Florida is struggling to hire teachers, and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ regressive influence on the state’s education system — affecting signage on the wall to class curriculums —
is arguably a prime factor.
But the DeSantis administration declines to look inward to assess why
so many teachers have left their jobs. Instead, it's pushing a dubious quick fix: hiring military veterans without degrees to teach.
Florida’s Education Department
announced last week that it will give veterans five-year temporary certificates while they finish their bachelor's degrees. Vets must pass subject tests and have completed 60 college credits (around two years of a four-year degree program) to obtain the certificate.
On the one hand, if someone is really qualified to teach and merely hasn't obtained a degree--can prove it by passing qualification testing, while there is a shortage, then I think it makes sense economically and for sake of efficiency to allow those people to temporarily teach until eventually getting through all the bureaucratic red tape. That ought to apply to all qualified persons in a shortage crisis, not merely veterans.
On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?
This is a basic macroeconomics puzzle.
If a person needs workers for a specific job and is unable to fill all the open positions, there are three immediate remedies.
Increase the pay
Improve the working conditions
Lower the standards.
It seems DeSantis has jumped to option three. The first question to be asked about any proposed solution to a problem is, will it work.
It's been a long standing policy in civil service to give preference to veterans. This is usually done by giving a handicap to any non-veteran who takes a civil service exam. In other words, lower the standards for veterans, which means lower the overall standards. The highest scoring applicant may not get the job, if a veteran also took the exam.
Getting back to the "will it work?" question, how large is the pool of possible teacher candidates and how many of them are interested in becoming teachers? Is the starting pay enough to entice them to become teachers? What about working conditions? That brings us back to the three initial remedies. Lowering standards only works when there are unqualified workers who are unable to take the job under the current standards. Does DeSantis have to create a two tiered pay system, where veterans start at higher pay than a person with a four year degree in education? Improving working conditions doesn't seem to be on the table.
This maybe a pointless exercise, or just a political stunt. Where have we heard that lately?
I think your post is pretty decent, but it's really the last line in the post that provides a hint to the greater context of the alleged "macroeconomics puzzle." It's the context of how pointless the exercise is or how stunt-like it is that needs expansion and analysis. It is worth it to respond to the post and provide some additional context while doing so.
For example, "[t]his is a basic macroeconomics puzzle." Well, it would be. IF there were a macroeconomic accident that occurred and DeSantis was interested in solving that problem in good faith.
Regarding the former condition mentioned above--"a macroeconomic accident," -- to what extent is this unforeseen and due to conditions outside the control of politics? While the pandemic
has been a factor... Florida has been 47th in teacher pay among the states. The Republican Party in support of oligarchs tries consistently to reduce taxes and in a system where voters have a little bit of a say in electoral outcomes creates propaganda and throws bones to the working poor in the form of across-the-board tax breaks as a way to obfuscate and mitigate the benefits of social spending in government. And the latter "good faith" -- it has been conservatives who consistently argue they are fighting for senior citizens who have largely fixed incomes when those politicians endorse teacher (or support staff) layoffs or refuse to pick up new employees after normal attrition--both of which have happened a lot in Florida. This out of one side of their conservative mouths, claiming interest in seniors, but then out of the other, when updating for improvement the way cost-of-living is set for Social Security those conservatives are against it. The idea of benefit to society by conservatives is quite corrupted by their allegiance and prioritization of the ruling class.
It is in this context that the Republican Party creates divisions and propagandizes issues to set one group against another. While they do this with seniors and working poor and recently have been upsetting and radicalizing conservative parents, DeSantis' latest stunt is also there to set the pool of conservative-leaning veterans against the group of liberal-leaning teachers. It is not an accident that the social status of veterans is treated as some kind of sacred thing across party lines. This move is political maneuvering to act as an unassailable leverage against one of the last bastions of organized labor.
Next, I agree in the abstract with your list
Increase the pay
Improve the working conditions
Lower the standards
... and to continue the list, we could also add Bomb#20's "eliminate barriers to entry" but I do note that with Bomb#20's suggestion he surrounds it with implication that the barriers are there to eliminate competition and gives only one concrete example--a licensing fee to cover administrative costs. That licensing fee--$75 per subject, not really a barrier in practice, only theory, and not really the mark of obstructing competition either. Should I add the alternative to cover administrative fees would be general taxation, in other words the dreaded SOCIALISM boogeyman?
As for me, I did already say I'd for sake of discussion and solution, agree with the underlying implication in DeSantis's political move--that there is unnecessary red tape, whether that is barriers to entry or standards that are too high does not matter.
Next point:
The first question to be asked about any proposed solution to a problem is, will it work.
Again, I will point out that your post is good and this is a decent point. But let's put it into context again of a political maneuver. Is considering only a problem and solution outside the political context being too short-sighted? To put another way, what comes next? What is given up politically? Moreover, what is wrong with the amended version of simply allowing the same exemption to decent people besides the sacred veteran class?
It's been a long standing policy in civil service to give preference to veterans. This is usually done by giving a handicap to any non-veteran who takes a civil service exam. In other words, lower the standards for veterans, which means lower the overall standards. The highest scoring applicant may not get the job, if a veteran also took the exam.
I do not completely disagree with this, but I also think there are two factors that ought to guide when such policy is valid. So, I think it ought to be policy especially for the types of jobs that are analogous to Military Occupation Specialties. An Army Medic is analogous to an EMT, for example. Next, when a pool of veterans has given a lot...a lot of sacrifice, like for a recent war....and there are difficulties in hiring them due to their transition back to civilian life. Again, I do not believe we should treat veterans as a sacred social class. On the opposite side of the spectrum of jobs, there seem to likely be jobs where the analogous job from the military to civilian would be inappropriate. Military instructors can be very harsh and physical and that doesn't seem compatible with instruction of children. One of my drill sergeants punched a guy in the stomach while that guy was wearing a protective mask and in a room with gas during training in order to teach him a lesson. I wouldn't want him to teach my kids.
Getting back to the "will it work?" question, how large is the pool of possible teacher candidates and how many of them are interested in becoming teachers? Is the starting pay enough to entice them to become teachers? What about working conditions? That brings us back to the three initial remedies. Lowering standards only works when there are unqualified workers who are unable to take the job under the current standards. Does DeSantis have to create a two tiered pay system, where veterans start at higher pay than a person with a four year degree in education? Improving working conditions doesn't seem to be on the table.
Starting pay is well below national average. Working conditions for teachers has been rough during and even before the pandemic with the extra rules and dealing with irate and brainwashed parents. Imagine having to deal with the crazy lady screaming how masks are sex toys because she was radicalized by Republican propaganda. Right...improving conditions are not on the table. So, why aren't they? Moreover, why are Republican propagandists deliberately making teachers' lives difficult? What is the conservative long-term goal to do to secular, public education?
