Can Monetary Incentive Increase Teachers' Inter-school Exchange Intention: A Survey Study of 278 Schools in China
-
摘要: 本文采用7省市278所学校教师的调查数据，分别通过两分类别逻辑回归和一般有序逻辑回归方法就中小学教师参与校际交流意愿和对津贴补助期望水平的影响因素进行了计量分析。在控制个体特征、学校特征和区位特征的条件下，重点考察了津贴补助与住房福利政策对促进教师校际交流的效果。研究发现，目前中小学教师校际流动以学校类型和区位同层交流居多，津贴补助和住房福利政策的覆盖率比较低，教师期待的津贴补助数额达工资30%左右，各地保障水平与教师期望还有较大差距。津贴补助和住房福利能显著提升中小学教师的校际交流意愿，为流动教师提供住房福利可有效降低他们对津贴补助的期望水平。教师对走教、送教的交流意愿强于定点支教，将区位向下流动教师的人事关系随迁至新学校不利于交流教师在基层学校安心教学，改善学校环境与工作条件能显著提升教师来校交流的意愿，降低教师对津贴补助的期望水平。基于这些发现，本文提出若干促进县域内义务教育均衡发展的政策性意见，包括推进区域内教师工资的统一标准化改革、建立基于因素法的交流教师津补贴制度、继续深化"局管校聘"人事改革。Abstract: Based on survey data from 278 schools in seven provinces in China, this paper, using binary logistic regression and generalized ordered logistic regression, investigates the factors influencing the willingness of primary and secondary school teachers to participate in inter-school exchange and their expectation level of subsidy. It also examines the actual effect of subsidy and housing benefits on the willingness of inter-school exchange. It's found that the current inter-school exchange of teachers is dominated by the same-level exchanges of school types and locations, and the coverage of subsidies and housing benefits is relatively low, while the expected amount of subsidy is about 30% of their salary, which means there is still a big gap. Subsidies and housing benefits can, to a certain extent, significantly enhance the teachers' willingness of inter-schools exchange, and there is a substitute relationship between subsidies and housing welfare. Teachers' willingness to participate in 'hard exchange' is stronger than that of "soft exchange". Transferring the personnel relationship of the downward-moving teachers to the targeted schools will significantly enhance their willingness of inter-schools move again. Improved school environment and working conditions has a significant positive impact on teachers' inter-schools exchange intention, but negative impact on teachers' expectation of subsidies. Based on the findings, this paper puts forward some policy suggestions on promoting the intra-county balanced development of compulsory education, including promoting the reform of teachers' unified salary standard, establishing a factor-based subsidy system, and deepening the reform of 'Administration by Bureau, Recruitment by Schools'.
-
Key words:
- subsidies /
- primary and junior school teachers /
- inter-school exchange /
- intention
1) 非交流教师愿意参加交流的比例为44%。交流和非交流教师愿意参加流动的比例差值为15%，χ2统计量为83.7，在p=0.01水平上存在显著差异。 -
表 1 变量统计描述
变量 均值 标准差 最小值/最大值 样本数 交流教师均值 非交流教师均值 两类教师差值 是否愿意参加校际交流 0.48 0.50 0/1 5132 0.59 0.44 0.15*** 是否享有交流津贴补助 0.35 0.48 0/1 1583 0.35 - - 期待的交流津贴补助(千元/月) 1.38 1.26 0.1/15 4310 1.29 1.45 -0.16*** 期待津贴占现有工资的比重 0.32 0.34 0.05/2 3931 0.27 0.34 -0.07*** 是否享有住房福利 0.39 0.49 0/1 1467 0.39 - - 交流教师人事关系安排： 保留在原学校 0.63 0.48 0/1 1471 0.63 - - 调至新学校 0.20 0.40 0/1 1471 0.20 - - 调至区教育局 0.17 0.38 0/1 1471 0.17 - - 定点支教 0.66 0.48 0/1 1471 0.66 - - 男性 0.25 0.44 0/1 5522 0.29 0.24 0.05** 少数民族 0.04 0.20 0/1 5499 0.04 0.04 0.00 年龄(周岁) 38.34 7.85 19/66 5554 39.07 38.00 1.07*** 教龄(年) 17.07 8.91 0/48 5561 18.25 16.65 1.60*** 具有本科及以上学历 0.84 0.37 0/1 5082 0.93 0.81 0.12*** 在婚 0.89 0.32 0/1 5088 0.95 0.86 0.09*** 已生育 0.84 0.37 0/1 5086 0.92 0.80 0.12*** 农村户口 0.17 0.38 0/1 5561 0.17 0.18 -0.01 职称情况： 三级及以下职称 0.07 0.26 0/1 5561 0.02 0.09 -0.07*** 二级职称 0.15 0.36 0/1 5561 0.14 0.17 -0.03* 一级职称 0.38 0.49 0/1 5561 0.38 0.39 -0.01 高级职称 0.40 0.49 0/1 5561 0.45 0.35 0.10*** 任校中层及以上职务 0.07 0.25 0/1 5561 0.06 0.09 -0.03*** 代课教师 0.04 0.20 0/1 5561 0.00 0.02 -0.02*** 现所在学校类型： 一般学校 0.57 0.49 0/1 4991 0.59 0.63 -0.04** 县级示范校 0.14 0.34 0/1 4991 0.16 0.13 0.03*** 市级示范校 0.16 0.36 0/1 4991 0.13 0.15 -0.02 省级示范校 0.13 0.34 0/1 4991 0.11 0.10 0.01 交流前后学校类型变化： 交流到高层次学校 0.20 0.40 0/1 1442 0.20 - - 交流到相同层次学校 0.65 0.48 0/1 1442 0.65 - - 交流到低层次学校 0.15 0.36 0/1 1442 0.15 - - 教师对交流学校的主观感受 3.62 0.67 1/5 1435 3.62 - - 授课班级平均规模(人) 39.76 11.04 4/92 4751 37.71 38.54 -0.83* 周平均课时数(节) 12.98 5.17 0/46 4716 14.10 13.09 1.01*** 交流前后学校区位变化： 学校所在区位向上交流 0.14 0.34 0/1 1438 0.14 - - 学校所在区位平级交流 0.47 0.50 0/1 1438 0.47 - - 学校所在区位向下交流 0.39 0.49 0/1 1438 0.39 - - 家庭居住地距学校距离 3.97 1.60 1/6 1502 3.97 - - 中西部 0.22 0.41 0/1 5561 0.16 0.24 -0.08*** 注：两类教师差值=交流教师均值-非交流教师均值，变量若为连续变量，其差值显著性采用t检验，若为类别变量，采用χ2检验；* * * p＜0.01, * * p＜0.05, * p＜0.1。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 交流前后教师任教学校类型与区位变化的交叉对比
学校区位变化 合计 向上 相同 向下 学校层次变化 向上 100 145 34 279 (51.28%) (21.64%) (6.17%) (19.70%) 相同 83 461 383 927 (42.56%) (68.81%) (69.51%) (65.47%) 向下 12 64 134 210 (6.15%) (9.55%) (24.32%) (14.83%) 合计 195 670 551 1416 (100.00%) (100.00%) (100.00%) (100.00%) 注：表中每一栏目中上层数字为频数，下层括弧内数字为比例。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 二分和有序逻辑回归结果
变量 交流意愿二分逻辑回归 津贴期望有序逻辑回归 交流教师 非交流教师 交流教师 非交流教师 基本模型 地区交互 区位向下 截距1 2.443** 2.352* 2.719 1.853*** -0.191 -0.637 (1.233) (1.237) (2.063) (0.517) (1.158) (0.541) 截距2 - - - - -1.463 -1.958*** - - - - (1.161) (0.543) 政策变量： 是否享有交流津贴补助 0.572*** 0.495*** -0.0609 - -0.138 - (0.146) (0.152) (0.216) - (0.135) - 津贴与地区交互 - 1.098* - - - - - (0.618) - - - - 是否享有住房福利 0.352** 0.449*** 0.411* - -0.454*** - (0.145) (0.157) (0.211) - (0.152) - 住房福利与地区交互 - -0.665 - - - - - (0.408) - - - - 交流教师人事安排(以保留在原学校为参照组) 调至新学校 0.120 0.105 0.659** - -0.278 - (0.196) (0.198) (0.321) - (0.187) - 调至区教育局 0.224 0.230 0.170 - -0.143 - (0.205) (0.206) (0.290) - (0.191) - 定点支教 -0.546*** -0.547*** -0.430* - 0.549*** - (0.181) (0.182) (0.257) - (0.183) - 个人特征变量： 男性 0.592*** 0.570*** 0.492** 0.380*** 0.419*** 0.263*** (0.157) (0.157) (0.234) (0.097) (0.145) (0.096) 少数民族 0.263 0.331 1.318* 0.151 -0.398 -0.305 (0.439) (0.443) (0.743) (0.224) (0.378) (0.230) 年龄 -0.086** -0.082** -0.129** -0.013 0.062* 0.052** (0.035) (0.035) (0.058) (0.019) (0.034) (0.020) 教龄 0.068** 0.065** 0.118** -0.031* -0.094*** -0.057*** (0.032) (0.032) (0.051) (0.017) (0.031) (0.019) 具有本科及以上学历 1.472 1.493 0.101 -0.978 -0.599 0.757 (1.205) (1.202) (1.401) (0.699) (0.980) (0.617) 在婚 -0.498 -0.525 -0.558 -0.198 -0.097 0.265 (0.401) (0.402) (0.620) (0.190) (0.389) (0.190) 已生育 -1.026 -1.000 0.119 0.759 0.962 -0.622 (1.214) (1.210) (1.428) (0.710) (0.996) (0.630) 农村户口 0.130 0.145 -0.134 0.095 -0.556*** -0.209* (0.189) (0.190) (0.305) (0.108) (0.176) (0.108) 职称(以三级及以下为参照组) 二级职称 -0.339 -0.439 -1.100 -0.376* 0.306 0.155 (0.557) (0.560) (1.185) (0.197) (0.505) (0.195) 一级职称 -0.282 -0.375 -1.294 -0.308 0.114 0.019 (0.548) (0.551) (1.187) (0.191) (0.500) (0.187) 高级职称 -0.617 -0.726 -1.496 -0.102 0.006 -0.390* (0.560) (0.564) (1.206) (0.214) (0.515) (0.213) 任校中层及以上职务 0.245 0.264 -0.047 0.213 -0.354 -0.122 (0.345) (0.347) (0.539) (0.152) (0.297) (0.152) 代课教师 -1.009 -0.999 - 0.354 -0.652 -0.112 (1.000) (0.992) - (0.296) (1.118) (0.330) 学校特征变量： 所在学校类型(以一般学校为参照组) 县级示范校 - - - 0.003 - 0.264** - - - (0.132) - (0.126) 市级示范校 - - - -0.106 - 0.091 - - - (0.122) - (0.133) 省级示范校 - - - -0.054 - 0.302* - - - (0.143) - (0.159) 交流前后学校层次变化(以交流到高层次学校为参照组) 交流到相同层次学校 -0.840*** -0.819*** 0.0616 - -0.753*** - (0.210) (0.212) (0.500) - (0.191) - 交流到低层次学校 -0.530** -0.504* 0.597 - -0.781*** - (0.267) (0.269) (0.535) - (0.255) - 对交流学校的主观感受 0.703*** 0.721*** 0.760*** - -0.312*** - (0.110) (0.110) (0.167) - (0.099) - 授课班级平均规模 -0.019*** -0.019*** -0.001 -0.012** 0.019*** 0.005 (0.007) (0.007) (0.012) (0.005) (0.007) (0.005) 周平均课时数 -0.028** -0.028** 0.001 -0.028*** 0.027** -0.004 (0.013) (0.013) (0.018) (0.008) (0.012) (0.008) 区位特征变量： 交流前后学校区位变化(以区位向上交流为参照组) 学校区位平级交流 0.273 0.246 - - 0.146 - (0.227) (0.228) - - (0.223) - 学校区位向下交流 0.029 -0.012 - - -0.0683 - (0.242) (0.243) - - (0.225) - 家庭居住地距学校距离 -0.166*** -0.170*** -0.236*** - 0.116** - (0.051) (0.051) (0.074) - (0.047) - 中西部 0.797*** 0.859*** 0.643 0.313*** 0.587*** 0.781*** (0.218) (0.275) (0.419) (0.117) (0.215) (0.128) Pseudo R-squared 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.03 Count R-squared 0.68 0.69 0.68 0.62 0.48 0.45 模型整体的卡方值 190.2*** 196.3*** 76.3*** 177.6*** 168.8*** 142.7*** 平行线假设检验卡方值 - - - - 22.79 14.49 样本数量 1108 1108 478 2655 947 2117 注：括弧里数值为标准误；* * * p＜0.01, * * p＜0.05, * p＜0.1。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 教师最看重的促进教师轮岗交流措施的调查情况
措施 勾选占比 措施 勾选占比 荣誉表彰优先获得 55.37% 工资待遇提升 72.33% 职称优先晋升 69.38% 培训机会优先获得 63.20% 行政晋升机会 46.94% 有机会再次选择从教学校 57.36%
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 杜屏. (2018).完善中小学教师工资制度和保障机制, 推进高素质教师队伍建设.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (4), 40-42. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/hdsfdxxb-jykxb201804009 [2] 范国锋, 王浩文, 蓝雷宇.(2015).中小学教师流动意愿及其影响因素研究——基于湖北、江西、河南3省12县的调查.教育与经济, (2), 62-66. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4870.2015.02.010 [3] 李玲, 韩玉梅.(2011).西方国家中小学教师流动的经验与启示.比较教育研究, (11), 1-5. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=bjjyyj201111001 [4] 孙刚成, 翟昕昕. (2016).义务教育教师轮岗交流制度的困境及其对策.教学与管理, (9), 21-24. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jxygl-llb201603006 [5] 谭诤, 韩静溪, 周沙. (2016).中小学教师流动意愿影响因素调查研究.现代中小学教育, 32(12), 109-113. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/xdzxxjy201612028 [6] 汪传艳, 雷万鹏. (2017).农村中小学教师收入"中部塌陷"现象的实证研究——基于全国7省21个县123所学校的调查.西南大学学报(社会科学版), 43(4), 88-94. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=672466644 [7] 王艳玲, 李慧勤. (2017).乡村教师流动及流失意愿的实证分析——基于云南省的调查.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 35(3), 134-141. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2017.03.014 [8] Antos, J. R., & Rosen, S. (1975). Discrimination in the market for public school teachers. Journal of Econometrics, 3(2), 123-150. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(75)90042-1 [9] Bacolod, M. P. (2007). Do alternative opportunities matter? The role of female labor markets in the decline of teacher quality. Review of Economics & Statistics, 89(4), 737-751. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=94c7d78cc6d38dee6c5697b6eaed90b7&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn [10] Borjas, G. J. (1999). The economic analysis of immigration. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 1697-1760). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [11] Bradbury, K. L., Ladd, H. F., Perrault, M., Reschovsky, A., & Yinger, J. (1984). State aid to offset fiscal disparities across communities. National Tax Journal, 37, 151-170. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=10.1177/106591299204500410 [12] Chambers, J. (2010). Compensating differentials in teacher labor markets. In J. B. Dominic & P. J. McEwan (Eds.), Economics of Education (pp. 268-275). Oxford: Academic Press. [13] Chambers, J., & Fowler, J. W. (1995). Public School Teacher Cost Differences across the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [14] Dolton, P. (2010). Teacher supply. In J. B. Dominic & P. J. McEWan (Eds.), Economic of Education (pp. 251-259). Oxford: Elsevier. [15] Duncombe, W. D., & Yinger, J. (2008). Measurement of cost differentials. In H. F. Ladd & E. B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (pp. 238-256). New York: Routledge. [16] Dustmann, C., & Glitz, A. (2011). Migration and education. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 4, pp. 327-439). MA: North-Holland. [17] Goldhaber, D. (2008). Teachers Matter, but effective teacher quality policies are elusive. In H. F. Ladd & E. B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (pp. 146-165). New York: Routledge. [18] Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-1177. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/OAPaper/oai_doaj-articles_2a810ce0fdf131928ceb5c56818b9309 [19] Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 1, pp. 1051-1078). Amsterdam: North-Holland. [20] Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. doi: 10.3102/00028312038003499 [21] Ladd, H. F. (1994). Measuring disparities in the fiscal condition of local governments. In J. E. Anderson (Ed.), Fiscal Equalization for State and Local Government Finance (pp. 21-53). Connnecticut: Praeger. [22] Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2010). An overview of teacher labor markets. In D. J. Brewer & P. J. McEwan (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 235-242). CA: Academic Press. [23] Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47-57. doi: 10.2307/2060063 [24] Liu, X. (2016). Applied Ordinal Logistic Regression Using Stata. California: Sage. [25] Marvel, J., Lyter, D. M., Peltola, P., Strizek, G. A., Morton, B. A., & Rowland, R. (2007). Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2004-05 Teacher Follow-Up Survey. Washington D. C.: National Center for Education Statistics. [26] McEwan, P. J. (1999). Recruitment of rural teachers in developing countries: an economic analysis. Teaching & Teacher Education, 15(8), 849-859. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=36b00e75c6f89b612736e0ce2bf2c56b&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn [27] Murnane, R. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1990). The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from North Carolina. Journal of Human Resources, 25(1), 106-124. doi: 10.2307/145729 [28] O'Connell, A. A. (2005). Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variables. California: Sage. [29] OECD. (2005). Teachers Matter Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers Pointers for policy development. Paris: OECD. [30] Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x [31] Rothstein, R., & Smith, J. (1997). Adjusting Oregon Education Expenditures for Regional Cost Differences: A Feasibility Study. Paper presented at the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, Management Analysis & Planning Associates, L.L.C. [32] Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 80-93. doi: 10.1086/258726 [33] Todaro, M. P. (1969). A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. American Economic Review, 59(1), 138-148. https://core.ac.uk/display/7108021 [34] Todd, P. E., & Wolpin, K. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. Economic Journal, 113(485), F3-F33. doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00097 -
点击查看大图
图(1) / 表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 225
- HTML全文浏览量: 312
- PDF下载量: 4
- 被引次数: 0