Why is there a teacher shortage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

How would that work? Extra hours? Stipends for extra duties? How would performance be measured for pay?

The main things that come to mind are standardized tests and principal/peer evaluations.

Only a few subjects have standardized tests. Using standardized tests would punish teachers working in lower achieving schools. Principal and peer evaluations are too subjective and personal. It it also a huge amount of work for those staff.

You do realize almost every other job has similar challenges, right? Pay raises are almost always primarily determined by subjective performance evaluations by your supervisors and sometimes peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

That has not worked well for teachers in private schools or charters. A friend taught at a charter in another city. She was warned that the board liked to cycle out even good teachers every three years so no one cost too much.

Most of the school systems with pay for performance don't offer good salaries to begin with. It is typically something that anti-teacher and anti-union areas try to suggest, but it is really just a tactic to lower overall teacher salaries or remove more expensive teachers.

Perhaps, although that wouldn't be my goal. I'd absolutely support an overall increase in sending on teacher salaries. It should just be done sensibly. But part of that does mean that it makes no sense to pay a 60 year old teacher twice as much as a 26 year old teacher for the same job. I'd be perfectly happy paying everyone the current rates for highly experienced teachers, if that's what it would take to attract good teachers.

And to be clear, I do think there's some value in experience and retention. But that value is probably closer to 20% than 100%. And it also makes sense to pay entry-level teachers less because you don't know much about their quality yet. But that effect should be largely gone by year 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, equal pay for equal work shouldn't apply to age? At least, not if the young person is the one getting screwed?

There aren't many professions where you can double your salary without taking on additional responsibilities or being able to otherwise demonstrate additional value. The only exceptions I can think of are union jobs. It makes no sense, and only happens where established union workers are happy to throw young people under the bus.

Yes, for example, most healthcare jobs don't offer that much increased salary for years experience, unless the person becomes a supervisor or otherwise increases specialization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

How would that work? Extra hours? Stipends for extra duties? How would performance be measured for pay?

The main things that come to mind are standardized tests and principal/peer evaluations.

Only a few subjects have standardized tests. Using standardized tests would punish teachers working in lower achieving schools. Principal and peer evaluations are too subjective and personal. It it also a huge amount of work for those staff.

You do realize almost every other job has similar challenges, right? Pay raises are almost always primarily determined by subjective performance evaluations by your supervisors and sometimes peers.

Most people get pay raises by changing jobs, companies don't have much incentive to give raises unless they have to. Teachers can't easily change school districs to get pay raises without losing some part of their tenure, salary scale or even pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

How would that work? Extra hours? Stipends for extra duties? How would performance be measured for pay?

The main things that come to mind are standardized tests and principal/peer evaluations.

Only a few subjects have standardized tests. Using standardized tests would punish teachers working in lower achieving schools. Principal and peer evaluations are too subjective and personal. It it also a huge amount of work for those staff.

You do realize almost every other job has similar challenges, right? Pay raises are almost always primarily determined by subjective performance evaluations by your supervisors and sometimes peers.

Most people get pay raises by changing jobs, companies don't have much incentive to give raises unless they have to. Teachers can't easily change school districs to get pay raises without losing some part of their tenure, salary scale or even pension.

Of course companies give raises to employees they want to retain. Yes, big raises are hard to come by after your first couple years, unless you get promoted into a different position. But they absolutely give raises.

I've never understood why people like pensions. Your post just illustrated a problem- that you can get stuck in a job. Teachers should drop pensions for a 401k with a generous match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also the training is crappy. I learned most of what I know from my internship (which was unpaid for a low paying job), on the job, professional reading, and maybe 1 in 5 trainings I attend are actually useful and not just some top down drivel.

I love teaching and helping kids. I'm extremely passionate about it and always want to do it better. I stay because I love the challenges and being creative when it comes to planning lessons and projects.

So much this!! The performance expectations are impossible because we aren’t teaching elementary teachers How to even teach kids to read effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

How would that work? Extra hours? Stipends for extra duties? How would performance be measured for pay?

The main things that come to mind are standardized tests and principal/peer evaluations.

Only a few subjects have standardized tests. Using standardized tests would punish teachers working in lower achieving schools. Principal and peer evaluations are too subjective and personal. It it also a huge amount of work for those staff.

You do realize almost every other job has similar challenges, right? Pay raises are almost always primarily determined by subjective performance evaluations by your supervisors and sometimes peers.

Most people get pay raises by changing jobs, companies don't have much incentive to give raises unless they have to. Teachers can't easily change school districs to get pay raises without losing some part of their tenure, salary scale or even pension.

Of course companies give raises to employees they want to retain. Yes, big raises are hard to come by after your first couple years, unless you get promoted into a different position. But they absolutely give raises.

I've never understood why people like pensions. Your post just illustrated a problem- that you can get stuck in a job. Teachers should drop pensions for a 401k with a generous match.

Fairfax County and the state of Virginia haven’t had pensions for new hires since at least 2004. I was hired in 2004, and I got a 403 b. The match was not generous ( I think 3%?) , and didn’t vest until 5 years. By comparison, my husband gets a 6% match. It’s hilarious that you think we have that kind of power.

[Anonymous]

West Virginia completely dropped pensions and converted to a 403b. It was a disaster, and they had to put pensions back in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

How would that work? Extra hours? Stipends for extra duties? How would performance be measured for pay?

The main things that come to mind are standardized tests and principal/peer evaluations.

Only a few subjects have standardized tests. Using standardized tests would punish teachers working in lower achieving schools. Principal and peer evaluations are too subjective and personal. It it also a huge amount of work for those staff.

You do realize almost every other job has similar challenges, right? Pay raises are almost always primarily determined by subjective performance evaluations by your supervisors and sometimes peers.

Most people get pay raises by changing jobs, companies don't have much incentive to give raises unless they have to. Teachers can't easily change school districs to get pay raises without losing some part of their tenure, salary scale or even pension.

Of course companies give raises to employees they want to retain. Yes, big raises are hard to come by after your first couple years, unless you get promoted into a different position. But they absolutely give raises.

I've never understood why people like pensions. Your post just illustrated a problem- that you can get stuck in a job. Teachers should drop pensions for a 401k with a generous match.

Fairfax County and the state of Virginia haven’t had pensions for new hires since at least 2004. I was hired in 2004, and I got a 403 b. The match was not generous ( I think 3%?) , and didn’t vest until 5 years. By comparison, my husband gets a 6% match. It’s hilarious that you think we have that kind of power.

The problem that you have is that the older teachers are happy to sacrifice the younger/future teachers in negotiations. That's a common theme with unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was so reluctant to leave public school teaching because of my cheap healthcare and tenure. That was about eight years ago. At the time, I was getting mistreated by my supervisor (think “metoo” stuff) and felt I had to look elsewhere. I ended up taking a job in a private school with more expensive benefits, about equal pay and no protections. I also ended up loving my job again, getting my contract renewed year after year because I’m good at what I do, and eventually made up the salary gap. I also don’t have to work with people who underperform or abuse others, at least not for long anyway, because they don’t get their contract renewed. We have a few openings right now because there are teachers who don’t want to return in person, and we are instructing kids in person, and we are getting a deluge of applications from teachers in local public schools who would have to break their contract to come work for us. They don’t have any loyalty to their employer because their employer has no loyalty to them, and they know it. Whoever we hire, meanwhile, will be so lucky. My coworkers are like family to me, and so are my students and their families. It’s been like landing on another planet. I would do anything to support my school community.

Are you in the DC area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was so reluctant to leave public school teaching because of my cheap healthcare and tenure. That was about eight years ago. At the time, I was getting mistreated by my supervisor (think “metoo” stuff) and felt I had to look elsewhere. I ended up taking a job in a private school with more expensive benefits, about equal pay and no protections. I also ended up loving my job again, getting my contract renewed year after year because I’m good at what I do, and eventually made up the salary gap. I also don’t have to work with people who underperform or abuse others, at least not for long anyway, because they don’t get their contract renewed. We have a few openings right now because there are teachers who don’t want to return in person, and we are instructing kids in person, and we are getting a deluge of applications from teachers in local public schools who would have to break their contract to come work for us. They don’t have any loyalty to their employer because their employer has no loyalty to them, and they know it. Whoever we hire, meanwhile, will be so lucky. My coworkers are like family to me, and so are my students and their families. It’s been like landing on another planet. I would do anything to support my school community.

Are you in the DC area?

Also, do you have kids of your own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

That has not worked well for teachers in private schools or charters. A friend taught at a charter in another city. She was warned that the board liked to cycle out even good teachers every three years so no one cost too much.

That only works if there's not a shortage.

The part that I'll add to this is that it doesn't make sense that teachers with experience get paid substantially more than new teachers. An MCPS teacher can nearly double their salary in real dollars over their career. Is a teacher with 20 years of experience really twice as efficient? Can they teach twice as many kids, or have them learn twice as much?

Some increase makes sense, but definitely not anything close to 2x. That's the result of the teachers unions screwing over new teachers. Another example of boomers sticking it to millennials and generation Xers.

This is an absolutely ridiculous sentiment. Of COURSE someone with 20 years of experience should be paid twice as much as entry level. Every other salary-based profession works this way so they can retain people in the profession and hire/keep trained people in the job. Otherwise the person is churning their wheels for no reward over a career path. Would you want to be at barely more than you make at entry level 20 years from now? Why in the world would you go into a profession like that?? And spend tons of money on a college degree to do it?? I’m not even a teacher and can easily see how foolhardy that would be.

So, equal pay for equal work shouldn't apply to age? At least, not if the young person is the one getting screwed?

There aren't many professions where you can double your salary without taking on additional responsibilities or being able to otherwise demonstrate additional value. The only exceptions I can think of are union jobs. It makes no sense, and only happens where established union workers are happy to throw young people under the bus.

In teaching first year teachers aren't always doing the same amount of work. Because they're new they are often relying on their coworkers to share material, resources, etc. Older teachers spend a lot of time meeting with new teachers to help support them, which is not part of their job requirement.

I understand your logic, but in reality it's not often the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, at this point, I would be ok with someone with a simple bachelors degree that passes a background check to teach my K student and my 5th grader. Save the ones with masters and teacher "certification" for MS and HS.

Anything but DL.

Nope, there's been numerous articles that have proven that if students can't overcome their achievement gaps in elementary that they will never overcome them. In fact those articles have said that if they don't overcome those achievement gaps by third grade then they're essentially doomed. I guarantee you want the strongest teachers in elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

How would that work? Extra hours? Stipends for extra duties? How would performance be measured for pay?

The main things that come to mind are standardized tests and principal/peer evaluations.

Only a few subjects have standardized tests. Using standardized tests would punish teachers working in lower achieving schools. Principal and peer evaluations are too subjective and personal. It it also a huge amount of work for those staff.

You do realize almost every other job has similar challenges, right? Pay raises are almost always primarily determined by subjective performance evaluations by your supervisors and sometimes peers.

Most people get pay raises by changing jobs, companies don't have much incentive to give raises unless they have to. Teachers can't easily change school districs to get pay raises without losing some part of their tenure, salary scale or even pension.

Of course companies give raises to employees they want to retain. Yes, big raises are hard to come by after your first couple years, unless you get promoted into a different position. But they absolutely give raises.

I've never understood why people like pensions. Your post just illustrated a problem- that you can get stuck in a job. Teachers should drop pensions for a 401k with a generous match.

Fairfax County and the state of Virginia haven’t had pensions for new hires since at least 2004. I was hired in 2004, and I got a 403 b. The match was not generous ( I think 3%?) , and didn’t vest until 5 years. By comparison, my husband gets a 6% match. It’s hilarious that you think we have that kind of power.

The problem that you have is that the older teachers are happy to sacrifice the younger/future teachers in negotiations. That's a common theme with unions.

What are you talking about? You understand that this doesn't occur in Virginia correct? There are no teacher unions and there are no negotiations. (Yet)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was really a teacher shortage, teachers should trade tenure protections for higher pay. No district is going to needlessly fire a good teacher if there's a shortage, and Republicans would probably get behind it, particularly if it included a pay-for-performance element.

That has not worked well for teachers in private schools or charters. A friend taught at a charter in another city. She was warned that the board liked to cycle out even good teachers every three years so no one cost too much.

That only works if there's not a shortage.

The part that I'll add to this is that it doesn't make sense that teachers with experience get paid substantially more than new teachers. An MCPS teacher can nearly double their salary in real dollars over their career. Is a teacher with 20 years of experience really twice as efficient? Can they teach twice as many kids, or have them learn twice as much?

Some increase makes sense, but definitely not anything close to 2x. That's the result of the teachers unions screwing over new teachers. Another example of boomers sticking it to millennials and generation Xers.

This is an absolutely ridiculous sentiment. Of COURSE someone with 20 years of experience should be paid twice as much as entry level. Every other salary-based profession works this way so they can retain people in the profession and hire/keep trained people in the job. Otherwise the person is churning their wheels for no reward over a career path. Would you want to be at barely more than you make at entry level 20 years from now? Why in the world would you go into a profession like that?? And spend tons of money on a college degree to do it?? I’m not even a teacher and can easily see how foolhardy that would be.

So, equal pay for equal work shouldn't apply to age? At least, not if the young person is the one getting screwed?

There aren't many professions where you can double your salary without taking on additional responsibilities or being able to otherwise demonstrate additional value. The only exceptions I can think of are union jobs. It makes no sense, and only happens where established union workers are happy to throw young people under the bus.

In teaching first year teachers aren't always doing the same amount of work. Because they're new they are often relying on their coworkers to share material, resources, etc. Older teachers spend a lot of time meeting with new teachers to help support them, which is not part of their job requirement.

I understand your logic, but in reality it's not often the case.

A very consistent theme here has been that new teachers, and teachers getting into new subjects, spend much more time preparing than established teachers. I've certainly observed that with my mother and friends over the years.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that older teachers are putting in twice the effort has young we teachers to justify their doubled salary.