Content area
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the attitudes of selected education policymakers toward teacher supply and demand conditions and alternative policies or actions that might influence those conditions. Included in the study were selected members of boards of directors and staff members of seven education organizations in Nebraska. Each of thirty-five subjects participated in a one-hour, semi-structured interview designed to address the following research questions: (1) How do selected state policymakers and influencers perceive teacher supply and demand conditions in their state? (2) What projections do those same persons make about teacher supply and demand conditions in their state for the period 1982 to 1995? (3) What factors do they perceive contribute to those conditions? (4) What policies do they advocate to influence those conditions? (5) What is their attitude toward selected policy alternatives? (6) Are there differences in attitudes toward teacher supply and demand conditions, projections, and selected policy alternatives among board members and staff members in seven selected state education organizations which make or influence education policies?
Participants perceived that there was an adequate supply of teachers for most subject areas and grade levels, but there were shortages in mathematics, science, some vocational subject areas and special education, and in some rural school districts. Opinions were mixed whether there would be a teacher shortage in the future. Those who projected shortages attributed them to low salaries, loss of prestige as a profession, increased competition from business and industry, and increased opportunities for women in other fields.
Most groups perceived that policies advocating merit pay, differentiated staffing and increased salaries would have the greatest impact on supply and demand. Teachers, however, opposed all forms of differentiation of rewards. No groups supported alternatives which would reduce standards for teachers to alleviate shortages; with one exception, no groups wanted statewide competency testing, either.
Recommendations included (a) reexamination of positions by several groups in light of the disparity of their positions with all other groups interviewed; (b) establishment of a state level commission to examine merit pay and differentiated staffing; (c) pilot testing on a voluntary basis of differentiated reward systems based upon the commission's recommendations; and (d) development of a support plan by the state for fuller implementation, if the results of the pilot effort are positive.
