This study seeks to empirically ground the debate over mathematics and science teacher shortages and evaluate the extent to which there is, or is not, sufficient supply of teachers in these fields. The authors’ analyses of nationally representative data from multiple sources show that math and science are the fields most difficult to staff, but the factors behind these problems are complex. There are multiple sources of new teachers; those with education degrees are a minor source compared to those with degrees in math and science and the reserve pool. Over the past two decades, graduation requirements, student course taking, and teacher retirements have all increased for math and science, yet the new supply has more than kept pace. However, when preretirement teacher attrition is factored in, there is a much tighter balance between supply and demand. Unlike fields such as English, for math and science, there is not a large cushion of new supply relative to losses—resulting in staffing problems in schools with higher turnover.
American Association for Employment in Education. (2008). Educator supply and demand in the United States. Columbus, OH: Author.
3.
BarnesN. (2006). Promoting teacher mobility through license reciprocity: What is being done (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
4.
BehrstockE. (2009). Teacher shortage in England and Illinois: A comparative history (Unpublished dissertation). Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
5.
BlankR.LangesenD. (2003). State indicators of science and mathematics education 2001–2002: State-by-state trends and new indicators from the 2001–2002 school year. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
6.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 113–132.
7.
CurranB.AbrahamsC.ClarkeT. (2001). Solving teacher shortages through license reciprocity. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.
8.
Darling-HammondL. (1984). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
9.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Recruiting and retaining teachers: What matters most and what can government do?Washington, DC: Forum for Education and Democracy.
10.
FowlerC. (2008). The heralded rise and neglected fall of the Massachusetts signing bonus. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 380–385.
11.
GrissmerD.KirbyS. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 99, 45–56.
12.
HenkeR.ChenX.GeisS. (2000). Progress through the pipeline: 1992–93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
13.
HirschE.KoppichJ.KnappM. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to improve the quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
IngersollR. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26–37.
16.
IngersollR. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
17.
IngersollR. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage?Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
18.
IngersollR. (2004). Why some schools have more underqualified teachers than others. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 45–88). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
IngersollR. (2007). A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in 6 nations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
20.
IngersollR.MayH. (2010). The magnitude, destinations and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
21.
IngersollR.MerrillE. (2010). Six trends: How the teaching force has changed over the past two decades. Educational Leadership. May, 67(8), 14–20.
22.
IngersollR.PerdaD. (2010). How high is teacher turnover and is it a problem?Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
23.
LiuE.JohnsonS.PeskeH. (2004). New teacher and the Massachusetts signing bonus: The limits of inducements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 217–236.
24.
LiuE.RosensteinJ.SwannA.KhalilD. (2008). When districts encounter teacher shortages? The challenges of recruiting and retaining math teachers in urban districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 296–323.
25.
LoebS.ReiningerM. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Education Policy Center.
26.
LortieD. (1975). School teacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
MurphyP.DeArmondM.GuinK. (2004). A national crisis or localized problems? Getting perspective on the scope and scale of the teacher shortage. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(23). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n23/
28.
National Academy of Sciences. (1987). Toward understanding teacher supply and demand. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29.
National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). America’s teachers: Profile of a profession, 1993–94. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Integrated postsecondary educational data system(IPEDS) [Data file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
33.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). 2000–2001 Baccalaureate and Beyond Survey(B&B) [Data file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
34.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) And Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS) [Data file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
35.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
36.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (the Glenn Commission). (2000). Before it’s too late. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
37.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author.
38.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York, NY: Author.
39.
National Research Council. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. schools. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
40.
OakesJ. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
41.
OakesJ.FrankeM. L.QuartzK. H.RogersJ. (2002). Research for high quality urban teaching: Defining it, developing it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 228–234.
42.
PriceJ. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
43.
PriceJ. (1989). The impact of turnover on the organization. Work and Occupations, 16, 461–473.
44.
QuartzK. H.ThomasA.AndersonL.MasynK.LyonsK. B.OlsenB. (2008). Careers in motion: A longitudinal retention study of role changing patterns among urban educators. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 218–250.
45.
RiceJ.RoellkeC.SparksD.KolbeT. (2008). Piecing together the teacher policy landscape: A policy-problem typology. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15223
46.
RumbergerR. W. (1987). The impact of salary differentials on teacher shortages and turnover: The case of mathematics and science teachers. Economics of Education Review, 6(4), 389–399.
StolzenbergR. (1978). Bringing the firm back in: Employer size, employee schooling and socioeconomic achievement. American Sociological Review, 43, 813–828.
49.
TheobaldN. (1990). An examination of the influence of personal, professional and school district characteristics on public school teacher retention. Economics of Education Review, 9, 241–250.
50.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2008). The statistical abstract (137th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
52.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.
53.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990–91 to 2009–10. Washington, DC: Author.
54.
WeaverT. (1983). America’s teacher quality problem: Alternatives for reform. New York, NY: Praeger.
