We’ve all heard the urban legend of the North American school teacher. They leave their profession in droves year after year. Teachers are unhappy. They’re disappointed about their pay and their work conditions. Something, anything, needs to be done to improve the job. That’s the only way we can fix this enormous problem and ensure that we have teachers in all classrooms.
For all those who believe in such legends, check out the latest study from the National Center for Education Statistics. NCES looked at 1992-93 ed school graduates, and monitored them for 10 years. What did they find? A job satisfaction rate of 93% after 10 years on the job. Yes, nine of 10 teachers is happy in their position. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007163
What’s more, only 13% of those who left teaching did so because of low pay.
This was no small sample. NCES surveyed 9,000 teachers across the nation. And they seemed to do a strong job disaggregating the data, looking specifically at minority teachers. For those concerned with teacher quality, effective teaching, collective bargaining, and the like, it’s a good report to check out.
Eduflack waits with baited breath, though, to see how such a study will be received by the education status quo and by the educational talking heads. These findings fly in the face of popular opinion, and many are going to resist accepting them as fact. But what else is new?
Clearly, there is one main area of criticism the chattering class with sling at this NCES study. For the most part, it is pre-NCLB. We’ll hear that this isn’t representative of a classroom in 2007. What about high-stakes testing? What about greater accountability? What about the push from the national on down breaking the backs and spirits of our teachers?
Such criticisms, of course, are hogwash. Testing and standards and accountability are nothing new. These teachers surveyed were hip-deep in the reading and math wars of the 1990s and in the growth of testing and such. They know the good, the bad, and the ugly of being an educator in today’s environment, and they still give the experience a big ole gold star.
Sure, some will attack and some will ignore the study. But these findings trumpet one key education communications lesson — national membership organizations do not necessarily speak for their individual members. Such a lesson seems common sense, yes. But when it comes to educators, when we hear from the NEA and the AFT, we take the organizational voice as the voice of the individual as well. And that’s a big mistake.
Successful communication requires both a macro and a micro approach. Yes, it is important to engage membership organizations like teachers unions. But it is also important to reach those teachers who are being asked to do more and are being held accountable. Identifying best practices in the classroom comes from the teachers that are driving student achievement, not necessarily from the union. And lasting implementation of education reform requires buy-in directly from the end user — the teacher. After all, we’re asking them to change their behaviors. If we are trying to improve teaching and boost student achievement, we should be talking directly with the teacher and relating to their needs, beliefs, and experiences.
The NCES study reminds us of that. Sure, many will continue to think that the rhetorical joustings coming from the NEA on NCLB and HQT and other issues is fine dinner theater. But it shouldn’t be the end all-be all of the teacher voice in the debate. Teachers react to their schools, their colleagues, and their students each and every day. That’s how they gage their satisfaction and their success. It’s not based on a CBA or on a legislative white paper or a stump speech at the national convention.
The larger question, of course, becomes how we make sure that teacher voice is injected into the current NCLB debate. How do we get the teacher a seat at the table equal to the union rep?
For all those who believe in such legends, check out the latest study from the National Center for Education Statistics. NCES looked at 1992-93 ed school graduates, and monitored them for 10 years. What did they find? A job satisfaction rate of 93% after 10 years on the job. Yes, nine of 10 teachers is happy in their position. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007163
What’s more, only 13% of those who left teaching did so because of low pay.
This was no small sample. NCES surveyed 9,000 teachers across the nation. And they seemed to do a strong job disaggregating the data, looking specifically at minority teachers. For those concerned with teacher quality, effective teaching, collective bargaining, and the like, it’s a good report to check out.
Eduflack waits with baited breath, though, to see how such a study will be received by the education status quo and by the educational talking heads. These findings fly in the face of popular opinion, and many are going to resist accepting them as fact. But what else is new?
Clearly, there is one main area of criticism the chattering class with sling at this NCES study. For the most part, it is pre-NCLB. We’ll hear that this isn’t representative of a classroom in 2007. What about high-stakes testing? What about greater accountability? What about the push from the national on down breaking the backs and spirits of our teachers?
Such criticisms, of course, are hogwash. Testing and standards and accountability are nothing new. These teachers surveyed were hip-deep in the reading and math wars of the 1990s and in the growth of testing and such. They know the good, the bad, and the ugly of being an educator in today’s environment, and they still give the experience a big ole gold star.
Sure, some will attack and some will ignore the study. But these findings trumpet one key education communications lesson — national membership organizations do not necessarily speak for their individual members. Such a lesson seems common sense, yes. But when it comes to educators, when we hear from the NEA and the AFT, we take the organizational voice as the voice of the individual as well. And that’s a big mistake.
Successful communication requires both a macro and a micro approach. Yes, it is important to engage membership organizations like teachers unions. But it is also important to reach those teachers who are being asked to do more and are being held accountable. Identifying best practices in the classroom comes from the teachers that are driving student achievement, not necessarily from the union. And lasting implementation of education reform requires buy-in directly from the end user — the teacher. After all, we’re asking them to change their behaviors. If we are trying to improve teaching and boost student achievement, we should be talking directly with the teacher and relating to their needs, beliefs, and experiences.
The NCES study reminds us of that. Sure, many will continue to think that the rhetorical joustings coming from the NEA on NCLB and HQT and other issues is fine dinner theater. But it shouldn’t be the end all-be all of the teacher voice in the debate. Teachers react to their schools, their colleagues, and their students each and every day. That’s how they gage their satisfaction and their success. It’s not based on a CBA or on a legislative white paper or a stump speech at the national convention.
The larger question, of course, becomes how we make sure that teacher voice is injected into the current NCLB debate. How do we get the teacher a seat at the table equal to the union rep?
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 
Only a Republican would take the statistics presented and come out with an attack on unions…..Stick with the facts.