Most teacher retention studies examine why teachers leave. To understand how rural Illinois school districts can retain their science and math teachers, NORC at the University of Chicago and the Illinois Workforce & Education Research Collaborative (IWERC) took a different approach: asking them why they stay. With National Science Foundation funding, we launched a mixed-methods study that included three components: a landscape review, a survey of rural Illinois science and math teachers (SMTs) in grades 6-12, and a case study of five high-need rural districts with better than average retention rates. Our study found that working conditions, community connections, and teacher training that included a rural focus made a measurable difference.

“Until now, a lot of research on retention was based on big school districts. But strategies gleaned from bigger cities like Chicago can’t always be adapted to smaller, more rural districts,” said Jenny Seelig, the study’s principal investigator, a senior research scientist in NORC’s Education & Child Development department, and a former rural high school teacher. “By studying rural districts specifically and diving deeper into what works for them, we hope to provide other rural Illinois schools with a blueprint they can use to address their science and math teacher shortages.”

IWERC led our quantitative landscape analysis using Illinois State Board of Education administrative data, establishing which Illinois districts are rural, which are high-need rural, and which of the latter have positive retention rates. The last finding produced the pool from which NORC drew its five case study sites. The analysis classified 426 of Illinois’s 865 districts as rural and 306 of those as high need, meaning they served greater percentages of students from low-income families while sustaining lower rates of teacher recruitment or retention.

Rural and high-need rural districts had higher vacancy rates and higher shares of out-of-field teachers and teachers on short-term or provisional licenses than non-rural districts. In addition, 58 percent of SMTs in high-need rural districts and 55 percent in rural districts taught other subjects, including English language and literature, social sciences and history, physical health and safety education, and human services. Teachers “wearing multiple hats,” which is a common phenomenon in rural schools, adds to SMTs’ burdens and can reverberate in the classroom.

Despite these burdens, our survey of 362 rural SMTs in grades 6–12—hailing from 158 rural districts statewide—yielded broadly positive findings. From 62 to 68 percent strongly agreed that they had autonomy over class planning, felt accepted in their schools, and had positive relationships with peers. The following factors were statistically associated with teachers intending to stay where they were for three more years:

• Support from school and district leaders
• Alignment between a teacher’s own values and those of the school community
• Adequate compensation and benefits

Also, teachers who believed that their preparation program readied them for a rural setting were significantly more likely to say they very likely would be working in the same school three years later (64 percent, compared to 49 percent among those who felt their program didn’t prepare them.)

“Rural schools function as community hubs, connecting students, families, and other residents to civic life, culture, commerce, and learning,” said Seelig. “Teachers live inside these hubs and are affected by how welcoming they are and what amenities they have, which can make a difference in whether or not they stay longer, impacting student learning.”