50% Of New Teachers Quit Within 5 Years

[Nbadan]

WP/Reuters: Half of Teachers Quit in 5 Years
Working Conditions, Low Salaries Cited
By Lisa Lambert
Reuters
Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Page A07


Jessica Jentis fit the profile of a typical American teacher: She was white, held a master's degree and quit 2 1/2 years after starting her career.

According to a new study from the National Education Association, a teachers union, half of new U.S. teachers are likely to quit within the first five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries....

--

The study, which the association released last week ahead of its annual salute to teachers today, also found that the average teacher is a married, 43-year-old white woman who is religious.

Teachers are more educated than ever before, with the proportion of those holding master's degrees increasing to 50 percent from 23 percent since the early 1960s.

Only 6 percent of teachers are African American, and 5 percent are Hispanic, Asian or come from other ethnic groups. Men represent barely a quarter of teachers, which the association says is the lowest level in four decades....

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801344.html)

Governor Perry and the Republican controlled Texas Legislature are doing their darndest to keep these numbers up in Texas, but don't worry, private-school vochers will solve all the low moral and low-pay problems.

[Frank Brickowski]

Dan,

Did you happen to see the John Stossel special on education? If not I highly recommend it. All I will say is that European and Asian countries are blowing us away by every measure and the reason is freedom of choice. Parents can put their children in any school and the money goes to that school. The free enterprise system makes for better schools and teachers.

In the US we have more than enough money for education. The more we put in schools the worse the results. Why?

One other item about school teachers quitting early. At my daughter's NS elementary school, all save one, of the teachers is female. Not only that, the majority are recent college grads less than 30 years old. I would bet many of these young female teachers end up getting married, having children and quit their teaching positions. Not that low morale and better paying jobs don't have an effect but there are other factors at play.

[Nbadan]

Did you happen to see the John Stossel special on education? If not I highly recommend it. All I will say is that European and Asian countries are blowing us away by every measure and the reason is freedom of choice. Parents can put their children in any school and the money goes to that school. The free enterprise system makes for better schools and teachers.

In the US we have more than enough money for education. The more we put in schools the worse the results. Why?

Once you read this forum for awhile you'll know I'm not a big John Stossel fan. Remember when ABC News used to do prime-time stories on government waste and corruption when the Demo's were in control? What happened? The best they can give us is John Stossel selling the same tired GOP talking points?

None-the-less, as I've posted before, going to a private system will only lead to further differences in the quality of education between the kids of the rich and the poor which the robin-hood plan, although not perfect because it doesn't increase the size of the school pie, is working to help equate in Texas. Now, the state legislature wants rich school districts to be able to keep some of their money.

It's not fair to compare schools in other countries to schools in the U.S. because of cultural differences. Kids in other countries are more typically disciplined, have less distractions and have parents who are forced to participate in their children's education. Problems that would exist in either a private or public system in the U.S..

What is fair is too compare schools in the U.S. that are working and schools that aren't working, and if you did the comparison yourself I think you'd find that higher teacher pay, more control in the class-room, and a higher-level of parental involvement make a world of difference to the quality of your child's education.

[Extra Stout]

What is fair is too compare schools in the U.S. that are working and schools that aren't working, and if you did the comparison yourself I think you'd find that higher teacher pay, more control in the class-room, and a higher-level of parental involvement make a world of difference to the quality of your child's education.
True. I've witnessed a lower-middle-to-poor class school with involved parents who made sure their kids were disciplined. I heard a lot of "Mijo, la maestra siempre tiene razon."

Except the government can't make that third one happen. It's a function of the culture. Student discipline is the same way. Parents who don't give a crap about their kids' education likely don't give a crap about disciplining them either, providing any sort of stable home life, or even paying attention to them.

So how do you change the culture so that more parents give a crap?

[Nbadan]

In the US we have more than enough money for education. The more we put in schools the worse the results. Why?

Well, once you study the problem for awhile you'd realize that money has to go into the right hands, otherwise you get what we have in Iraq, a big black hole. For example, much of the new money the Bush administration has put into the education system has been to support it's 'no child left behind policy', that's standardized testing, and although I believe there has to be some measure of class-room acheivement, standardized testing has led to more memorization and less application of critical thinking skills. How can students be expected to solve complex problems in the real world if they've never had to apply the skills we are teaching them?

That's where it should come back to local control. Districts should be able to set their own level of educational acheivement, not the State of Federal government. You know anytime the FEDS get involved in a local problem they generally screw things up even furter, so it is ironic that people who support no-child-left-behind, support Federal control of local school districts, and local money.

[Nbadan]

So how do you change the culture so that more parents give a crap?

Parents won't give a damn unless there is something in it for them or their child, but in general, we have to make scholastic competitions just as fun as we make football and basketball games. Maybe more monetary rewards for scholastic competitions or paid tuition to the state school of choice?

[Extra Stout]

For example, much of the new money the Bush administration has put into the education system has been to support it's 'no child left behind policy', that's standardized testing, and although I believe there has to be some measure of class-room acheivement, standardized testing, however, has led to more memorization and less application of critical thinking skills. How can students be expected to solve complex problems in the real world if they've never had to apply the skills we are teaching them?


That's where it should come back to local control. Districts should be able to set their own level of educational acheivement, not the State of Federal government. You know anytime the FEDS get involved in a local problem they generally screw things up even furter, so it is ironic that people who support no-child-left-behind, support Federal control of local school districts, and local money.
Except when we tried local control, wealthier school districts tended to have higher parental involvement, administrative accountability, and good performance, while poorer school districts tended to have lower parental involvement, no accountability, and lots of graft and corruption amidst horrific performance, even when they received redistributed funds to even out the difference. Kids in better districts learned critical thinking skills and got a well-rounded education. Kids in bad districts couldn't read their own high school diplomas.

I don't like standardized tests. I don't like how they warp the curriculum. But in the absence of parents who give a shit about anything, somebody has to make sure a bare minimum of teaching is happening.

Government can't fix these cultural problems.

[Nbadan]

Except when we tried local control, wealthier school districts tended to have higher parental involvement, administrative accountability, and good performance, while poorer school districts tended to have lower parental involvement, no accountability, and lots of graft and corruption amidst horrific performance, even when they received redistributed funds to even out the difference. Kids in better districts learned critical thinking skills and got a well-rounded education. Kids in bad districts couldn't read their own high school diplomas.

I don't like standardized tests. I don't like how they warp the curriculum. But in the absence of parents who give a shit about anything, somebody has to make sure a bare minimum of teaching is happening.

Government can't fix these cultural problems.

Well, it's also a function of giving the parents the free-time to participate in their child's education. Parents of wealthier students generally get to call more of the shots as to when they want to work or not and through their own experiences, they've learned the value of a good education. This is one reason why after-school programs in poor school districts are so important.

[DarkReign]

Well, it's also a function of giving the parents the free-time to participate in their child's education. Parents of wealthier students generally get to call more of the shots as to when they want to work or not and through their own experiences, they've learned the value of a good education. This is one reason why after-school programs in poor school districts are so important.

Dan, cmon! Thats bullshit and you know it. I usually dont have much problem with most of the things you say and post, but this over-generalization of well-to-do people is getting out of control.

Im well-to-do. I make much bank for my age and education. I fucking LIVE, EAT and sometimes SLEEP at work (no bs).

While I drive a 2000 F150, I see line workers driving Escalades and Mercedes. Not that I couldnt afford one, but yet these same people get 4 weeks paid vacation if not more. They have ALL weekends off. They work 8 hours a day...thats it. They have more free time than ANYONE in my social circle.

Yet, my friends and I are somehow more privlaged to pick and choose our involvement in our childrens education?

Bull-fucking-shit.

I cant have children for one damn reason. I dont have the fucking time. I know that having a child would be a disservice to that child.

What I think is that these lazy poor bastards never even considered the economic and social impact of having children, nonetheless 7 fucking kids I see regularly.

Its laziness, Dan. Not desire. Dont get me wrong, there are exceptions to every rule. I met a lady who was married for 15 years having 5 children with her husband. He cheated on her for the last 5. Turns out he was smoking crack with some hussy. Obviously, he lost his job, savings, etc. She is left holding the bag on 5 young kids, working 3 jobs sleeping no more than 3-4 hours a night trying to make ends meet.

You know what? Her kids are awesome. Some are on the honor roll, some arent. But they are all well-behaved, mindful, intelligent and will contribute to their family and well-being when they get older.

Thats desire. Its the desire to prepare your children for the real world and give them opportunities you never had.

The people you sympathize with are just lazy and have no trouble sleeping at night knowing they have done nothing EXTRA to contribute to their childrens future. They think a roof over their head and some food is all the responsibility they have to their children. They EXPECT the school system to do the parents job for them.

School is just a base to start. Continual education rests solely with parents. Saying otherwise is ignorant.

[Extra Stout]

Parents won't give a damn unless there is something in it for them or their child, but in general, we have to make scholastic competitions just as fun as we make football and basketball games. Maybe more monetary rewards for scholastic competitions or paid tuition to the state school of choice?
I agree that we have a significant cultural problem in our worship of scholastic sports. But that's being driven by the culture, not the government. The school district is not forcing the local paper to devote half the sports section to high school football.

But even besides that, there are a large plurality of parents who simply cannot be bothered to give half a shit about what is good for their children. The schools are being asked to compensate for that. It is an impossible task. Unless we're going to take all those kids away from their parents and have the government raise them all in boarding schools Brave New World-style, how can government solve that problem?

[Nbadan]

Dan, cmon! Thats bullshit and you know it. I usually dont have much problem with most of the things you say and post, but this over-generalization of well-to-do people is getting out of control.

Im well-to-do. I make much bank for my age and education. I fucking LIVE, EAT and sometimes SLEEP at work (no bs).

While I drive a 2000 F150, I see line workers driving Escalades and Mercedes. Not that I couldnt afford one, but yet these same people get 4 weeks paid vacation if not more. They have ALL weekends off. They work 8 hours a day...thats it. They have more free time than ANYONE in my social circle.

Yet, my friends and I are somehow more privlaged to pick and choose our involvement in our childrens education?

Bull-fucking-shit.

I cant have children for one damn reason. I dont have the fucking time. I know that having a child would be a disservice to that child.

What I think is that these lazy poor bastards never even considered the economic and social impact of having children, nonetheless 7 fucking kids I see regularly.

Its laziness, Dan. Not desire. Dont get me wrong, there are exceptions to every rule. I met a lady who was married for 15 years having 5 children with her husband. He cheated on her for the last 5. Turns out he was smoking crack with some hussy. Obviously, he lost his job, savings, etc. She is left holding the bag on 5 young kids, working 3 jobs sleeping no more than 3-4 hours a night trying to make ends meet.

You know what? Her kids are awesome. Some are on the honor roll, some arent. But they are all well-behaved, mindful, intelligent and will contribute to their family and well-being when they get older.

Thats desire. Its the desire to prepare your children for the real world and give them opportunities you never had.

The people you sympathize with are just lazy and have no trouble sleeping at night knowing they have done nothing EXTRA to contribute to their childrens future. They think a roof over their head and some food is all the responsibility they have to their children. They EXPECT the school system to do the parents job for them.

School is just a base to start. Continual education rests solely with parents. Saying otherwise is ignorant.

I'm not defending willfully negligent parents and as you posted, there are many of these. However, statistics show that there are more working parents in the work-force than ever before in our short history. Great for the economy, but not so great for children who need a parent around to help guide them, keep them on the straight and narrow, and tutor them.

It's all about priorities. If your rich you can have the Escalade and still be involved in your child's education if you want, but if your car-rich and money-poor, you've got to decide what's more important, driving that new SUV or spending time with your kids. Because of pressure and expectations by society to keep up with the Jones, most parents chose the former.

[LilMissSPURfect]

I've got kids...and still I THINK its the parents responsibility to TEACH em...My son comes to me with questions and let me tell you I've got answers ;-)

[xrayzebra]

^^no Dan you are defending the system and saying it needs more money, to be
spent like the system desires. More money is not the answer, the answer lies in
what ES has been telling you. The parents. Achievers tend to have children that
achieve. Reason: They have parents who care, who work hard and push their
children to work hard, and accept no excuses for not working hard and doing their
job. Learning. I will not disagree with the fact teachers deserve more money, but
give money to the administrators and I will almost guarantee it wont get to the
teachers in their pay checks. It will be spent on dumbass programs that don't
amount to a hill of beans.

[Nbadan]

^^no Dan you are defending the system and saying it needs more money, to be
spent like the system desires. More money is not the answer, the answer lies in
what ES has been telling you. The parents. Achievers tend to have children that
achieve. Reason: They have parents who care, who work hard and push their
children to work hard, and accept no excuses for not working hard and doing their
job.

The parents are only part of the problem. It's like taking a math equation and finding only one variable. Look around SA, which schools have the highest student academic acheivement year-in and year-out? Alamo Heights, Reagan, private schools, all upper-crust schools. I'm saying that with money spent on the right things, namely teacher pay and student incentives, you wouldn't need all those MBA's roaming the student hallways at 60K a pop trying to figure out another short term patch to what ails Texas schools.

[Trainwreck2100]

The 5 year timeline may have something to do with staffords being "paid off" after five years of teaching in a district that needs teachers


Also the teachers have no power in their own classrooms threatening to fail someone who doesn;t care about failing id pretty usweless.

[Frank Brickowski]

Dan,

In your opinion what would be the magic average salary to solve the public education problem? In the 2003-04 school year the average US teacher salary was $46,597 for nine months of work. In other countries competition has forced teacher salaries to increase. Cultural differences aside, I think competion would result in a better educational system in the US. The students and teachers would become the focus, not administrators, unions, standardized tests and athletic facilities.

I agree we should pay teachers more but I really don't see money as the be all end all solution. As many have said already involved parents are the key. We can throw more money toward education but until there is some freedom of choice for parents and less school district administration waste the problem will persist.

[Extra Stout]

It's all about priorities. If your rich you can have the Escalade and still be involved in your child's education if you want, but if your car-rich and money-poor, you've got to decide what's more important, driving that new SUV or spending time with your kids. Because of pressure and expectations by society to keep up with the Jones, most parents chose the former.
As I've been saying, that's a cultural problem. There is no government program that is going to force people to invest in their children rather than buying Escalades, unless you just think the government should buy everybody a new Escalade.

[Mr. Peabody]

As I've been saying, that's a cultural problem. There is no government program that is going to force people to invest in their children rather than buying Escalades, unless you just think the government should buy everybody a new Escalade.

I think people are buying Escalades so they can write off the interest. It's a money-saving technique.

[Phenomanul]

Good topic...

[Extra Stout]

The parents are only part of the problem. It's like taking a math equation and finding only one variable. Look around SA, which schools have the highest student academic acheivement year-in and year-out? Alamo Heights, Reagan, private schools, all upper-crust schools. I'm saying that with money spent on the right things, namely teacher pay and student incentives, you wouldn't need all those MBA's roaming the student hallways at 60K a pop trying to figure out another short term patch to what ails Texas schools.
If you executed the exact same curriculum at every single school in San Antonio, with the exact same quality of teachers, receiving the same pay, with the same student incentives, spending the same amount per student, Alamo Heights, Reagan, and the private schools would still have the highest student achievement. Nothing would change.

Teaching affluent kids is easy. You can't take that experience as a model for public education of the working classes and the poor. Their worlds are not the same.

[Extra Stout]

I said teaching affluent kids is easy. Well that's not true. What's hard about teaching in a wealthy district is the incredible amount of pressure parents place upon teachers.

What's hard about teaching in a poor district is the absence of discipline and the unpreparedness/unwillingness of much of the student body to learn.

But as far as government goes, not near as much effort has to go into educating the affluent. The conundrum of educating the poor is to find the medium between getting the most out of those kids who are prepared to learn, and ensuring that all students at least get educated to a minimum standard.

[Nbadan]

Dan,

In your opinion what would be the magic average salary to solve the public education problem? In the 2003-04 school year the average US teacher salary was $46,597 for nine months of work. In other countries competition has forced teacher salaries to increase. Cultural differences aside, I think competion would result in a better educational system in the US. The students and teachers would become the focus, not administrators, unions, standardized tests and athletic facilities.

I agree we should pay teachers more but I really don't see money as the be all end all solution. As many have said already involved parents are the key. We can throw more money toward education but until there is some freedom of choice for parents and less school district administration waste the problem will persist.

I can assure you that there are few teachers making more than $42k per year in San Antonio and those that are have been teaching for more than 5 years no matter what district they work for. That's on top of having to pay for your own health insurance, although the state does offer a $1,000 health insurance supplement that the Perry-Craddick-Dewhurst legislature is finally fully funding and disguising as a 'teacher's raise'.

As I've written before, I believe in a structured pay system. Pay all teachers a good minimum (around 40K to start), but pay teachers who specialize in Science, Engineering and Math more at the secondary and high school levels - what they would earn in the market.

[Extra Stout]

Teaching positions in the less affluent districts have to pay more to attract qualified teachers.

[Nbadan]

I said teaching affluent kids is easy. Well that's not true. What's hard about teaching in a wealthy district is the incredible amount of pressure parents place upon teachers.

What's hard about teaching in a poor district is the absence of discipline and the unpreparedness/unwillingness of much of the student body to learn.

But as far as government goes, not near as much effort has to go into educating the affluent. The conundrum of educating the poor is to find the medium between getting the most out of those kids who are prepared to learn, and ensuring that all students at least get educated to a minimum standard.

That's why for all it's acheived, Robin-hood is still wrong. Poorer districts are getting more of the state's money, but richer-districts haven't kept up the same higher standard, or past acheivement that they had over poorer districts before Robin Hood. So instead of increasing the level of education for all schools, what Robin-hood has done is lower the bar for all kids to a bare-minimum.

[Nbadan]

Teaching positions in the less affluent districts have to pay more to attract qualified teachers.


Less affluent districts pay less to start and have lower per annum raises and higher rates for group insurance because of lower health standards. NorthEast is the highest paying district in SA followed by Alamo Heights.

[Extra Stout]

That's why for all it's acheived, Robin-hood is still wrong. Poorer districts are getting more of the state's money, but richer-districts haven't kept up the same higher standard, or past acheivement that they had over poorer districts before Robin Hood. So instead of increasing the level of education for all schools, what Robin-hood has done is lower the bar for all kids to a bare-minimum.
You can't have it both ways. Either you can get the maximum out of the kids who come prepared to learn, or you can ensure that all children get educated to a minimum standard.

Which would you prefer?

[Nbadan]

You can't have it both ways. Either you can get the maximum out of the kids who come prepared to learn, or you can ensure that all children get educated to a minimum standard.

Which would you prefer?

I would rather that we fund schools to the maximum of our ability, since after national defense, it's the most important job the Federal government has, but lets put the money is teacher's hands, and then hold them accountable.

[Extra Stout]

I would rather that we fund schools to the maximum of our ability, since after national defense, it's the most important job the Federal government has, but lets put the money is teacher's hands, and then hold them accountable.
Assuming that we fund the schools as you say, do you want to fund the schools to get help the ones who are prepared to learn to maximize their potential, or do you want to fund the schools to make sure every child gets at least a minimum education?

Simply throwing money at education does not resolve this dilemma.

[scott]

Government by its very nature removes personal ambition and incentive - the two things that make our economy and, more generally our country, work. Giving teachers raises don't fix in the long run the inherent problem with our education system: the lack of incentive for teachers, schools and districts to provide a real education to our children. It's nearly impossible to fire a teacher, it's even harder for a school to lose it's funding, and you what possible incentive does a school district have to improve?

Like it or not, human nature is all about responding to incentives - not some campfire fairytale of altruistic acts. Competition is the only thing that can save our schools.

[boutons_]

"all about responding to incentives"

$75/year for K-12 teachers would be an incentive, n'est-ce-pas?

Expensive? No.

What is expensive, to society, is kids not graduating from HS, kids without jobs getting into crime, kids not earning enough to pay taxes, college entrants needing to burn a year in college learing how to fucking read and write and spell and add/subtract, employers having to waste their time remediating dumbfuck HS grads.

There dozens of public school districts, mostly frequently with huge budgets, nationwide that provide excellent education because of quality teachers and quality curricula and programs.

[xrayzebra]

"all about responding to incentives"

$75/year for K-12 teachers would be an incentive, n'est-ce-pas?

Expensive? No.

What is expensive, to society, is kids not graduating from HS, kids without jobs getting into crime, kids not earning enough to pay taxes, college entrants needing to burn a year in college learing how to fucking read and write and spell and add/subtract, employers having to waste their time remediating dumbfuck HS grads.

There dozens of public school districts, mostly frequently with huge budgets, nationwide that provide excellent education because of quality teachers and quality curricula and programs.


boutons, does the parents play a role in kids learning to read and write,
dropping out of school? Learning to add/subtract? Teachers do play a
big roll, but parents must be held responsible also. Kids who do well
in school also have parents who insist that they do learn and work with
them. There are exceptions to this rule, but generally speaking without
good parents, along with decent teachers a kid has a hard time succeeding.
Money is not always the answer to every problem. Yes, we must have
a decent salary for teachers and must have the physical facilities to
teach in. But we don't need so much support staff and superindents making the salary they do along with large car allowances and expense
accounts. And numerous assistants.

[scott]

There dozens of public school districts, mostly frequently with huge budgets, nationwide that provide excellent education because of quality teachers and quality curricula and programs.

You've bought into the myth. Even America's "best" public schools fall below international standards.