Hiring a teacher should be like buying a house. But according to a new report from Bellwether Education Partners, California treats the process like it’s purchasing a widget. And this is the wrong mindset when the state is experiencing a shortage in teachers—especially those trained to educate its diverse population of six million children.
The problem, it turns out, isn’t money. Thanks to a new funding formula, California schools will receive $3,000 more per student in the 2015–16 school year than in 2011–12, a 45 percent increase. Instead, the state lacks viable candidates and high-quality training programs. During the 2013–14 school year, for example, the state needed to hire twenty-one thousand teachers, yet it only awarded credentials to 14,810—a decrease of one-third from five years ago.
So where are all the teachers? Pursuing other professions now that the labor market has finally improved, the report surmises. Moreover, millennials aren’t hustling into teaching programs because they don’t rate the profession as prestigious or ambitious as other options, says Bellwether.
Teacher preparedness is equally problematic. California suffered a similar shortage in the 1990s and started hiring teachers with no experience by using emergency permits. Some worry that the state is headed in the same direction now. Yet even with today’s higher standards, only half of district employers report being satisfied or very satisfied with the preparedness of new teachers, suggesting that students are missing out on good instruction. The best teacher preparation programs have the same positive effect on outcomes as reducing a class’s size by 5–10 students. And that’s why it’s time for California to invest in teachers as though they are houses, not disposable widgets.
To recruit and train excellent teachers, the report recommends that three entities take responsibility: teacher training schools, districts, and state government.
“Teacher preparation programs must come down from the ivory tower and engage with the realities and needs of the districts in which their graduates work,” authors argue. This requires consistent discussion with local school districts about their needs. It also requires increasing selectivity and rigor while still maintaining flexibility to meet candidates’ needs, especially minorities from low-income groups. This is important if schools want their teachers to represent the demographics of their students. For example, the report says that Latino or Hispanic backgrounds make up more than half of California’s student population, but less than 20 percent of its teachers.
“Districts must take increasing responsibility for recruiting and developing their own future teachers, rather than leave it up to teacher preparation programs to provide the teachers they need,” the authors write. Teacher preparation doesn’t end when an undergrad receives a diploma; it should continue with professional development within schools. A teacher who stays with the district between twenty and thirty years is a $2 million investment.
Finally, the report encourages state policymakers to support diverse preparation pathways, leverage funds to support preparation programs, and continue to advertise a need for good teachers.
California needs hallways of learning, not replaceable instruments of instruction.
SOURCE: Sara Mead, Chad Aldeman, Carolyn Chuong, and Julie Obbard, “Rethinking Teacher Preparation,” Bellwether Education Partners (July 2015).
