The Impact of Administrative Turnover in CTC Programs
“I feel like every time we start making progress, there’s a leadership change—and we’re back at square one.”
If you’ve spent any time in Career and Technical (CTC) programs, you know they’re powered by passionate educators, hands-on learning, and connections to the real world. But there’s a growing problem that’s slowing things down: frequent administrative turnover. Each time a new principal or director steps in, the direction shifts, initiatives reset, and teachers are left trying to rebuild momentum—again.
This isn’t just frustrating. It’s affecting students, staff morale, and the stability of programs that are essential to workforce readiness.
What is causing the declining numbers in CTE educators and administrators? Here are a few reasons we have uncovered.
Low Morale: Overcrowded classrooms, outdated resources, unsafe school environments, excessive administrative work, lack of planning time, reduced time for instruction, unclear discipline problems, emphasis on standardized test scores, feelings of being micromanaged, and being blamed for factors beyond their control are all reasons for stress and burnout among teachers who leave the profession.
High Turnover Rates: Many teachers feel underpaid relative to the workload, cost of living, and required education level. In CTE particularly, limited benefits, lower salaries, or lack of retirement security can push teachers to other careers. This is particularly true of those in high-demand fields like health sciences and IT, where there are often better-paying opportunities in the private sector.
Decreasing Enrollment in Teacher Preparation Programs: The word is out about the challenges of being an educator. Many states report a significant drop in individuals entering teacher education programs, leading to a reduced pipeline of future educators and administrators.
Poor School Culture or Climate: Toxic staff dynamics, lack of collaboration, or a culture of blame can push educators and administrators out. They often leave if they don’t feel respected or part of a meaningful community. Administrators trying to fix a broken system may feel defeated before they can even begin.
Challenges in Recruitment: Recruiting CTE teachers is particularly challenging because candidates often need both industry experience and teaching credentials. The pay disparity between industry positions and teaching roles further complicates recruitment efforts.
I have personally witnessed that these factors not only reduce the number of available CTE educators but also limit the pool of experienced teachers who might advance into administrative roles, exacerbating leadership turnover.
The instability in CTE program leadership and the shortage of qualified educators lead to several adverse effects:
Program Disruptions: Frequent changes in leadership can result in the discontinuation of programs, loss of industry partnerships, and confusion over curriculum standards.
Increased Workload for Remaining Staff: With fewer educators and administrators, existing staff may face increased responsibilities, leading to burnout and further attrition.
Reduced Student Opportunities: Inconsistent programs and staffing shortages can limit students' access to quality CTE education, affecting their preparedness for the workforce.
So how do we solve this problem? Probably not by sitting in on more courses or programs offered by traditional higher education institutions, but rather by listening to the highly effective administrators in the field. That’s what the folks at the STEM Educator Initiative call the “wisdom of the practice” and I agree. That’s the only reason I am sharing this blog. While it is based on solid research (see below), it is also supported by my own expertise in the classroom, school, and district, with my colleagues and students today!
As an award winning administrator who loves his position and his colleagues working with students across our county and particularly supporting CTE and STEM, I believe the wisdom of the practice has some answers, which I will share in my next blog. So stay tuned.
References for more!
Sutcher, L., Darling‑Hammond, L., & Carver‑Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from the Learning Policy Institute website.
National Education Association. (2024, July). The state of teacher pay. NEA. Retrieved from the NEA website.
National Education Association. (2024, May–July). How teachers view their pay and benefits. NEA. Retrieved from the NEA website.
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). Low relative pay and high incidence of moonlighting play a role in the teacher shortage, particularly in high‑poverty schools. Economic Policy Institute.
Nguyen, T. D., Pham, L. D., & Springer, M. G. (2020). The correlates of teacher turnover: An updated and expanded meta‑analysis of the literature. Educational Research Review.
Loeb, S., et al. (2021). School organizational characteristics and teacher retention. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Ladd, H. F. (2025). Teachers' perceptions of their working conditions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
