In simple language

What leaders should take from the research

01

Finding: autonomy, development and voice recur in the evidence. Nguyen and colleagues draw on a broader review of 355 outputs. These factors are associated with wellbeing, commitment and retention-related outcomes, but much of the evidence is correlational. A positive intention to stay is not an actual renewal. Nguyen et al. (2026; online 2024)

02

Finding: withdrawal can develop over time. Interviews with 58 teachers in Scotland who left or reduced their roles describe relational trust, development and working conditions as important in their accounts. Self-selection and retrospective interviews limit what the study can establish about teachers who remain. Hulme et al. (2026)

03

Interpretation: ask what can change while people are still here. A staff conversation can surface a work problem, but asking questions alone does not demonstrate that departures will fall. Treat confidential listening as diagnosis and agree a visible response.

Evidence strength and limits

Useful, with boundaries

The review covers English-language K–12 research from 2000 to May 2023, across countries and different designs. Its authors warn against firm causal claims and substituting intentions for departures. The Scottish interview study explains participants’ experiences rather than estimating a retention effect. Visa, housing, contract cycles and cross-border mobility may matter differently in an international school.

For your next leadership meeting

Seven questions for your leadership team

Use the prompts to examine your own context and decide what, if anything, to change.

  1. Where is retention pressure concentrated?

    • Which subjects, roles or career stages show the clearest pattern?
    • What can we learn from actual departures and renewal intentions without identifying individuals?

  2. What do teachers experience as professional autonomy?

    • Which decisions can they make in their own teaching?
    • Where are expectations necessary, and where might they remove useful judgment?

  3. How meaningful is teacher voice?

    • When have staff views changed a school decision?
    • How do we explain decisions when staff suggestions cannot be adopted?

  4. What kind of development would help teachers stay?

    • Do teachers have time for useful feedback and collaboration?
    • What growth is possible without moving into management?

  5. Which working conditions are within our control?

    • Where do workload, trust or relocation pressures intersect?
    • Which account of those pressures has not reached senior leaders?

  6. What might we be missing before a teacher leaves?

    • What signs of withdrawal would we notice without treating normal boundaries as disloyalty?
    • Who could ask a confidential question and be trusted with the answer?

  7. How would we judge whether a change helped?

    • What would we measure before and after acting?
    • What alternative explanation might account for a rise in renewal?

Proposed school action

These are Cited Leadership discussion proposals, not a tested intervention package.

  1. Define voluntary departure, non-renewal, retirement and internal move separately. Count actual events alongside confidential renewal intentions.
  2. Offer trusted conversations across roles and career stages. Explain who sees notes, what can change and when staff will hear back.
  3. Choose one avoidable work demand and one growth opportunity with teachers. Protect time for the change rather than adding a title or survey.
  4. Review completion, staff experience and actual renewals. Record alternative explanations such as salary changes or recruitment-market shifts.

Primary sources

References

  1. Nguyen, D., See, B. H., Brown, C., & Kokotsaki, D. (2026; published online 4 December 2024). Leadership for teacher retention: exploring the evidence base on why and how to support teacher autonomy, development, and voice. Oxford Review of Education, 52(1), 96–116. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2024.2432635.
    Design
    Review drawing on a broader pool of 355 research outputs; mixed designs.
    Setting
    English-language K–12 research published January 2000–May 2023, across countries.
    Material actually reviewed
    Selected full-text sections in the University of Southampton repository copy: review process, autonomy/development/voice findings, discussion, limitations and funding (PDF pp. 5–17).
    Limitations
    Much of the evidence is correlational; intentions and job satisfaction are not actual departures. English-only coverage risks geographical and cultural bias.
    Funding
    Education Endowment Foundation, England (2023), as disclosed in the article.
    Source reviewed
    12 October 2026

    Reviewed source route

  2. Hulme, M., Bignell, C., Isdale, J., Murray, L., & Nisbet, L. (2026). Thresholds of persistence: How leadership practices shape teachers’ withdrawal trajectories. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Published online 3 September 2026. DOI: 10.1177/17411432261485524.
    Design
    Retrospective qualitative interviews with 58 teachers.
    Setting
    Publicly funded schools in Scotland; teachers who voluntarily left or reduced hours/responsibilities before retirement age.
    Material actually reviewed
    Publisher full-text HTML: abstract, method, findings, limitations and discussion.
    Limitations
    Self-selected accounts after withdrawal; no comparable group of teachers who stayed and no causal estimate.
    Source reviewed
    12 October 2026

    Reviewed source route

These questions are prompts for local discussion. The cited research does not determine what any one school should do.