Perceptions of Teacher Motivation in Public Schools: From NCLB to Common Core

Sonya R Webb, Angela R. Williams


This study examined how educational accountability reforms (No Child Left Behind and Common Core State Standards Initiative) impact teacher work motivation in public schools.  Participants included public school teachers from both urban and rural schools.  Descriptive statistics determined the motivation levels of teachers and qualitative thematic analysis addressed the perceived impact of education accountability reforms on work motivation.

Commonly identified factors perceived as positive impacts were receiving support of more highly qualified teachers and being mandated to place more emphasis on preparing students for the workforce.  Commonly identified factors perceived as negative impacts were the pressure of achieving Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), increase in student testing, universality of standards, and public view of teacher effectiveness.



Bareket, R.L. (2008). Free to flee: A study of the motivational factors impacting teachers in Santa Clara County, California, who teach in low- and high socioeconomic schools

within districts that contain both (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3322835)

Bogler, R. & Nir, A. (2012). The importance of teachers’ perceived organizational support to job

satisfaction: What’s empowerment got to do with it? Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 287-306.

Cala, W.C. (2008). The Mismeasure and Abuse of Our Children: Why School Officials

Must Resist State and National Standardized Testing Reforms. In S. Mathison & E.W.

Ross (Eds.), The nature and limits of standards-based reform and assessment:

Defending public school. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

Clewell, B.C. (2007). Promise or peril? NCLB and the education of ELL students. Washington,

D C: The Urban Institute.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Implementing the common core state

standards. Retrieved from

Conzemius, A.E. (2010). A minimalist approach to reform. School Administrator, 65(1),


Education Commission of the States (2004). ECS report to the nation: State implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Respecting diversity among

states. Denver: Author.

Eitel, R.S. & Talbert, K.D. (2012). The road to a national curriculum: The legal aspects of the

common core standards, race to the top, and conditional waivers. Engage, 13(1), 13-25.

FindLaw. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind vs. Common Core. Retrieved from

Henningfeld, D.A. (2008). Standardized testing. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction:

Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741-756.

Kober, N., Rentner, D.S., Jennings, J., & Haslam, B. (2011). States’ progress and

challenges in implementing common core state standards. Washington, DC:

Center on Educational Policy.

Kocabas, I. (2009). The effects of sources of motivation on teachers’ motivation levels. Education, 129(4), 724-733.

Masumoto, M. & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case study of leadership practices and school- community interrelationships in high-performing, high-poverty, rural California high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(1), 1-18.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.

Obama, B. (2009). The Obama education plan: An education week guide.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, R.B. (1986). A study of motivation factors of elementary school teachers in a

metropolitan public school system (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody

College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 48, 197. (UMI No. 8709429)

Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly quantified teachers: NCLB and teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 124-137.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1967). Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers.

Journal of Educational Administration, 5(1), 66-82.

Stotsky, S., & Wurman, Z. (2010). Common core’s standards still don’t make the grade:

Why Massachusetts and California must regain control over their academic

destinies. Boston, MA: Pioneer Institute.

Tienken, C.H. (2011). Common core standards: The emperor has no clothes, or evidence.

Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(2), 58-62.

United States Department of Education (2003). No Child Left Behind: A parents guide.

Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). The

Common Core of Data. Retrieved from

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The

Condition of Education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Retrieved from

Yell, M.L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A guide for professionals.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Full Text: PDF


  • There are currently no refbacks.