ElizaBeth McCay, Editor

Supply and Demand: Virginia Teachers and Administrators

National Overview

Defining the problem: In a simple count, no shortage of teachers and administrators exists. The issue runs much deeper, however, than a mere numbers count. When examined by location and by subject area, shortages do indeed exist and present critical problems of understaffing. In poor, urban, and minority settings, teachers and administrators are in significant demand. In content areas of science and math, as well as in special education, shortages exist as well. In addition, the problem does not appear to be a short-term issue; projections indicate that this is a current and growing trend. Less frequently discussed are issues related to shortages among school administrators.

Teachers: Several factors contribute to the problem. Student enrollment PK-12 is growing and projected to continue to increase over the next century. In part this is due to increasing immigration as well as the emergence of a second baby boom. Simultaneously, growing numbers of retirements are occurring and predicted to continue in the coming years. One estimate suggests that one third of the nation’s teachers are likely to retire within the decade. Compounding these factors are two others; first, attrition rates among new teachers are high. Some estimates indicate that one in five graduates who taught had left within five years. Sadly, graduates with College Entrance Examination scores in the top quartile were twice as likely as their peers in the bottom quartile to have left teaching. Others prepared to teach never enter the profession at all. Second, a current emphasis on reducing class size increases the number of teachers required for staffing. In combination, these factors create an increasingly problematic trend toward shortages in the teaching force.

Administrators: Among school administrators, a decreasing pool of qualified applicants is also evident. In a 1998 national study including a random sample of over 400 school districts, about half reported a lack of qualified candidates for principalship vacancies. In addition to conditions leading to teacher shortages, additional factors are present for administrators. The demands of the job have steadily increased, without compensating salary adjustments. To a large extent, the job is not appealing to teachers, particularly when avenues for teacher leadership have begun to emerge in recent years. Retirement is also a factor among administrators; the NAESP estimates that over 40% of K-8 principals will retire or leave the profession in the coming decade. In addition, in recent years site based management efforts have afforded greater decision making authority to administrators, but with increased responsibility as well. Research studies have increasingly pointed to the importance of effective leadership in school reform; unfortunately, this also places the principal in the position of blame when problems arise. Finally, urban disparity poses an additional challenge in staffing, for administrators and teachers alike. Urban school districts experience a significantly more difficult time recruiting educators to work in their schools.

Virginia

Enrollment growth: Virginia ranks 18th among the states in enrollment growth. The school age population in this state will continue to grow, but fortunately at a slower rate than in the last five years. Approximately 800 new teaching positions will be needed in the coming five years just to accommodate enrollment growth. While the population growth will slow, however, the larger elementary student population will advance through the grades, causing a shift in the need for grade level and subject matter certification. The demand for elementary teachers will decline while the need for subject area specialists at the secondary level will increase in response to this demographic shift. Over the past three years the number of new hires has increased from approximately 7600 in 1998 to roughly 10,800 in 2000. Projections for 2001 drop approximately 800 from last year’s figures.

Reduction in teacher training graduates: At the same time that hiring needs have increased in Virginia, the number of prospective teachers completing teacher training has declined. If this trend continues, the gap between supply and demand will continue to widen. Approximately 750 fewer individuals were expected to complete preparation programs this year, compared with four years ago. The advent of alternative routes to licensure is beginning to provide a new source of teachers, albeit a smaller number.

Transition from training to teaching: In Virginia, 42% of teacher education graduates leave the Commonwealth, further widening the divide between the preparation of new teachers and vacancies in the field. Of those initially trained as teachers, various estimates indicate that only 50-60% enter the field upon graduation. Nearly one third of initial licenses issued in 1999 were conditional or provisional; however, the number of licenses granted exceeds the number of new teachers hired in the schools.

Retention and retirement: In the most recent longitudinal study, roughly 40% of new teachers in Virginia left teaching in the state within their first three years. In addition, approximately one third of Virginia teachers are 50 or older and are or will be soon eligible for retirement. These factors combine to point to the increasing likelihood of shortages among teachers and administrators in the Commonwealth.

Shortage areas: Current and projected areas of shortage in Virginia include special education (where a high rate of burnout is prevalent), science (particularly physics and earth science), and, more recently, math. Virginia school officials anticipate a “severe” shortage in these areas in the coming five years (Atkinson, 2000). There is a high demand in the private sector for these subject areas, impacting negatively on the supply of those choosing to teach. These shortage areas in Virginia mirror national trends as well. In Virginia, the General Assembly has made provisions for scholarships in shortage areas, such as special education, science, foreign language, and technology.

Class size: Lowering class size in the primary (K-3) grades during the past decade in Virginia led to an increase in teachers hired. Currently there are no plans to further reduce class size, so the effects on teaching positions should now stabilize in this area. (Note: In a national study of the teaching profession by Public Agenda, however, it was noted that new teachers perceive that reducing class size is the best way to improve teaching quality. This is an important point of consideration.)

Early retirement: Another factor contributing to increasing shortages is the response to an early-retirement package enacted in Virginia in 1999. Teachers and administrators who are 50 or older with 30 years of service can retire, and this increases the number of retirement-eligible teachers by 1600 in the state. Almost one-quarter of Virginia’s teachers have 21 or more years of experience, and 20,000 teachers are likely to retire over the next decade.

Salary: Salary deters some from entering or remaining in the teaching field, both in Virginia and nationally. Nationally, the salary gap between teachers and non-teaching peers is significant and growing. In addition, teachers move from lower to higher paying divisions. In Virginia, the majority of teachers who leave a job take a teaching position elsewhere in the Commonwealth; salary is a driving force in this relocation.

Intra-district competition: One particular policy that has both a positive and negative impact within the Commonwealth is the “cost of competing” subsidy. This provides additional funds to school divisions in the highly competitive northern Virginia region, in order to remain competitive in the job market in that region. However, neighboring school divisions without the resources to become competitive are suffering by losing staff to systems with higher salaries within commuting distance.

Professional development and mentoring: In a major report on the quality of education across the nation, Education Week rated Virginia with a grade of C+ in the area of Improving Teacher Quality. Virginia requires and provides funds for the induction of beginning teachers. Implementation and thoroughness of implementation have thus far been spotty around the Commonwealth. Conversely, state policy does not advocate that schools and districts set aside time for ongoing professional development for teachers or administrators. Funds for local professional development efforts are available, however.

Data collection: The Virginia Department of Education began a process of data collection and analysis in the 1999-2000 school year to examine information related to teacher training, licensure, hiring and retention. The current plan is for this information to be collected biennially. This will potentially provide much needed data for monitoring and responding to the staffing needs within Virginia. Data needed include numbers of teachers-in-training in the pipeline and their area of specialization; numbers and types of positions by locality; numbers and timeline for pending retirements; and trends in staffing turnover, among others. Similar study of administrator turnover and preparation are needed as well.

In summary, an overall shortage of teachers and administrators may not exist; however, when factors are examined that impact on the supply and demand of staffing, significant problems are evident in certain localities and subject areas. Sadly, those most affected are two critical content areas, students with disabilities, and schools and districts without the resources to competitively attract applicants. The end result of this situation is widening disparity within the Commonwealth.

Differing views arise in how to best address shortages in staffing. These can be categorized in these areas, which are discussed below:

• Training
• Recruiting
• Retaining

Training

Within the area of training, various perspectives are evident. While these will be addressed in a subsequent briefing, a brief overview of the issues is presented here.

Standards for enrollment in preparation programs and licensure: Differing opinions prevail regarding raising or lowering the bar for acceptance requirements into preparation programs and licensure. Some argue that in order to increase the number of teachers entering the pipeline, standards for admission to preparation programs should be lowered. Others argue that standards should be raised to attract the best and brightest to the field. Most proponents of the latter view explain, however, that raising the bar without improvements to the field of teaching will not address the problem. A more comprehensive approach to the problem is suggested.

Extended preparation programs: Some suggest that states provide incentives for the establishment of more extended (e.g., five-year and fifth-year) teacher education programs. The concept behind this proposal is to increase the depth of training provided, including extensive clinical preparation. Others argue for reduction in time requirements for preparation, saying that the route to licensure discourages potential applicants.

Licensure requirements: Some in the field advocate that states establish licensing reciprocity across states, to allow for ease of teacher movement from one location to another. Those who oppose this idea express concern about inconsistency of expectations from state to state. Another suggestion most recently is that states grant a license to out-of-state entrants who have achieved National Board Certification.

Alternative routes to licensure: Some advocate for alternative routes to licensure. One such program, Teach For America, provides five weeks of intensive preparation for non-education majors. The program is specifically targeted toward underfunded schools. The positive is that this addresses one of the critical shortage areas. The negative is that those with potentially the least teacher training are serving the most educationally needy. Another suggestion is to provide incentives for community colleges and others that prepare paraprofessionals for certification. Proponents of this measure suggest that paraprofessionals enter teaching with experience in schools, and are therefore excellent candidates to move from paraprofessional to professional roles as teachers.

High-need incentives: Some suggest the creation of scholarship programs to prepare high-ability candidates in shortage fields. Others argue that this discriminates against those who choose to teach in another area of specialization.

Alignment of university preparation and local need: It has been suggested by some that universities should work in conjunction with local school divisions to determine current and projected shortage areas, and encourage students to pursue those subject areas. Some simply suggest that universities expand teacher education programs in high-need fields

Attracting others to the field of teaching: It is commonly thought by many that those who choose to teach are drawn to this career as a calling. But what is done to interest others in this career path? Public Agenda reported in a study of college graduates that many outside of teaching view the profession favorably, and that some would consider teaching for the altruistic appeal. Among some of these graduates, while salary and the potential for long-term salary gains is a deterrent, it is not the only factor mentioned. The authors argue that increasing the overall salary structure in teaching, however, might attract more to the initial pool of those entering the field.

Recruiting

Significant changes in recruiting efforts are evident in recent years. In some school divisions an increase in local and internet advertising have been seen, posting positions on school division web sites, for example. Twenty-seven states have web sites with job information; however, only nine states allow teachers to submit or post information, a feature that might help streamline processing of applications. Some recommend creating national recruitment initiatives, streamlining hiring procedures, and developing on-line information technologies. Others prefer local control of all aspects of recruiting.

Signing bonuses: Signing bonuses are becoming increasingly common in early recruiting efforts, such as at regional job fairs. This significantly increases the level of competition among school divisions, typically putting at a disadvantage those localities unable to pay. Increasingly common are out-of-state recruiters from large districts able to pay steep signing bonuses; in particular, such recruiters are seeking out minority candidates. Opponents of this measure argue that it is a temporary solution, one that is not cost effective in the long term. While some signing bonuses may carry expectations that a new teacher remain with a district for a certain number of years, others may not include such stipulations and therefore may produce a one-year benefit only. Opponents also argue against the sole emphasis placed on attracting new recruits, without attention given to those teachers already on the job.

Hiring qualified vs. unqualified teachers: Currently many teachers are hired who are either not yet certified as teachers, or who are unendorsed in the area of specialization which they will be expected to teach. This is an area of debate in the field. Many in the field responsible for hiring decisions see no choice when shortages exist in certain subject areas or in special education. The approach is to hire new teachers provisionally, and establish timelines for completion of requirements. Opponents of this practice argue adamantly against such hiring practices and, instead, emphasize concentrating on other measures to train and attract quality applicants.

Mid-career changers: Some suggest the hiring of older personnel, typically those coming to teaching after another career or later in life. The same is suggested for hiring retired military personnel. Proponents of this idea believe that older, mid-career candidates bring maturity to the job, as well as an attraction to the altruistic nature of the profession. Often such prospective applicants are provided with reduced requirements for training, such as a one-summer intensive program, or post-hiring requirements for coursework. Opponents argue that the intensive, short-term training provided to such candidates is insufficient to prepare these recruits for the job. In addition, concerns are evident with the inconsistency of requirements for some in this position; candidates may be hired ‘cold,’ without any prior training or preparation. This places increased burden on the local school and division, particularly teachers in those schools, for mentoring and training on the job.

Retaining

Not only must school divisions fill initial positions, but they must also attend to retaining teachers and administrators in the job. Attrition rates of new teachers are extremely high; some reports estimate that 20% of teachers leave the field by their fifth year, while other estimates are higher. Several alternative responses to this issue are evident in the discussion, and are noted below.

Induction and mentoring: Induction and mentoring programs for new teachers are currently required in Virginia, but not yet implemented in all localities nor assessed to determine quality of implementation. It is generally, and relatively recently, accepted that support for new teachers is critical in keeping them on the job. Over half of new teachers surveyed nationally by Public Agenda expressed a desire for increased time with an experienced supervisor. A focus on high-quality programs is key. Detractors of this plan take issue only with the lack of depth and/or follow through by mentors within the program (e.g., meeting a mentor one time, but receiving no direct assistance).

New teacher benefits: Increased pay and benefits for teachers early in their careers is suggested by some. The idea behind this strategy is to entice new teachers into the field, with the hopes that they will stay in the job. Others argue, however, that this emphasis on new teachers does not guarantee retention, and overlooks the contributions and dedication of experienced teachers who remain on the job.

Salary: Many argue that teacher salaries, low in comparison with non-teaching college graduate salaries, discourage many from entering the field, or fail to retain teachers throughout their careers. In one study, over half of new teachers indicate that an increase in salary improves teaching quality. In addition to those who propose increasing teacher salaries, some also suggest raising teacher standards while equalizing teacher salaries across the board. Regarding suggestions to increase pay in shortage specialization areas, teachers do not support increased pay for those areas; however, teachers reportedly do support increased pay (sometimes referred to as “combat pay”) for those who teach in urban settings with disadvantaged student populations.

Professional development: Ongoing professional development on the job is a generally accepted practice. Its implementation, however, is generally assumed and often falls drastically short of intended benefits. Proponents of increased professional development opportunities for teachers identify the learning needs of professional adults, as well as the rapidly changing technologies and updating of instructional pedagogy and content knowledge as critical factors. One report indicates that over half of new teachers perceive that an increase in professional development contributes to improved quality of teaching. Some advocate for state funding and support of local professional development initiatives in order to emphasize the value and importance of this ongoing training.

Improve societal perception of teaching as a career: On a societal level, increasing the image of and worth given to teaching as a career is suggested by many as critical to attracting quality applicants to the profession. In addition, one report suggested increasing the incentives to not retire, rather than cashing in on the cost savings of senior faculty leaving; this runs counter to Virginia’s offering of early retirement, however. There is a growing and significant gap between the earnings of teachers and other professional peers. In a Virginia study, teachers left the field to pursue other careers outside of education (25%); some lost interest in teaching (19%); some due to salary (10%); and some for personal reasons (10%).

National

• Education Week’s Quality Counts 2000: Who Should Teach? report rated Virginia with a C+ in improving teacher quality. One factor contributing to this rating was an identified lack of state support and encouragement of time set aside for professional development.

• Public Agenda (2000) identified positive impressions of the teaching profession by college graduates outside the field, including some who might consider a career in teaching for its altruistic purposes. For those non-teaching graduates, salary (particularly long-range earning potential) is a key deterrent, but not the only factor noted. Increases in the profession’s salary structure might attract more to the applicant pool, however. New teachers’ perceptions regarding ways to improve teaching quality included reducing class size, requiring secondary teachers to major in their subject area, increasing professional development, salary, and time with experienced supervisors. In addition, teachers in the field reportedly do not support increased pay in subject shortage areas, but do support increases for teachers in urban settings with disadvantaged students.

• Progress through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992-93 College Graduates and Elementary/Secondary School Teaching as of 1997 (NCES, 2000) found that one in five graduates who taught had left within five years. In addition, graduates with higher scores on College Entrance Exams were twice as likely to have left as those with scores in the bottom quartile; however, those with more pedagogical training were less likely to have left the profession. Of concern for teacher retention was that graduates who taught did not feel respected by society for the work they do. Of those who left, approximately 25% pursued jobs in another field; 19% no longer were interested in teaching;10% due to salary and benefits; and 10% to have children of their own. Another important finding for retention was that those who taught out of their field of preparation experienced an increased workload and stress than other teaching peers. New teachers were more likely to teach in high minority schools, and teachers in those settings were less likely to have completed student teaching.

• NCES (1997) identified these factors of working conditions as critical to teacher satisfaction: administrative support and leadership; student behavior and school atmosphere; and teacher autonomy. Teacher satisfaction is a contributing factor to teacher retention.

Virginia

• In a Virginia Department of Education (2000) survey in 94% of Virginia’s school divisions (conducted by the Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research) preliminary data point to critical teacher shortages in science and special education, and a growing shortage in mathematics. Declining numbers are also seen in minority teachers, as well as in numbers of candidates completing teacher preparation programs. Most teachers who leave positions do so to accept higher paying appointments within Virginia.

• The Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) is currently conducting a study within its member regions in the metropolitan Richmond area on recruiting and retaining teachers. An initial review of the literature (Fox & Certo, 1999) addressed issues surrounding school division efforts to retain teachers in the first five years, the perceptions of teachers regarding those strategies, and reasons teachers leave the field during those critical early years.

National

Around the nation, examples abound of state and local efforts to train, recruit, and retain quality teachers and administrators. State involvement in this issue is increasing rapidly. Some of these examples include:

Income tax relief: California proposed the elimination of the state income tax for teachers; Maryland proposed income tax credit of $500.

Loan forgiveness and/or scholarships: 27 states provide this, but only 18 focus on subject area shortages; 10 focus on those teaching in low income/rural or urban/low achieving areas. North Carolina is noted for its Teaching Fellows program, which provides both scholarships ($6500/year for four years) and year round experiences during the preparation process. Approximately 65% of participants continue to teach in NC past their four-year commitment; this is a higher rate than that of many other localities.

Housing: Some districts offer housing or coverage of closing costs (e.g., Baltimore), particularly in under-served communities; others provide moving expenses.

Signing bonuses: This is increasingly a common practice by school divisions who can afford to pay. Some offer this for any teaching applicants, others for selected populations of teachers, typically at recruiting fairs.

Recognizing national certification: Nearly half of the states provide raises for teachers completing certification with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. North Carolina teachers earn a 12% raise as a result of successful completion. Approximately 15 states honor National Board certification, allowing teachers to carry a teaching license from state to state (where recognized). Currently, many teachers who move to a new state leave the teaching field rather than complete the new state’s requirements for certification.

Alternate routes to licensure: Approximately 40 states offer alternative means for obtaining licensure, beyond the typical college path, particularly for mid-career switchers and retired military personnel. Another pool of potential teachers to be tapped include paraprofessionals; at least six states thus far provide incentives and training for this group. Old Dominion University has been preparing approximately 200-250 teachers per year in their Troops-to-Teachers program, for example. Massachusetts offered $20,000 bonuses in 1998 over four years to selected individuals who were not in a traditional teaching preparation program. As a result of the highly selective process, recipients of this bonus were provided an intensive summer training program to prepare them to enter teaching. The combination of the financial incentive coupled with a fast track preparation and hands-on learning was a draw for this initiative. Critics argue, however, that this money could be more wisely invested during the 3rd-5th years of teaching, based on successful (and rigorous) performance reviews.

Combined packages for new teachers: Maryland is providing signing bonuses for top applicants; stipends for teachers willing to work in low-performing schools; and additional pay for veteran teachers demonstrating their skill. A proposal was introduced to provide a $500 tax credit for all teachers. Improving the quality of work life for new teachers is another focus by some states. For example, North Carolina introduced a measure excluding new teachers from the assignment of extracurricular duties, unless requested by the teacher. Recommendations were made to limit non-instructional duties as well. The Washington, D.C., school division now publicizes its support and induction services for new teachers, after noting that as the primary question asked by applicants.

Incentives for targeted areas: Mississippi covers tuition and expenses for students agreeing to teaching in shortage subject areas. For teachers already in the field who are willing to move to a shortage area, graduate education expenses are covered for those individuals. Eighteen other states also provide scholarship or loan assistance for targeted subject areas. For specific college student populations, 11 states target scholarships or loans for academically talented students; 10 target minority candidates. Only ten states link scholarship or loan programs with those agreeing to teach in hard-to-staff schools. Districts with low performing schools in California are provided bonuses for test score improvement; New York City provides a 15% raise to teachers agreeing to teach in challenged schools. Teachers in the latter initiative work longer hours and more days, but are provided with support for completion of certification requirements and to pursue graduate degrees. A concerted effort is made to place experienced teachers in these schools.

Such scholarship and loan programs are relatively new, and few states advertise these incentives. In cases where advertising occurs, significant increases in numbers of applicants are noted.

Raising teacher standards and pay in combination: In a comprehensive overhaul of education in Connecticut since 1986, a state minimum beginning teacher salary was established, with state aid provided to economically challenged districts. In addition, licensing standards were increased, including a new teacher internship and assessment. The state went in three years from shortage to surplus of teachers, while also increasing student performance. Several states are grappling with initiatives to pay for teacher performance. Pennsylvania has reserved $1 million for this purpose; Massachusetts has proposed offering state funding for development of differentiated pay scales; Kentucky has proposed a new salary schedule including additional pay for a variety of performance- and certification-based requirements.

Recruiting young students in middle and high school: Some programs target young students before career decisions are made. South Carolina has a Teacher Cadet program, offered as a high school honors course, in about 75% of the state’s high schools. Outreach clubs are also supported in middle schools, appealing directly to males and minorities and encouraging them to pursue teaching. Success rates indicate that approximately 40% of Teacher Cadets end up in a teaching career, and of those, about 75% remain in state. In Virginia, one example of such a Teacher Cadet program is found in Fluvanna County, where high school students are provided training, mentoring, and hands-on experiences in elementary classrooms.

Recruiting online: Twenty-seven states have Web pages listing job openings; in nine states, candidates may post their information on sites, allowing recruiters to conduct searches online. Some localities are providing this process independently. In California, the New Haven school district even includes video-teleconference interviews of selected applicants, significantly reducing costs typically incurred with recruiting efforts.

These and other incentives are particularly needed in urban areas or subject shortage areas, but such lures are rarely focused in the areas of most need.

Virginia

Recruiting: Throughout Virginia, school divisions have stepped up their recruiting efforts significantly in the past year or recent years. Some offer signing bonuses at job fairs or recruitment drives; others are hiring student teachers into the classroom in on-the-job training while employed. In two cases in the metro Richmond area, sharp contrasts can be seen between localities’ ability to attract applicants (Atkinson, 2000).

Case 1—Henrico

• Suburban, high revenue capacity, high performing schools
• Within two year period, hired 35% of workforce (983 new teachers)
• Report no widespread teacher shortages
• Report some difficulty identifying high quality applicants with special education, math, and upper level science endorsements
• No positions remained unfilled
• Retirement is primary reason teachers leave
• Entry salary with bachelor’s degree--$31,146

Case 2—Petersburg City

• Urban, fiscally stressed, lower performing schools
• Within two year period, hired 47% of workforce (224 new teachers)
• Report widespread teacher shortage
• Difficulty finding qualified applicants with elementary endorsement, in addition to shortage areas of special education, math and science
• Positions unfilled, using long-term substitutes
• Salary is primary reason teachers leave
• Entry salary with bachelor’s degree – $28,185

Clearly these examples within relative proximity to each other demonstrate the sharp contrast between a wealthier suburban division’s ability to pay and attract candidates and that of an economically stressed, urban division. This scenario is common within the state and around the nation.

Hiring process: Streamlining recruiting and hiring procedures improves the hiring process; previous procedures in Fairfax, for example, required a 62-step process that reportedly bogged down hiring and may have discouraged candidates from applying.

The issues surrounding the supply and demand of teachers and administrators are many and varied, many of which are addressed in this series of policy briefs. In addition to those discussed in this brief, three others are evident.

Budget timeline: Late budget decisions from the state and, subsequently, the locality delay the hiring process. Such delays reduce school division’s ability to attract early applicants.

Academic standards: Implementation of new standards and high-stakes testing impacts educators, and, for some, increases frustration, reduces teacher autonomy, and impacts teacher retention or initial interest in the teaching profession.

Impact on students: A critical issue to be examined is the impact on poor, low achieving schools and districts where low pay, low student achievement, challenging student populations, and less than adequate working conditions are present. The impact that this scenario is likely to have is the further decline of already under-served or poorly served economically disadvantaged urban and rural settings. This is likely to lead to increasing disparity among schools statewide. In addition, new teachers reportedly are more likely to teach in high minority schools, and teachers in those schools are less likely than experienced colleagues to have completed student teaching.

The issue of supply and demand is extremely complex, yet is often reduced to sound bites of numbers of vacancies. This narrow view of the issue limits potential policy development to address this growing problem. Some perspectives gleaned from current research and practice are offered here for consideration.

First, comprehensive data is needed to inform the framing of the problem and ultimately the development of policy to address current and future needs for staffing in schools. Policy makers might consider supporting provisions for collecting data on who is licensed; what that license represents; where individuals were trained; where teachers are choosing to teach; which children are being assigned to which teachers; and what is occurring with teacher mobility in response to Virginia’s accountability efforts (e.g., teachers seeking out high performing schools and districts and leaving settings with lower performance). In order to advance the Commonwealth’s efforts at improving teaching and learning in schools, solid information is needed to assess the impact of new teachers entering the field. The Virginia Department of Education has begun an initial process of data collection in the past year. Collection of similar data on school administrators also warrants attention. Careful collection and analysis of data might inform decision making on these issues.

Also to be examined is the match between what areas of specialization are needed by school divisions, and what is being provided or encouraged by preparation programs. Questions such as these might be asked: What communication exists between teacher preparation programs and school divisions regarding supply and demand? Are preparation efforts, whether traditional or alternative, addressing what will be needed in the teaching force in the coming future? How does the training and development of teachers reflect projected trends in schools, whether regarding demographic shifts, expectations in accountability, or other demands of the job? These questions might frame an informed discussion of the link between preparation and hiring. In addition, policy makers may want to consider supporting initiatives addressing the development of quality programs for teacher and administrator training. Funding could provide internships and other clinical experiences, which are critical to quality preparation, at all levels of preparation. Aiding the creation of partnerships between universities and local school divisions for joint preparation and matching of supply and demand might be considered as well.

Policy makers may want to examine state and local budget timelines in relation to this issue. Streamlining of budget decision making at each level would increase the ability of school divisions to recruit and make hiring decisions in the spring, rather than waiting until summer when the pool of applicants is diminished. Beyond state lines, working with other states to establish licensing reciprocity could increase flexibility of teachers moving into Virginia.

In recruiting teachers, on-line technologies should be developed or expanded to increase ease with which interested applicants (within state and beyond) can identify positions and submit appropriate paperwork. Once established, these methods provide a saving in travel costs associated with recruiting efforts.

Once teachers are hired, consideration should be given to provision of quality induction and mentoring programs. Such programs should include mentor training and follow up, as ongoing support is critical. Policy makers might want to consider funding training and assessment initiatives in this area.

A critical issue needing attention is the corps of experienced teachers currently employed in Virginia’s schools. What is needed to keep them actively engaged in the teaching profession? How are their salaries, benefits, and working conditions attended to, simultaneous to state and local efforts to draw new teachers into the field? Policy makers may want to maintain a focus on experienced teachers so that the issue of supply and demand is not further exacerbated as a result of discouraging those currently teaching. For example, how are experienced teachers supported in their work? What recognition and compensation do master teachers receive in their mentoring and training of new recruits? What provisions are in place for ongoing professional development for teachers? As suggested by Atkinson (2000) “retaining teachers may be [the] best use of state and local resources” in Virginia.

In addition, focusing state resources on academic and geographic areas with demonstrated need warrants serious consideration. Urban and disadvantaged rural localities may require significant attention and resources in order to enable them to competitively recruit and retain teachers. Equitable provision of resources to address current and likely growing disparity is critical. One possibility for state policy consideration would be to equalize beginning teacher salaries across the Commonwealth. In addition, state incentives, scholarships, and loan forgiveness might be created to bring new and experienced teachers to disadvantaged settings.

In its report entitled Quality Counts 2000, Education Week suggested that the “piecemeal policies and lackluster incentives” discourage potential teachers from the profession. Others have spoken of signing bonuses and similar measures as Band-Aid approaches to a much more systemic problem. As noted in this policy brief, the supply and demand of teachers and administrators is a complex issue, involving multiple, diverse factors. A comprehensive approach to this problem at the state, local, and university level is essential. Effective policy development will reflect the complexity of the issue.

Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “Supply and Demand: Virginia Teachers and Administrators.”

Atkinson, T. (2000). Supply and demand for classroom teachers. Richmond, VA: Report for the House Appropriations Committee.

Blair, J. (2000). Districts wooing teachers with bonuses, incentives. Education Week, August 2, 2000.

Boe, E.E., Cook, L.H., Bobbitt, S.A., & Terhanian, G. (1998). The shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 1: 1-21.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Education Week. (2000). Quality Counts 2000: Who Should Teach?

Elliott, T.A. (2000). Teacher supply and demand in Virginia: A briefing. Report to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Foleno, T., with Duffett, A. & Foley, P. (2000). A sense of calling: Who teaches and why. NY: Public Agenda.

Fetler, M. (1997). Where have all the teachers gone? Education Policy Analysis Archives: Vol. 5, No. 2.

Fox, J.E., & Certo, J. (1999). Recruiting and retaining teachers: A review of the literature. Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC).

Hussar, W.J. (1999). Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States to 2008-09. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Kolasky, B. (2000). Issue of the week: A teaching crisis? IntellectualCapital.com.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992-93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2000). Job satisfaction among American teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation. U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Olson, L. (1999). Demand for principals growing, but candidates aren’t applying. Education Week on the Web, March 3, 1999.

Olson, L. (2000). Principals wanted: Apply just about anywhere. Education Week on the Web, January 12, 2000.

Olson, L. (2000). Sweetening the pot. Quality Counts 2000: Who Should Teach?

Trice, C.R. (2000). Rural areas lose veteran teachers. Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 7, 2000.

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.