The ongoing debate over unpaid student teaching is more than just an education policy issue; it deeply reflects our societal values and priorities. This practice, firmly rooted in teacher training, has become a transparent barrier—disproportionately affecting those already facing systemic challenges. Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton highlighted this need in a recent interview with Chalkbeat.
While the teaching profession is often romanticized as a noble calling, it truly is one. However, the expectation that talented individuals work for free during critical training periods acts as a wealth filter, systematically excluding talented individuals from lower-income backgrounds. Who can afford to work for free in today’s economy?
The requirements for student teaching are straightforward. It lasts an entire semester, usually between 12 and 16 weeks, and is demanding, often requiring full-time effort with no pay. For many aspiring educators, this capstone experience is not just a rite of passage; it is a gatekeeper that can determine whether they can afford to enter the profession at all.
The opportunity costs are enormous, with estimated lost earnings between $8,000 and over $20,000, depending on individual situations and regional wages. When you include tuition fees that many programs still require for unpaid work, prospective teachers could face a total financial burden surpassing $25,000 for a single semester.
This situation is especially dire for first-generation college students, people of color, and those changing careers. Many of these individuals are already facing financial instability, which makes unpaid work unfeasible.
Research from credible organizations like the National Center for Education Statistics and the Learning Policy Institute highlights a troubling trend: unpaid student teaching significantly contributes to the underrepresentation of low-income and minority teachers in classrooms nationwide. In contrast, programs offering paid or stipend-based student teaching positions, such as urban teacher residencies, often have much more diverse cohorts, indicating a clear solution that is within reach.
Globally, the United States stands out as an anomaly in its approach to teacher preparation. High-performing education systems in countries like Finland, Singapore, and Australia recognize the importance of compensating teacher candidates during their practicum.
These countries recognize that investing in future teachers leads to better student outcomes. They have created systems in which candidates are paid as employees, improving educational quality and encouraging a more diverse teaching workforce.
Fortunately, some states and districts are starting to recognize the need for change. Paid residency programs in cities like San Francisco, Boston, and Denver are leading the way, offering annual stipends from $20,000 to $45,000 for year-long positions. Additionally, state-level initiatives—such as California’s grants for student teachers in high-need areas—are emerging as promising options. Federal proposals such as the TEACH Act also aim to provide additional funding for paid student teaching, reflecting growing awareness of the issue.
Critics often argue that schools cannot afford to pay student teachers and cite the burdens of supervision. However, this argument falls short when compared to successful models both nationally and internationally.
Paid residency programs have retention rates of 85% to 95% after five years, sharply higher than the national average of about 50%. This increased retention not only justifies the investment but also indicates that long-term costs could decrease as schools benefit from experienced educators who are more likely to stay in the profession.
Ultimately, unpaid student teaching reveals how economic barriers impact professional opportunities. It's not just a logistical issue; it's a matter of fairness. By maintaining a system that requires future educators to work for free, we risk losing talented candidates who cannot afford to do so. Another point is that student teaching is a vital experience and should count toward salary steps for those involved.
Investing in paid or stipend student teaching is not an act of charity; it is a strategic investment in the future of education. By opening the profession to talented individuals from diverse backgrounds, we enhance the teaching workforce and raise the overall quality of education.
It's time to rethink our approach, prioritize compensation for student teachers, and create a more inclusive and effective education system.
##
JC Bowman is the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee.
