Why is there a teacher shortage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and I told my DS that I would not finance his education to become a teacher. I'm in my 5th year in a inner city school and they keep adding more and more work but cutting our planning time. I am guaranteed 3 planning period per week of 45 mins. This week, I had 3 meetings during those planning periods so I got no grading or planning done. School ended 10 minutes ago and I will be here until at least 6:00 working. I get here appr. 30 minutes early each day. I can't get here any earlier b/c my child's before school program opens at 7am. I am here until 5:30 every day and still have at least an hour of work to do at home every night. I estimate I work 15-20 hrs each week beyond my contracted hours (more than that at the beginning of the year). For this, I am paid in the mid $50,000s. If I could afford to quit, I would.

What were your meetings about? Can teachers use their unions to advocate for less meetings?

The absolute worst thing the gov could do is allow the free market economy to solve the problem and raise the salaries until more US citizens become teachers!

What we need to do is import cheap workers from India and China to work temporary teacher contracts for 3 years. Yes increase the supply further and keep salaries low.

[Anonymous]

That's already done. Ever been assigned a section with a graduate student who barely spoke English?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/america-has-a-teacher-shortage-and-a-new-study-says-its-getting-worse/2016/09/14/d5de1cee-79e8-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html


Washington Post article claims there's been a dramatic decrease in new teachers entering the profession:

"Enrollment in teacher-preparation programs dropped from 691,000 in 2009 to 451,000 in 2014, a 35 percent decline, according to the study, “A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand and Shortages in the U.S.”"

It also claims nearly 2/3 of teachers leave before retirement age.

If teaching is supposed to be such a cushy job, "summers off, home by 3", and so well paid with great benefits ... why aren't people rushing to become teachers?

I am the child of a teacher and wife of a teacher and none of that is true. I wasn't true in 1980 and it isn't true now. The school day doesn't end at 3 p.m. and never did, the money isn't great, it's high stress, you have parents, principals, random people on DCUM coming at you from all directions and kids with troubles that you can't always help. It's a mostly thankless job.

Teaching is a calling and I have a lot of respect for people who enter that career and stick it out. My husband is good at what he does and spends a lot of time outside the classroom preparing lessons, talking to my mom and other more seasoned teachers about pedagogy and classroom management techniques, meeting with parents, tutoring, doing home visits, taking classes, and so on. He cares about the kids and many have come back over the years to thank him for his dedication and helping them to get through troubles and make it out into the world as a productive citizen.

Thanks to your DH for being a great teacher. The part I bolded -- that's the reason people stay in teaching despite all of the crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/america-has-a-teacher-shortage-and-a-new-study-says-its-getting-worse/2016/09/14/d5de1cee-79e8-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html


Washington Post article claims there's been a dramatic decrease in new teachers entering the profession:

"Enrollment in teacher-preparation programs dropped from 691,000 in 2009 to 451,000 in 2014, a 35 percent decline, according to the study, “A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand and Shortages in the U.S.”"

It also claims nearly 2/3 of teachers leave before retirement age.

If teaching is supposed to be such a cushy job, "summers off, home by 3", and so well paid with great benefits ... why aren't people rushing to become teachers?

I am the child of a teacher and wife of a teacher and none of that is true. I wasn't true in 1980 and it isn't true now. The school day doesn't end at 3 p.m. and never did, the money isn't great, it's high stress, you have parents, principals, random people on DCUM coming at you from all directions and kids with troubles that you can't always help. It's a mostly thankless job.

Teaching is a calling and I have a lot of respect for people who enter that career and stick it out. My husband is good at what he does and spends a lot of time outside the classroom preparing lessons, talking to my mom and other more seasoned teachers about pedagogy and classroom management techniques, meeting with parents, tutoring, doing home visits, taking classes, and so on. He cares about the kids and many have come back over the years to thank him for his dedication and helping them to get through troubles and make it out into the world as a productive citizen.

Thanks to your DH for being a great teacher. The part I bolded -- that's the reason people stay in teaching despite all of the crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and I told my DS that I would not finance his education to become a teacher. I'm in my 5th year in a inner city school and they keep adding more and more work but cutting our planning time. I am guaranteed 3 planning period per week of 45 mins. This week, I had 3 meetings during those planning periods so I got no grading or planning done. School ended 10 minutes ago and I will be here until at least 6:00 working. I get here appr. 30 minutes early each day. I can't get here any earlier b/c my child's before school program opens at 7am. I am here until 5:30 every day and still have at least an hour of work to do at home every night. I estimate I work 15-20 hrs each week beyond my contracted hours (more than that at the beginning of the year). For this, I am paid in the mid $50,000s. If I could afford to quit, I would.

What were your meetings about? Can teachers use their unions to advocate for less meetings?

I teach in an elementary school. My district guarantees at least 300 minutes of planning per week. Of that a minimum of 240 minutes is teacher directed and a minimum of 60 is to be used for team planning (PLC/CLT). I can choose to meet during some of my 240, but I don't have to do so.

300 minutes? Wow! Where is this shangri la?

I'm in an FCPS middle school, and I get 450 minutes a week without kids (90 minutes per day). That said, 2 blocks (180 minutes) are CT, and 60 minutes per week are lunch duty. Still, I supposedly have 210 minutes of planning each week.

Is your lunch duty separate from your own lunch time? Just asking because you are supposed to have a duty free lunch.

Yes, lunch duty is part of my planning period. I do have a 30 minute lunch, though core teachers have been requested to help kids with makeup work or tutoring during lunch until late bus s start in a couple weeks.

"Requested". So you can decline.

Of course. Generally the time spent tutoring is less than the time spent justifying not doing it to admin, explaining to parents that you aren't available for help, and energy spent catching kids up during class, so most of us just do it. It is not in our contract though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have nothing but the utmost regard for teachers. Nevertheless, 100K+ may not be cushy for 8 months of actual work but with regular hours and a pension it doesn't seem that shabby.

TEN months, and where did you pick 100k from? The average teacher salary, even in this area, is nowhere near that.

[Anonymous]

In APS, elem. teachers have 360 minutes (min) of planning time weekly with a 45 min daily minimum, but the exact number and the way it is used both vary widely. At our school, teachers have two PLCs each week, so there goes 90 min of planning time. And meetings do sometimes happen at lunch, even though our lunch is supposedly duty free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No unions in Virginia. Right to work state so no bargaining.

Huh? My daughter teaches in Virginia and was encouraged to join the teachers union at her employee orientation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No unions in Virginia. Right to work state so no bargaining.

Huh? My daughter teaches in Virginia and was encouraged to join the teachers union at her employee orientation.

Virginia is a right-to-work state so the ^PP is correct. Your daughter was probably encouraged to join the local arm of the VEA/NEA. It is expensive so a lot of young teachers don't do it. That is a big mistake. The only reason most teachers belong is because of the access to representation and legal advice if there is a problem. Well worth it even if the teacher has a husband, wife, sister, brother, mother, father, daughter, son, etc., who is an attorney.

[Anonymous]

I make an OK salary in Moco after putting in over 20 years. 20 years to make decent pay. All and all I can't complain though I would never let my children go into this profession. I really feel for my teacher friends in states like AZ where they are literally paid nothing. Even after 20 years. Like maybe 50 after 20 years. And my friends that are working in charter schools are just screwed. Crazy long hours, less pay and no pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No unions in Virginia. Right to work state so no bargaining.

Huh? My daughter teaches in Virginia and was encouraged to join the teachers union at her employee orientation.

The PP is partly correct. There is no collective bargaining, but districts have locals of NEA, AFT, or both depending on the district.

[Anonymous]

I haven't seen this mentioned, sorry if I missed it. In addition to the status/pay/parents/demands/testing issues, there have been pretty major cultural shifts in the last 30 years.

Teaching used to be the perfect "balance" job for women who wanted/needed to be in the work force but felt pressure or desired to be home when their kids are home. There is much less stigma on full-time child care now than there was even 20 years ago (I would say even 15). Especially as you get out into more rural/traditional areas. DC may have been progressive 20 years ago about women working and child care, and certainly lots of women have worked since the 70s, but there was always some level of pressure to make sure mom was still the primary caregiver.

As there has been more of a shift to equal parenting (and certainly it is nowhere near equal, but for sure there are a lot of social movements to not be so gender-specific on parenting) and less stigma around hired child care, those hours have become less of a priority for women. And its more and more rare to be able to get a job in your home district, and when you can, teacher hours often now don't line up as easily with when kids aren't in school. A lot of that "perk" has gone away both in appeal and in availability.

Nursing and teaching were really two of the few professions a woman could get into for most of the 20th century without really fighting for it or breaking barriers. Hell, my grandmother was kicked out of nursing school in the late 50's when she got married and had a hell of a time in the mid 60's finding another school to take her.

It takes a long time for career preferences to change because there are so many "cultural stories" around them. Teaching is a really good example of one that for a long time was accessible and let women "do it all." Now that the pressure has shifted (more equality in career and home responsibilities), the job isn't as desirable.

All the practical reasons everyone mentioned are true and issues to be overcome. But even if you solve those, I don't think people will flock back to teaching in droves because our cultural priorities aren't as aligned with the upsides of teaching as they once were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In APS, elem. teachers have 360 minutes (min) of planning time weekly with a 45 min daily minimum, but the exact number and the way it is used both vary widely. At our school, teachers have two PLCs each week, so there goes 90 min of planning time. And meetings do sometimes happen at lunch, even though our lunch is supposedly duty free.

What's a PLC? All I can think of it "Patrol Leader's Conference" which doesn't seem to fit...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In APS, elem. teachers have 360 minutes (min) of planning time weekly with a 45 min daily minimum, but the exact number and the way it is used both vary widely. At our school, teachers have two PLCs each week, so there goes 90 min of planning time. And meetings do sometimes happen at lunch, even though our lunch is supposedly duty free.

What's a PLC? All I can think of it "Patrol Leader's Conference" which doesn't seem to fit...

"Professional learning community"

Aka CLT (collaborative learning team) or CT (collaborative team)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't seen this mentioned, sorry if I missed it. In addition to the status/pay/parents/demands/testing issues, there have been pretty major cultural shifts in the last 30 years.

Teaching used to be the perfect "balance" job for women who wanted/needed to be in the work force but felt pressure or desired to be home when their kids are home. There is much less stigma on full-time child care now than there was even 20 years ago (I would say even 15). Especially as you get out into more rural/traditional areas. DC may have been progressive 20 years ago about women working and child care, and certainly lots of women have worked since the 70s, but there was always some level of pressure to make sure mom was still the primary caregiver.

As there has been more of a shift to equal parenting (and certainly it is nowhere near equal, but for sure there are a lot of social movements to not be so gender-specific on parenting) and less stigma around hired child care, those hours have become less of a priority for women. And its more and more rare to be able to get a job in your home district, and when you can, teacher hours often now don't line up as easily with when kids aren't in school. A lot of that "perk" has gone away both in appeal and in availability.

Nursing and teaching were really two of the few professions a woman could get into for most of the 20th century without really fighting for it or breaking barriers. Hell, my grandmother was kicked out of nursing school in the late 50's when she got married and had a hell of a time in the mid 60's finding another school to take her.

It takes a long time for career preferences to change because there are so many "cultural stories" around them. Teaching is a really good example of one that for a long time was accessible and let women "do it all." Now that the pressure has shifted (more equality in career and home responsibilities), the job isn't as desirable.

All the practical reasons everyone mentioned are true and issues to be overcome. But even if you solve those, I don't think people will flock back to teaching in droves because our cultural priorities aren't as aligned with the upsides of teaching as they once were.

I'm a bit confused about the perk that is now missing. Are you saying because of different school start times that the schools don't line up well? I'm not understanding why the profession has changed time wise.

I do agree that the level of women working is stabilizing or even going down and yet more careers are open to women so this depletes the amount of women looking for positions. There also doesn't seem to be any push by the schools to encourage men to be teachers.