Chapter 10: Burnout and Coping Strategies Across Primary and Secondary Public Schoolteachers

Using Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of coping and Hobfoll’s (1989, 2001) Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, this study set out to determine the role, if any, that teaching level plays in teacher burnout, coping strategies, and the effectiveness of coping strategies in predicting teacher burnout. Participants were 646 full-time primary (n = 302) and secondary (n = 344) public schoolteachers from five school districts across the Southeastern and Midwestern regions of the U.S. Data were collected via self-report online surveys. Initial results indicated that classroom demands (class size, positive and negative student interactions), one teacher resource (years of experience), and one facet of burnout (emotional exhaustion) significantly differed across primary teachers, but not the use of specific coping strategies. Exploratory factor analyses also indicated that specific coping strategies were best categorized into active (instrumental support, planning, emotional support, positive reframing) and defensive (venting, behavioral disengagement, self-blame), in line with COR theory. Hierarchical regression across all teachers (controlling for demands and resources) indicated that active strategies were a significant predictor of depersonalization and personal accomplishment, whereas defensive strategies predicted depersonalization and emotional exhaustion. More interestingly, significant interactions indicated that the association between defensive strategies and two dimensions of burnout (depersonalization, reduced personal accomplishment) was stronger in secondary teachers than primary teachers, with no reduced personal accomplishment–depersonalization association in primary teachers. The association between active strategies and reduced personal accomplishment was also marginally stronger in secondary teachers. These findings suggest that (1) coping–burnout relationship can vary across teaching levels, and (2) a dichotomous (active vs. passive) coping classification might be more appropriate for future teacher coping studies.