14.1 Introduction

The vital importance of quality teachers is indisputable. Much has been written about teacher shortage and the growing need for teachers not only in the United States but across the globe (Evans et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2016). For many years, all eyes have been on recruitment and retention, alternative pathways to teacher preparation, and a decrease in the rigors of teacher preparation. However, with the crisis of the pandemic also comes opportunity—opportunity to examine the working conditions of teachers, the teaching profession, and the learning environment in new ways. Vegas & Winthrop argue that we may be in a “leapfrog” moment (2020). At Arizona State University, we envision the Next Education Workforce as our leapfrog. A workforce that can deepen and personalize learning for students by building teams, distributing expertise, increasing specializations, and creating more opportunities for advancement. It is a time to leapfrog, to take advantage of the upheaval to put the puzzle pieces back together in new ways, new shapes, and new formations. To begin, it is critical that we examine what is happening with the education workforce—understand the existing complexities of the teaching profession, acknowledge the chaos of the pandemic, examine what has happened to teachers over the past year—and think anew with urgency and creativity.

14.1.1 Portrait of the Pre-pandemic Teacher Workforce

Teachers play an influential role in society as well as in the lives of youth and caregivers. Unfortunately, the profession of teaching in the U.S. has faced some longstanding and menacing challenges that frequently serve to undermine its reputation. Considerations such as rigorous training and licensing, favorable working conditions related to demands and environments, substantial workplace agency, and relatively high compensation are defining characteristics of the status of a profession. Ingersoll and Collins (2018) note that while some individuals argue that “instill[ing] an ethos of public service and high standards’’ (p. 200) among teachers is sufficient to elevate the profession in the eyes of educators themselves as well as society, others maintain that a mere shift in sentiment is simply not enough. Rather, transformations of the characteristics that define the profession itself, including teachers’ organizational and working conditions, are essential (Ingersoll & Collins, 2018). Emerick et al. (2005) illustrate some of the current unfavorable working conditions teachers face when they write, “teachers often are isolated in their classrooms, face overwhelming noninstructional duties, have extremely limited opportunities for meaningful decision making, lack basic instructional materials, and perceive few opportunities for advancement and growth” (para. 3). These impact the reputation of the teaching profession in the eyes of society as well as from the perspectives of teachers, which has far reaching implications for teachers and students alike. One salient consequence is the nation-wide crisis in the U.S. with recruiting, training, and retaining individuals to the teaching workforce (Robinson, 2017).

Recruitment to the teaching profession has faced sharp decreases in recent years. Between 2010 and 2018, enrollment has declined by more than one-third (Partelow, 2019). Fewer than four percent of the 1.9 million high school graduates who took the ACTⓇ in 2015 reported that they wanted to be an educator (e.g., teacher, counselor, or administrator) which is a drastic fall from seven percent of test takers who responded similarly in 2010 (ACT, 2016). Beyond expanding the number of individuals who pursue a degree in education, there is an imperative to attract and support a workforce that reflects the diversity of student demographics in the United States (Carver-Thomas, 2018). According to a recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, “there is growing and compelling evidence that teacher-student racial match has important effects on student outcomes” (NASEM, 2019, p. 87). In 2015–16, twenty percent of the teaching workforce was teachers of color (Taie & Goldring, 2017). This percentage, however, is disproportionate to the total percentage of students of color in schools in the United States, which has increased to over fifty percent in recent years (NCES, 2016). Evidence suggests that new teachers entering education are increasingly teachers of color and decreasingly white teachers, which is promising (Warner-Griffin et al., 2016). As one end of the teacher labor market spectrum, our imperative to recruit and retain diverse teachers—teachers of color as well as those from other underrepresented groups (e.g., with disability, non-English first origin or primary language) that will make the workforce more representative of the student population—is evident.

Teaching is described as a complex practice (Ball & Forzani, 2009), with roles being multi-dimensional and unpredictable (Doyle, 1977). Some have described the work as “highly improvisational and wholly context dependent” (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 503). Thus, teaching can be extremely daunting for novice teachers, who are expected to support students to achieve the same outcomes as their expert counterparts. The pressure on teacher education is immense; it can either help to make the case for, or inhibit, teaching’s status as a profession. Teacher education is accountable to its teacher candidates, to students, and to the public (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). Programs for teacher preparation must prepare its candidates for “work and life, academic learning, human development, and social justice” (Hansen, 2008, p. 12). Teacher education is tasked with equipping its candidates to enter one of the largest workforces in the country. Indeed, this highly skilled work of teaching is considerably “unnatural” (Jackson, 1986). That is, the work requires specialized and professional training, as Ball and Forzani (2009) argue; executing carefully designed learning experiences to groups of learners is not natural work. The complexity of teaching, and by extension, teacher education, cannot be tackled in siloed universities and schools. Rather, university-based teacher education programs must create hybrid spaces where “academic, school-based, and community-based knowledge come together in less hierarchical and haphazard ways to support teacher learning” (Zeichner et al., 2015, p. 124).

In the U.S., teacher certification criteria are determined at the state level, and it is up to states to define what they consider traditional and alternative certification programs. Generally, traditional teacher certification requirements include achieving a bachelor’s degree or higher and successfully completing a state-approved teacher preparation program that includes subject- or content-specific coursework, education coursework, a student teaching experience, and earning passing scores on licensure exams. Alternative certification programs, on the other hand, still require passing scores, but require fewer education-focused courses and shorter field experiences. University-based programs are more likely to include coursework and experiences that are associated with increased student achievement (Eduventures, 2001). While findings have been mixed, several robust studies found favorable outcomes for teachers who completed traditional teacher education programs and more positive outcomes for their students. Early career teachers who follow an alternative route to teaching feel more prepared to successfully meet the expectations of their teaching roles (Kee, 2012; NCCTQPA, 2007); however, the students of alternatively certified teachers have lower achievement scores (Boyd et al., 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2010; Constantine et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). Further, traditionally prepared teachers are more likely to stay in the profession longer than those who complete alternative programs (Boyd et al., 2008; Glass, 2008; Kane et al., 2006). One implication is that if teachers are better prepared for “usual” teaching, they are likely to more successfully handle stressors like the COVID-19 pandemic. Another implication is the need to recognize that individuals who enter the profession through these alternative routes would benefit from systems and structures (e.g., teaming) that offer scaffolds for these early-career teachers, who had narrower theoretical backgrounds and fewer experiences in classrooms prior to formally entering the profession.

Additionally, the contemporary teacher workforce faces challenges with retention. With an annual turnover rate of 16%, it is estimated that 8% of teachers leave the profession and 8% change schools every school year (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). If the 8% of teachers who leave the profession annually could be reduced by at least half, the national teacher shortage could be nearly eliminated (Sutcher et al., 2016). Teachers of color face turnover rates at a significantly higher rate (24%) than their white counterparts (Ingersoll & May, 2011). These challenges with retention can be largely attributed to factors related to working conditions, including the demands on and environment for teachers. Teachers consistently decide to leave the profession for similar reasons: lack of autonomy, pressures from testing accountability, large class sizes, lack of administrative support, dissatisfaction with teaching assignments, too few opportunities for advancement within the profession, and/or inadequate salaries (Adamson & Darling-Hammond, 2011; Boyd et al., 2005; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Farinde et al., 2016).

The comprehensive environment for teaching and learning are also important elements of working conditions. The demands of teaching are only exacerbated by teachers operating in environments of structural isolation. Described as “egg-crates”, their instructional responsibilities are in one-teacher, one-classroom models (Lortie, 1975). Despite the potential benefits of positive collaborative relationships across the teacher’s career (e.g., Le Cornu, 2013), structural, administrative, relational, and conceptual barriers thwart teacher collaboration (Achinstein, 2002; Jao & McDougall, 2016; Johnson, 2003; Zimmerman, 2006). Efforts to encourage teacher collaboration have rarely attended to each of these aspects. Beyond removing structural and administrative barriers, teachers must learn to collaborate closely with other educators whose backgrounds and experiences may be unlike their own, leveraging the varied personal and professional experiences as assets to best meet the needs of students (Boveda & Weinberg, 2020; Weinberg & Boveda, 2021).

In addition to the environments of isolation, differentiation and advancement in one’s career is limited within the teaching profession. Historically, teaching has been an “unstaged occupation with few opportunities to access higher earning and higher status positions” (Natale et al., 2013, p. 5). Hierarchies within schools in the U.S. remain flat—meaning duties, roles, privileges, and supports are similar for all teachers, regardless of experience or aspiration to advance (Coggins, 2010). For example, novice teachers are given the same teaching load as experienced teachers. Rigorous teacher education supports the development of teachers who are prepared to engage in the multifaceted work of teaching, the time constraints of initial teacher education and the broad scope of teaching practice that must be imparted through it (Ball & Forzani, 2009) can make accomplishing all the aforementioned activities difficult. While educator induction programs are required, there is tremendous variation in the quality, duration, and aims of such programs (Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017), and only a small proportion of beginning teachers receive access to robust early career supports through these programs (Sutcher et al., 2016). While important, without shifting the demands of novice teachers, induction is a time-consuming obligation that is often not individualized to the specific needs of novice teachers and may serve to have counterproductive side effects that burden teachers, rather than offer them scaffolding to support the transition from teacher education to classroom teacher (Kelchtermans, 2019). Indeed, if early career teachers were to join an established and cohesive team of educators, their assets could be leveraged while they are simultaneously gaining professional support from more experienced teachers. For more experienced teachers who want to advance in the education profession, they find themselves with few options that allow them to maintain regular engagement in the work of teaching students. Instead, career advancement within the traditional educational systems is administrative or teacher-support roles that position individuals outside of classrooms. Teachers who want to advance, either for financial reasons or for a variation in their daily role and responsibilities, find few opportunities within current school structures.

The disparity between public school teacher wages and those of other college graduates exists across the U.S. and is greater in Arizona than in any other state (Allegretto & Mishel, 2016). Coupled with decades-long decreases in relative salaries (Allegretto & Mishel, 2016; NCES, 2019), and yearly increases in unreimbursed purchases by teachers to supplement their classroom budgets (García, 2019), it would be unsurprising to find teachers feeling compelled to leave the profession as a result of being unappreciated and unsupported.

The instability of teaching as a profession is a result of its workforce conditions and, by extension, the education workforce’s design. In function and form, teaching was, pre-pandemic, untenable and will continue to be post-pandemic without dramatic shifts. Teachers are now even more isolated than ever, delicately balancing content delivery and caring for students’ socio-emotional needs, facing top-down decision making, and transitioning to new instructional modalities with little support.

In this chapter, we outline some of the escalating expectations for teachers in the United States and paint a portrait of Arizona’s education workforce as examples of a larger crisis with the education profession—a crisis that has left states, including Arizona, with dramatic shortages of qualified teachers in K-12 classrooms. Working conditions must change. Schools must find ways to increase collaboration among teachers, leveraging their varied knowledge, skills, backgrounds, and embodied experiences by structuring their work on teams. As students return to physical schooling, they need personalized learning experiences not only to address gaps in academic instruction, but also to provide attention to their socio-emotional needs. In creating and implementing these carefully crafted learning experiences, collaborative teams of educators must have the autonomy to do what is best for students. The post-pandemic future is unclear, but one thing is certain: our systems cannot return to the way they were before.

14.1.2 Escalating Expectations for Teachers: Pre-pandemic

The complexities of teaching practice are coupled with working conditions replete with increasing curricular and pedagogical expectations, non-instructional demands, external pressures, and isolating working environments that contribute to the untenable nature of the job of teaching. These pervasive issues have existed for decades, but increasingly, teachers are asked to do more and for more students. While not exhaustive, the issues detailed below are some of the escalating expectations that teachers have faced for the last two decades since the inception of No Child Left Behind.

Pedagogical and curriculum requirements, providing students with a more holistic learning environment and experience, and accountability systems have been at the forefront of educators’ escalating expectations in recent years. There have been tensions between the curricula and pedagogies—and the sheer number of individuals with the expert knowledge, skills, and dispositions required to deliver learning experiences—that address “new” standards which emphasize interdisciplinarity, inquiry, and open-ended problem solving (e.g., Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards). Recent increased attention to embracing diversity and adopting culturally responsive or sustaining pedagogies (Gay, 2002; Paris, 2012) is a favorable shift, as more educators have realized the importance of appreciating students varied experiences, languages, and cultures. By engaging students’ experiences, languages, and cultures, educators effectively deepen learning experiences and connect complex academic experiences to their students’ identities (Bitter & Loney, 2015). Deeper learning experiences facilitated through the enactment of asset-oriented pedagogies are good for all students. This, however, means that teachers must abandon long-standing—and perhaps deeply ingrained—pedagogies and practices that marginalize or even exclude students entirely, and replace these with those that affirm students’ languages and cultures to engage all students in meaningful and relevant learning activities.

External control mechanisms under the guise of accountability (Ingersoll, 2009) are also important factors that influence teachers’ perceptions of the expectations placed upon them and their working conditions—their demands and environments. The outcomes and measures used to assess quality teaching are often made outside of the control of the teaching profession (Evetts, 2009). While teachers themselves have little control over key decisions regarding curriculum and accountability, teachers have been vilified; they have been blamed for declines in student academic achievement, implicated as a threat the United States’ economic competitiveness as students’ performance on international measures trails behind those in other countries, and even portrayed as culpable for innumerable perceived social and moral ills (Ingersoll, 2004). Standardized testing is one accountability mechanism, and teachers perceive these measures as having an array of negative impacts on their teaching as well as the profession. Not only are the tests seen to be misaligned with best practices for assessment, but they also contradict quality education practices, go against ongoing educational reform efforts, and impact teachers’ pedagogical decisions in ways that limit meaningful student engagement in learning and confine curriculum decisions with the emphasis on “core” subject matter (e.g., Abrams et al., 2003; Aydeniz & Southerland, 2012; Sleeter, 2012). Further, many teachers believe the pressure to increase test scores encourages them to “teach to the middle’’ rather than differentiate across the full range of learners—increasing rigor for some and offering additional support for others—effectively promoting the status quo rather than rewarding teachers who strive to help all students achieve success (Aydeniz & Southerland, 2012). Since the widespread implementation of standardized testing in the U.S., teacher perception of their own autonomy has decreased (Warner-Griffin et al., 2018a, b). This is a troubling finding, since lower levels of autonomy are associated with lower commitments to teaching (Warner-Griffin et al., 2018a, b; Weiss, 1999) as well as higher rates of attrition (Guarino et al., 2006; Ingersoll & May, 2011). Heightened academic standards have come along with the increased accountability measures. As proficiency standards increased, many have objected, citing these as developmentally inappropriate (NAEYC, 2015). Teachers are left to operate in response to, rather than in collaboration with, the decisions of their district and school and administrators, who themselves are reacting to state and federal policy. Teachers perceive that emphasizing student outcomes on standardized tests limits teacher autonomy, stifles creativity, and restricts the curriculum to which students are exposed. Consequently, 25% of public-school teachers who left the profession reported that accountability systems, such as their school’s assessments and accountability measures, were extremely or very important in their decision to leave (Podolsky et al., 2016).

The pervasive issues described above are just a few characteristics that contribute to the decreasing recruitment and increasing attrition rates of teachers. Like so many professions in the United States, working conditions have been transformed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the cracks in the structure of the teaching profession—and the U.S. education system as a whole—have only been exacerbated. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the teaching workforce in Arizona.

14.1.3 Escalating and Intensifying Professional Demands During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on the professional lives of educators. Recent national studies found that the overwhelming majority of teachers are working more than they did before the pandemic (77%) and enjoying teaching less (60%; Horace Mann, 2020). Teachers are concerned about workplace exposure to COVID-19 (Expect More Arizona, 2020), more so than those in other professions (Brenan, 2020). They feel insecure about their district’s health and safety precautions (59%), believe annual leave benefits are insufficient to cover unplanned health-related absences (66%), and do not trust that their health insurance benefits are sufficient to adequately cover illness or other health issues (44%; Mann, 2020). Overall, many do not support in-person instruction during the pandemic because of the risk of exposure, with teachers of color even more reluctant to return to in-person instruction (Kurtz, 2020). Morale has declined dramatically; 85% of teachers report lower teacher morale in their school now as compared to before the pandemic began (Will, 2021)—with concerns for physical safety, emotional exhaustion, and pressure from added demands of teaching during times of extreme uncertainty.

The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers recommendations for mitigating the spread of COVID-19 as schools (re)open, including mask-wearing, physical distancing or barriers, enhanced classroom sanitation routines, ventilation system inspections and potential improvements, and operational routines and regulations for students, teachers, staff, administrators, and visitors (CDC, 2021). While some districts provide adequate personal protective equipment (i.e., masks for teachers and students, gloves, sanitation supplies, physical barriers), a lack of certainty about access to supplies left many teachers crowdsourcing from neighbors, friends, and families on social media. Beyond access to personal protective equipment, widespread concern exists about physical school facilities, including ventilation systems, space for physical distancing, and physical barriers. Given the increased risk of transmission in poorly ventilated indoor spaces, ventilation inspections in all school buildings are recommended prior to re-opening. Compliance with this recommendation has been inconsistent, with some regions inspecting all schools and making updates or accommodations to ensure air flow, and others rejecting or ignoring this recommendation entirely (e.g., Chicago Public Schools, n.d.; Irish, 2020). This inconsistent compliance with federal guidance around PPE and facilities that offer adequate ventilation invariably leaves teachers concerned that their schools might become sites for widespread COVID-19 transmission. While some CDC compliance measures are beyond the purview of teachers, measures for ensuring physical distancing are largely determined and enforced at the school level, with teachers creatively designing and constructing physical barriers, rearranging classrooms, and creating new routines to lower the risk of spreading and contracting COVID-19. The ingenuity and determination evidenced in the creative solutions teachers designed to safeguard children and themselves in classrooms is laudable, with many teachers using out-of-pocket funds for supplies to construct these classroom modifications. Since we know that better school facilities are associated with positive perceptions of working conditions (Buckley et al., 2005; Loeb et al., 2005), concerns related to physical conditions of schools and classrooms in the midst of a pandemic, where inadequate facilities and supplies put teachers and students at heightened risk, inevitably has a detrimental impact on teacher perceptions of their working conditions both during the pandemic and beyond.

In addition to safeguarding themselves and children within physical classroom environments, teachers are adjusting to new instructional modalities. Few districts in the U.S. have continued exclusively with in-person instruction for all learners. Most have adopted some combination of onsite, hybrid, or fully remote instruction, often shifting among these several times within a single semester—often with little to no notice—as community or school COVID metrics change. The uncertainty and ambiguity around instructional environments have been a source of stress for teachers. For some, this stress is exacerbated by technology challenges that existed for teachers and students alike, including access to devices that could be transported outside the school, reliable internet, or technology tools for remote learning (e.g., webcams; Weinberg et al., in preparation; Will, 2020). Whether teaching in person or remotely, or some combination of the two, all teachers are adapting to new instructional environments. Beyond sanitizing classrooms and navigating the maze of online learning systems, teachers are learning and adopting pedagogies for teaching online, implementing strategies to engage learners remotely, and working to build relationships with and among students as well as families and caregivers in this new modality (Hamilton et al., 2020).

Teachers are engaging in professional development either on their own or provided by their district to learn new technologies, adopt pedagogies for teaching online, and support students to become successful learners in new online and hybrid learning environments (Weinberg et al., in preparation; Wright et al., 2021). Of particular concern was the need for training to support students who were particularly vulnerable (e.g., those with disabilities or experiencing homelessness) as well as address mental health and wellbeing concerns that may be triggered or exacerbated by the pandemic (Hamilton et al., 2020). Effective pedagogical and learner engagement strategies used in classrooms do not translate directly to remote learning environments. For example, for most in remote classrooms, whole-group interactions are the norm and learners have limited opportunities to interact with—and learn from—one another. Teachers find themselves struggling to formatively assess students and provide meaningful and timely feedback, even though they find themselves spending more time on grading and giving feedback outside of class time than ever before (Weinberg et al., in preparation). In addition to learning new pedagogies, teachers in online environments must also guide students toward appropriate self-regulation, metacognition, and active learning strategies for this new environment (Broadbent & Poon, 2015; Peterson et al., 2018). Collaboration with families and caregivers is more important now than at any other time. Parents and caregivers play a heightened role in supporting the success of online and hybrid learning for K-12 students, taking on many roles previously assumed by instructional and support staff at school (Perry, 2020), and even some of the roles teachers play in a traditional classroom environment (e.g., establishing routines, managing stress, creating learning spaces). In fact, learners’ attitudes and dispositions towards learning are more strongly influenced by supports they receive from families and caregivers than teachers (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020). Many learners, however, do not have an adult or older sibling to provide such support (Expect More Arizona, 2021; Weinberg et al., in preparation; Wright et al., 2021), leaving teachers to feel uncertain and helpless, even as they are spending more time than ever working to engage and effectively communicate with families and caregivers. Expectations for caregiver involvement in the support of learning during the pandemic is a global phenomenon. In Norway, for example, many parents shared that they spent a significant amount of time following-up on their children’s schoolwork (Blikstad-Balas et al., 2021).

These additional demands on teachers are occurring simultaneously with professional isolation, leaving teachers to navigate this shifting professional terrain with few, if any, opportunities to build on the collective expertise of other educators. This lack of collaboration, coupled with policies that restrict or prohibit community volunteers from school sites and virtual classrooms (e.g., CDC, 2021; TESD, 2021), the reduction of intervention services, and the reduction of paraprofessionals (Burnette, 2020) teachers are navigating this unprecedented terrain without the synergy that comes from professional support and collaboration (Ritchie, 2012).

Beyond the physical concerns and the challenges of adapting to new and sometimes frequently changing instructional modalities, public sentiment toward educators has shifted dramatically. The reputation of the teaching profession has been fraught for decades, with teaching often depicted as a low-demand occupation that is well-suited for individuals seeking to comfortably balance work and family life (Bartlett, 2004). The combination of low pay, low status, and job security that comes with tenure contributes to the devaluation of teachers, reinforcing the erroneous idea that those who teach do so because of a lack of other options (Bartlett, 2004). This devaluation of teachers appeared to abate early in the pandemic. Initially, as students were sent home to learn in Spring 2020, there was widespread support and appreciation for teachers and the roles they play in the lives of children and caregivers alike. As summer progressed and the Fall 2020 semester began, some of these narratives shifted. Presumably, some of this can be attributed to the increasing politicization of COVID-19 in the U.S., the equivocal evidence around the risk of transmission in schools (Viner et al., 2020, 2021) and public health benefit of school closures (Silverman et al., 2020), as well as the broader academic, social, public health, and economic impacts of school closures (Kneale et al., 2020; Viner, 2021). Some districts were forced to cancel reopening plans when teachers refused to return to in-person instruction early on. As districts across the U.S. continued with plans for in-person instruction despite rises in coronavirus cases, teachers staged sick-outs and strikes in protest (e.g., Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas). Teachers and classrooms were maligned for their reluctance or refusal to return, even accused of not caring about students or their education (e.g., Nocero, 2020). The embattled and uncertain process of returning to school has exacerbated long standing concerns that confront teachers individually and collectively.

Amid this shifting professional terrain for teachers, perceptions of reduced power and professional agency are pervasive (Weinberg et al., in preparation). Narratives of “learning loss” and “learning inequalities” dominate the news as teachers are following district and school mandates that educators often believe are misaligned with the developmental and academic needs of children, and potentially detrimental to their growth and wellbeing. For example, to meet minimum contact time with students, many are required to replicate an in-person school day in an online environment by spending the entire school day on-screen. Further, grading systems (e.g., report cards) and large-scale assessments have often remained unchanged, even when many districts have adopted flexible attendance policies (Dusseault & Makjori, 2021). As students continue to be measured on learning gains and losses using pre-pandemic measures and metrics, teachers are keenly aware that their own evaluations are contingent on student performance, as is school and district funding, and, in some cases, the lives and futures of students (e.g., ACT, AP, graduation requirements). While this push to continue the testing mandate at this time has been called “an attack on public schools, teachers, and students” (Sanser, 2020, para. 9), to “ease up” or deviate from mandated standards would be to disregard the potential implications for teachers themselves, their schools, and students. As the narrative of learning loss and continued standardized testing exert pressure to focus on academics, teachers’ concerns extend beyond the academic success of their remote and onsite learners, to include mental health and wellbeing of their students (Weinberg et al., in preparation) and other factors that contribute to inequities for students. Teachers are well aware of the implications for students when parents and caregivers are working or otherwise not able to provide support, for students without access to internet or devices, and a litany of other variables impacting the lives of students during the pandemic (Expect More Arizona, 2021; Weinberg et al., in preparation). Greater autonomy and input in school decisions are factors associated with more positive working conditions (Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll & May, 2011). This widespread sentiment that professional agency has been even further reduced might be considered one of the greatest threats to the professional wellbeing of teachers.

Each of these factors contributes to a looming concern: in our pre-pandemic content, widespread teacher burnout has already led to a crisis-level shortage of teachers. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this workforce crisis that is likely to persist for many years to come. Safety concerns due to COVID-19 have prompted teachers to consider leaving the profession (Flannery, 2020). While this is troubling, what is even more concerning are the working conditions—expectations that teachers respond to ever-increasing demands without equitable compensation. If this continues, as scholar shea martin quipped “[we’re] going to lose an entire generation of not only students but also teachers.” For states like Arizona, where teacher shortages have been at crisis levels for years, this could be catastrophic for students, teachers, public school systems and teacher education programs alike.

Organizational pressure has the potential to inspire innovation and productive risk-taking (Richardson, 2002), but this potential is limited without environments that promote agency and emphasize collegial support that promotes self-confidence (Peltonen, 2015). Teachers need to be supported to work closely with one another, to leverage strengths and resources of other educators (Kraft et al., 2015). In addition, they need sufficient access to the array of services and programs that could be provided by other professionals within a comprehensive holistic educational system (e.g., social workers, psychologists, school counselors, nurses). Positive relationships among teachers and robust support systems are associated with heightened morale and improved working conditions (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Ladd, 2011; Kraft et al., 2018) If these were in place prior to the pandemic, teachers would still face challenges, but would not be saddled with the increased workload and stress that comes from working in isolation and without adequate material or relational resources.

14.1.4 Compounding Factors: Personal, Structural, and Social Considerations

The professional unpredictability and isolation, learning of new pedagogies and strategies to engage learners in new instructional environments, and concerns for health and wellbeing are occurring simultaneously with personal life circumstances and experiences that put educators at increased risk for burnout (Bassok et al., 2020). Teachers are finding fewer outlets for their stress and anxiety, giving up self-care routines, and suffering physical and mental health consequences (Aperribai et al., 2020). Further, personal relationships have been altered dramatically, with some living in physical (and often social) isolation, avoiding direct contact with others including friends and family. Conversely, many find themselves in the opposite scenario, with individuals (e.g., parents or caregivers and children) together most or all of the time. While this is the common experience for most across the United States, there are some factors that are unique to or more commonly experienced by teachers.

Teaching is a profession primarily comprised of women. In the United States, most teachers are women (76%), and women make up an even larger proportion of teachers in elementary grades (89%; Taie & Goldring, 2020). Women, more often than their male counterparts, take on uncompensated household and caregiving roles, and this has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Women are two-thirds more likely to serve as primary caregivers for family members (NAC, 2009), and are more likely to have both formal and informal caregiving roles, (Langer et al., 2015). Further, eighty percent of single-parent households are headed by women. Caregivers are placed at an increased risk of exposure, increasing the chance that they will need to take leave time if they become ill. Relatedly, close contact with colleagues and students in schools introduces concerns for these primary caregivers, as this contact increases the vulnerability of their own families and others, they may care for to COVID-19.

One implication of the low salary for teachers is that many take on a second or third job to make ends meet; estimates are that nearly 60% of teachers have jobs outside of their teaching role (García & Weiss, 2019). While many found themselves stretched thin while managing multiple jobs and personal lives prior to the pandemic, the circumstances amid the pandemic make juggling multiple jobs even more daunting. Some are finding this so challenging to manage that they are risking their financial stability by quitting their additional jobs (Weinberg et al., in preparation). In addition, as businesses and services have closed or reduced operations, other teachers have lost their additional incomes. As structural inequities have been laid bare during the pandemic, many of these intensify inequities for teachers and students alike. For example, for teachers and their students, an uneven technological infrastructure means many lack high-speed broadband coverage (Pew, 2019), and fewer devices in homes. These COVID-19 related increases in financial pressure and personal responsibilities exacerbate the stress and anxiety caused by uncertain and expanding professional responsibilities required of teachers during the pandemic.

14.1.5 Arizona Context

Arizona faces unique challenges in its teacher workforce. Arizona teachers are more likely than those in 48 other states to express their willingness to leave the profession. Nearly half (47%) of Arizona teachers surveyed recently said that they would leave the profession “as soon as possible” if offered a higher paying job compared to the 35% national average (NCES, 2017). Compensation, therefore, is a contended working condition for Arizona teachers. While there are dramatic differences in adjusted salaries from state to state (NCES, 2019), this alone does not account for the discrepancy among teachers from various states when asked if they would leave for a higher paying job. Underscoring this, in recent years there has been significant first- and second-year teacher turnover. For example, in 2013–14, “24% of first year teachers and 20% of second year teachers left their positions and were not reported as teaching in Arizona” (Arizona Department of Education [ADE], 2015).

Additionally, AZ has more pathways to licensure than most states, and most of these pathways have their own certification. For the purposes of this study, “typical” certifications refer to those individuals who complete a comprehensive teacher education program that involves both extensive coursework as well as mentored field experiences. These are generally university-based programs. In addition, “atypical” certifications are held by teachers who entered the teaching profession through a different route or pathway. Teachers may be, for example, licensed with an alternative/teaching intern certification, an emergency substitute certification, emergency teaching certification, international teaching certification, or substitute certification. An alternative/teaching intern certification is designed to enable individuals to enter into a teaching contract while simultaneously completing the requirements for an Arizona Standard Professional teaching certificate (Arizona Department of Education, 2018a, b). Ideally, the teaching intern certificates expire and, by the time it does, the holder will be eligible to apply for a professional certificate. That is, the certificate holder must be enrolled in an Arizona State Board approved alternative path to certification or teacher preparation program while they are under contract. At minimum, the holder must have a fingerprint clearance card, a bachelor’s degree, a verification letter from their Arizona State Board approved program and have passed their subject area’s subject knowledge exam requirement. An alternative/teaching intern certification may only be used in the district requesting the individual to have this certification and is valid for a finite period of time since teachers holding this certificate will apply for a professional certificate upon completion of their certification or preparation program.

The traditional substitute certificate requires an individual to have at minimum, a bachelor’s degree and fingerprint clearance card (ADE, 2017b). The substitute certificate is valid for 6 years and is renewable. An emergency substitute certification, on the other hand, is only valid for one school year and entitles the holder to only teach in the district that verifies an emergency employment situation. Unlike the traditional substitute certificate, the emergency substitute certificate only requires the holder to have an associate’s degree and high school diploma. Holders of both the traditional and the emergency substitute certifications are not eligible to be assigned a contracted teaching position and are limited to 120 of substitute teaching per school year (ADE, 2017a).

Emergency teaching certificates are issued when there is an emergency employment situation, and a request is made by the district or charter superintendent. The emergency teaching certificate holder may enter into a teaching contract, but only in the district requesting the certificate. This certificate is issued for early childhood, elementary, and secondary teaching certificates and their required endorsements. As of August 2017, however, emergency teaching certificates ceased to be issued for special education. The emergency teaching certificate can only be issued three times to an individual, and those who were on an alternative/teaching intern certification are ineligible for an emergency teaching certificate. (ADE, 2017c). Requirements for this certificate are more stringent than other emergency certificates for both the holder and district or charter school. The teacher must have a bachelor’s degree, have passed the exam requirements, and have a fingerprint clearance card. In addition to the superintendent verifying that an emergency employment situation exists, the position must have been advertised on a statewide basis and with, at minimum, three career placement offices at higher education institutions. Additionally, the district or charter school must be participating in an Arizona State Board approved alternative path to certification program, or if the superintendent can evidence that the program is not available or not capable of alleviating the emergency situation.

The international teaching certificate “is issued to teachers from foreign countries who are contracted through the foreign teacher program as authorized by federal statutes enacted by the Congress of the United States or other foreign teacher recruitment programs approved by the United States Department of State or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and who are working under a J-1 or Q-1 visa” (ADE, 2018b). The holder’s certificate is valid for the length of their J-1 or Q-1 visa and may be extended, though it is limited to 12 years. The holder must have a fingerprint clearance card and a verification form from an ADE-approved Foreign Credential Evaluation Agency that the holder has, at minimum, a bachelor’s degree and completed a teacher preparation program, both comparable to those in the United States. Lastly, holders need a letter signed by an Arizona school personnel director or superintendent that the individual is in a contracted teaching position through a foreign teacher program.

14.1.6 Arizona COVID-19 Policy Timeline and Guidance

Unlike other countries and most other states in the U.S, Arizona is a local control state, meaning that public school governance and management is given to the elected representatives on the school board, who make pertinent decisions about operations as opposed to the state and federal government (“Local Control,” 2016). Local control is similar to Finland’s “decentralized” schooling system, which can be seen as both a challenge and an asset. While decentralization has made state-wide, uniform decision making about COVID-19 response difficult, it has also allowed flexibility in local decision making, ceding autonomy to local areas’ and cities’ contexts (Lavonen, 2021). While Arizona and Finland may share similar decentralized systems of education, in Arizona, decentralization and local autonomy has meant that some districts are more equipped than others to take on the challenges they face.

Further, Arizona’s K-12 school systems are fractured across schools and districts, as districts may be K-8, 9–12, or K-12. As a result, when 8th grade students leave their K-8 district, they matriculate to many different 9–12 districts. In addition to this fractured articulation, Arizona currently has some of the most extensive school choice options, where students and families may elect to attend schools outside those assigned by the location of their family residence. This includes other public schools within and outside their home district as well as online or charter schools. In 2020, public charter schools made up 28% of the state’s total schools in 2020, with 20% of Arizona public school students attending a charter school (ACSA, 2020). Local control has left decision making regarding COVID-19 up to each district, and some major decisions have even been left to the school level (e.g., learning management systems). Due to Arizona’s unique school governance structure, this chapter cannot fully represent the alternative means of education, reprioritization of curriculum, or attendance found in all schools. We can, however, discuss the overarching policy responses from state agencies, such as the Governor’s office, Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), and ADE and provide anecdotal responses from district leaders about their decisions.

On March 13th, 2020, Doug Ducey, Governor of Arizona, made a statement after the presidential declaration of a national emergency related to the nascent COVID-19 pandemic. March 15th marked the day that the Governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Kathy Hoffman, announced an initial two-week closure of Arizona schools. During this initial closure, the primary focus swiftly shifted to a focus on physical wellbeing and safety of students rather than instruction. The main concern, addressed in a March 16th update, focused on long-term scenarios for school closures and solutions to looming uncertainty, such as access to food. On March 20th, the Governor and Superintendent declared another two-week extension of school closures. Arizona State Representative Michelle Udall crafted House Bill 2910 releasing public schools from the requirement to make up the missed instructional hours due to statewide closures, canceling the statewide assessment, and reaffirming that all school employees—including hourly employees—would continue to be paid during the closures (Office of the Governor of Doug Ducey, 2020). The state house and senate unanimously supported the bill, and Governor Ducey signed the legislation on March 27th. The initial responses to the pandemic were addressed as temporary. On March 30th, however, Governor Ducey and Superintendent Hoffman announced school closures through the end of the school year.

Uncertainty about school modalities of instruction loomed throughout the summer. In an Executive Order signed by Governor Ducey on June 29th, the physical reopening of schools was delayed until August 17, 2020, but schools could choose to conduct distance learning before then. On July 24th, the Governor and Superintendent released the “Arizona: Open for Learning” plan, investing a total of $440 million federal dollars into public schools while also commissioning local school leaders to make decisions about their COVID-19 response plans. By August 6th, a $7.5 million partnership between the Governor’s office, the Arizona Department of Education, Helios Education Foundation, and Arizona State University was launched to help K-12 teachers deliver quality instruction in online and blended learning environments. That same day, the Arizona Department of Health Services and Arizona Department of Education released benchmarks to help guide local decision making for public school districts and charter schools about when to offer fully virtual, hybrid, or in-person instruction amidst the ongoing pandemic.

The beginning of the school year would be met with many public-school districts engaging in patchwork policy making and implementation. This was exacerbated by the aforementioned fragmented nature of Arizona school district structure. For example, some schools who began their school year online had cohorts of freshmen from multiple schools and districts. This fragmentation was only compounded by the increasing politicization of the pandemic and the precautionary measures, such as mask-wearing. On November 19th, 2020, Dr. Cara Christ, the Director of ADHS, issued an emergency order mandating that all students, faculty, staff, contractors, and visitors in public district and charter schools must wear a mask on school campuses, buses, and during school-related activities., Governor Ducey also announced the additional distribution of $370 million in Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds to schools. The investment of federal dollars is similar to Spain, where national funding supported local education communities’ direction, implementation, and enhancements necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Valle & de Olagüe-Smithson, 2021). The funds were released at the beginning of the 2020–21 Spanish school year, September 2020. A marked difference for Arizona and other states in the U.S. is the timing of the receipt of the funds, which were not received until months into the 2020–21 school year.

Tensions between the Governor’s Office and the Superintendent of Public Instruction became evident at the beginning of 2021. State Superintendent Hoffman called for Governor Ducey to order all schools to conduct distance learning for two weeks after the winter break for schools so families could quarantine to stop the spread of COVID-19. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesperson for Governor Ducey’s office, said that the governor would not consider the request, reiterating that mode of learning would be left up to individual school districts. Just a few days after this exchange, Governor Ducey delivered his annual State of the State Address on January 11th, 2021, in which he said “we will not be funding empty seats or allowing schools to remain in a perpetual state of closure. Children still need to learn, even in a pandemic.” While unclear about the fiscal implications, educators and education advocates interpreted the governor’s comment that districts must “return to full-time in-person school or lose funding” as a threat.

14.2 Findings

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) are asked to report site-level data at the beginning of each school year to the Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE) Teacher Input Application (TIA), annually, including information on teachers, teaching positions, administrative positions, and certification status (ADE, n.d.). In addition, teacher and principal evaluation performance data is reported through this application. It is only recommended that LEA’s input their information, but Title I schools and charter schools must enter their information. They are required to keep the data updated throughout the school year by editing the application as changes occur. Unfilled positions are not updated in the Teacher Input Application.

For this study, we examined year-over-year (YOY) comparisons from 2017 to January 2021. While a majority of the data were from comparisons between January 2020 and January 2021, 2017–2019 end of year snapshots were included to see if any YOY changes were actually part of an existing trend. Overall, the number of teachers reported to ADE’s Teacher Input Application has remained steady during the school year (SY) 2019–20 to SY 2020–21 period—around 58,000 teachers were reported in January 2020 and around 59,000 teachers were reported in January 2021. The total number of LEAs and schools reporting have increased, so small variations can possibly be attributed to the slight differences in year-to-year reporting. Overall, reporting quality at the LEA and site-level has been typically high, around 96%.

The average Arizona teacher has around 11 years of experience and is 43 years old. The number of novice teachers—those with no experience—currently working as of January 2021 has remained steady from January 2020. A majority (76%) of teachers are female, and the largest ethnic groups of teachers in Arizona are white (75%) and Hispanic (16%). Both gender and ethnic groups have remained steady, though the American Indian/Native Alaskan teacher population saw a 6% decrease. Arizona has seen a decrease in educators teaching Native American Language/Culture (14%), Bilingual/Structured English Immersion (13%), and Reading Intervention (3%). Given the recent increased acknowledgement of the systemic erasure of Native American and other cultures, the decline (albeit slight) in American Indian/Native Alaskan teachers and those certified to teach Native American Language and Culture is notable. This is of particular relevance as teachers personalize learning for students, employing culturally sustaining and/or culturally relevant pedagogies. It is essential to have teachers knowledgeable about diverse cultures and backgrounds, and to leverage the expertise of teachers around them. Similarly, although a relatively small decrease (3%), reading intervention is going to be a critical need next school year, as the inequitable experiences among students will become more evident the longer some students are learning remotely or in conditions that are heavily impacted by the pandemic.

The teacher populations have remained steady in terms of their location characteristics, or what country they are in, and whether they are in urban—including suburban—or rural schools. While there has been a slight population shift at the county level between SY 2019–20 and SY 2020–21, the population has remained steady. The shifts have been minimal for schools that are labeled urban or rural.

There have been significant increases in charter schoolteachers from 8,600 in SY 2019–20 to 9,800 in SY 2020–21, a 14% increase. In addition, there were significant increases in online teachers from 800 in SY 2019–20 to 1900 in SY 2020–21, a 136% increase. Face-to-face public school teacher populations have remained steady, including the teacher populations at Title 1 eligible/ineligible schools. Schools were receiving funding for prior year counts, so changes may be seen in the future. It is worth noting that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of these teachers in face-to-face schools are now remote.

Our study found that there was a 52% (approximately 900–1,400) increase in emergency teaching certificates from SY 2019–20 to SY 2020–21. While on first glance this seems on par with predictions about COVID-19’s impact on the teacher shortage, this number actually reflects the pandemic’s impact on licensure. ADE granted around 600 educator preparation program completers, who were not able to register for their licensure exams, emergency teaching certificates in lieu of their full, typical certification. We separated the EPP completers on emergency teaching certificates from true emergency teaching certificates (~800) which is a decrease from this point in time last year.

Individuals with emergency teaching certificates are more concentrated in Yuma County (15%) versus the overall teaching population (3%), in Title I schools (83% vs. 62% overall), and in elementary grades (76% vs. 65% overall) during SY 2019–20 to SY 2020–21. They average two years of teaching experience versus the overall average of 11, and the age range is skewed toward the younger population with over 50% of the holders being between 18 and 29 and the average age being 33. More Hispanic and Black teachers have emergency teaching certificates than typical certificates (29% vs. 16% overall for Hispanic teachers; 7% vs. 4% overall for Black teachers). Less white teachers, however, have emergency teaching certificates than typical certificates (56% vs. 76% overall).

For individuals not certified—or those in teaching positions without any valid certificates—there was an 17% increase (approximately 3,200–3,700) from SY 2019–20 to SY 2020–21. These individuals are more concentrated in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county where 66% of the Arizona teacher population works. Seventy-six percent of the non-certified teachers in Arizona work in Maricopa County, more concentrated in its urban areas, charter schools, and in schools that are Title I ineligible schools. Further, teachers on emergency certificates are much more inexperienced. Like the emergency teaching certificates, the age range is skewed toward the younger population. More Black and Asian teachers are teaching without certification. Notably, the proportion of male teachers teaching while not certified is also higher (31% vs. 24% overall).

The Arizona School Personnel Administrators Association (ASPAA) is an organization that targets and represents human resource professionals and school personnel in Arizona. Early in the SY 2020–21, the ASPAA administered a survey and over 200 public school districts and charter schools responded (ASPAA, 2021). Per their survey, as of December 2020, there were about 7,485 teacher openings that needed to be filled for SY 2020–21. Of those, 1,988 were teacher vacancies, meaning the positions were filled by having teachers work on 6/5ths contract, meaning that they have no planning time (40%), long-term substitutes (30%), contracted agencies (18%), administration or certified specialists (e.g., instructional coaches) (3%), collapsing where existing teacher(s) have a class size that exceeds the school’s class size limits (3%), vacancies, classified personnel (e.g., paraprofessionals) (3%), and collapsing in which the school created multi-grade classrooms (2%). Additionally, of the 7,485 teacher openings, around 3,482 were filled by individuals not meeting standard teacher requirements. These positions were filled by individuals who received an emergency teacher or substitute certificate (32%), those who were pending certification (23%), those who received a teacher intern certificate (18%), subject matter experts (13%) or those whose certificate is based solely on their degree content area and not the completion of a teacher preparation program, those hired from outside of the United States (11%), or those who were a pre-service (not graduated) student teacher who assumed full responsibility as “teacher of record” of a classroom (6%).

Finally, the remaining 1,360 teacher openings were comprised of educators severing employment as of December 2020. Of these teachers, 79% resigned and, regardless of reason, their school or district approved their “release of contract”; 12% of these teachers did not report to work at the start of the school year; and 10% abandoned their position. Of the teachers who severed employment, 37% cited COVID-19 as their primary reason.

The data show, however, that the trend of overall teacher openings in Arizona has remained steady over the past three years. As of December 2019, there were around 7,570 teacher openings, and as of December 2018, there were around 7,453 teacher openings (ASPAA, 2021). These teacher opening trends demonstrate instability in Arizona’s teacher labor market. The teacher labor market’s instability is a problem of the conditions embedded in the education workforce’s design. Rather, the full professionalization of the teaching profession can only be accomplished through transformations of the characteristics that define the profession itself, including teachers’ organizational and working conditions (Ingersoll & Collins, 2018).

14.3 Conclusion

In Arizona, we have, so far, been lucky; the numbers related to issues brought up in this article have not significantly changed as a result of the pandemic. Arizona already faces a significant challenge in staffing its schools with qualified individuals. Many predicted COVID-19 would force more people out of the profession than usual. Some believed that this would be seen in increased retirements and resignations at the end of the 2020 school year. And others predicted teachers would leave classrooms after the tumultuous school 2020–21 year commenced. Time will tell. Recent surveys (e.g., Brenan, 2020) and anecdotal evidence suggest that an astounding number of teachers are considering leaving the profession. When teachers and students return to the classroom for the next normal, much will be unrecognizable. Learners will have changed significantly—mentally, physically, and emotionally—as will have teachers. Many students will have lost a year or more of learning and teachers will need to meet them where they are. In a one-teacher, one-classroom model, where teachers are expected to know and be able to do everything, it was difficult pre- pandemic and after—impossible. The numbers weren’t great to begin with—a dire circumstance of thousands of teachers leaving, more alternative certification and novice teachers coming in trying to learn a complex profession in isolation. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that isolation has outsized negative consequences.

While some might believe the obvious answer is to find more people to teach, we disagree wholeheartedly. Although recruitment to the teaching profession has faced sharp decreases in recent years, it is woefully insufficient to focus exclusively, or even predominantly, on recruitment efforts. Experts in content can teach, but this is not enough—thousands leave every year, and this research spotlights that issue of retention. Instead, we should be making large-scale systemic transformations to the characteristics that define the profession itself, including teachers’ organizational and working conditions to increase both agency and collaboration. This includes restructuring the traditional hierarchy of the U.S. public school system to include roles for individuals with different levels of skill, focusing on factors that have been identified as relevant to improving the working conditions for teachers (e.g., material resources, class sizes, physical structures, and occupational health and safety concerns; Emerick et al., 2005).

Profound changes to the status quo are essential to address the challenges teachers face and ensure the teacher workforce does not continue to decline. Plans for a more holistic and comprehensive view on teachers and their needs, as well as those of students, are imperative as schools prepare for full reopening. This should include wellbeing supports for teachers (Green & Bettini, 2020) as well as explicit attention to rebuilding school communities to support healthier working conditions to reduce isolation and expand their support networks. Prior to the pandemic, teachers felt insufficiently prepared to identify and respond to the mental health needs of students (Reinke et al., 2011). The pandemic not only magnified teachers’ and students’ needs, but it also showed that successfully leveraging the expertise of all educators will be critical. Hence, there is a need to reconsider how educators work together to meet the holistic needs of students. New kinds of learning environments will need to be created, teachers will need to learn to work in teams, distributing expertise. The novice or even the teacher candidate who comes into a classroom will need the support of a team in real time, not before or after school. Teachers will need to examine data and consider how they group their students to personalize learning. We will need community members who are trained in the instructional skills and brought in to help and support professional teachers and novices. Paraprofessionals and instructional aides will need additional specialized training in order to strategically support classroom learning. We need to lean into technology that can help personalize and provide foundational skill building. Professional teachers will need time for planning for deepening learning, applied knowledge, and personalization. Additionally, schools and districts may consider creating new positions in their schools that allow some teachers to assume “hybrid” roles. This could include part-time classroom teaching and part-time leading, mentoring, or action research (Berry et al., 2011).

These ambitious shifts are achievable. Collaboration will be key, and new roles such as team leaders will be crucial. Having thousands of unfilled positions in December of each year is a huge red flag that the education workforce is not stable and is unsustainable the way it is. In addition to more robustly funding PK-12 education to enable compensation increases for teachers, systems and structures in schools much change. This is the lull before the storm if we do not start doing something to prepare teachers now for new organizational structures and for new ways of implementing what we know is quality teaching and learning. We need to stop thinking about teacher shortage as a retention and recruitment problem and start thinking about transforming the teaching profession itself.