Michelle Rhee, Chris Christie, and others have recently made great strides reforming education, but the movement has overlooked a problem with substitute teaching. During their K–12 education, public-school students in the U.S. spend about two-thirds of a year with substitute teachers. Given that many subs lack the proper training to teach effectively, students simply lose much of this time. The fix? Cut teacher absenteeism and increase the number of qualified subs.
About 5.2 percent of teachers miss any given school day, many more than in our peer countries. In Australia and Great Britain, for example, the figure is near 3 percent. The rate is also much lower among other professional employees in the U.S., around 1.7 percent. Teachers most often miss Mondays, Fridays, and the days surrounding holidays — a pattern that suggests illness is not the main cause for their absences. Indeed, more than one-fourth of the teachers in an Arizona school district recently missed the same day following spring break.
Advertisement
Teachers’ contracts permit most of the absences, despite the fact that teachers average only 180 work days. Last year in Camden, N.J., for example, teachers were granted, with full pay, 13 sick days, two personal days, two days for career development, and 16 days that were essentially discretionary.
Even when teachers exceed their allotted absences, their contracts shield them from dismissal. To fire ineffective teachers, including those with excessive absences, administrators must spend considerable sums following numerous procedures that can drag on for years, such as mandatory arbitration.
Consider New York City’s failed attempt to discharge subpar teachers. In two years, only three teachers were let go, though hundreds were charged with incompetence or misconduct. Dismissing one of these teachers cost taxpayers nearly $380,000 over three years — the average time it takes to conclude such disputes. Once charged, teachers cease teaching, but still receive full pay (a practice that costs NYC $30 million annually) and accrue pensions until the charges are resolved. Teachers retain the benefits they earn while on probation even if they are ultimately terminated.
Reducing teacher absenteeism requires reforming their contracts.
First, teachers’ pay should reflect, among other things, their attendance records. Teachers could receive reduced pay for each day missed beyond a particular threshold. Alternatively, teachers could receive a bonus for each excused absence they do not use. The funds would come from the $4 billion otherwise spent annually to hire subs.
Second, dismissing teachers for absenteeism must be made easier, particularly because the grounds for termination are objective and easily measured.
To the extent teachers’ unions oppose such changes, creative solutions are needed. For instance, principals can rank teachers by their absences and post the lists in faculty lounges.
But even with proper incentives, teachers will have legitimate absences. Students will thus require competent subs. Presently, however, 77 percent of U.S. school districts offer subs no training. This failure to train is outrageous given that in 28 states, subs may be hired even if they have only a GED.
The pool of qualified subs must be increased.
First, subs should be required to pass competency tests in the subjects they will teach. When I subbed, I was often placed in English as a Second Language classes. But I speak little Spanish.
Second, before leading their own classes, subs should receive proper training, including by observing a current teacher and instructing classes with an experienced teacher present. My first day subbing was frightening because I was untrained and no one checked on me that day (or any other day).
I don't think you understand the dynamic of substitute teaching. There is a relationship that comes in the classroom between the teacher and the students. NO matter how smart or dynamic the sub is, every student in that class knows that sub is gone in a day or two. That is the nature of the beast. I am not a fan of teacher unions, but this issue is not even on the short list of solving education problems. Put the time into training the TEACHERS. Sorry.
Let me begin by stating I'm all for busting/weaker unions and I have multiple teachers in my family; we have attained a level of detente at family functions.
Until the contracts are changed, those are the terms that need to prevail. I don't blame a teacher or anyone for abiding by their contract. Is a 10% level of off days a lot? Sure, but the crux of the matter is the education being provided. We can all remember that a sub meant a movie, recess, study hall, or at worst an exam or reading a chapter. In short, they were brought in just to supervise the class; not to teach a subject they probably are not certified in.
I find especially annoying, the complaints of State requirements being added to the curriculum over the same time frame, and of the loooong days required by teachers. Couldn't this all be resolved by continuing the year to the end of June?
Posting days absent for teachers won't accomplish anything, but if it would be used to show wasted class time - don't forget to add days movies were played (I guess I'm stuck on that because I just discussed the last week of school with my middle school student!).
So many States have the right idea. Structure an environment where they can tear up those contracts, but while restructuring the benefits and obligations, go ahead and restructure the year and days. Kids don't need to be in school 7 plus hours a day with, give or take, only a 30 minutes break for lunch. Is it any wonder so many Americans are being medicated for anxiety and depression?
Wasted class time doesn't happen only when subs are present. Our local high school used "block scheduling," where classes are held on alternate days and class length is enormous. Because teachers couldn't hold the students' attention for a 90 minute block class, most classes included "time wasters" such as films, busy work, or "do homework in class" time. This type of class schedule is especially bad for courses which require the accumulation of skills, such as foreign languages, music, or even math.
I think one also must consider the fact that a disproportionate amount of teachers are women from dual-income homes, thus, when their children are ill, they often must take a sick day for their family. Other professionals with more men working or in single-earner families don't have to take as many of these 'family illness' days.
Of course it is a great idea to have meaningful instruction on the days a sub is present, but it is not something we are ever likely to see on "one day" assignments. They come up too suddenly for the teacher to plan for. The school can't wait for a subject-area qualified sub to be assigned to the absence, and even if they do, the sub has no time to prepare for, possibly, several different classes or "preps". The sub likely doesn't know the students well or at all, nor how they perform in that subject. Further, can we really expect someone to take on all of the daily tasks and responsibilities of the full-time teacher for at most 1/3 of the compensation?! No insurance no sick days (which, be assured, will be necessary). It's a nice idea, but we need to look to more pressing problems!
I should have added that all of the districts I work for or am aware of in my area either require subs to be licensed teachers, or encourage the practice by paying a whopping $5 a day more. In my experience, most subs are certified or working on certification.
I am wondering how effective these measures are. Like many posters, I am a supporter of meaningful school reform, weakening the unions, etc. But is the real problem unprepared substitutes. It this problem really pervasive?
My guess is that the "babysitting effect" correlates with the quality of the actual teaching in any school district. The higher the standards for teaching in any jurisdiction, the better the substitute teachers will be. So in a troubled urban school district, for example, the substitute teachers may not be the world's best, as a more qualified teacher, substitute or not, will likely not work in such a place.
I do agree that teachers' colleges need to be improved, and I find the idea of giving priority for substitute position to laid off teachers intriguing (though prone to abuse).
Tracking and posting off days for teachers, whether in the teachers' lounge or on a web site, creates one more layer of administrative busywork that we are all trying to REDUCE. Let's think about new requirements before proposing them.
Teacher training, don't forget, is left wing indoctrination taught by such "professors" as William Ayers. When anyone calls for "more teacher training," they should understand what they're supporting.
Indeed, a large fraction of teacher absences are for "in-service training," required by the state. Its primary purpose is to provide employment for "educators;" people with lots of "teacher training" who don't want to work in a classroom.
This article betrays an alarming level of ignorance about the real problems facing U.S. teachers. The number one way to increase teacher effectiveness? Keep the student to teacher ratio manageable. Has anyone on this site stopped to think about the difference between having to teach 25 students at once vs. 35, or even 40, in many major cities? Besides parental support, something we can't legislate (nor should we), spending our money to guarantee manageable class sizes is the best way to improve US education. Plus, more teachers means more jobs.
There are at least four weeks of vacation built into the school year between Labor Day and Memorial Day. Plus, a couple snow days a year, along with a fair bit of time off over the summer even if the teacher is teaching summer school, and most don't do that. Absent reasonably serious illness or a significant personal issue like the death of a parent or surgery for a child, why are teachers getting any other days off during the school year?
I subbed at every level when I was trying to figure out what age group I wanted to teach on a permanent basis. It was a frightening experience at times but worth the effort. Subs should be qualified in some way for the classes they lead. But I think the author misses the disincentive to not use all of a teacher's sick time, i.e. you get paid squat for it. My sick day is worth over $150 but if I "save" it until retirement I get a whole $10 for unused days. I would question the sanity of anyone who saved those days until retirement. And I am one of those who never misses days if I can avoid it.
Some years ago I met a teacher of French at a dinner. I had worked and lived in France 5 years and speak a passable French (to hell with modesty - I am almost perfect in French)- and I addressed the woman in French. She said: (Don't talk to me in French - I don't know any French!" I asked how she could teach French if she does not know the language. She answered that she only follows the book!!!
I took Spanish for two years in junior high, 1967-69. I can still remember more Spanish than my son who took two years of high school Spanish just a few years ago. None of my kids who took foreign languages in public school can remember a thing about them, and I think the teachers are largely at fault.
A big generator of sub days is more training for teachers (so-called inservice days; someone mentioned it in an earlier post).
In our district, if they want to give you training on something (like Smart boards, for example), they take you out of your classroom--no working on such things after school, or (God forbid) on the weekends. No, let's use the time that the students are supposed to be receiving instruction!
Tough, respected teachers tend to have effective subs who administer a plan written out for them by that teacher--usually time to work on an assignment, or to take an exam.
Some of us do our best to avoid taking any days out of the classroom. I've managed not to be absent for four straight years now (it helps that I work part time; it's hard, otherwise, to fit in the doctor appointments and such, though one tries to use the vacations as much as possible).
I taught abroad for several years. If you don't show up, you get fired. If you're a crummy teacher, you get fired. If you don't know your subject, you get fired. If your kids aren't learning, you get fired.
The fact is that most unionized teachers couldn't hack it in a competitive learning environment which is why their students can't compete against my students from around the world. It's also why they need a union in the first place, to keep their worthless hides from getting fired.
The suggestions in this article are totally reasonable and are practiced in most other places around the world, which means we can be assured that US teachers' unions will fight to the absolute death to keep any of them from becoming a reality.
As long as teachers are unionized and as long as they can't be fired, public education in the US will not improve, ever. This not ideological, this is common sense.
The public teachers' unions must be destroyed. Not negotiated with or refomed, but crushed and ground under our heel and blown away with the breeze.
You taught "abroad". Have you taught here? I am not pro-union myself. But I have taught here in the US and have observed schools in Europe and Asia. You can't just cross over with "cookie cutter" fixes. It is not just a matter of overly zealous unions protecting incompetents (although I won't say it is not a factor at all). The problems in US public education are very core-basic and very few people want to face them. But the "fixes" in this article would enrage and insult the most educated, professional and competent teachers (you know, the ones you WANT to keep) and the incompetents would simply adjust, ignore, and stay in the system (like they always do).
