The Contra Costa Times recently reported that many Easy Bay schools in the ‘burbs can’t seem to find enough teachers. If it’s this hard in the suburbs, just think how much harder in must be in urban cities. Even worse, subjects like math, science, foreign languages, and special education have been even harder to fill, highlights:
Once confined to the toughest school districts, the state’s burgeoning teacher shortage is creeping into the suburbs and some of the area’s best schools, leaving even more high-achieving, college-bound students with substitutes or teachers untrained in their subject.
…
But the overall shortage that robs both rich and poor schools of good teachers is predicted to reach a crisis level in the next few years as hordes of aging baby boomers end their teaching careers and fewer young people take their place, said Margaret Gaston,. executive director of the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, a nonprofit research group based in Santa Cruz.
“We’re expecting that a third of the teacher workforce is reaching retirement age, starting right about now,” Gaston said. “We don’t have new teachers in the queue to take their jobs.”
According to the center’s projections, nearly 100,000 of California’s 309,000 teachers will retire in the next 10 years. Wary of low pay and tough working conditions, a smaller number of college students are studying to enter the profession.
…
As the supply of teachers drops, the demand is expected to rise because the state pledged more money last summer for cutting class sizes at low-performing schools. That also happened in the 1990s after the enactment of the class-size reduction law for kindergarten through third grade.
These days the shortage is greatest in middle and high schools, where teaching requires more expertise and specialization.
…
Internship programs meant to bolster teacher ranks exist, but the number of participants is dwindling.
Teaching intern Troy Hash recently decided to quit teaching and return to science after a year at Ygnacio Valley High School in Concord.
“I’m not making enough money to live on, basically,” said Hash, who has an 8-year-old son.
Hash, who has a master’s in geophysics, will be tough to replace. Because the school was shorthanded, he taught not only earth science but also typing and biology — all classes that a substitute will likely take over.
“I like teaching, but I had to live off my savings last year,” he said. “Same this year. It’s not going to be enough.”…
Of course, over all, Alameda has been very fortunate to retain good teachers, but at some point we’ll start having more folks like Troy Hash, highly educated and wanting to teach, but finding that the compensation is not enough to make ends meet.
But this speaks to the larger issue of the affordability of the Bay Area and addresses Jack Richard’s comment about that we can’t take care of our own let alone the “shunned” of the world. While it may be true that the Needs Assessment does talk about shortcomings between the availability of financing to fund service programs and the need in Alameda, the notion that we would “care” for the “shunned” of the world is based on the assumption that immigrants come to the United States and drain our social services programs, but I disgress.
Having previously read the Needs Assessment, there are a few things that are striking today in light of recent actions taken by our federal government. One of the areas of need is Health Care. Now we all know how costly that can be and the president vetoing a bill to make health care accessible to children who don’t qualify for Medicaid, but yet cannot afford private insurance, but I digress.
Additionally, the Needs Assessment does address Housing Discrimination in Alameda as recent as the survey was conducted in Alameda. While the housing discrimination — as stated in the report — is self-reported and therefore may not meet the legal requirement, it’s still notable that of the number of families that self-reported housing discrimination a percentage was currently working or intended to work with the organization contracted by the City to provide fair housing services.
The Needs Assessment worth a read if you have the time, it is 58 pages long, but a pretty quick read. Another way to get a good high level overview about what is in the Needs Assessment is by watching the Alameda Currents feature on the report. It’s about 23 minutes and talks to some people who were involved in the creation of the Needs Assessment as well as Alameda residents and employee who interact with the population addressed in the Needs Assessment on a day-to-day basis.
My comment cited above (can’t take care of our own…) concerning the “Needs Assessment” report of SSHRB was, of course, tongue-in-cheek. However, extrapolating the data collected in the 2005-2006 report could lead one to believe that this sandbox village we live in is, indeed, populated by a very destitute group.
What purpose is served by having an SSHRB Needs Assessment survey unless Alameda citizens in need can be found? The 2005-2006 report’s gist is that the previous report (year 2000) was disproportionately white and the respondents made too much money in order for the report to show meaningful community needs so the data collection methodology was changed. Instead of a random telephone survey, the latest survey was administered through local social service providers.
Even though the report states the survey reached a broad cross-section of Alameda residents it appears that, in effect, the survey was skewed towards respondents who were already receiving social services. In effect respondents were chosen in order to assess the needs of a segment (those in need) of a slightly larger sample group (516 citizens out of 74,000). What they found was a city in need of a multitude of social services. That this sample group is representative of the entire city, if not literally stated in the report, is implied.
The thrust of the Franz (SSHRB Chair) clip contained in the Alameda Currents feature referenced above, if I understand it correctly, is that the Board’s main mission is to advertise local social services. One thought concerning his clip; he begins by indirectly stating (this is not a quote) that many people in Alameda rely on government aid and, since government aid is not pro-rated to reflect local housing costs, the same people receiving aid in Alameda who are destitute and, therefore, need aid would not be destitute in Oakland because of lower housing costs.
Comment by Jack Richard — October 11, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Re. laurendo shun
“…the notion that we would “care” for the “shunned” of the world is based on the assumption that immigrants come to the United States and drain our social services programs,”
Perhaps immigrants do drain our social services programs. Maybe that’s not the reason they come to the United States but once here they are confronted with a phalanx of social organizations (such as those who sshrub solicits for) advertising their mission of providing services using other people’s money. The money bucket is, in reality, a sieve and is never full enough to satisfy the wants of the providers or the recipients so it’s always drained. But I digress…
Comment by Jack Richard — October 11, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
I am not convinced that immigrants create more costs than benefits, but even if they did, isn’t that really just start up capital with benefits paid back at a later date? What would our country be like without new immigrants? The Statue of Liberty herself is an immigrant and the words inscribed at her base were written by a woman from a then despised minority group.
http://jwa.org/exhibits/wov/lazarus/
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — October 11, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Is this thread about teachers affording to live in Alameda, or social services in Alameda? Digressions aside, one interesting thought is overall spending on education vs. health care. As health care costs balloon, and more of them are absorbed by governments (bound to happen no matter what your view), there will be less money for other things, including education.
Comment by phastphill — October 11, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
This thread is arguing about social services and immigrants. The money spent on the war half way around the world could easily take care of all these problems. So why don’t we argue about that. John P.
Comment by jpbullit@alamedanet.net — October 12, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
John,
So could the money given to developers in CA by our very flawed ‘redevelopment’ laws.
We are already over 250 Billion into redevelopment bonds which must be paid by $ that could otherwise pay for services like education, emergency and aid for the sever cases of financial disadvantage.
Comment by David Kirwin — October 12, 2007 @ 5:22 pm