union membership, hours worked per week), school controls (school level (elementary/middle school/high school),
urbanicity (urban/suburban, rural), % minority student enrollment, Title I status), state fixed effects, and year fixed effects. Sample
sizes rounded to nearest ten per NCES non-disclosure rules.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
18
TABLE 3: Descriptives: Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS)
Variable
N
Mean
SD
Stayer
9660
0.45
0.50
Mover
9660
0.23
0.42
Leaver
9660
0.31
0.47
Min
0
0
0
Max
1
1
1
Burnout indicators
Think about transferring
Stress & disappointments not worth it
Think about staying home b/c too tired
I don't have as much enthusiasm now
I plan to teach until retirement or
unable
Administrative factors
Admin is supportive
Principal communicates clear message
Staff are recognized for job well done
Principal enforces rules and backs me
up
I like the way things are run at this
school
Teacher Characteristics
Total Years Experience
Age
Female
9660
9660
9660
9660
1.86
1.76
1.71
2.15
0.97
0.82
0.89
1.02
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
9660
0.22
0.41
1
4
9660
9660
9660
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.35
0.34
0.33
0
0
0
1
1
1
9660
0.75
0.43
0
1
9660
0.76
0.43
0
1
9660
9660
9660
13.94
42.41
0.76
9.98
11.52
0.43
4
21
0
54
93
1
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
Hispanic
Black
Union Member
Hours working per week
9660
9660
9660
9660
19
0.06
0.08
0.78
52.71
0.24
0.27
0.41
8.85
0
0
0
30
1
1
1
80
School Characteristics
Urban
9660
0.25
0.44
0
1
Suburban
9660
0.49
0.50
0
1
Rural
9660
0.26
0.44
0
1
Elementary school
9660
0.48
0.50
0
1
Middle School
9660
0.19
0.39
0
1
High School
9660
0.29
0.46
0
1
% minority students
9660
39.89
32.84
0
100
Title I school
9660
0.34
0.47
0
1
Note. Sampling weights used. Survey waves from 2004-05, 2008-09, and 2012-13. Sample sizes rounded to nearest ten per NCES
non-disclosure rules.
PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
20
TABLE 4: TFS: Administrative Factors Predicting Staying, Moving, and Leaving
Stayer
Mover
Leaver
0.01
-0.01
0.00
Admin is supportive
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
Principal enforces rules and backs me
0.03
-0.01
-0.02
up
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
-0.02
0.00
0.02
Principal communicates clear message
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.00
-0.01
0.00
Staff are recognized for job well done
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
I like the way things are run at this
0.04**
-0.02**
-0.01
school
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
9660
9660
9660
Observations
Standard errors in parentheses. * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. All regressions include teacher controls (age, gender, experience,
ethnicity, union membership, hours worked per week), school controls (school level (elementary/middle school/high school),
urbanicity (urban/suburban, rural), % minority student enrollment, Title I status), state fixed effects, and year fixed effects. Sample
sizes rounded to nearest ten per NCES non-disclosure rules.