4 ms·

Teachers union advocates will tell you that it's a way of convincing people to become teachers, as the job has far more stability. Reality shows that it just di

Teachers union advocates will tell you that it's a way of convincing people to become teachers, as the job has far more stability. Reality shows that it just discourages new teachers, as nearly half of all new teachers last less than five years[1]. Teaching has become an outdated, slow-moving profession that nobody wants to join because of the entrenched interests and bloated bureaucracies. 1: http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/supply-demand-standards.pdf http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/supply-demand-st...

justizin 12y ago
yes, but getting rid of all protection for older, more experienced teachers is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. i have often struggled with this issue. i have had some great teachers, i have had some terrible teachers, but if you got rid of all the existing teachers and started anew, who the hell would possibly be a positive influence on the new teachers?
gerbal 12y ago
Or no one wants to teach because of low pay compared to equivalent professions, huge classes, and deteriorating working conditions.
- phdp 12y ago
  What is your definition of a huge classroom? The number of public school teachers has increased by a larger percentage than the number of public school students over the past 10 years, resulting in declines in the pupil/teacher ratio. In fall 2002, the number of public school pupils per teacher was 15.9, compared with a projected number of 15.2 public school pupils per teacher in fall 2012. [1] Of course I understand that some districts are different than others, and that this probably includes teachers that teach music, gym, and other classes, but still, there are more teachers per student now than there has been over the past few decades, meaning that even if classrooms are the same size as before, teachers must be getting more free time during the day to catch up on grading/admin work. [1] http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28 http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
  - ironchef 12y ago
    Just remember that 15.X number is average. I know my wife's school had to call the union in twice last year as certain classes were exceeding 39 students in the classroom. I'd love to see more of statistics broken out demographically (in particular dense urban areas would be interesting).
- ternaryoperator 12y ago
  California teachers earned $67K on avearge in Calif in 2011. Note that this is for 9 months of work. Except in the major cities, teachers often out-earn the income of the parents of all their students. And they benefit from a system in which they can never be fired for their performance and which gives them comparatively good retirement benefits. Focusing strictly on California, it has the lowest scholastic scores of all states. Despite many efforts to improve schools, fewer than 10 teachers have been fired during the last two years for poor performance. That's out of a population of 275,000 teachers. Schools simply view it as impossible to fire for cause[1]. This ruling has been a long time coming. [1] http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/06/10/the-most-blistering-findings-from-the-big-teacher-tenure-ruling/ http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/06/10/the-most-blistering-fi...
ironchef 12y ago
"nobody wants to join" -> I think you mean few want to continue in. There is plenty of fodder heading into the ranks only to have their dreams crushed by the reality of teaching in today's educational system. The numbers of those going into teaching has been on the rise for years (I believe elementary and secondary teacher population has risen about 7 percent since 2002...don't remember if that was DoE statistics or what...i'll try to find it)
smackfu 12y ago
>nearly half of all new teachers last less than five years My guess is because teaching is seen as a fall back job for liberal arts majors who have no teaching experience, and once they get hired, it turns out they hate teaching.
x0x0 12y ago
Or, at least in CA, teachers leave because they grow up and need a real job; one that might pay them enough to afford to live in the communities they work in. If you'd like to live in the valley and teach, you better marry well. You can see some of the salaries here [1]; $71k for Belmont means give up any dream of owning a home. [1] http://belmont-ca.patch.com/groups/schools/p/comparing-the-salaries-of-peninsula-teachers-a2765213 http://belmont-ca.patch.com/groups/schools/p/comparing-the-s...
- ameister14 12y ago
  If you have 2 salaries of 71k, you've got 142 which should allow you to buy a home priced at around 600k, more if you've saved for a bit. So that dream is still alive.
- refurb 12y ago
  By that logic, if a teacher is teaching in Manhattan they should be paid enough to afford a house in Manhattan as well?
- yellowapple 12y ago
  Since when was Belmont (in the Bay Area) part of the "valley"? Unless you're talking about something other than the Central Valley, that is...

justizin 12y ago

yes, but getting rid of all protection for older, more experienced teachers is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. i have often struggled with this issue. i have had some great teachers, i have had some terrible teachers, but if you got rid of all the existing teachers and started anew, who the hell would possibly be a positive influence on the new teachers?

gerbal 12y ago

Or no one wants to teach because of low pay compared to equivalent professions, huge classes, and deteriorating working conditions.

phdp 12y ago
What is your definition of a huge classroom? The number of public school teachers has increased by a larger percentage than the number of public school students over the past 10 years, resulting in declines in the pupil/teacher ratio. In fall 2002, the number of public school pupils per teacher was 15.9, compared with a projected number of 15.2 public school pupils per teacher in fall 2012. [1] Of course I understand that some districts are different than others, and that this probably includes teachers that teach music, gym, and other classes, but still, there are more teachers per student now than there has been over the past few decades, meaning that even if classrooms are the same size as before, teachers must be getting more free time during the day to catch up on grading/admin work. [1] http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28 http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
- ironchef 12y ago
  Just remember that 15.X number is average. I know my wife's school had to call the union in twice last year as certain classes were exceeding 39 students in the classroom. I'd love to see more of statistics broken out demographically (in particular dense urban areas would be interesting).
ternaryoperator 12y ago
California teachers earned $67K on avearge in Calif in 2011. Note that this is for 9 months of work. Except in the major cities, teachers often out-earn the income of the parents of all their students. And they benefit from a system in which they can never be fired for their performance and which gives them comparatively good retirement benefits. Focusing strictly on California, it has the lowest scholastic scores of all states. Despite many efforts to improve schools, fewer than 10 teachers have been fired during the last two years for poor performance. That's out of a population of 275,000 teachers. Schools simply view it as impossible to fire for cause[1]. This ruling has been a long time coming. [1] http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/06/10/the-most-blistering-findings-from-the-big-teacher-tenure-ruling/ http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/06/10/the-most-blistering-fi...

ironchef 12y ago

"nobody wants to join" -> I think you mean few want to continue in. There is plenty of fodder heading into the ranks only to have their dreams crushed by the reality of teaching in today's educational system. The numbers of those going into teaching has been on the rise for years (I believe elementary and secondary teacher population has risen about 7 percent since 2002...don't remember if that was DoE statistics or what...i'll try to find it)

smackfu 12y ago

>nearly half of all new teachers last less than five years My guess is because teaching is seen as a fall back job for liberal arts majors who have no teaching experience, and once they get hired, it turns out they hate teaching.

x0x0 12y ago

Or, at least in CA, teachers leave because they grow up and need a real job; one that might pay them enough to afford to live in the communities they work in. If you'd like to live in the valley and teach, you better marry well. You can see some of the salaries here [1]; $71k for Belmont means give up any dream of owning a home. [1] http://belmont-ca.patch.com/groups/schools/p/comparing-the-salaries-of-peninsula-teachers-a2765213 http://belmont-ca.patch.com/groups/schools/p/comparing-the-s...

ameister14 12y ago
If you have 2 salaries of 71k, you've got 142 which should allow you to buy a home priced at around 600k, more if you've saved for a bit. So that dream is still alive.
refurb 12y ago
By that logic, if a teacher is teaching in Manhattan they should be paid enough to afford a house in Manhattan as well?
yellowapple 12y ago
Since when was Belmont (in the Bay Area) part of the "valley"? Unless you're talking about something other than the Central Valley, that is...