While there is some variability across contexts, this 20% principal turnover rate is supported by many studies examining both nationally representative survey data and statewide administrative data. Far less work has documented turnover rates for non-principal administrators, although one analysis finds even greater turnover rates among APs. The high frequency of principal turnover means that the typical principal leads a school for only 3–5 years, and many schools are led by principals with little experience in the role.
Principal turnover rates are substantially higher in schools with low achievement levels and high shares of low-income and Black or Latino students. Disadvantaged schools thus experience greater leadership instability, which likely contributes to their underperformance. Principals are more likely to leave their positions when school performance declines (relative to its typical level). However, from the evidence, it is unclear whether principals are responding directly to these factors (e.g., dissatisfaction with working in low-achieving schools), they proxy for other factors (e.g., greater stress), or these patterns are driven by districts (e.g., more frequent replacement of principals in low-achieving schools).
As middle managers in the district bureaucracy, principals move “up” to central office positions, “down” to other school-based roles (e.g., AP or teacher), laterally to a principal position in a different school, or leave the K–12 education system for retirement or career change (i.e., attrition). Among these individual events, attrition tends to be the most common, accounting for roughly 40% of principal turnover. High attrition rates contribute to an increasingly inexperienced pool of principals. The different turnover “types” illustrate how principal turnover reflects both principal- and school-district-driven behavior. Whereas teacher turnover is mostly driven by teachers’ decisions to leave, school district administrators likely play a much greater role in determining principal turnover.
Nearly all research examining predictors of principal turnover is descriptive, meaning that these studies are unable to definitively distinguish between correlation and causation. Descriptively, turnover rates are higher among principals with lower evaluation ratings, lower reported job satisfaction, and higher reported stress. Principals are also more likely to leave their positions in schools with lower performance and larger proportions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Although widely studied, the relationship between principal salary and turnover is unclear, with positive, negative, and null findings being obtained across studies. A complicating factor is that principal turnover reflects different types of career moves and circumstances, each of which likely has different causal determinants.
However, the effects are relatively small in magnitude (particularly for student achievement) and last just a few years. The net effect of principal turnover encompasses the disruptive effect of a leadership transition and the effectiveness difference between the departing and entering principal. Additionally, the average effect masks heterogeneity by principal turnover type. For example, there is little evidence that principal demotions negatively affect school performance, likely because the benefit of replacement outweighs the disruptive cost of a transition.
Administrator turnover is a regular phenomenon faced by schools and districts. Roughly one in five school principals leave their positions each year, on average, and the typical principal leads her school for only 3–5 years. Assistant principals (APs) similarly have high rates of turnover. Administrator turnover matters because of the important role that school leaders play in the overall functioning of schools, and leadership transitions tend to negatively affect school performance, including teacher retention and student outcomes. Schools serving larger shares of disadvantaged students are more likely to experience leadership instability, which may contribute to a vicious cycle that exacerbates achievement disparities.
Studies documenting principal turnover rates have typically relied on either nationally representative data, such as the National Teacher and Principal Survey, or state-level longitudinal datasets. Relatively consistently, they show that roughly 20% of principals leave their positions each year. For example, the most recent report from the National Center for Education Statistics showed that 20% of public school principals and 17% of private school principals in 2020–21 had left their schools by the following year1. Earlier iterations of the same report yielded estimated principal turnover rates of 18% in 2016–172 and 21% in 2008–093. Analyses of state and district data show similar patterns. In their study, which included a review of other contexts, Béteille et al.4 found a turnover rate of 22% in Miami-Dade County Public Schools and noted similarity with prior findings from Milwaukee and North Carolina. However, they reported higher turnover rates in San Francisco (26%), New York City (24%), and Texas (30%). Principal turnover rates from other state-level studies include 20% in Illinois5, 17–18% in Tennessee67, 20% in Missouri8, and 19% in Texas9. In a two-state study from 1988 to 2001, principal turnover rates were in 14% in Illinois and 18% in North Carolina10. Additionally, a Utah-based study found that charter school principals had higher turnover rates (26%) than traditional public school principals (20%)11. Far less evidence exists regarding turnover rates among APs.
To our knowledge, only one study documents AP turnover, which found that 25% and 28% of APs leave their positions each year in Tennessee and Missouri, respectively12. The higher turnover rates among APs relative to principals was largely explained by movement from the AP to the principal role.
Relatively frequent turnover of principals and APs means that many schools are led by inexperienced principals. Over a 15-year period in Missouri, for example, 10% of schools changed principals five or more times, and roughly half of schools changed principals at least three times13. Using data from Tennessee, Oregon, and New York City, another study found that the typical principal leads her school for only 3–5 years and leaves the principalship after only 6–7 years14. Notably, the average experience level of principals in K–12 public schools has declined over the last several decades, suggesting that turnover is increasingly prevalent15. However, Béteille et al.16 reported that principal turnover rates are not necessarily elevated compared to managerial turnover in other professions, which spanned 10–35% based on their review.
The average turnover rate of 20% among principals is not felt equally across schools. Instead, studies document higher turnover rates for principals of disadvantaged schools, which are typically understood as schools with low average achievement levels and high proportions of students qualifying for free/reduced-price lunch (FRPL) or of nonwhite students17,18,19,20,21. In an analysis of Tennessee schools between 2007 and 2017, for example, Grissom et al.22 found that the principal turnover rate in schools in the lowest quintile of student achievement was 23%, compared to 17% in the middle quintiles and 14% in the highest quintile. These patterns were consistent when grouping schools by student composition (FRPL or race/ethnicity). The authors conducted a parallel analysis using the nationally representative 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey, again finding that principal turnover rates were substantially higher in schools with 80–100% FRPL students or 80–100% students of color.
Earlier studies across different contexts reached largely the same conclusions. Clotfelter et al.23 showed that principal turnover rates in North Carolina between 1996 and 2004 were highest among high-poverty schools and that principals tended to move to schools with a lower poverty rate. Similarly, Gates et al.24 analyzed state-level data from North Carolina and Illinois from 1998–2001 and found that principals in schools with more nonwhite students were more likely to change schools and leave the principalship for another position in the education system. Finally, analyzing Texas public school principals from 1996–2008, Fuller and Young25 demonstrated that 1, 3, 5, and 10-year retention rates in low-achievement and high-poverty schools were lower than in higher-achievement, lower-poverty schools.
While there is strong and consistent evidence of higher principal turnover rates in disadvantaged schools, there is less evidence about what drives this pattern. Multiple hypotheses exist, including that principals prefer to work in more advantaged schools and that disadvantaged schools face pressure to raise test scores, which may force out leaders at a greater rate. Each of these hypotheses has some empirical support. Several studies across multiple contexts document that when principals leave their positions, they are more likely to move to schools with more favorable characteristics, such as a lower poverty level26,27,28. One Tennessee study showed that turnover was concentrated among principals with lower performance ratings, who also tended to lead schools that had low achievement29. Such principals were also likely to be demoted out of the principalship, suggesting a district-initiated decision rather than a principal’s own choice to move to a more favorable environment.
In addition to changing schools (i.e., moving to another principal position), the 20% yearly turnover includes principals who leave the K–12 education system, those who are “promoted” to a central office position, and those who are “demoted” to a school-level non-principal position, such as AP or teacher30. Each of these four transition types is relatively frequent, although, perhaps surprisingly, changing schools is the least common. In a Tennessee analysis, Grissom and Bartanen31 found that 40% of principal turnover events are exits from the K–12 education system, which includes both retirement and non-retirement reasons (e.g., moving to a private school, moving out of the state, changing careers). There is a lack of evidence on the prevalence of these specific non-retirement moves. Promotions and demotions are also relatively common, comprising one-third of turnover events with an even split between them. Only one-quarter of turnover events are principals changing schools (but remaining a principal), and these are nearly always within the same school district. School changes were slightly more common in analyses of nationally representative data but still accounted for less than one-third of principal turnover32. That attrition from the principalship constitutes the bulk of turnover events is notable because it increases demand for newly certified principal candidates and contributes to decreasing levels of principal experience. It also suggests that the principalship is particularly demanding.
Different from teachers, for whom mobility is typically voluntary, principal turnover reflects a combination of principal- and district-initiated decisions. That is, principals may choose to leave their positions but may also be involuntarily removed. However, there is a lack of evidence documenting the exact frequency of voluntary versus involuntary turnover, largely due to the unavailability of data. Much of the research base comes from state-level data systems or nationally representative surveys, neither of which typically contain information about the reason for a principal’s departure. Instead, researchers draw inferences based on the principal’s observable movement within or out of the education system33,34,35,36. In particular, the prevalence of demotions—which would likely be accompanied by decreased salary and status—suggest that district administrators exercise considerable agency over principal turnover. Notably, demoted principals have substantially lower performance ratings from their supervisors and lead schools that experience sharp downward test score trajectories37,38.
Despite a growing research base documenting the prevalence of principal turnover and differences by various measures of school context, there is relatively little work that identifies the specific drivers of turnover, particularly using methodological approaches that support causal inference. Even descriptive work often fails to reach consistent findings across the literature base. The complexity of principal turnover outcomes (encompassing lateral, upward, and downward moves) further muddies our understanding of why principals leave their schools.
Perhaps the most consistent finding is that the likelihood of principal turnover increases when schools experience a decline in test scores (relative to their typical performance level), which has been documented in several studies39,40,41,42. These studies exploit within-school or within-district variation in test score performance over time, which allows for isolation of test scores from other factors, such as student demographics, that may explain the higher rates of principal turnover in low-achieving schools. Bartanen et al.43 demonstrated that this pattern is driven by principal exits and demotions, rather than transfers or promotions. In fact, principals who are promoted to the central office see improved test score performance in their schools in the years leading up to their position change.
There is less consensus on other factors, including salary. While several studies document that principals who change positions tend to experience a salary increase44,45,46, it is less clear that higher salaries actually decrease the probability that a principal leaves her position. For example, Grissom and Bartanen47 reported no relationship between principal salary and turnover in Tennessee, while Papa Jr48 found that principals in New York are more likely to leave schools that pay lower salaries. Using Texas data, Pendola49 reported that higher principal salaries, both absolute and relative to the average pay within the district, are associated with lower turnover. There is clearer evidence that higher pay is associated with greater reported job satisfaction and/or intentions to stay50,51,52.
When a school changes principals, the net effect of the transition encompasses both a disruptive effect and a replacement effect53. The disruptive effect of principal turnover stems from the interruption of established school processes and routines that will take time to rebuild under a new principal. Additionally, a principal transition breaks existing working relationships among administrators and teachers, which again take time to rebuild under the new regime. Principal turnover, then, includes a short-term negative shock to performance that should dissipate as the new principal becomes more established. The replacement effect captures the gain or loss in leadership effectiveness or quality due to the principal change. Accordingly, the replacement effect may be positive or negative depending on whether the incoming principal is more effective than her predecessor. Ultimately, the net effect of a principal transition depends on whether the replacement effect is positive or negative and, if it is positive, whether it is large enough to outweigh the short-term negative disruptive effect.
Both descriptive and causal evidence suggests that, on average, principal turnover has negative effects on school performance in the short-to-medium term. Using a difference-in-differences approach applied to statewide datasets from Missouri and Tennessee, Bartanen et al.54 found that on average principal turnover lowers school achievement by .03 standard deviations in the following year. These negative effects persist for up to three years following the transition. Similarly, Miller55 used North Carolina data to document that following a principal transition, student achievement takes three years to return to a school’s typical performance level. A handful of additional studies largely support these findings of short-term negative effects on student achievement56,57,58. Notably, schools return to their pre-transition performance levels after only a few years, suggesting that the replacement effect is close to zero, on average.
Turnover is concentrated among both high- and low-performing principals59. Consequently, the average effect of principal turnover masks heterogeneity by transition type. Bartanen et al.60 find that the negative effects on achievement are driven by transitions where the departing principal transfers to another school or is promoted to the central office. By contrast, there is no evidence of negative effects (even in the short term) when principals are demoted to a lower school-level position. These results are consistent with the idea that the benefit of replacing a lower-performing principal can outweigh the disruptive effect of a principal transition. Principals who are promoted or change schools, however, are likely not among the lowest-performing principals, and these types of transitions may be particularly costly for schools.
Several studies also establish that teacher turnover rates spike following a principal transition61,62,63. Different from student achievement, where effects varied by the transition type, the impacts on teacher turnover are more similar. The magnitude is modest, with a principal transition leading to a loss of 1–2 additional teachers in the following five years64. However, DeMatthews et al.65 used Texas data to document that the spike in teacher turnover following principal turnover is largest in high-poverty and urban schools, as well as those experiencing chronic principal turnover.
Taie, S., and L. Lewis. 2023. Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2021-22 Principal Follow-Up Survey to the National Teacher And Principal Survey. First Look. NCES 2023-046. National Center for Education
Statistics.↩︎
Goldring, R., and S. Taie. 2018. Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2016-17 Principal Follow-up Survey. First Look. NCES 2018-066. National Center for Education Statistics.↩︎
Battle, D. 2010. Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008-09 Principal Follow-up Survey. First Look. NCES 2010-337. National Center for Education Statistics.↩︎
Béteille, T., D. Kalogrides, and S. Loeb. 2012. Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research 41(4): 904–919.↩︎
DeAngelis, K. J., and B. R. White. 2011. Principal turnover in Illinois public schools, 2001-2008. Policy research: Ierc 2011-1. Illinois Education Research Council.↩︎
Grissom, J. A., and B. Bartanen. 2019. Principal effectiveness and principal turnover. Education Finance and Policy 14(3): 355–382.↩︎
Grissom, J. A., B. Bartanen, and H. Mitani. 2019. Principal sorting and the distribution of principal quality. AERA Open, 5(2), 2332858419850094.↩︎
Bartanen, B., J. A. Grissom, and L. K. Rogers. 2019. The impacts of principal turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41(3): 350–374.↩︎
Cullen, J. B., and M. J. Mazzeo. 2008. Implicit performance awards: An empirical analysis of the labor market for public school administrators. University of California, San Diego.↩︎
Gates, S. M., J. S. Ringel, L. Santibanez, C. Guarino, B. Ghosh-Dastidar, and A. Brown. 2006. Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review 25(3): 289–302.↩︎
Ni, Y., M. Sun, and A. Rorrer. 2015. Principal turnover: Upheaval and uncertainty in charter schools? Educational Administration Quarterly 51(3): 409–437.↩︎
Bartanen, B., L. K. Rogers, and D. S. Woo. 2021. Assistant principal mobility and its relationship with principal turnover. Educational Researcher 50(6): 368–380.↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Bartanen, B., A. N. Husain, D. D. Liebowitz, and L. K. Rogers. 2024. The returns to experience for school principals. American Educational Research Journal 61(5): 1030–1073.↩︎
Grissom, J. A., A. J. Egalite, C. A. Lindsay, et al. 2021. How principals affect students and schools. Wallace Foundation.↩︎
Béteille et al. (2012).↩︎
Clotfelter, C., H. F. Ladd, J. Vigdor, and J. Wheeler. 2006. High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. NCL Rev., 85, 1345.↩︎
Fuller, E. J., and M. D. Young. 2009. Tenure and retention of newly hired principals in Texas. University Council for Educational Administration.↩︎
Gates et al. (2006).↩︎
Grissom et al. (2019).↩︎
Snodgrass Rangel, V. 2018. A review of the literature on principal turnover. Review of Educational Research 88(1): 87–124.↩︎
Grissom et al. (2019).↩︎
Clotfelter et al. (2006).↩︎
Gates et al. (2006).↩︎
Fuller & Young (2009).↩︎
Béteille et al. (2012).↩︎
Clotfelter et al. (2006).↩︎
Grissom et al. (2019).↩︎
Grissom and Bartanen (2019).↩︎
Farley-Ripple, E. N., P. L. Solano, and M. J. McDuffie. 2012. Conceptual and methodological issues in research on school administrator career behavior. Educational Researcher 41(6): 220–229.↩︎
Grissom and Bartanen (2019).↩︎
Grissom et al. (2019).↩︎
Bailes, L. P., and S. Guthery. 2024. Making moves: The role of demotion in school leadership. (EdWorkingPaper: 24-894).↩︎
Barnanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Cullen and Mazzeo (2008).↩︎
Grissom and Bartanen (2019).↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Grissom and Bartanen (2019).↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Cullen and Mazzeo (2008).↩︎
Grissom and Bartanen (2019).↩︎
Miller (2013).↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Baker, B. D., E. Punswick, and C. Belt. 2010. School leadership stability, principal moves, and departures: Evidence from Missouri. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(4): 523–557.↩︎
Cullen and Mazzeo (2008).↩︎
Tran, H., and D. G. Buckman. 2017. The impact of principal movement and
school achievement on principal salaries. Leadership and Policy in Schools 16(1): 106–129.↩︎
Grissom and Bartanen (2019).↩︎
Papa Jr, F. 2007. Why do principals change schools? a multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership and Policy in Schools 6(3): 267–290.↩︎
Pendola, A. 2022. Your pay or someone else’s? exploring salary dispersion, position, and principal turnover. Education Finance and Policy 17(3): 511–540.↩︎
e.g., Boyce, J., and A. J. Bowers. 2016. Principal turnover: Are there different types of principals who move from or leave their schools? A latent class analysis of the 2007–2008 Schools And Staffing Survey and the 2008–2009 Principal Follow-Up Survey. Leadership and Policy in Schools 15(3): 237–272.↩︎
e.g., Tekleselassie, A. A., and P. Villarreal III. 2011. Career mobility and departure intentions among school principals in the United States: Incentives and disincentives. Leadership and Policy in Schools 10(3): 251–293.↩︎
e.g., Tran and Bruckman (2017).↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Miller (2013).↩︎
Béteille et al. (2012).↩︎
Henry, G. T., and E. Harbatkin. 2019. Turnover at the top: Estimating the effects of principal turnover on student, teacher, and school outcomes (Education Working Paper: 19-95).↩︎
Winters, M. A., B. Kisida, and I. Cho. 2023. The impact of principal attrition and replacement on indicators of school quality. Education Finance and Policy 18(2): 302–318.↩︎
Grissom and Bartanen (2019).↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
Béteille et al. (2012).↩︎
DeMatthews, D. E., D. S. Knight, and J. Shin. 2022. The principal-teacher churn: Understanding the relationship between leadership turnover and teacher attrition. Educational Administration Quarterly 58(1): 76–109.↩︎
Bartanen et al. (2019).↩︎
DeMatthews et al. (2022).↩︎
Bartanen, Brendan and Laura Rogers (2025). "Administrator Mobility and Attrition," in Live Handbook of Education Policy Research, in Douglas Harris (ed.), Association for Education Finance and Policy, viewed 04/14/2025, https://livehandbook.org/k-12-education/workforce-administrators/other/administrator-mobility-and-attrition/.