Showing posts with label Schooldemic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schooldemic. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2026

It's that time of the year again: A Selection of Final Exams for Your Perusal

                                                                                                  
Public Speaking:  Thirty-eight riot-crazed aborigines will storm the classroom in three minutes.  Calm them.  You may use any ancient language, except Sumerian, Latin, or Greek.

Music: Write a piano concerto.  Orchestrate and perform it with kazoo and bongos. You will find a piano under your seat.

Biology:  Create life.  Estimate the difference in subsequent human cultures if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier.  Give special attention to its probable effect on the English Parliamentary System.  Prove your thesis.

Engineering:  The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed in a box on your desk.  You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili.  In 10 minutes, a hungry and irritated Bengal Tiger will be admitted to the classroom.  Take whatever action you feel appropriate.  Be prepared to justify your decision.

English:  Using a formalistic or Machiavellian perspective, compare and contrast Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland with the “The Patriot Act” (107th Congress), the Bush-Cheney Doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and Trump's Iranian obsession.  Draw your own intelligent generalizations based on the content and development of the English language and Orwell's Double-speak. 

History:  Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present, concentrating especially but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious, and philosophical impact on Europe, South and North America. Be brief, concise, and specific.

Political Science:  There is a red telephone on the desk beside you.  Start World War III. Report at length its socio-political effects, if any.

Economics:  Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt.  Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: Cubism, the Annual Darwin Awards, and the wave theory of light.  Outline a method for preventing these effects.  Criticize this method from all possible points of view. 

Sociology:  Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world.  Construct an experiment to test your theory. 

Psychology:  Based upon your knowledge of their effects on the world, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Vladimir the Impaler, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Jong-Il, Richard Nixon, Vladimir Putin, and Donald J. Trump.  Support your evaluation through use of a priori and a posteriori data and synthetic reasoning.

Epistemology:  Take a position for or against truth.  Prove the validity of your position without reference to Cartesian doubt.

Medicine:  You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of Scotch: remove your appendix.  Do not suture until your work has been inspected.  You have 40 minutes.


Decades ago, I passed a Not-So-Humorous Comprehensive Exam in English & American Literature. The instructions for this real absurdity:

“The exam contains two parts, each a session of two hours, administered on successive days. In the first session, candidates are examined on a standard reading list which is given below. Questions will ask you to demonstrate a good knowledge of the listed texts and an ability to draw intelligent generalizations on the content and development of English and American literature based on those texts. The second day’s session will consist of intensive questions on a specific text or texts to be announced approximately five weeks before the exam dates. In this session you are asked to demonstrate competence in critical reading apart from historical considerations.”

The Reading List:

Beowulf
Chaucer: Knight’s Tale, Miller’s Tale, Nun’s Priest’s Tale
Second Shepherds’ Play (Towneley Cycle)
Sidney: An Apology for Poetry
Spenser: The Faerie Queene, Book 1
Marlowe: Dr. Faustus
Shakespeare: King Lear
Jonson: The Alchemist (or) Volpone
Donne: Satire III, “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,” “Love’s Alchemy,” “Good Friday 1613, Riding Westward”
King James Bible: Ecclesiastes
Milton: Paradise Lost, Books I, III and IX; Areopagitica
Marvell: “The Garden,” “To His Coy Mistress,” “An Horatian Ode”
Dryden: Preface to Fables, “Alexander’s Feast,” “Mac Flecknoe”
Congreve: The Way of the World
Swift: Gulliver’s Travels
Pope: The Rape of the Lock
Johnson: Preface to Shakespeare, Life of Cowley, Life of Milton
Austen: Pride and Prejudice
Blake: Songs from Innocence: “The Lamb,” The Divine Image,” The Chimney Sweeper,” “The Little Black Boy”; Songs of Experience: “The Tyger,” “The Chimney Sweeper,” “London”
Wordsworth: The Prelude, Books I & II; “Tintern Abbey”; Preface to the Second Edition of Lyrical Ballads
Keats: “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” “Autumn”
Dickens: Great Expectations (or) Bleak House
Browning: “My Last Duchess,” “Fra Lippo Lippi”
Arnold: “the Function of Criticism at the Present Time,” “Wordsworth,” “The Study of Poetry”
Shaw: Arms and the Man
Yeats: “Sailing to Byzantium,” “Among School Children,” “Byzantium”
Conrad: Lord Jim
Lawrence: Women in Love
Joyce: “Araby,” “The Dead”
Beckett: Waiting for Godot
E. Taylor: “Meditation One,” Meditation Eight,” “Huswifery”
Franklin: Autobiography
Hawthorne: The Scarlett Letter (or) The Blithedale Romance
Melville: Moby Dick
Emerson: Nature, “The American Scholar,” “Experience”
Thoreau: Walden, “Civil Disobedience”
Whitman: “Song of Myself,” “When Lilacs Last in Dooryard Bloomed,” “Democratic Vistas”
Dickinson: “There’s a certain slant of light,” “The soul selects,” “A bird came down the walk,” “After great pain,” “I died for beauty,” “I cannot live with you,” “Pink, small, and punctual”
Twain: Huckleberry Finn
James: The American (or) The Ambassadors (or) The Portrait of a Lady
O’Neill: The Iceman Cometh
Frost: “Home Burial,” “The Death of the Hired Man,” “West-Running Brook”
Eliot: “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” “Burnt Norton,” “Tradition and Individual Talent”
Faulkner: The Bear
Hemingway: A Farewell to Arms (or) “The Killers,” “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” & “The Snows of Kilimanjaro”
Fitzgerald: The Great Gatsby
Stevens: “Sunday Morning,” “The Emperor of Ice-Cream,” “Anecdote of the Jar”
Miller: Death of a Salesman
Ellison: Invisible Man
Plath: “Black Rook in Rainy Weather,” “Morning Song,” “The Rival”

P.S.
The second part of the exam was on Bernard Shaw's Arms and the Man. I would have preferred Major Barbara.   -Glen Brown


Thursday, January 4, 2024

Librarians, Who Lost Jobs for Not Banning Books, Are Fighting Back

 

Brooky Parks filed state and federal discrimination complaints alleging she was fired by the High Plains Library District after objecting to the cancellation of programs she had planned for youth of color and LGBTQ teens.(Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)

The American Library Association says challenges to books on their shelves are up sharply in recent years. In the cultural battle over what information should be publicly available, some librarians are losing their jobs. One fought back. Colorado Public Radio's Matt Bloom has her story.

MATT BLOOM: Brooky Parks started working in the teen section of a local public library in Erie, Colo., in 2019. The 49-year-old mom of two got to talk to kids every day and help them discover new books.

BROOKY PARKS: I loved it. It was probably my dream job.

BLOOM: As a part of her work, she launched an anti-racism workshop and what she called the Read Woke book club, focused on LGBTQ-themed books. Soon, the library district got complaints from two local parents about their titles, and managers cancelled her workshop and club. Parks was shocked.

PARKS: And I said, well, I don't understand why we're going to rename an entire book club just because two members of our entire community don't like the word woke. That's the very definition of censorship.

BLOOM: The library board also passed a new policy that discouraged, quote, "controversial events." Parks pushed back in public meetings, actions she said led to the district firing her after more than two years on the job.

PARKS: And they said, we just feel like you're not taking responsibility for any of this, and so your services are no longer needed.

BLOOM: The next month, she filed a discrimination complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Colorado State Civil Rights Commission, and she filed a lawsuit. But she hoped to prove her firing was discriminatory before taking her case to court. Her employer, the High Plains Library District, said they canceled Parks' programs to rework their titles because they promoted an agenda. Here's District Director Matthew Hortt at a board meeting in December.

MATTHEW HORTT: We're not restricting, we're not censoring information. What we're doing is we're trying to present it in a way we can have a discussion.

BLOOM: But after a year of investigating her case, Colorado's Civil Rights Commission ruled Parks' firing was illegal discrimination. And this fall, the library district settled Parks' lawsuit against them before it went to court for $250,000. Iris Halpern is her lawyer.

IRIS HALPERN: It sends a message out that there are consequences - financial consequences - and we can put guardrails up against things like censorship and discrimination.

BLOOM: Halpern is also representing librarians from Texas and Wyoming in similar cases.

HALPERN: What we're seeing is these terminations are backfiring within the communities where they happen.

BLOOM: The American Library Association recorded more than 700 attempts to ban books or censor library programming around racial or LGBTQ issues, the most on record. President Emily Drabinski says Parks' settlement victory is likely the first of many legal challenges.

EMILY DRABINSKI: This is a big win and it's an exciting one, and it buoys the rest of us in the field, I think, to learn about her fight and her win.

BLOOM: For Parks, the victory came at a cost. She was unemployed for eight months and had to get help from an online fundraiser to pay her bills.

PARKS: And without that, I probably would have lost my house.

BLOOM: She's now working again, this time at an academic library at the University of Denver.

PARKS: I know I sacrificed my dream job, but I can lay down and sleep at night knowing that I did the right thing.

BLOOM: As a part of her legal settlement, a lot changed at her former library. Librarians now get a chance to veto program cancellations, and a new policy states inclusive and diverse programming is encouraged.


Source URL: https://portside.org/2024-01-03/librarians-who-lost-jobs-not-banning-books-are-fighting-back

-Matt Bloom, NPR


Tuesday, October 10, 2023

"The U.S. is losing teachers at an alarming rate" -Steven Singer

 


Teach for America (TFA) was a solution to a problem it helped create. Educators have been leaving the profession for decades due to poor salary, poor working conditions, heavy expectations and lack of tools or respect.  

So Wendy Kopp, when in Princeton, created a program to fast track non-education majors into the classroom where they would teach for a few years and then enter the private sector as “experts” to drive public policy. These college graduates would take a five week crash course in education and commit to at least two years in the classroom thereby filling any vacant teaching positions.

Surprise! It didn’t work. In fact, it made things worse. Apparently de-professionalizing education isn’t an incentive to dive into the field.

That isn’t to say everyone who went through the program became a bad teacher. But the few good and committed educators that did come through the program could have done so even more successfully by graduating with a degree in education.

Now the organization created in 1990 is expecting its lowest enrollment in 15 years. TFA anticipates placing slightly less than 2,000 teachers in schools across the country this fall. That’s two-thirds of the number of first-year teachers TFA placed in schools in fall 2019, and just one-third of the number it sent into the field at its height in 2013.

Apparently fewer people than ever don’t want to train for four to five years to become lifelong teachers – and neither do they want to be lightly trained for a few years as TFA recruits, either – even if that means they can pass themselves off as education experts afterwards and get high paying policy positions at think tanks and government.

On the one hand, this is good news. Watering down what it means to be a teacher is even less popular than actually being an educator. On the other hand, we have a major crisis that few people are prepared to handle.

The US is losing teachers at an alarming rate.

After decades of neglect only made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic, we’re missing almost a million teachers. Nationwide, we only have about 3.2 million teachers left!

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 567,000 fewer educators in our public schools today than there were before the pandemic. And that’s on top of already losing 250,000 school employees during the recession of 2008-09 most of whom were never replaced. All while enrollment increased by 800,000 students.

Meanwhile, finding replacements has been difficult. Across the country, an average of one educator is hired for every two jobs available. Not only are teachers paid 20% less than other college-educated workers with similar experience, but a 2020 survey found that 67% of teachers have or had a second job to make ends meet.

It’s no wonder then that few college students want to enter the profession. Over the past decade, there’s been a major decline in enrollment in bachelor’s degree programs in education.

Beginning in 2011, enrollment in such programs and new education certifications in Pennsylvania — my home state— started to decline. Today, only about a third as many students are enrolled in teacher prep programs in the Commonwealth as there were 10 years ago. And state records show new certifications are down by two-thirds over that period.

To put that more concretely, a decade ago roughly 20,000 new teachers entered the workforce each year in the Commonwealth, while last year only 6,000 did so, according to the state Department of Education (PDE).

But don’t look to most of the so-called experts to solve the problem. A great deal of them are former TFA recruits! Through programs like TFA’s Capitol Hill Fellows Program, alumni are placed in full-time, paid staff positions with legislators so they can “gain insights into the legislative process by working in a Congressional office” and work “on projects that impact education and opportunities for youth.”

Why do so many lawmakers hire them? Because they don’t cost anything.

Their salaries are paid in full by TFA through a fund established by Arthur Rock, a California tech billionaire who hands the organization bags of cash to pay these educational aides’ salaries. From 2006 to 2008, alone, Rock – who also sits on TFA’s board – contributed $16.5 million for this purpose.
 
This isn’t about helping lawmakers understand the issues. 
It’s about framing the issues to meet the policy initiatives of the elite and wealthy donors. It’s about selling school privatization, high stakes testing and ed-tech solutions.

As US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said on a call with Justice Democrats: “I don’t think people who are taking money from pharmaceutical companies should be drafting health care legislation. I don’t think people who are taking money from oil and gas companies should be drafting our climate legislation.”
 
I’d like to add the following: people taking money from the testing and school privatization industry shouldn’t be drafting education policy. People who worked as temps in order to give themselves a veneer of credibility should not be treated the same as bona fide experts who dedicate their lives to kids in the classroom.

The whole point of this scam is to serve the needs of the privatization movement.

Investors want to change public education into a cash cow. They want to alter the rules so that corporations running districts as charter or voucher schools can cut services for children and use the extra cash for profits.

And that starts with teachers.

If we allow privatizers to replace well-prepared and trained teachers with lightly trained temps, we can reduce the salaries we pay instructors. We delegitimize the profession. We redefine the job “teacher.” It’s no longer a highly-trained professional. It’s something anyone can do from off the street – thus we can pay poverty wages.

And the savings from cutting salaries can all go into our corporate pockets!

This kind of flim-flam would never be allowed with our present crop of highly trained professionals because many of them belong to labor unions. We have to give them the boot so we can exterminate their unions and thus provide easy pickings for the profiteers.

This helps explain why so many plans to address the teacher exodus are focused almost exclusively on recruiting new hires while completely ignoring the much larger numbers of experienced teachers looking for the exits.

According to the National Education Association (NEA), it is teachers who are quitting that is driving a significant part of the current educator shortage. More teachers quit the job than those who retire, are laid off, are transferred to other locations, go on disability or die. And this has remained true almost every year for the last decade with few exceptions.

To put it another way, you can’t stop a ship from sinking if you don’t plug up the leak first!

But experienced teachers always have been the biggest obstacle to privatizing public schools and expanding standardized testing. That’s why replacing them with new educators has been one of the highest priorities of corporate education reform.

After all, it’s much harder to try to indoctrinate seasoned educators with propaganda that goes against everything they learned to be true about their students and profession in a lifetime of classroom practice than to encourage those with no practical experience to just drink the Kool-Aid.

So it should come as no surprise that supply side policymakers are using the current teacher exodus as an excuse to remake the profession in their own image.

As Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama (Later Chicago Mayor) said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that [is] it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

If our policymakers really want to solve the problem, we’d spend at least as much time keeping the experienced teachers we have as trying to get new ones to join their ranks. Research shows that teacher experience matters.

“The common refrain that teaching experience does not matter after the first few years in the classroom is no longer supported by the preponderance of the research,” Tara Kini and Anne Podolsky write in Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness?

“We find that teaching experience is, on average, positively associated with student achievement gains throughout a teacher’s career.”

Their analysis is based on 30 studies published over the past 15 years and concludes:

1) Experienced teachers on average are more effective in raising student achievement (both test scores and classroom grades) than less experienced ones.

2) Teachers do better as they gain experience. Researchers have long documented that teachers improve dramatically during their first few years on the job. However, teachers make even further gains in subsequent years.

3) Experienced teachers also reduce student absences, encourage students to read for recreational purposes outside of the classroom, serve as mentors for young teachers and help to create and maintain a strong school community. 

The road to keeping experienced teachers isn’t exactly mysterious.

First, there must be an increase in salary. Teacher pay must at least be adequate including the expectation that as educators gain experience, their salaries will rise in line with what college graduates earn in comparable professions. This is not happening now.

In addition, something must be done to improve teachers working conditions. Lack of proper support and supportive administrators is one of the main reasons experienced teachers leave a building or the profession.

And perhaps most obviously, politicians have to stop scapegoating educators for all of society’s problems and even for all of the problems of the school system. Teachers don’t get to make policy. They are rarely even allowed a voice, but they are blamed for everything that happens in and around education.

If we want teachers to work with socially disadvantaged students, they must be provided with the institutional supports needed to be effective and steadily advance their skills. But this requires making education a priority and not a political football.

To do that, you would need to stop bankrolling organizations like TFA. However, the billionaires funding school privatization and the standardized testing industry would never allow it. So unlike our public schools, as fewer and fewer applicants come to TFA, there will always be money to keep it afloat. Those who are causing the teacher exodus will never be the ones to fix it. 

-Steven Singer

 

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

"It is not students and teachers who are failing the test of this pandemic, but a political and economic system that puts profit over people"

 


This school year, as teachers carefully construct unit plans, build community with students, and navigate ongoing staff shortages, they also have to contend with a barrage of media coverage catastrophizing about so-called “learning loss.”

Headlines suggest the losses are “historic,” “devastating,” and that students are “critically behind.” This fearmongering comes not only from the political right; there is a dangerous liberal-conservative consensus. 

President Biden’s Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, said: “I want to be very clear: The results in today’s Nation’s Report Card [delivered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress] are appalling and unacceptable.” 

The learning loss narrative shrouds itself in moment-in-time data from standardized tests, but it is not really about this moment. Rather, it is a weapon wielded against the past, to shift blame for pandemic school closures, and against the future, to narrowly frame the policy choices ahead. 

The last few years have negatively impacted — sometimes terribly — young people’s lives. In what is likely an undercount, more than a million people in the United States have died of COVID-19. And the pandemic is not over; people in our students’ families continue to become debilitated or die.

Each lost life is a thread in the tapestry of relationships that knit together families, communities, neighborhoods, and schools. The very groups that make up the bulk of public-school families — people of color and poor folks — also disproportionately bear the burden of the pandemic, suffering the highest rates of infection, severe illness, hospitalization, and death. 

Was the shuttering of schools and move to remote learning necessary? Yes. Did it exacerbate the emergency for families and young people? Of course. Schools matter. Schools are hubs of community and care, and without them we are all worse off. 

In a country that offers no public childcare to families, schools make it possible for parents and caregivers to work. In a country in which roughly 10 percent of the population struggles with hunger — again, disproportionately represented in public schools —schools make it possible for children to eat.

And yes, schools are places where children learn: to read, multiply, and sing; to be a good friend and community member; to ask questions and seek answers — how photosynthesis works, what activists mean when they call themselves “water protectors,” and so much more.

Given the importance of schools, and the magnitude of the pandemic’s devastation, what is puzzling is not that students’ academic skills were impacted, but that anyone would imagine otherwise. We are almost three years into an ongoing health crisis that has shaved years off the average life expectancy in the United States. Of course it has left marks on us. 

But the learning loss narrative does not invite reflection on the whole range of collective losses we’ve suffered, nor does it encourage asking why our government — and our political and economic system — failed so spectacularly in anticipating, planning for, and coping with the coronavirus. 

Shifting blame away from the for-profit healthcare system and the government’s response to the coronavirus is part of what makes the learning loss narrative so valuable to politicians who have no interest in challenging existing patterns of wealth and power. It is a narrative meant to distract the public and discipline teachers.

Here’s the recipe: 1. Establish that closing schools hurt students using a narrow measure like test scores; 2. Blame closure of schools on teacher unions rather than a deadly pandemic; 3. Demand schools and teachers help students “regain academic ground lost during the pandemic” — and fast; 4. Use post-return-to-normal test scores to argue that teachers and schools are “failing”; 5. Implement “teacher-proof” (top-down, standardized, even scripted) curriculum or, more insidiously, argue for policies that will mean an end to public schools altogether. 

The path ahead looks eerily like what Naomi Klein has called the “shock doctrine,” where powerful actors, like politicians, corporate tycoons, and pundits, use people’s disorientation following a collective shock — whether a devastating earthquake or a deadly pandemic — to push pro-business, neoliberal policies. 

The Washington Post quoted a statement from former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos that the pandemic test scores proved children were “hostages” in a “one-size-fits-none system that isn’t meeting their needs.” Her solution, of course, is what she has long pushed: more “school choice” and privatization.

The Biden administration has offered some respite from billionaire free market fanatics like DeVos, but its policies are woefully inadequate. (See “Activists Mobilize for Waivers and Opt Outs as Biden Mandates Tests” in the Spring 2021 issue.) 

The latest iteration of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund allocated a relatively generous $122 billion to “help safely reopen and sustain the safe operation of schools and address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the nation’s students.” 

But the law prioritizes speed — schools must spend all of the money by 2024 or forfeit it — over investments in teachers, counselors, school librarians, and nurses. Many school districts cannot quickly fill positions or, knowing that the federal windfall is only short-term, choose not to.

According to Marianna McMurdock, a staff reporter at The 74, a recent survey of 291 district leaders found that districts are expanding hiring of substitutes, paraprofessionals, and tutors while shying away from hiring full-time teachers and lowering class sizes — reforms that would have more impact on student learning and better inoculate schools from the overcrowded classrooms that made shuttering schools necessary. 

We know what comes next — a round of dismal math and reading scores and the right’s favorite chestnut: “See? Just throwing money at schools doesn’t work.” Schools are racing to spend short-term government funds before they run out.

But the point is that adequate funding for schools should never run out. Tripling Title I funding, a Biden campaign promise popularized by Bernie Sanders, would only cost one-fiftieth of the $1.5 trillion in wealth U.S. billionaires have added to their fortunes during the pandemic. Truly confronting the many losses students in the United States have shouldered requires connecting the dots to the gains of the wealthy.

The learning loss drumbeat reveals the mainstream media to have more contempt than curiosity about what might actually improve schools’ long-term health. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, writing in The New Yorker, is an exception. Noting the recent teacher strikes in Columbus and Seattle, Taylor wrote: 

“A real plan for recovery from the devastation of the pandemic in public education can be found in the strikes initiated by teachers and their unions. Their demands — for smaller class sizes, better conditions within school buildings, more resources to attend to students’ mental health, and higher pay for teachers and teacher assistants — have created a map for how to boost learning achievement.”

This pandemic has brought real losses, and like our friends in Seattle and Columbus, we know what schools need to help students heal from the traumas of the last several years: more teachers, counselors, and nurses; smaller class sizes; planning time for educators to develop curriculum and pedagogical strategies centering students’ lives and realities; beautiful spaces to learn, make art, garden, and play. 

Let’s not fall for the learning loss trick that shifts blame from the catastrophic results of decades of disinvestment in public goods to the victims of that catastrophe and those organizing to recover from it. It is not students and teachers who are failing the test of this pandemic, but a political and economic system that puts profit over people.  

-The "Learning Loss" Trap by the editors of Rethinking Schools:

https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-learning-loss-trap/

 


Thursday, December 15, 2022

There’s a Reason There Aren’t Enough Teachers in America. Many Reasons, Actually (by Thomas B. Edsall)

 


Here are just a few of the longstanding problems plaguing American education: a generalized decline in literacy; the faltering international performance of American students; an inability to recruit enough qualified college graduates into the teaching profession; a lack of trained and able substitutes to fill teacher shortages; unequal access to educational resources; inadequate funding for schools; stagnant compensation for teachers; heavier workloads; declining prestige; and deteriorating faculty morale.

Nine-year-old students earlier this year revealed “the largest average score decline in reading since 1990, and the first ever score decline in mathematics,” according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In the latest comparison of fourth grade reading ability, the United States ranked below 15 countries, including Russia, Ireland, Poland and Bulgaria.

Doris Santoro, a professor of education at Bowdoin, wrote by email in response to my query regarding the morale of public-school teachers: 

“Teachers are not only burnt out and undercompensated, they are also demoralized. They are being asked to do things in the name of teaching that they believe are mis-educational and harmful to students and the profession. What made this work good for them is no longer accessible. That is why we are hearing so many refrains of I’m not leaving the profession, my profession left me.”

In an August 2022 paper, Is There a National Teacher Shortage?, Tuan D. Nguyen and Chanh B. Lam, both of Kansas State University, and Paul Bruno of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign wrote that they

“Systematically examined news reports, department of education data, and publicly available information on teacher shortages for every state in the U.S. We find there are at least 36,000 vacant positions along with at least 163,000 positions being held by underqualified teachers, both of which are conservative estimates of the extent of teacher shortages nationally.”

In an email, Nguyen argued, “The current problem of teacher shortages (I would further break this down into vacancy and under-qualification) is higher than normal.” The data, Nguyen continued, “indicate that shortages are worsening over time, particularly over the last few years. We do see that southern states (e.g., Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida) have very high vacancies and high vacancy rates.” He pointed out that “the cultural war issues have been prominent in some of these states (e.g., Florida).”

I asked Josh Bleiberg, a professor of education at the University of Pittsburgh, about trends in teacher certification. He emailed back: “The number of qualified teachers is declining for the whole country and the vast majority of states. The number of certified teachers only increased in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Washington. Those increases were relatively small and likely didn’t keep up with enrollment increases.”

These declines in the numbers of qualified teachers take place in an environment of stagnant or declining economic incentives, he wrote: “Wages are essentially unchanged from 2000 to 2020 after adjusting for inflation. Teachers have about the same number of students. But teacher accountability reforms have increased the demands on their positions. The pandemic was very difficult for teachers. Their self-reported level of stress was about as twice as high during the pandemic compared to other working adults. Teachers had to worry both about their personal safety and deal with teaching/caring for students who are grieving lost family members.”

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of students graduating from college with bachelor’s degrees in education fell from 176,307 in 1970-71 to 104,008 in 2010-11 to 85,058 in 2019-20.

In a study of teachers’ salaries, Sylvia Allegretto, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, found a growing gap between the pay of all college graduates and teacher salaries from 1979 to 2021, with a sharp increase in the differential since 2010. In 1979, the average teacher weekly salary (in 2021 dollars) was $1,052, 22.9 percent less than other college graduates’, at $1,364. By 2010, teachers made $1,352 and other graduates made $1,811. By 2021, teachers made $1,348, 32.9 percent less than what other graduates made, at $2,009.

These gaps play a significant role in determining the quality of teachers, according to a study by Eric A. Hanushek of Stanford; Marc Piopiunik, a senior researcher at the CESifo Network; and Simon Wiederhold, a professor at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, The Value of Smarter Teachers: International Evidence on Teacher Cognitive Skills and Student Performance.

“We find,” they write, “that teachers’ cognitive skills differ widely among nations — and that these differences matter greatly for students’ success in school. An increase of one standard deviation in teacher cognitive skills is associated with an increase of 10 to 15 percent of a standard deviation in student performance.” In addition, they find “that teachers have lower cognitive skills, on average, in countries with greater nonteaching job opportunities for women in high-skill occupations and where teaching pays relatively less than other professions. These findings have clear implications for policy debates here in the U.S., where teachers earn some 20 percent less than comparable college graduates.”

Using data for 33 countries collected by the O.E.C.D.’s Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, the scholars found that the cognitive skills of teachers in the United States fell in the middle ranks: “Teachers in the United States perform worse than the average teacher sample-wide in numeracy, with a median score of 284 points out of a possible 500, compared to the sample-wide average of 292 points. In literacy, they perform slightly better than average, with a median score of 301 points compared to the sample-wide average of 295 points.”

Raising teacher skill levels can significantly improve student performance, they argue: “Increasing teacher numeracy skills by one standard deviation increases student performance by nearly 15 percent of a standard deviation on the PISA math test. Our estimate of the effect of increasing teacher literacy skills on students’ reading performance is slightly smaller, at 10 percent of a standard deviation.”

In addition, “the impact of teacher skills is somewhat larger for girls than for boys and for low-income students compared to wealthier students, particularly in reading.”

How, then, to raise teacher skill level in the United States? Hanushek and his two colleagues have a simple answer: raise teacher pay to make it as attractive to college graduates as high-skill jobs in other fields.

They have one caveat: “While making it clear that a more skilled teaching force is generally found in countries with higher relative salaries, policymakers will need to do more than raise teacher pay across the board to ensure positive results. They must ensure that higher salaries go to more effective teachers.”

The teaching of disputed subjects in schools has compounded many of the difficulties in American education. Walking a Fine Line — Educators’ Views on Politicized Topics in Schooling, a RAND report by Ashley Woo and eight fellow researchers, published earlier this year, was based on surveys conducted in January and February 2022 of 2,360 K-12 teachers and 1,540 principals. The researchers found that controversies over critical race theory, sex education and transgender issues — aggravated by divisive debates over responses to Covid and its aftermath — are inflicting a heavy toll on teachers and principals.

“On top of the herculean task of carrying out the essential functions of their jobs,” they write, “educators increasingly find themselves in the position of addressing contentious, politicized issues in their schools as the United States has experienced increasing political polarization.”

Teachers and principals, they add, “have been pulled in multiple directions as they try to balance and reconcile not only their own beliefs on such matters but also the beliefs of others around them, including their leaders, fellow staff, students, and students’ family members.”

These conflicting pressures take place in a climate where “emotions in response to these issues have run high within communities, resulting in the harassment of educators, bans against literature depicting diverse characters, and calls for increased parental involvement in deciding academic content.”

The stress of dealing with all this is much more prevalent among educators than it is among workers in other fields, according to the study: “Forty-eight percent of principals and 40 percent of teachers reported that the intrusion of political issues and opinions in school leadership or teaching, respectively, was a job-related stressor. By comparison, only 16 percent of working adults indicated that the intrusion of political issues and opinions in their jobs was a source of job-related stress. This difference demonstrates the especially salient impact that politicized issues have had in schools compared with other workplaces.”

The issue of systemic racism provides an example of the intellectual and moral cross-pressures on educators as teaching becomes increasingly politicized. Many conservative legislatures have restricted or prohibited teaching students that there is such a thing as systemic racism in the United States.

The RAND survey asked educators whether “they believed in the existence of systemic racism, which we defined as the notion that racism is embedded in systems and structures throughout society rather than present only in interpersonal interactions.” The result? “Sixty percent of teachers and 65 percent of principals reported believing that systemic racism exists. Only about 20 percent of teachers and principals reported that they believe systemic racism does not exist, and the remainder were not sure. More teachers of color (69 percent) reported believing in the existence of systemic racism than White teachers (57 percent). We saw a similar trend among principals: 79 percent of principals of color reported their belief in the existence of systemic racism compared with 61 percent of White principals. Nearly all Black or African American principals (92 percent) and teachers (87 percent) reported believing that systemic racism exists.”

White educators working in predominantly white school systems reported substantially more pressure to deal with politically divisive issues than educators of color and those working in mostly minority schools: “Forty-one percent of white teachers and 52 percent of white teachers and principals selected the intrusion of political issues and opinions into their professions as a job-related stressor, compared with 36 percent of teachers of color and principals of color.” In addition, they write, “Teachers (46 percent) and principals (58 percent) in schools with predominantly white students were significantly more likely than teachers (34 percent) and principals (36 percent) in schools with predominantly students of color to consider the intrusion of political issues and opinions as a job-related stressor.”

A 54 percent majority of teachers and principals said there “should not be legal limits on classroom conversations about racism, sexism, and other topics,” while 20 percent said there should be legislated constraint. There were significant racial differences on this issue: “62 percent of principals of color and 59 percent of teachers of color opposed such legal limits, compared with 51 percent of white principals and 52 percent of white teachers.”

Voters, in turn, are highly polarized on the teaching of issues impinging on race or ethnicity in public schools. The Education Next 2022 Survey asked, for example: “Some people think their local public schools place too little emphasis on slavery, racism and other challenges faced by Black people in the United States. Other people think their local public schools place too much emphasis on these topics. What is your view about your local public schools?”

The responses of Democrats and Republicans were mirror opposites of each other. Among Democrats, 55 percent said too little emphasis was placed on slavery, racism and other challenges faced by Black people, and 8 percent said too much. Among Republicans, 51 said too much and 10 percent said too little.

Because of the lack of reliable national data, there is widespread disagreement among scholars of education over the scope and severity of the shortage of credentialed teachers, although there is more agreement that these problems are worse in low-income, high majority-minority school systems and in STEM and special education faculties.

A study based on a survey last summer of 682 public high school principals and on 32 follow-up interviews, conducted by the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at U.C.L.A. and the Civic Engagement Research Group at the University of California-Riverside, Educating for a Diverse Democracy: The Chilling Role of Political Conflict in Blue, Purple, and Red Communities, found:

“Public schools increasingly are targets of conservative political groups focusing on what they term 'Critical Race Theory,' as well as issues of sexuality and gender identity. These political conflicts have created a broad chilling effect that has limited opportunities for students to practice respectful dialogue on controversial topics and made it harder to address rampant misinformation. The chilling effect also has led to marked declines in general support for teaching about race, racism, and racial and ethnic diversity.”

These political conflicts, the authors wrote, “have made the already hard work of public education more difficult, undermining school management, negatively impacting staff, and heightening student stress and anxiety. Several principals shared that they were reconsidering their own roles in public education in light of the rage at teachers and rage at administrators’ playing out in their communities.”

Since 2010 there has been a cumulative decline in four key measures shaping the attractiveness of the teaching profession. In a November 2022 paper, The Rise and Fall of the Teaching Profession: Prestige, Interest, Preparation, and Satisfaction Over the Last Half Century, Matthew Kraft of Brown University and Melissa Arnold Lyon of the University at Albany, State University of New York tracked trends on “four interrelated constructs: professional prestige, interest among students, preparation for entry, and job satisfaction” for 50 years, from the 1970s to the present and found “a consistent and dynamic pattern across every measure: a rapid decline in the 1970s, a swift rise in the 1980s, relative stability for two decades, and a sustained drop beginning around 2010. The current state of the teaching profession is at or near its lowest levels in 50 years.”

The analysis by Kraft and Lyon poses a crucial issue for those concerned about the quality of teaching in public schools: “Growing dissatisfaction and burnout among teachers in the wake of the pandemic and new state laws restricting discourse on racism and sexuality in schools have set ablaze a long smoldering question: Who among the next generation of college graduates will choose to teach?”

Some of the specifics in the Kraft-Lyon study: “Perceptions of teacher prestige have fallen between 20 percent and 47 percent in the last decade to be at or near the lowest levels recorded over the last half century. Interest in the teaching profession among high school seniors and college freshmen has fallen 50 percent since the 1990s, and 38 percent since 2010, reaching the lowest level in the last 50 years. The number of new entrants into the profession has fallen by roughly one third over the last decade, and the proportion of college graduates that go into teaching is at a 50-year low. Teachers’ job satisfaction is also at the lowest level in five decades, with the percent of teachers who feel the stress of their job is worth it dropping from 81 percent to 42 percent in the last 15 years.”

The combination of these factors — declining prestige, lower pay than other professions that require a college education, increased workloads, and political and ideological pressures — is creating both intended and unintended consequences for teacher accountability reforms mandating tougher licensing rules, evaluations and skill testing.

In their July 2020 paper, Teacher Accountability Reforms and the Supply and Quality of New Teachers, Kraft, Eric Brunner of the University of Connecticut, Shaun M. Dougherty of Boston College and David Schwegman of American University describe the mixed results of the wave of state-level adoption of “a package of reforms centered on high-stakes evaluation systems: We find that accountability reforms reduced the number of newly licensed teacher candidates and increased the likelihood of unfilled teaching positions, particularly in hard-to-staff schools. Evidence also suggests that reforms increased the quality of newly hired teachers by reducing the likelihood that new teachers attended unselective undergraduate institutions.”

In addition, Kraft, Brunner, Dougherty and Schwegman write: “Evaluation reforms also appear to have reduced teacher satisfaction and autonomy. We find that evaluation reforms resulted in a 14.6 percentage point drop in the likelihood that teachers Strongly Agree that they are satisfied with being a teacher. We find a 5.7 percentage point decrease in the probability that new teachers Strongly Agree that they have control over the content and skills they teach and an 8.9 percentage point drop in the probability that new teachers Strongly Agree that they have control over their teaching techniques.”

The authors’ conclusion provides little comfort: “Education policy over the past decade has focused considerable effort on improving human capital in schools through teacher accountability. These reforms, and the research upon which they drew, were based on strong assumptions about how accountability would affect who decided to become a teacher. Counter to most assumptions, our findings document how teacher accountability reduced the supply of new teacher candidates by, in part, decreasing perceived job security, satisfaction and autonomy.”

The reforms, Kraft and colleagues continued, increased “the likelihood that schools could not fill vacant teaching positions. Even more concerning, effects on unfilled vacancies were concentrated in hard-to-staff schools that often serve larger populations of low-income students and students of color. We find that evaluation reforms increased the quality of newly hired novice teachers by reducing the number of teachers that graduated from the least selective institutions. We find no evidence that evaluation reforms served to attract teachers who attended the most selective undergraduate institutions.”

In other words, the economic incentives, salary structure and work-life pressures characteristic of public education employment have created a climate in which contemporary education reforms have perverse and unintended consequences that can worsen rather than alleviate the problems facing school systems. If so, to improve the overall quality of the nation’s more than three million public schoolteachers, reformers may want to give priority to paychecks, working conditions, teacher autonomy and punishing workloads before attempting to impose higher standards, tougher evaluations and less job security.

The New York Times, December 14, 2022

Thomas B. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.