Teachers are at the center of a strong educational system. Well-qualified, engaging, dynamic educators are what every parent wants for their children and what, hopefully, schools are looking for when they have openings on their staffs. But we all know that being a teacher isn’t easy these days (was it ever?) and the challenges are not a particularly well-kept secret. In San Francisco, not only is the work itself strenuous, but the task of making a living in this increasingly expensive city makes the job almost a luxury available only to those who have another income that can help make ends meet.

Last year we avoided a strike on the part of the teachers by negotiating a contract that stretched back a few years into the past but unfortunately only covered up to 2007. In true whiplash fashion, negotiations for the next contract phase had to start almost immediately thereafter. Those negotiations continue and will be something the new superintendent, whoever that turns out to be, has to take a lead in. A strike vote may happen this summer, indicating that those discussions are ratcheting up.

The issues in these negotiations revolve as they must around compensation and working conditions. While San Francisco may have a particularly trying set of cost-of-living factors to contend with, the overall difficulty of creating teaching positions to which top-notch individuals will be attracted and want to stay in is one that has been facing all districts nationally and certainly our state and city are no exception.

The troubling reality of the high-rate of teacher attrition and the lack of a sufficient number of new qualified teachers has always been lurking in the background, but it seems to be getting more attention these days. Earlier this year, Ken Furnick, Director of K-12 studies at the California State University’s (CSU) Center for Teacher Quality (CTQ--a project supported by the CSU Chancellor’s Office) published an extremely useful report on the very crucial topic of retaining teachers.

Entitled “A possible dream: Retaining California’s teachers so all students learn,” the report presents the analysis of results from an online survey of nearly 2000 current and former public school teachers in California, with an additional focus on the issues of special education teachers. The survey asked why general education teachers in high and low poverty schools left those schools; why “stayers” remained in the profession; why special education teachers leave teaching; and why special education teachers remain “active” special education teachers.

The overall finding from the study is that while teachers are concerned with salaries, adequate compensation itself is insufficient to retrain or attract teachers. The necessary complement to wages is the constellation of factors that make up a rich, supportive educational work environment, which the study elaborates as the “teaching and learning environment.”

Creating environments that are conducive to good teaching and good teachers means being attentive to more than physical plant issues, although that is a baseline which unfortunately we have quite a long ways to go to meet (see the May 24, 2007 School Beat on “Tools for Schools” for a summary of these issues.)

Assuming that the school site is a healthy, functioning one, what this study identifies are the “…whole range of instructional, collegial, and systemic conditions which, for many, make teaching a highly satisfying profession. A profession that reminds those who have chosen it that they are making a positive impact on students and society.” (p. viii).

A negative work environment, one that contains seemingly useless bureaucratic requirements, provides insufficient support for planning and teaching itself, allows for little or no authentic involvement in decision-making and that lacks a good collegial environment, were all reasons cited by those who left. When those areas were experienced positively, in other words, where administrative needs more or less made sense, where teachers had a voice in the school, where teaching and professional development were supported and where an engaging collegial atmosphere existed, teachers were interested in staying.

These are issues that we must take seriously if we are to attract and retain the well qualified teaching staff essential to creating the successful educational systems we want for our children. The author makes a compelling case that the fall in our students’ academic achievement ironically occurred just when class-size reduction efforts were implemented in 1998, requiring an immediate influx of staff. A pre-existing teacher shortage was exacerbated, and districts turned towards emergency credentials and other strategies, staffing positions with many people who while well-intentioned, were not sufficiently trained.

The conditions creating the teacher shortage have remained, leaving the state with a continued loss of experienced teachers. Currently, 22% of teachers retire after their first four years of teaching and every year, 6% of teachers leave before retirement age. (p. 2). No Child Left Behind has only increased the relentless bureaucratic oversight, narrowed the scope of the teaching practice itself and created a high-stress, high-stakes environment that is focused on simple performance metrics as opposed to solid educational attainment.

Clearly this is a problem that can’t wait to be addressed. Fortunately the CTQ study does more than present a summary of survey results. A set of recommendations are provided that are useful even within the existing policy constraints and may indeed be tools for changing those policies:

“Assess teaching conditions locally and continually.” Similar to authentic student assessment that focuses on evaluating student work frequently and using outcomes to modify teaching practices, there should be a regular dialog with teaching staff and principals about the conditions of their work and how they can be improved.

“Elevate California’s student funding to (at least) adequate levels.” With Stanford’s Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice study just out in March that identifies how we need to increase and restructure our public school funding, there’s no excuse for this situation to remain.

“Resolve the bureaucratic conundrum(not all bureaucracies are bad)”: rational, efficient policies and procedures are necessary in large institutions, but those practices need to make sense, have a purpose, and not diminish or ignore the expertise of the educational staff they are meant to support.

“Refocus school leadership on instructional quality and high-quality teaching and learning conditions.” Principals need to be given relief from less than useful administrative requirements, and be provided with professional development and the support and room to create engaging schools for students and their teachers.

“Establish statewide standards for school teaching and learning conditions.” California has very clearly articulated curriculum standards, but no guidelines for the environment required to meet those standards. The Stanford study has positioned us to create such an assessment.

“Assess and address specific challenges in retention of special education teachers.” Like their students, special education teachers are not treated equally within the public education universe. From funding, to professional development, to the inefficiencies of the current Individualized Education Program (IEP) process, to integration within the school community, there is much room for creating conditions that will serve to retain and recruit excellent special education teachers.

Retaining and recruiting teachers is just as much of a problem in San Francisco as it is anywhere else, no matter how attractive the Bay Area is in and of itself. With contract negotiations underway, a new superintendent coming on soon, a potential parcel tax on the ballot within the next year or so, and some movement in education policy at the state and federal levels, right now may be an excellent time to take these recommendations to heart.

Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is a member of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco and the PTA.