by AFT President Sandra Feldman
October 2000

How can we attract
more young people
to teaching?

Become a teacher? Not likely. That's how most New York City teenagers responded to a recent poll asking them if they would be interested in a career as a city teacher. Although the majority of the young people, who included high school and college students, felt positive about the services their own teachers had provided, only 24 percent found teaching in New York City schools very, or even fairly, appealing.

There is little doubt that these results would be repeated in cities across the country--and who can blame the kids? Why should they want to enter a field where their work will get little recognition and their salaries will never approach what other professionals make?

So it's not hard to understand why young people--and talented ones in particular-- don't even consider teaching. But the growing teacher shortage gives a new urgency to the situation, especially since it comes at a time when we are working hard to raise student achievement--and beginning to succeed. Will we be able to attract high-quality young teachers to public schools--and especially to schools in urban areas? The answer to that question depends to a large extent on what American voters do when they go to the polls for the November elections for local, state, and national offices.

The American people know that education is an important issue for the future of the nation; they've said so. And they overwhelmingly support public education. If they look carefully at the candidates, they will find clear differences among them at every level.

Talk Is Cheap

Some candidates who call themselves staunch supporters of education are nothing of the sort, and voters need to differentiate between the ones who talk a good game and those who understand public education and what it needs.

A clear, bright line separates candidates who favor a big tax cut--which would disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans--and the ones who want to make a major investment in education.

Real education candidates know that, along with high standards, we need better pay for teachers across the board. Real education candidates favor reducing class size, which improves student achievement, especially for poor minority children. And because they know that learning cannot take place unless kids feel safe and teachers are able to teach, they support policies that ensure orderly classrooms, including funding for quality alternative schools where seriously troubled students can be helped as they continue their education.

One big irony in the education debate is that the pseudo education candidates--the ones who say we really can't afford to spend more on education (though we can afford a big tax break)--are often the ones who favor vouchers--using public money to send kids to private schools. In other words, they think it's OK to siphon off money from the public schools that most youngsters attend in order to send just a few to private schools.

Achievement Is Up

This is especially misguided because the achievement trend is up in urban schools, thanks to our insistence on using proven programs. And I'm not talking about isolated success stories. There have been substantial districtwide improvements in cities where achievement was flat just a few years ago: Chicago, Boston, Hartford, Baltimore, Philadelphia. So we're not asking local, state, and federal governments to throw money at failing systems but to invest in their growing success and solidify the gains these schools are making.

Education is not the only big issue in the November elections. When we cast our votes, we'll also be deciding whether the budget surplus-- instead of being squandered on tax cuts for the rich--will be targeted to programs that help working people, like a patients' bill of rights, prescription drugs under Medicare, and preserving Social Security rather than privatizing it.

We have clear choices up and down the line, from the people who are running for President to those aspiring to state houses or positions in local government. The question is whether we will go with candidates who want a government that promises to do as little as possible--especially for ordinary people--or go with candidates who want to invest in America.