Journal of Agricultural Education 28 Volume 45, Number 2, 2004 JOB SATISFACTION AND RETENTION OF SECONDARY AGRICULTURE TEACHERS Weston D. Walker, Assistant Professor Southwest Missouri State University Bryan L. Garton, Associate Professor Tracy J. Kitchel, Graduate Assistant University of Missouri-Columbia Abstract The shortage and demand for teachers have been well publicized. This study investigated the extent to which the level of job satisfaction of Missouri secondary agriculture teachers changed from their initial year of teaching to their current employment, either in teaching or industry. A comparison between the job satisfaction of teachers who remained in the profession with those who changed school districts and those who left the profession was conducted. Additionally, the likes and dislikes of the specific responsibilities of a secondary agriculture teacher were investigated. It was concluded that all three groups of teachers were generally satisfied with their first year of teaching. They were also generally satisfied with their current employment position and had relatively the same degree of job satisfaction increase over time from their first teaching position to their current position. Teachers who left the profession were generally as satisfied as those who remained in the profession with regard to the job responsibilities of an agriculture teacher, with the exception of teaching agricultural mechanics and in working with school administrators. The results implied that teachers leaving the profession were relatively satisfied but were leaving the profession for opportunities/job satisfaction aspects that they could not receive through teaching. Introduction/Theoretical Framework The nation is facing “the worst teacher shortage ever” (NEA, n.d.) and the agricultural education profession has not been immune to the problem. Camp (2000) identified the agriculture teacher shortage problem as early as 1977, and the problem has continued well into its third decade. The reasons underlying the teacher shortage problem are still under investigation. Some researchers have suggested that those agriculture teachers who continue to teach and those who leave the profession have varying levels of job satisfaction (Bennett, Iverson, Rohs, Langone, & Edwards, 2002; Newcomb, Betts & Cano, 1987). Others have identified teacher effectiveness (in the classroom) as a predictor of the level of job satisfaction and that job satisfaction has been linked to teacher retention (Berns, 1990; Grady & Burnett, 1985). However, studies are lacking that compare the level of job satisfaction of teachers who continue to teach with those who leave the profession, especially with consideration given to the specific responsibilities of a secondary agriculture teacher. Therefore, research is warranted regarding the level of job satisfaction of teachers who continue in the profession and those who leave the profession and their perceived like or dislike for specific responsibilities associated with teaching agriculture at the secondary level. A variety of attempts and strategies have been employed to address the teacher shortage. Some of these include forgiveness of student loans, special scholarships, tuition reimbursements, emergency and alternative certification programs, and the rehiring of retired teachers. The debate continues to be whether the problem is a problem of recruitment or a problem of retention. Regarding retention, current strategies and programs have not effectively solved theWalker, Garton, & Kitchel Job Satisfaction and Retent… Journal of Agricultural Education 29 Volume 45, Number 2, 2004 shortage of qualified agriculture teachers. However, educational researchers have learned that if an individual is not satisfied with his/her job, the likelihood for that individual to remain in the teaching profession is greatly diminished. Numerous researchers have investigated the teacher retention problem in agricultural education (Bryant, 1980; Cole, 1984; Dillon, 1978; Edwards & Briers, 2001; Flowers & Pepple, 1988; Grady, 1988; Howell & Martin, 1983; Knight, 1978; Moore & Camp, 1979; Reilly & Welton, 1980). Although the problem has been investigated in prior research, a review of the literature indicates that a majority of the studies which identified the reasons why agriculture teachers left the profession were published prior to the 1990s. With the many changes that agricultural education (i.e. increased enrollments, addition of middle school instruction, diversity of subjects taught, etc.) has undergone in the past 13 years, the question arises: Are the reasons teachers leave the profession today different than those cited in studies over a decade ago? In terms of job satisfaction, researchers have discovered that agriculture teachers were fairly or moderately satisfied with their job (Beavers, Jewell, & Malpiedi, 1987; Bennett, et al., 2002; Cano & Miller, 1992; Flowers & Pebble, 1988; Grady & Burnett, 1985; Newcomb, et al., 1987). Cano and Miller (1992) indicated that knowledge of the level of satisfaction was not enough. They proposed that determining the factors that lead to satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction was required. Satisfier factors investigated were achievement, advancement, recognition, responsibility, and the work itself. Dissatisfier factors investigated were interpersonal relations, policy and administration, salary, supervision, and working conditions. When agriculture teachers leave the profession, some degree of job dissatisfaction is implied (Jewell, Beavers, Kirby, & Flowers, 1990). One consequence of teacher turnover is the cost to society for the continual training of far more teachers than would appear to be required. Muncrief (1979; cited in Jewell, et al., 1990) stated that since teacher education is a costly investment, if graduates do not remain in the profession, it would seem beneficial to take steps to increase the tenure of teachers who are both successful and satisfied with teaching. This statement still rings true today. The issue of secondary teacher job satisfaction and retention has been the focus of research across disciplinary boundaries for several years (Chapman, 1983; Chapman, 1984; Chapman & Green, 1986, Cole, 1984; Knight, 1978; McBride, Munday & Tunnell, 1992; Miller 1974; and Reilly & Welton, 1980). These studies have identified personal