Leaving by the Droves?

Assuming that the teachers to which you're referring are those employed by government [i.e., "public"] schools, I would add to that list:

1) The fact that many of the teachers employed by government schools don't have much training in the particular subjects to which they've been assigned to teach because of time being spent having to endure sitting through the required types of classes mentioned in the OP.

2) Having new teachers being "encouraged" to join teachers' unions that, on the national level, are controlled by radical left-wing persons who will always promote leftist politicians such as Hillary (It Takes a Village) Clinton.

3) Having to work under such conditions as noted in the OP which allows those teachers who honestly want their students to learn the goals and objectives for their class(-es), but cannot because they aren't, by school policies, permitted to enforce much class discipline towards those students who are wont to disrupt their classes. This is partly due to the "required attendance" policies that only state that each student is required to occupy a seat in a classroom but isn't required to learn anything of the subject matter being taught.

4) Having to work alongside teachers who will either "teach to the 'test,'" i.e., teach the answers to the standardized tests--something which is supposedly illegal but still occurs in many government-run schools (e.g., GA).

5) Having to work alongside some teachers who, upon achieving the status of "tenured," often times either allow the students to "run the class," or actually don't even show up for class--leaving the actual teaching to be done by less-than-well-qualified persons who, in many cases, don't even have a teaching degree--much less being certified.

Having taught in high school level classes for 15+ years, I'm well aware of what goes on in many classrooms of government-run schools.

This isn't to say that every teacher in every government-run school is like the above-mentioned ones. There are many very dedicated, hard working teachers in many of our government-run schools who are both under paid and under appreciated by both their respective school administrations as well as the parents of the students they are tasked to teach. We have some of these amazing teachers right here on BB.

Given as many negative factors that exist in today's government-run educational systems, I'm not surprised that there is as much turnover in the teaching profession as there is.

Some 50 or so years ago, teaching was generally considered as an admirable profession, but once the national-level of the teaching level was taken over by the bunch of ultra-leftist bureaucrats as it has been, the general public's estimation of teaching as an admirable profession has declined.

 

I do not believe teachers in public schools should have "tenure". We need to be able to get rid of bad teachers. Its tough enough with unions as it is.

 

That's what they did in Indiana. They DID manage to get rid of some pathetic teachers who WERE tenured. However, that same RISE program sent a lot of good teachers into retirement.

For instance, they got rid of a completely inept special education teacher with 17 years in my wife's school corporation. Took 3 years of improvement plans and training him in procedures that he SHOULD have known already.

But the union here in Indiana has little power. For now. They will strike back.

 

As JKDBuck76 implied, most every state as at least one or two state versions of what are now considered to be nothing less than pure and simple labor unions just like, e.g., the Communications Workers of America.

Most notable among the national teacher's unions is the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

The National Education Association (NEA) has about 3.2 million members nationwide. It is known for protecting what it calls "academic freedom," which in most cases is merely code for protecting tenure for teachers. From 1989-2010 the NEA spent about $36 million in lobbying for liberal causes--most of which were for the Democrats.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has about 16 million members nationwide, and annually spends about $35 million in lobbying for left-wing politicians. In 2008, the AFT gave $1.8 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign, and $2 million to Obama's campaign.

Practically all these many millions of dollars come from either part of an individuals' union dues or a highly organized effort to "encourage" members to make contributions to candidates, whether that person actually supports that particular candidate or not.

While some states have passed laws making it illegal to force individual union members to pay for such "contributions," many states still have laws on the books that permit these unions to strong-arm their members into "donating" for union causes.

Both the NEA and the AFT began as simply organizations designed to improve the educational lot of its individual teacher-members. But today they are simply labor unions just like the UAW.

 

The NEA is very powerful and has a formidable lobby in Washington. Jeb Bush is in the tank for them (another reason not to vote for him). In my home state Governor Chris Christie reigned the teachers union in, but tenure was one issue that proved tough. Tenure does need to go.