United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has announced his resignation this morning, effective Sept. 17. The NY Times has a story, and not surprisingly the blogosphere is abuzz with people leaping in to declare their opinions on Gonzo ("it's about time", "a good man hurt by a hyperpartisan atmosphere"), potential successors, who not to confirm, will there be a recess appointment. or maybe a long list of nominations who are expected to fail confirmation, thus keeping a "temporary" replacement in the position for the rest of the Bush term, and so on.
I'd provide links, but they aren't hard to find. You can't wander anywhere through political blogs today without tripping on something about this story, a state likely to remain true for the next few days as well.
However, there was another article in the Times today I found more interesting, and ultimately far more significant than the resignation of a man who seemed fortunate if he remembered to tie his shoes in the morning, and was the living embodiment of the Peter Principle.
It's not news there is a dearth of capable teachers in this country for the "hard" classes - things like, say, engineering, science and math (rather than cloth). It's also not a surprise this lack hits hardest in areas where qualified teachers are most needed - struggling schools in poor areas, such as inner cities.
However, I at least wasn't aware of exactly how bad the situation has become. The article talks about how school districts are spending as much as $7 billion trying to recruit candidates from across the nation. It mentions $10,000 bonuses for teachers signing on to teach Algebra, money to help with house down payments, of districts being short hundreds of teachers as schools open for the fall, of schools without any certified math teachers.
Apparently two factors are combining to create the problem:
1. A large number of teachers from the "baby boomer" generation approaching (or already having reached) retirement.
2. New teachers leaving teaching at unprecedented rates.
The article cites a study (full study results available here) finding nearly a third of all new teachers are gone after three years, nearly half gone after five years. Unsurprisingly, the turnover is worst at low-income schools. New teachers come in full of ideals and hope, are chewed up by the meat-grinder of reality, and spit back out disillusioned and dissatisfied, looking for new careers. Preferably ones that actually pay salaries commiserate with the amount of work they do ... and anyone who thinks "hey, they work normal weeks and get summers off" has no clue as to how much work good teachers have to put in on evenings and weekends.
In the back of my mind I've hoped to be in a position by my mid-50's where I could afford to leave industry and work as a math or computer science teacher, preferably at some inner-city school ... apparently, not having gone through the grinder yet, I still have some ideals. I may have to take the leap sooner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
One of my most rewarding career experiences occurred during the summer of 2002, where I got to teach pretty much whatever I wanted to a group of high school juniors about to become seniors.
I stayed rigorous regarding the math, teaching them strong algebra skills in the context of its utility to realistic problems.
THEY LOVED ALGEBRA.
Regarding computers, I was less rigorous, but I didn't have to be. They ate up Web design like it was candy.
That's the ideal, but I am afraid you will not find that in a lower income school.
I primarily stick to higher education, but K-12 bleeds into the mix. Right now I am doing a rather extensive literature review of business education partnerships. I'll post something about at some point.
Look before you leap and do the financial calculations. Have a smart wife that works, doesn't spend like Michael Jackson, and watch the kid count.
I had a chance to teach one class for a semester at a JC in the late 90s and very much enjoyed it.
If or when I make the jump, I think I would prefer high school or college, but the real need seems to be for inner-city high schools (or maybe junior high ... but I have heard teaching junior high really sucks).
No kids of my on, so that helps the retirement planning :).
I have taught extensively at the university undergraduate level (wonderful), and the junior college level (also pretty good).
The key distinction is that the students have overwhelmingly chosen to be there (with few exceptions).
High school is a different planet with a whole myriad of difficulties. At the lower income schools, the kids have all sorts of problems. At the upper income schools, the kids have different problems, but the parents call you to bitch that it's your fault if their lazy kid isn't acing your class.
Post a Comment