I'm not a teacher but found this interesting...

I have read that article and could write a thesis on the problems with education, but to summarize it's really the system of hiring in my opinion. Yeah there is a lot of teacher turnover but some people who become teachers shouldn't. Some administrators shouldn't become administrators because they couldn't lead a thirsty dog to water.

I see older teachers at my school who stuck it out that aren't what I would call good teachers, but the profession itself doesn't pay the kind of money to attract better applicants. Plus they make teachers jump through a lot of hoops just to get certified to teach(that is being corrected a little bit at a time due to turnover).

As far as becoming an administrator one has to have a license. All that is required to be a leader is more school and a slip of paper. To me a successful business model promotes the best applicants from within because they have shown themselves to be good leaders. Imagine if you had to have a masters degree to become a head football coach. You have been coaching for 20 years but only have a bachelors and some kid who just graduated with a masters is now running the football team. That's a bit exaggerated, but pretty much how the system works.

Personally, I love teaching, so f'em. Let'em leave

All true. New teachers tend to be given the toughest schedules and tossed in "Sink or swim" with little support. There have been attempts to start mentoring programs and support groups but they didn't schedule extra planning time to do it. We had to either give up our planning periods or have yet another after school meeting. 

For veteran teachers lack of support is discipline is one problem but even worse is the pin-headed paperwork. For example, after mid-term and final exams we had to fill out paper forms breaking down the demographics: White males who passed; white males who failed (If you're wondering why they couldn't just subtract "Passed" from 100, yeah, I asked that too), etc. The annoying part is that it was a computerized test. They already had all of that info.

State testing? We get out of school in mid-June, the tests are in mid-May, and they want us to finish the curriculum by the end of April so that we can review. The thing is, in my subject-History- they keep expanding the curriculum. Less time to teach more stuff. 

What really got me to retire was recertification. We have to do it every five years and it's our responsibility to compile, submit, and pay for the credits. 

So, with all of this and budget cuts, I'd have a hard time telling somebody to get into teaching today. 

I taught in a trailer. The nitwit who put together our fire drill plan insisted that we leave the trailer, walk TOWARD the building, then up the sidewalk next to the presumably flaming holocaust. 

I agree. Educational leadership across the board is appalling. Once you get one bad leader, be it the principal or the super, it's over for your district. I'm lucky enough to work for a very good super and a learning principal. But both have my back and that is invaluable.

Today's admins, on average, are more concerned about covering their own a--es that they are in supporting or nurturing young or old teachers. That leads to a hostile, terrible work environment. Been there, done that. I thought long and hard about getting out 6 years ago after having worked at 3 different schools with terrible super/principal leadership. Glad I stuck it out though because it's been very rewarding working at my current place.

I don't know that leadership is the sole reason, but I would definitely agree that it's one of the biggest issues with education today.

I sometimes think our football staff can run the school better.

And I'm not really joking.

If Admin would make tough decisions I'd care more.

I work in the field house 300 yards from the school. When there is a fire drill we have to leave the field house and stand on the practice field. We are already in the safest place. Both buildings operate on different fire alarm systems.

Yup that's about it.  

A big part of the reason for principals who aren't real hands on with teachers is tenure laws and local politics. I have worked with many who knew that someone was a piss poor teacher, but due to tenure or who they were related to, couldn't do a thing about it.

I am going to throw out another reason for this shift.......

I think that this younger generation (my generation) has a far different take on what work is suppose to look like.

Older generations (baby boomers and Gen X) see work as a place where I come in a work hard, mutual loyalty is built, and I am rewarded with money for hard work, advanced degrees, etc.

My generation values work not primarily for money, but for team work and mutual VISION. Loyalty is not built through the exchange of time and money, it is earned through the mutual commitment of a common vision.

For an older generation, it was about finding a place that was good TO me.

For this generation, it is about finding a place that is good FOR me.

In short, if Company A pays more than Company B, but at Company B I feel like I am part of a team working toward a common goal, this generation is more likely to choose Company B.

In the educational system (of which I am not a part of), there is a clear lack of Company B mentality, and the older generation (who is doing the hiring) struggles to understand these whiny @$$ kids these days.

So, they leave in search of finding meaningful work (and THAT phrase is far different today than in years past).

I know one of the reasons I am frustrated in my profession is that we are not allowed to teach. We have to make sure that students pass a test, not learn content. It can be a pain in the butt when you get zero help from administration and you are still expected to get results. Basically we as teachers are expected to make chicken salad out of chicken poop.

I think this varies considerably from region to region.  Here in Louisiana, while the crappy districts suck... (as in maybe a little above poverty line pay) the better paying districts start at a pretty competitive wage.  THE DIFFERENCE...is that down here districts don't seem to pay for experience.  My district payscale tops out at 40 years...and that person might make about $12,000 more than a starting teacher.   Contrast that with some of my friends in parts of NY where they are 10,000 above our max with 7 years experience and a masters.

The trade off is, my district (and others like it) aren't looking to run off experienced teachers. So that is a plus I suppose.

I'm lucky, our administration is awesome and they do A LOT to help new teachers compared to other schools.  The teachers here have quite a bit of say in what happens within our school (probably why we are one of the top performing educational schools in the state).  That being said, I teach in Wisconsin.  We saw a mass exodus of teachers based on state government decisions, namely Act 10.  State Universities that used to have to turn away hundreds of schools for the education program are now not able to fill the allotted seats.  So a lot of the older teachers retired ASAP, and their are fewer and fewer younger teachers going into education.  

IMO, that's a big one, but a lot of "lack of support" IMO is really by design.  The thing is that there is a concentrated effort by policy makers to churn out teachers and make them as disposable as possible so they don't have to pay higher wages and retirement benefits to the vets, or deal with the unions.  The people reforming education want to make it into a temporary job with perpetual series of cheap 1 year contracts where teachers become more and more interchangeable.  That's a big part of what's really behind the "standardized" agenda and all the computer based stuff.

The argument goes like this: American education sucks, so we need to micromanage teachers and use all kinds of new technology to catch up to the rest of the world, which are pushed by "nonprofit, grassroots organizations."

What you're not told is that this agenda is that much of it is funded by the people who stand to make a lot of money from pillaging the public education budget to sell that technology, those testing programs, and open Charter schools to make a buck.  By reducing the role of teachers to "worksheet and computer program facilitator," teachers become easily replaceable, allowing for cost cutting on personnel.  

So all the churning of employees is intentional, despite all the public hand wringing over it..  You make the job suck so badly, with increased pressures and decreased pay (through wage freezes, mandatory retirement contributions, insurance cuts, etc.) that people are spit out every few years to be filled by the next beginner making a beginner wage that saves the district thousands a year in personnel costs.  Reform the certification process due to made up "shortages" of teachers to further flood the market and depress wages and you have a recipe for a profession that's becoming only a small step above call center operative in prestige, pay, benefits, and work environment.

Oh, and yes, educational administration at all levels, particularly at the state and federal levels, is godawful, out of touch, and beyond worthless due to this political environment.

Agreed to a point, but the people in the article aren't tenured and they still feel that leadership is lacking.

In my experience with admins and parents, they realize there isn't much of anything that can be done to tenured teachers, but they both sure love to screw with non tenureds.  Too many admins cow tow to parents and just get rid of or constantly screw with non tenured teachers because they really can't deal with the tenured ones.  I've seen too many good people get screwed just simply because they could be.