4 ms·

The upcoming teacher crisis

22 points by rafaelc 16y ago

chris_han 16y ago
This is a great article about a scary problem. Any thoughts on the best solution ?
SamAtt 16y ago
Isn't this a good thing for us? Teacher is still a pretty low tech job even though technology could do a lot in the classroom. So wouldn't a lack of teachers force school districts to look towards technological solutions? There was an article just today about teaching methods that don't require teachers in the classroom at all: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1521077 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1521077 I'm not saying we go to that extreme but there's a lot that can be done in education and technology and a teacher shortage is exactly the type of thing that would jump start that development.
- idoh 16y ago
  I think tech in the classroom is highly overrated, in that the funding in schools is so short that even basic things are lacking. Let's start with paper in classroom for tests and water & coffee in the breakroom.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Ha, you are lucky. Danish schools have maps so old the Soviet Union is still on them (they are still in process of facing them out). 3 Years ago my school still had a couple of 386s for the kids to play on (they did also have a few more modern computers, but still)
    - bitwize 16y ago
      Oregon Trail still works on them, so who cares? :)
  - ams6110 16y ago
    Abosolutely. If kids cannot read, write, analyze problems, do basic math.... computers are a waste of money and a distraction from more fundamental concerns.
- fiblye 16y ago
  A major problem is testing new teaching methods in classrooms is risky and oftentimes extremely expensive, and much more so if the method doesn't quite worked out as planned. Instead of taking such a risk, school districts would more than likely pick up inexperienced teachers and have them do nothing but follow textbooks to the word, which is pretty much what's been happening the past few years. Not having teachers at all simply doesn't work since many schools do more babysitting than teaching (or at least that was my experience with high school). For teacher-less teaching to work, you'd have to assume at least 9/10 students are self-motivated and are willing to do work without someone breathing down their back and, really, it's not going to happen.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >For teacher-less teaching to work, you'd have to assume at least 9/10 students are self-motivated and are willing to do work without someone breathing down their back and, really, it's not going to happen. Do you have any thoughts about why 90% of kids (by your statement, if I read it right) aren't able to motivate themselves to even behave in class never mind push themselves? To my mind this is a shortfall of the welfare system. I'd have no problem with cutting child focussed family allowances if a child is constantly absent, bullies, is persistently disruptive or is violent or abusive in school (without a doctors note pre-warning teachers of a mental condition, say). This needs a correspondingly strict youth offending policy and willingness to allow prisons to get very full in the short term in case there is a corresponding upturn in crime rates as unruly elements of society adjust to having less money because of their unsocial actions. I'd also cut compulsory education back to about 14years and offer more practical courses in place.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  You might think so, but it seems (at least in my experience) to turn out that in education and other governmental organizations, funds tend to get routed toward personnel expenses and away from capital expenditures. This is why so many governmental offices are have ugly painted cinderblock walls and uncomfortable chairs, while the workers are accruing big pensions and taking enforced coffee breaks. (Sorry if that seems a little bitter. I'm reporting what I think I'm observing) So I think that the power structure in the system will prevent an improvement in efficiency like what you describe.
catone 16y ago
Shortage doesn't seem like the right word. That implies that there are more job openings than applicants, which simply isn't true. According to the New York Times, this is one of the weakest job markets for teachers in decades: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/nyregion/20teachers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/nyregion/20teachers.html The applicant pool is plenty well stocked, so there is no "shortage" of teachers. What there is, perhaps, is a shortage of qualified teachers in the classroom. In other words, due to budget cuts, layoffs and position cuts (i.e., not hiring a replacement after someone retires or quits), there are not enough employed teachers to adequately teach all the students in the states with a so-called shortage. But there are plenty of qualified people looking for teaching jobs -- more than enough for current openings and then some. So what this is, is a money problem. There's no teacher shortage, there's a budget shortage. We're not allocating enough funds to adequately fill needs in schools across the country. Or at least, that's how I see it.
- roboneal 16y ago
  I'm not quite sure it's a money problem - for example in FY 2008 - Milwaukee Public schools spent $14503 per enrolled student and has a 46% graduation rate. There are plenty of Milwaukee area private options that exceed the outcomes of the public school system for well under $14K.
  - jshen 16y ago
    It's easy to exceed public outcomes when you can refuse students who are severe behavior problems or bias the selection in some other way. My wife is a teacher, and a severe behavior problem impacts the entire classes performance, but it takes so much of her attention away from teaching.
    - roboneal 16y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree, but the premise of the parent post was that this was simply a spending/budget problem. Spending per pupil has risen every year over the last 20 in Milwaukee and performance & outcomes have dropped dramatically. Logic dictates that there are many other forces in play.
roboneal 16y ago
In school districts with strong teacher unions, the first to be laid off are less tenured, young teachers. Generally, without regard to ability or merit. I'm thinking this isn't a strong "attractor" to our country's best and brightest and results in the impending demographic bomb of the teaching profession.
idoh 16y ago
I'm not a teacher, but my wife is and I've been able to see how dysfunctional the school district is. - teachers across subjects get paid at the same rate table. Math & Science teachers have a higher opportunity cost but they get the same wage as a PE teacher. I've talked with people in the union and other people, and basically they don't believe that free market principles should dictate how much people get paid. - new teacher burnout: new teachers get the worst classes to teach, while the most experienced ones get to pick out their favorite ones. In addition, new teachers will have to teach many different classes compared to more senior ones, so this adds a lot to the load. In addition, at least at my wife's school, she was laid off every year for 5 years based on the seniority system. She got very high teacher evaluations but that doesn't matter in the seniority system. - layoffs hit the young, cheaper and more energetic teachers, while keeping the expensive older teachers. - it is nearly impossible to fire bad teachers. Some of the teachers slept in class, took field trips to the mall, or spent half a semester teaching handwriting. Everyone knows who the bad teachers are, but it is a bureaucratic nightmare to do anything about it. - it is really hard to switch to different schools or districts. If you have a personality conflict you are sort of stuck with each other. Compare this to private industry - I've seen many people who were bad fits at one company do really well once they moved on. ... and I could go on. Basically, if someone wanted to be a teacher and asked for my advice, I'd tell them to stay away from the field unless they really really really want to be a teacher.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  What you've described, almost across the board is the problem of teacher's unions. Their mission is to help teachers. And in some cases, this also helps students, e.g., teacher's unions do a great job of ensuring teachers have safe working conditions. But in many instances it hurts students. Probably the best thing they can do is move away from a seniority based system. Give the principal a lot more leeway in how teachers get assigned/paid. And make the school extremely accountable for performance. Of course, the teacher's unions, which are run by senior teachers, won't go for this. I think we're kind of stuck with the situation we have, for better or wose.
  - idoh 16y ago
starkfist 16y ago
This is great, maybe the system will completely disintegrate when 50% of the teachers retire in 5 years. Then we can figure out something worthwhile for kids to with 12 years of their youth.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  Suggestions?
  - wake_up_sticky 16y ago
    Maybe we could--GASP!--teach them trades based on their interests and aptitudes. The current system is best described by the following Marilyn Manson lyrics: "Trained to be stupid/Taught to be nothing at all/We're taught to be nothing"
misterbwong 16y ago
This really brings up a question that has been bugging me for years. Why must aren't HS (and below, really) schedules more college-like? Instead of 1hr of a subject every day for 5 days, couldn't they do 2.5hrs of a subject twice a week? This would allow teachers to teach their preferred subject in multiple schools within the district. The current schedule just strikes me as inefficient; it forces teachers into picking up subjects they are not specialized in.

22 points by rafaelc 16y ago

This is a great article about a scary problem. Any thoughts on the best solution ?

Isn't this a good thing for us? Teacher is still a pretty low tech job even though technology could do a lot in the classroom. So wouldn't a lack of teachers force school districts to look towards technological solutions? There was an article just today about teaching methods that don't require teachers in the classroom at all: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1521077 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1521077 I'm not saying we go to that extreme but there's a lot that can be done in education and technology and a teacher shortage is exactly the type of thing that would jump start that development.

idoh 16y ago
I think tech in the classroom is highly overrated, in that the funding in schools is so short that even basic things are lacking. Let's start with paper in classroom for tests and water & coffee in the breakroom.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Ha, you are lucky. Danish schools have maps so old the Soviet Union is still on them (they are still in process of facing them out). 3 Years ago my school still had a couple of 386s for the kids to play on (they did also have a few more modern computers, but still)
  - bitwize 16y ago
    Oregon Trail still works on them, so who cares? :)
- ams6110 16y ago
  Abosolutely. If kids cannot read, write, analyze problems, do basic math.... computers are a waste of money and a distraction from more fundamental concerns.
fiblye 16y ago
A major problem is testing new teaching methods in classrooms is risky and oftentimes extremely expensive, and much more so if the method doesn't quite worked out as planned. Instead of taking such a risk, school districts would more than likely pick up inexperienced teachers and have them do nothing but follow textbooks to the word, which is pretty much what's been happening the past few years. Not having teachers at all simply doesn't work since many schools do more babysitting than teaching (or at least that was my experience with high school). For teacher-less teaching to work, you'd have to assume at least 9/10 students are self-motivated and are willing to do work without someone breathing down their back and, really, it's not going to happen.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >For teacher-less teaching to work, you'd have to assume at least 9/10 students are self-motivated and are willing to do work without someone breathing down their back and, really, it's not going to happen. Do you have any thoughts about why 90% of kids (by your statement, if I read it right) aren't able to motivate themselves to even behave in class never mind push themselves? To my mind this is a shortfall of the welfare system. I'd have no problem with cutting child focussed family allowances if a child is constantly absent, bullies, is persistently disruptive or is violent or abusive in school (without a doctors note pre-warning teachers of a mental condition, say). This needs a correspondingly strict youth offending policy and willingness to allow prisons to get very full in the short term in case there is a corresponding upturn in crime rates as unruly elements of society adjust to having less money because of their unsocial actions. I'd also cut compulsory education back to about 14years and offer more practical courses in place.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
You might think so, but it seems (at least in my experience) to turn out that in education and other governmental organizations, funds tend to get routed toward personnel expenses and away from capital expenditures. This is why so many governmental offices are have ugly painted cinderblock walls and uncomfortable chairs, while the workers are accruing big pensions and taking enforced coffee breaks. (Sorry if that seems a little bitter. I'm reporting what I think I'm observing) So I think that the power structure in the system will prevent an improvement in efficiency like what you describe.

catone 16y ago

Shortage doesn't seem like the right word. That implies that there are more job openings than applicants, which simply isn't true. According to the New York Times, this is one of the weakest job markets for teachers in decades: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/nyregion/20teachers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/nyregion/20teachers.html The applicant pool is plenty well stocked, so there is no "shortage" of teachers. What there is, perhaps, is a shortage of qualified teachers in the classroom. In other words, due to budget cuts, layoffs and position cuts (i.e., not hiring a replacement after someone retires or quits), there are not enough employed teachers to adequately teach all the students in the states with a so-called shortage. But there are plenty of qualified people looking for teaching jobs -- more than enough for current openings and then some. So what this is, is a money problem. There's no teacher shortage, there's a budget shortage. We're not allocating enough funds to adequately fill needs in schools across the country. Or at least, that's how I see it.

roboneal 16y ago
I'm not quite sure it's a money problem - for example in FY 2008 - Milwaukee Public schools spent $14503 per enrolled student and has a 46% graduation rate. There are plenty of Milwaukee area private options that exceed the outcomes of the public school system for well under $14K.
- jshen 16y ago
  It's easy to exceed public outcomes when you can refuse students who are severe behavior problems or bias the selection in some other way. My wife is a teacher, and a severe behavior problem impacts the entire classes performance, but it takes so much of her attention away from teaching.
  - roboneal 16y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but the premise of the parent post was that this was simply a spending/budget problem. Spending per pupil has risen every year over the last 20 in Milwaukee and performance & outcomes have dropped dramatically. Logic dictates that there are many other forces in play.

roboneal 16y ago

In school districts with strong teacher unions, the first to be laid off are less tenured, young teachers. Generally, without regard to ability or merit. I'm thinking this isn't a strong "attractor" to our country's best and brightest and results in the impending demographic bomb of the teaching profession.

idoh 16y ago

I'm not a teacher, but my wife is and I've been able to see how dysfunctional the school district is. - teachers across subjects get paid at the same rate table. Math & Science teachers have a higher opportunity cost but they get the same wage as a PE teacher. I've talked with people in the union and other people, and basically they don't believe that free market principles should dictate how much people get paid. - new teacher burnout: new teachers get the worst classes to teach, while the most experienced ones get to pick out their favorite ones. In addition, new teachers will have to teach many different classes compared to more senior ones, so this adds a lot to the load. In addition, at least at my wife's school, she was laid off every year for 5 years based on the seniority system. She got very high teacher evaluations but that doesn't matter in the seniority system. - layoffs hit the young, cheaper and more energetic teachers, while keeping the expensive older teachers. - it is nearly impossible to fire bad teachers. Some of the teachers slept in class, took field trips to the mall, or spent half a semester teaching handwriting. Everyone knows who the bad teachers are, but it is a bureaucratic nightmare to do anything about it. - it is really hard to switch to different schools or districts. If you have a personality conflict you are sort of stuck with each other. Compare this to private industry - I've seen many people who were bad fits at one company do really well once they moved on. ... and I could go on. Basically, if someone wanted to be a teacher and asked for my advice, I'd tell them to stay away from the field unless they really really really want to be a teacher.

kenjackson 16y ago
What you've described, almost across the board is the problem of teacher's unions. Their mission is to help teachers. And in some cases, this also helps students, e.g., teacher's unions do a great job of ensuring teachers have safe working conditions. But in many instances it hurts students. Probably the best thing they can do is move away from a seniority based system. Give the principal a lot more leeway in how teachers get assigned/paid. And make the school extremely accountable for performance. Of course, the teacher's unions, which are run by senior teachers, won't go for this. I think we're kind of stuck with the situation we have, for better or wose.
- idoh 16y ago

starkfist 16y ago

This is great, maybe the system will completely disintegrate when 50% of the teachers retire in 5 years. Then we can figure out something worthwhile for kids to with 12 years of their youth.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
Suggestions?
- wake_up_sticky 16y ago
  Maybe we could--GASP!--teach them trades based on their interests and aptitudes. The current system is best described by the following Marilyn Manson lyrics: "Trained to be stupid/Taught to be nothing at all/We're taught to be nothing"

misterbwong 16y ago

This really brings up a question that has been bugging me for years. Why must aren't HS (and below, really) schedules more college-like? Instead of 1hr of a subject every day for 5 days, couldn't they do 2.5hrs of a subject twice a week? This would allow teachers to teach their preferred subject in multiple schools within the district. The current schedule just strikes me as inefficient; it forces teachers into picking up subjects they are not specialized in.