This is not a bad thing though, because enrollment is declining.
For example, my <1 year old daughter's generation is only 80% of what it should be due to COVID. Thus, we'd have to fire 20% of teachers.
My home district of Portland, OR is already starting to see enrollment cuts as people have already started their kids in the always-open private schools or opted for homeschooling as well.
So you have the combined forces of people choosing non-public options and simply having less kids. We won't need as many teachers.
Public school funding depends on enrollment. I don’t see how someone can see public schools being depleted of resources, students, and facing an exodus of teachers due to poor working conditions and think that it’s a good thing.
We should be lamenting the weakening of public services like schools, libraries and the USPS, not cheering when people opt for their private more expensive counterparts.
If there are no kids to teach... exactly what should public schools be doing? The Pandemic baby bust was not evenly distributed. Portland had an especially large baby bust.
I'm not sure what exactly is to be lamented. Am I sad people aren't having kids? Sure. But I can't make someone have a kid. I'm not going to begrudge someone choosing to send their kid to an actual school which stayed open during the pandemic, despite the better funded public schools shutting down. The 'expensive' counterparts (which again, spend less per kid) stayed open.
This is not some game where you get to moralize over people. People had to make real decisions and the schools simply weren't a viable option. Sometimes mothers and fathers both have to work and both are essential (healthcare workers, store employees, etc). Portland shut down a lot of daycares. There was no option. Either put out the money for private school that stayed open and educated your kid, or quit your job, and likely have to move away because you can't afford rent/mortgage. But sure... let's moralize over those parents who had to make tough decisions and now don't want to take their kids out of the classes they've spent two years embedding themselves in.
If the schools can't stay open... that's really on them. But nevertheless, if there's no kids, there's no one to teach, so obviously funding should be cut out of prudence.
Why does Oregon have to fire 20% of the teachers? I know a lot of teachers quit due to covid stress, and I have interviewed some wanting to switch to IT. Maybe there's enough natural attrition or retirement they simply just don't need to hire.
Are schools overcrowded and teachers overworked? Here in Georgia they are and I'm not aware of many places that are. Maybe having a lower teacher/student ratio closer to normal can help with the issues that current students are seeing due to 1-2 years of remote learning.
Then also - how are we not sure that there would not be an uptick in population in 2022 and beyond to compensate for those who delayed kids due to covid uncertainty? Is Oregon going to then ramp up hiring, and have an oversupply of inexperienced teachers teaching kids?
At first glance, it seems like simply 1-2 years of lower birthrate, and thus we need to fire 20% of teachers, may be a knee jerk reaction.
Because my youngest daughter's generation, who will be entering schools in 4-5 years is 20% smaller than the year before her. COVID has done a number on people's decisions to have children.
Why wouldn't you have to fire 20% of teachers. If you have 100 kids and 4 teachers and now only have 75 kids the next year... one has to go? I'm not some public school polemicist. I'm just pointing out reality.
What makes you think it's 1-2 years of lower birthrate. The US birthrate is trending down as is. COVID likely just accelerated it. This is not about what I want; but a description of what is.
> Then also - how are we not sure that there would not be an uptick in population in 2022 and beyond to compensate for those who delayed kids due to covid uncertainty
That is not what the data show. COVID + a looming recession and people have not been having children.
So I did some reading to examine the idea that there would be an uptick. While it's true there was an uptick, of sorts. It didn't meet the downward trend, and as the article I read points out, economics is really what dicctates it. With rampant inflation that some predict will last several years, and high volatility, I don't see how we're going to get some magic baby boom. Perhaps by the time by youngest is in high school. The last inflationary period of the 70s lasted almost a decade.
For example, my <1 year old daughter's generation is only 80% of what it should be due to COVID. Thus, we'd have to fire 20% of teachers.
My home district of Portland, OR is already starting to see enrollment cuts as people have already started their kids in the always-open private schools or opted for homeschooling as well.
So you have the combined forces of people choosing non-public options and simply having less kids. We won't need as many teachers.
Source: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/16/portland-public-schoo...