If you Google the terms “teacher shortage” and “teacher turnover,” your hits will light up rather forebodingly. Obviously local conditions affect individual districts in a variety of ways, so not all schools or regions are suffering to the same degree. However, there does seem to be a fairly broad-based national problem of recruitment and retention of K-12 teachers that is becoming yet one more problem affecting our public schools.
Talented individuals leave the teaching profession—or avoid it altogether—for a variety of reasons. Poor pay, stress, lack of professional support, workplace dysfunction, administrative micro-management, long hours of bureaucratic busywork, disrespect and abuse from students and their parents, and many other factors have—and will continue to—make it difficult to recruit and retain top quality elementary and secondary educators. Moreover, our current model of training and credentialing teachers is costly and time-consuming, yet it still leaves many graduates lacking the basic pedagogical and student management skills necessary for creating a respectful and successful classroom environment.
I remember my own trip through “teacher education” after I left the advertising business—what an incredible waste of time and money. Although alternative teacher training programs obviously exist, the profession is still is dominated by the traditional model of teacher training and licensing, which—despite its documented shortcomings—persists because it is a cash cow for colleges and universities and creates lots and lots of jobs for local and state education bureaucrats.
The meandering and pointless journey through Ed School coursework that often seems only tangentially related to actual classroom practice also serves as a gigantic disincentive to mid-career entry for those who can bring real world experience to their teaching. This seems an obvious drawback—and it is generally acknowledged to be so—but we still blindly press forward with a model that pushes 22-year-old young adults who have done nothing much other than sit in a classroom for their entire lives into yet another classroom—where they will now try to educate our children. Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
Even worse, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow no longer seems to be attractive enough to hang onto many who go through the process—as evidenced by the many problems with recruitment and retention. What can be done?
I have a modest proposal…. Four, really.
1: Close all Colleges of Education.
Why continue to support a system that produces graduates who often don’t turn out to be very good teachers—or who quickly quit the profession altogether because they just can’t cut it? Our schools of “mis-education” are clearly not up to the job, and noodling around the edges with some cosmetic changes after year upon year of study and discussion is just a further waste of time, money, and human capital.
A simpler and more direct system of teacher training and licensure can certainly be devised, but it will run into a brick wall of bureaucratic resistance unless the public is willing to push for change. Obviously, I believe our students and society will benefit if we improve and streamline teacher training, but I fear that the political will—and this is all about politics—to do what is necessary is lacking.
2: Require that all new teachers must have worked in jobs outside of education for five years before they step into a classroom.
Maybe I’m just looking at this all wrong, but I want people in my public schools who have lived some kind of life outside of a classroom before teaching my children. Work in a restaurant. Sell insurance. Join the Army. Presenting our public schools with truckloads of fresh college graduates who more than likely still had their moms doing their laundry the week before they begin teaching for the first time is kind of insane. We need individuals with a little grit under their nails and life experience under their belts so they are better prepared to deal with the challenges that now daily face our K-12 teachers.
3: License teachers based on proven performance—not college or continuing education credits alone.
Yes, teachers should go to college—and preferably graduate school—to earn degrees in the subject area that they plan to teach (no more “education” majors, please!). In addition, teachers should continue to sharpen their skills with classes and workshops throughout their careers.
However, how cool would it be to unlock the schoolhouse doors and get some real-world experience into our nation’s classrooms? What parent wouldn’t be thrilled to have a chemist teaching their child chemistry, a physician assistant teaching anatomy in their local high school, an editor helping their child learn how to write, or a local farmer showing that lucky student the practical aspects of how the business actually works? The possibilities would be endless, but it might obvious endanger an ossified status quo that likes everything just the way it is because it privileges paper credentials over job-proven competence.
Community colleges, for example, make outstanding use of practitioners in their classrooms—which is a great benefit to the students who are there to learn the skills they need to succeed. Recruiting teachers from the workplace is a proven winner at the two-year college level, so why not extend this strategy to K-12?
If these working professionals can teach at their local public school only part of the day or the year, offer them a prorated salary and don’t waste their valuable time making them hop through a million hoops in order to share their valuable experience—and please don’t assign them to bus duty or lunch supervision. We desperately need more practitioners and fewer pretenders in our classrooms—particularly in our middle and high schools where content knowledge is so important. Assign the busywork to lower-paid aides or parent volunteers.
4: End teacher tenure and pay based on seniority.
I know changing to a free market for teacher hires runs counter to the civil service model that has dominated public education for many, many decades, but it would be a game changer. It would encourage excellence, create desperately needed fluidity in the job market, and incentivize mid-career entrants who could bring job skills and life experience into the classroom. If we start to pay teachers based on their value rather than how many years they’ve sat in a school building—a measure that is typically divorced from actual performance—we can start to address the many problems caused by our highly uncompetitive system.
Can’t find a math teacher for your district? Hire a local engineer who can show students how mathematics is used in the real world—and has the actual work experience to teach it. Need a business teacher? Hire a manager at a local manufacturer—and also build a bridge with a local employer that might hire your graduates. Have a truly wonderful music teacher you want to hold onto? Find a way to adjust their duties so they’ll want to stick around—instead of treating that talented person like just another replaceable cog.
In other words, instead of running public schools like hermetically-sealed vaults, open the doors and innovate. It will be scary as hell for some and drive the “edu-crats” crazy because they will lose control—and perhaps their jobs as well—but the alternative is to continue to sacrifice our children on an altar built out of rulebooks and dusty theories about education that do nothing but ensure that little learning actually happens. Think this isn’t true? Google the “college and career-ready” or “college preparedness” statistics for your local school or entire state and decide for yourself. The actual data can be a real eye-opener.
I think the time for a real education revolution is long overdue—and maybe we are now ready for it!
Andrew Wilk