Reader Jack Covey read the report on teacher attrition in Arizona. Conclusion: Arizona better start thinking about the future of its schools. Too many teachers are leaving:
He writes:
“I’m looking at the survey questions / data from this study on teacher attrition in Arizona:
Click to access err-initial-report-final.pdf
“Here’s a shocker (on p. 29 of the Appendix):
———————————————————
“Question 14: In general, educators who were recruited out of Arizona typically remain in a district / charter school…
“ANSWER
…………………………………RESPONSES
CHOICES
“A) 0 – 2 years ……………………………. 40.94 %
“B) 3 – 5 years ……………………………. 48.32 %
“C) more than 5 years ………………….. 10.74 %
————————————————————–
“Holy sh%& !
“That’s an attrition rate of 41% leaving at 2 years or less. (i.e. more than 4-out-of-ten, more than 40-out-of-100)
“and
“an attrition rate of 89.26 % (9-out-of-10, or 90-out-of-100) leaving at 5 years or less … i.e. combined number of those leaving 0 – 2 years AND 3-5 years;
“That’s just staggering.
“It must just flat out suck to work as a teacher in that state.
“Also, keep in mind that 31 schools surveyed refused to answer this question, with 149 answering. One can presume that many or all of those schools among the “31” did not have promising answers to that question that they wished to share.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m flattered by your use of what I wrote about the study cited.
The ultimate credit, however, should go to Peter Greene’s article about Arizona’s teacher shortage at his CURMUDGUCATION blog. That’s where I got the link to that study.
In this article, Greene gives a lot of detail about why Arizona has such an acute teacher shortage:
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/06/arizonas-teacher-desert.html
LikeLike
Teacher bashing LEADS TO A teacher shortage.
For an article on the teacher climate in California:
https://www.cabinetreport.com/human-resources/teacher-bashing-may-be-turning-new-recruits-away
———————————————
The precipitous decline in young people entering the teaching profession in California is now a 10-year trend and cause for state officials to worry that the blame can’t all be placed on a hangover from the recession.
Instead, there’s growing concern that the job’s appeal has diminished in the wake of broad-based criticism of teacher performance, demands for more accountability and distrust of long-standing tenure and assignment protections.
…
But during the decade ending in 2013-14, the number of teaching credentials issued in California dropped 52 percent – from 31,397 in 2003-04 to 14,810 last year.
Perhaps even more telling, however, is that enrollment in teacher preparation programs is off almost 74 percent from 77,705 in 2001-02 to 19,933 last year.
…
“This is more than just having a demand and advertising for it,” she said. “I think some of it has to be resolved by talking about teaching differently than we’ve been talking about it in our policy community for many years now.
“Accountability is important. But the constant focus on who is to blame for low performance does not inspire talented young people to consider teaching as their calling,” she said.
…
David Simmons, an assistant superintendent over personnel at the Ventura County Office of Education, said districts in his region are actually having a hard time finding good applicants for job openings.
“The year before last, we had 400 people applying for a multiple subject credential (position),” he said. “Last year we started to see a drop and this year it has been even harder to find qualified applicants.”
The question of teacher salary has always loomed as a challenge to schools wanting to attract good talent but Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association, noted that the tendency to blame teachers for all that is wrong in education is clearly turning off many applicants.
“Young people or second career individuals that are looking at the teaching profession are severely impacted by this negative narrative,” said Vogel.
“It’s based in the false premise that the difficulty we are having in the system is because teachers aren’t working hard enough, or there’s too many bad teachers or we’re not evaluating them right,” he said. “Look at the people who are called to this profession – there’s a sense of altruism and a desire to give back to the community.”
LikeLike
Illinois teachers work 9-14.5 hrs a day and tenure is virtually gone, same with seniority. With the new Danielson evaluation system, the rules change every day and teachers must upload evidence of good teaching in all areas (cue husband with good computer skills who works nights and can video tape/take pictures of your class while students spend half their time self evaluating themselves and having discussions that are not age appropriate. The other half of the time students are being tested. Older teachers are not allowed on “important” committees which are required to earn a good evaluation. In Illinois, thanks to our former Governor “attendance may be used in evaluation” which districts interpret differently, large unionized let you take sick days earned, small districts penalize you on your evaluation for taking earned sick days and since tenure and seniority are virtually gone..anyone can be let go at any time. The pressure to complete Danielson’s evaluation is impossible according to Charlotte Danielson. It isn’t a job. It’s a life or you are fired…and the young teachers are willing to sacrifice the older teachers to have more money in the budget and to keep their jobs which tire them out even at their age.
LikeLike
That pretty much describes teaching in Florida today as well. The reformists have succeeded in laying the groundwork for our destruction all over the country.
Where are the massive rallies and protests led by the unions and professional organizations this summer to fight for our very existence? The reformists are meeting and sponsoring seminars, conventions, and job fairs.
LikeLike
“Where are the massive rallies and protests led by the unions and professional organizations this summer to fight for our very existence?”
Ha, ha, ha, heh, heh, heh, guffaw, guffaw, guffaw!
Thanks, Chris, for the wonderful laugh on this wet and soggy second Saturday of the week!
LikeLike
Chris, there are no rallies and demonstrations because our union misleaders have allied themselves with the so-called reformers, seeing their job as co-managing the workforce and getting it to accept the premises and mandates of so-called reform, which they fundamentally buy into.
They still support Common Core. They still support high stakes testing, though they’ll make hypocritical noises against it, in an attempt to misdirect their dues-paying members. They still support teacher evaluations based on those very same high stakes tests. They still say nothing when arrogant know-nothings who are appointed to destabilize, if not destroy, public school districts are appointed Superintendents.
Unfortunately, with the exception of a few places, such as Chicago, we’re paying dues to what might as well be a company union
LikeLike
Thanks, fellas. I was being facetious.
I am a union building rep myself.
I long ago abandoned my affiliations with the professional organizations after they sold us out during the NCLB years and saw big dollar signs that blotted out the needs of their members.
I’m trying to change the union from within but after I retire in a year or two I will explore alternatives to the current unions.
If you can’t change ’em, replace ’em, I say!
LikeLike
I teaching a summer/teacher class right now and your comments are all we can talk about…ironically the class is about resilience and grit. Both of which, lately, are in very short supply at the teacher end.
LikeLike
I agree … thanks to the impossible demands and improper usage of the Danielson model, we are forced to upload our artifacts on Teachscape, a private, for-profit company. This costs our school district upwards of $60K per year, or enough to hire another teacher. Meanwhile, our spineless union local negotiated a new contract which increases the high school teacher load by nearly 20 percent,while effectively killing raises when changing lanes .(i.e earning a master’s degree). Our district also spends $600 a day on consultants, justifying it by saying “It’s Title 1 money.”
You’d think that they’d actually want to spend it in the classroom, providing more resources, more teachers, more experiential learning.
I have to wonder how the Feds audit Title 1 spending across the nation.
LikeLike
“I have to wonder how the Feds audit Title 1 spending across the nation.”
You don’t have to wonder. Do a little research, contact the federal department, get the policies and regulations, read them, follow up if you find anything and then let the world know what you found out.
LikeLike
As I had to inform my not so knowledgeable administrator today: Teachcrap (that
LikeLike
Messed up earlier comment. Teachscapegoat is what I call Teachscape. It is PEARSON. OF COURSE.
LikeLike
That which you lose is also that which you can gain back.
I know that it won’t be easy, but you need to raise the consciousness of the public, and get that same public to restore what has been lost through electing the right people who will replace the damaging legislation with newer legislation.
LikeLike
Staggering figures;? Yes. However, I have to point out that you can’t add them to get 89%. The best you could do is average them depending on the number of teachers.
LikeLike
Please explain why you can’t add the percentages? Why does one have to “average” them?
TIA!
LikeLike
Sorry, my math was faulty. I was looking at this from a one time snapshot and not overall.
LikeLike
Bob, I want to thank for your opinion and honest response on the best you could do.
From my point of view Jack Covey knows what he is talking about it is sound and solid information I understand.
LikeLike
I was a bit confused by your reply William. I don’t doubt Jack’s info, just his interpretation. If I have 100 American pennies (0-2 years) and give you 41, and 100 Canadian pennies (2-5 years) and give you 48, you wouldn’t have 89% of my pennies.
LikeLike
Jack Covey knows what he is talking about.
I believe he is the authority to best help you with your confusion.
LikeLike
Sorry, my math was faulty. I was looking at this from a one time snapshot and not overall.
LikeLike
It would be more like…
…you start out with 100 new teachers, all starting their teaching careers all on the same DAY ONE of the 2010-2011 school year… for neatness, call that first day …September 1, 2010…
… Fast-forward to five years later, and it’s DAY ONE of the new 2015-2016 school year… again, call it September 1, 2015…
… at this point, only 11 of those original 100 are still in the game commencing their sixth consecutive year as a teacher.
The other 89 have all left at some point during that same five-year time frame… September 1, 2010 – September 1, 2015.
Some may have quite in the first week of September 2010. (and yeah, that happens… I’ve seen it.)
Some quit just days before September 1, 2015, DAY ONE of the newest (2015-2016) school year. (and yeah, that’s happens, too… I’ve seen it.)
The rest quit somewhere in between those two extremes.
LikeLike
For your information I went to the Arizona teachers salary/retirement website. It showed At 3 years $32,126, and can retire in 20 years at compensation of $1,548 a month. So if a teacher starts employment at age 22, works 20 years and retires at 42 when this teacher reaches 62 retirement age for SS the payments they will have received another $371,520. which is more than 11 years of teacher salary. Plus medical benefit.
What if this teacher got another job at 42 and just got by for the next 20 years. And put all the $371,520 with an investment broker on average how much would that be?
I will let someone else supply the Edward Jones figure or who ever you chose.
LikeLike
AZ teachers can retire with 80 points, the # of years worked + age. That used to mean you could retire at 52 if you started at 22 and worked 30 years. They’ve recently changed that so you can’t get a full pension til 65. AZ retirement fund is healthy for now, but you know the corporatists are salivating to get hold of it. Ducey’s trying to sell off trust lands in sweetheart deals to get out of our court ordered obligation now.
LikeLike
Thanks, I appreciate your imput.
LikeLike
In put Sorry
LikeLike
“And put all the $371,520 with an investment broker on average how much would that be?”
It would be a negative dollar amount as you would have had to pay a broker’s fee for investing it and then a lawyer’s fee to try to get the money back after the broker lost it all playing the stock market. Suckah!
LikeLike
Duane
I feel you are a bright person and an effective teacher I am sure.
I am no way an investment expert but over 40 years ago I purchased 100 shares of stock at $100 a share for $10,000. After 8 years I had 7 more shares because I elected to have my dividend purchase more shares of stock. Then I sold the 100 shares and kept the 7 shares, Because I wanted to pay cash for my new car.
At yesterdays close this stock closed at 110.18. The 7 shares I had in the 70’s is now 300 shares. So if you or someone feels like it here is the math question to work
300 shares X $110.18=?????
300 shares divided by 7 shares is 42.857 times
42.85 times 100 shears I sold in the 70’s equals 4285
Now add 4,285 and 300 equals 4,585
How much is 4,585 X 110.18 How about $505,175.30
last year the dividend was $1.15.
and yea I was excited to pay cash for my new car 40 years ago
PS I am sure an effective stock broker can name the stock.
LikeLike
William,
I know little to nothing about “investing” in stocks. From your description and math I can’t tell whether you are winning or losing at it if last year you only got $1.15. You lost me on your explanation.
P.S. My overall impression of stock investing (and I may be completely wrong on it) is that there are a few winners and many losers, just like in the casinos.
LikeLike
Opinions about investing with a Wall Street firm like TIAA-CREF, (which has a lofty mission statement concerning teachers), can be read in the comment threads at the Consumerism TIAA website.
In January, TIAA-CREF gave an award to a VP from Pete Peterson’s Foundation. Peterson’s the hedge fund guy working to undermine Social Security. In 2013, the TIAA Institute released papers that undermined pensions.
Defined benefit plans, i.e. Social Security and pensions, reflect working class savings and the deferred compensation that productive Americans are owed. Financial sector privatization of both, provides an unearned bonanza to the 0.1% in capital markets, who only know how to drag down GDP, while enriching themselves.
LikeLike
Duane, Thanks for your comment hopefully I will do a little better this time. Hopefully!
From your description and math I can’t tell whether you are winning or losing at it if last year you only got $1.15.
You lost me on your explanation.
I have 300 shares now and a dividend was declared for $1.15 per share so 300 shares X $1.15 per share= $345.00 total dividend.
If I had not sold the 100 shares with stock splits and the 7 I had left I would have a total of 4,585 shares. And 4,585 shares X $1.15 dividend per share I would receive a total of $5,272.75.
On wining or losing the question is,
What is my cost basis of the shares I hold?
Since I paid $10,000 for the shares in 1972 and sold the shares for $10,000 in 1979 My cost basis on the 7 shares remaining is 0.
The 7 shares through stock splits is now 300 shares. OK
At the close of the stock market yesterday this stock price was $110.18 per share. And $110.18 per share times 300 shares gives a total of $33,054.00 Dollars as the total stock value.’
But if I had kept the hundred shares with stock splits I would have today 4,585 shares. with a cost basis of $10,000. The reason my cost basis is $10,000 because it was my original purchase price.
Therefore 4,585 shares X $110.18= $ $505,175.30.
So in 1972 I paid $10,000 for 100 shares an IF I would have kept the shares the value would be
$505,175.30 for the $10,000 investment I made in 1972. Plus the dividend would have been $5,272.75.
In closing I want to add these numbers I give you do not take in account inflation. Which I don’t know what it is?
I really hope this helps Duane, you are a good guy.
LikeLike
Thanks, now I can see what you were getting at. I’m glad you got lucky in choosing the stock in which to invest. And, from my meager understanding, you have done the correct thing in leaving it in for the long haul (even with buying the car).
At the same time though, many more, I would wager, have lost their investments during that time frame attempting to invest in the stock market. My take is that it is one thing to invest over the long haul (hopefully with the right stocks) and a complete other thing to gamble for the short haul on stocks. It is the latter that I find equivalent to gambling, although if that is what someone wants to do with their monies, well that’s up to them but I’m not sure how much of a societal “good” that gambling is. It appears that some part of human “nature” (perhaps the addictive nature of the thrill of the “win”) drives that gambling drive.
LikeLike
Duane
Thanks, I am sure with your knowledge of Education you will give me some handy solid advice one day.
William
LikeLike
The investment broker would suck that money dry and the teacher would be homeless. I don’t understand why people entrust their life savings to parasites who provide absolutely no benefit to the world we live in. The jobs that we should be targeting for reduction in pay are mostly in the financial and political sectors. Furthermore that pension won’t be there when it’s time to collect. If you can’t see that writing on the wall then you simply have not been paying attention.
LikeLike
I wanted to add something about defined pensions. As I understand it, 7% of my salary was contributed to my pension for 30 years. Now States want to renig on their contractual agreements, at least for employees. And, in the 3 years between the passage of the ACA and its implementation, our premiums almost doubled to $800 each per month. Hence, I’m back to work.
LikeLike
I know there’s been a lot of discussion on this site about this so you’re all probably aware of it but this is not just happening to teachers. Longer hours, flat or declining salaries or wages and less economic security is true for a huge group of people across jobs and professions. It’s one of the reasons they’ve been able to single teachers out and set people against them.
I think it will become the “new normal” as younger people replace older people in the workplace and there will actually be less resistance to it going forward because younger people won’t know it was ever different.
It could actually get much worse. If the trend towards “independent contractors” and “contingent workers” continues younger people won’t even have the (minimal and barely enforced) protections of existing labor laws. They will expect nothing, which is exactly what they’ll get.
LikeLike
Agreed. This is not just an attack on teachers. It’s an attack on all unions, and in general, on the entirety of the middle and working classes. I posted about this elsewhere on this blog about Illinois’ current governor, the anti-union Bruce Rauner—back before he even ran. In a TV forum, he repeatedly ducked the questions about whether he has hostility towards all unions, public and private, or only the teachers’ union. Here’s an excerpt:
———————————————-
Keep in mind that Chicago is a huge union town… from the private sector unions of pipe fitters and electricians to the public sector unions of police, nurses, firefighters, etc. … and keep in mind that Rauner’s a plutocrat who embraces an extreme right-wing ideology, and thus, hates all unions, and everyone of their members. Of course, he wants them all crushed.
However, he can’t dare say any of that, as he was planning his run for governor at the time, and he needs to hide his hatred of all middle and working class unions, and trick all these union worker voters into voting for him in two years.
In that context, Carol then asks if he feels that way about ALL unions, and Rauner runs like a bitch from the question.
This is truly a FROST-NIXON or 60 MINUTES moment that must be seen again and again:
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/09/19/mayors-adviser-attacks-ctu
—————————————————————–
——————-
( approximately … 05:00 – 7:00 )
BRUCE RAUNER: (finishing an anti-teacher union diatribe) … and we’ve got to fight them hard.”
CAROL MARIN: “Is this your view on ALL unions, or JUST the teachers’ union?”
BRUCE RAUNER: (uncomfortable) “Tonight, this is focused about the schools, and making our schools the best in the nation.”
CAROL MARIN: “No, I understand tonight, but in general, is that your view of all unions?”
BRUCE RAUNER: (more uncomfortable) “That’s a different subject.”
CAROL MARIN: “It is, but it is the question.”
BRUCE RAUNER: (slightly angry) “But it’s not the subject of TONIGHT.”
CAROL MARIN: “It is, but the question is: globally, is this the problem of collective bargaining being a problem systemically in our society?”
(What follows is TOTAL DUCKING OF THE QUESTION… Rauner just regurgitates more anti-teacher talking points that he had memorized for the show that have no bearing on the question asked of him)
BRUCE RAUNER: “The teachers’ union is engaged in a conflict of interests (then goes into a stock diatribe against teachers’ unions specifically, effectively ducking the global question about his opinions of unions in general… because he can’t share that and get elected governor)
CAROL MARIN: (gives up, then turns to JESSE SHARKEY) :”Mr. Sharkey, your point of view on this I gather would be different.”
JESSE SHARKEY: “If I could, Mr. Rauner isn’t answering the question, because he’s ideologically committed to a right-wing program that basically sees unions as an impediment to frankly, privatizing public schools. In New York, private equity fund managers like himself have been involved in a scheme where they buy up under-utilized or unused school buildings on the cheap, and then lease those schools back to charter schools for profit. And I understand that Mr. Rauner himself is trying to do the exactly the same kind of scheme in Chicago.
“The teachers’ union is one of the organizations is this city is advocating for public schools… (then goes into detail about how the charterization of Chicago schools has been a total failure)
——————————–
LikeLike
People in the top positions on Wall Street and Silicon Valley and, the heads of vulture philanthropies, are the ones who need to have their career paths threatened and their working conditions, made toxic. To start, fill the jails with criminals colluding in wage suppression, market manipulation, and bribing, while disguising it as charity.
LikeLike
People are not understanding these numbers.
First, the percentages given are not teacher retention rates, rather the percentage of districts whose average teacher stays some length of time. For example, in 40% of districts, the average teacher stays a max of 2 years. Assuming the respondents interpreted ‘average’ as half of them (a valid alternative interpretation could be the vast majority of them, or somewhere in between) then after 2 years, about half the teachers will have left. That translates into approximately (more on the approximation below) 25% per year leaving rate. But more importantly, that happens only in 40% of districts.
Let’s say in contrast 80% of districts responded with that answer. It would not mean an 80% attrition rate, rather that in 80% of districts there is an approximately 25% attrition rate. That’s the first problem.
Second, and this should have become clear from the above, these are the characteristics of different districts. So district A may have their average teacher stay up to 2 years, while district B may have their average teacher stay up to 5 years. It could have been treated pseudo cumulatively if every district was asked to answer what percentage of their teachers fell into each of those categories, but that was not the question. Each district had to choose one and that had to apply to their average teacher (vaguely defined by ‘in general’).
However, even in cases where numbers appear to be cumulative, you can’t simply add them up.
This is because if some percentage of your teachers are leaving (lets say 25% per year based on the average teacher leaving after two year category), its not only possible, but even likely that the teachers who replace them will also only stay a max 2 years (assuming difficulty of job–eg what school you’re at–has an impact on retention). This means, in theory, it would be possible for the same 50% of teachers to be what is turning over every 2 years, while the remaining 50% stay around for decades. That scenario would would never accumulate to anything above the 25% yearly rate. Even though that is the theoretical extreme, it is worth noting that there are districts within which some schools have extreme attrition rates, while others have negligible ones. A relatively benign (or not abnormal for professions) attrition rate at a district level could be masking significant attrition rates in individual schools. In fact, that is probably more the norm than not.
Lastly, there is no guidance on how to interpret ‘in general’ (or average). I expect a clerk who deals with nothing but restaffing teacher openings would have a different opinion than would, say, an administrator who sees things from a net district level.
To be clear, this is not to discount the real problems that exist with retention, and their contexts, simply to point out the interpretation of data problem.
In general (ha!), it is very difficult to extrapolate yearly attrition rates based on a cumulative snapshot measure, and vice versa. Without more data, those things can still have meaning but only when presented as-is.
LikeLike
Thank you. I thought a 90% rate over five years sounded extreme, but I’m not parsing the data. Too much else to do. Then again, with conditions as they are, it seems somewhat believable.
LikeLike
Yes and as all know. It is not just teacher retention.
In Indiana, I do not know statistics in other states
but
our colleges and universities report a 30 to 50% drop in enrollment in teacher preparation.
MANY teachers and administrators counsel their children, tops in their classes NOT to go into teaching. A VAST difference from what was the norm decades ago.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Success~! Arizona is a reform success. Teachers working 12 hour days? Check. Teachers leaving the profession in droves? Check. Do charters proliferate? Does TFA proliferate? Are teacher ratings tied to tests and impossible/ridiculous metrics? Are the kids learning dumbed down bark back lessons? The reformers will point to Arizona as a success, just like Florida, just like New Orleans. The sooner they rid Arizona of public schools, professional/certified teachers, and unions, the better the reformers will think is is. How does NCTQ rate Arizona? What would her royal highness Michelle Rhee and Students First think of Arizona? What would Campbell Brown say? THOSE are the things we need to be asking ourselves because to them, certainly, Arizona is a success.
LikeLike