Are public school teachers better than private school teachers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that any school with high SES for its families, public or private, is going to have great teachers.

Uh no. The best teachers are moved to the red zones in Mont. Co.

Uh, no. The teachers aren't "moved" at all in MoCo. They apply to work at the schools that they want (assuming they have open positions). If they are not hired, they must find another school. If they are happy in a school in Bethesda, they can stay there forever. And they usually do. And of course, the principals in Bethesda, Ch Ch, Potomac want to select the best teachers they can also. So they usually have their pick.

A certain elementary school in Potomac has an extremely high teacher turnover. Why do you think that is?

[Anonymous]

A certain elementary school in Potomac has an extremely high teacher turnover. Why do you think that is?

Honestly, probably because the principal or parents are a nightmare. More teachers leave because of ineffective or micro-managing administrators than do because they're not good enough for that school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sister-in-law failed the exam to become an English teacher in Virginia several times. So she got a job in a private school. I would hate to have her teaching my kids.

How many lawyers fail the bar several times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A certain elementary school in Potomac has an extremely high teacher turnover. Why do you think that is?

Honestly, probably because the principal or parents are a nightmare. More teachers leave because of ineffective or micro-managing administrators than do because they're not good enough for that school.

The parents could be a reason. When I was teaching (in an affluent Bethesda elementary public school), some teachers came and went pretty fast. These teachers were experienced teachers who often were transfering (at their request) from a challenging school. The thinking is: "oh, this will be easier, being with bright, motivated kids and involved parents". Well it is easier, in some ways. But the parent factor is HUGE. Most parents are involved and supportive. But enough are not supportive or are critical or downright subversive or 'helicopter' parents, etc. So some teachers go back to environments that are challenging in ways that are, say...more rewarding.

[Anonymous]

I am experienced in both areas - as teacher, student, and parent.

Personally, you can't beat a fabulous public school teacher in a low-performing school. S/he has control of some difficult student, reaches out to parents, differentiates as much as humanly possible (there are only 24 hours in a day), and genuinely loves what s/he does.

Mediocre teachers, however, can survive in a private school b/c most students are motivated (either intrinsically or by parental pressure).

So atmosphere also has a lot to do with it. My daughter is in a private K-8, and although we're not exactly happy with her current teacher, the school truly practices vertical articulation so that each teacher builds upon a certain skill level. They have the time to actually plan together. In public, this is not often the case.

[Anonymous]

I have been thinking about comments people made about teachers being smart or dim or stupid. I think a lot of us fail to really think about what we want from a teacher for our children. I don't need the person that was the smartest kid in the room. They often lack empathy for a child that is struggling. They may find tasks to easy they fail to break them down sufficiently for their students. When I seen an excellent teacher I see a person that exhibits a lot of self-control that the kids can model. I see a person that has good situational awareness that can see if his or her kids are catching the concept. I see a person that loves to learn but is not so focused on the next new thing that they miss the basics. I want a person that is curious about the world and imparts that world view to the children they work with. These kind of skills don't show up on an SAT but can be seen. Our society focuses too much on smart, dumb. How about competency, effort and enthusiasm as a standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been thinking about comments people made about teachers being smart or dim or stupid. I think a lot of us fail to really think about what we want from a teacher for our children. I don't need the person that was the smartest kid in the room. They often lack empathy for a child that is struggling. They may find tasks to easy they fail to break them down sufficiently for their students. When I seen an excellent teacher I see a person that exhibits a lot of self-control that the kids can model. I see a person that has good situational awareness that can see if his or her kids are catching the concept. I see a person that loves to learn but is not so focused on the next new thing that they miss the basics. I want a person that is curious about the world and imparts that world view to the children they work with. These kind of skills don't show up on an SAT but can be seen. Our society focuses too much on smart, dumb. How about competency, effort and enthusiasm as a standard.

Well said. My guess is that Einstein wouldn't know what to do with 30 12 year olds in a physical science class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been thinking about comments people made about teachers being smart or dim or stupid. I think a lot of us fail to really think about what we want from a teacher for our children. I don't need the person that was the smartest kid in the room. They often lack empathy for a child that is struggling. They may find tasks to easy they fail to break them down sufficiently for their students. When I seen an excellent teacher I see a person that exhibits a lot of self-control that the kids can model. I see a person that has good situational awareness that can see if his or her kids are catching the concept. I see a person that loves to learn but is not so focused on the next new thing that they miss the basics. I want a person that is curious about the world and imparts that world view to the children they work with. These kind of skills don't show up on an SAT but can be seen. Our society focuses too much on smart, dumb. How about competency, effort and enthusiasm as a standard.

AMEN!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Public or Private, educators who teach core academic subjects should not be allowed to coach athletic teams. Teaching and Coaching are two entirely different disciplines which require entirely different methodologies. Both teaching and coaching a major sports team are full-time jobs.

All teachers should add value to their schools by leading a school club or activity related to their own discipline e.g. the French Club, Sierra Club, Student Council, or Yearbook Committee.

However, teachers of core academic subjects should not be allowed to coach athletic teams. There simply are not enough hours in a day to adequately teach and assess high quality lessons and coach a major sport at the same time. Quality lessons include, but are not limited to some of the following components, warm-ups, a short review, introduction and instruction of new materials, and an assessment. That’s just the classroom routine. Teachers themselves need time to review the material in order to present it in a cogent interesting manner. You can’t just show up and wing it. Then after class and at home they must grade homework, quizzes, and tests. Being a teacher is a good job, but make no mistake about it, if an individual has any intention of truly being a good teacher, they must also plan on being a full-time teacher.

Coaching also requires long hours of instruction. They must supervise conditioning and training in the off-season, drills, practices, plays, scrimmages, games, fund raising, scouting, viewing videos, and developing game-day strategies. Coaching is far more complex, comprehensive, scientific, and time consuming than it was several decades ago. Coaching is a full-time job.

Also, classroom management and team management may not require different methodologies, but different methodologies seem to prevail. Some Teacher/Coaches have difficulty controlling their Bobby Knight -- On/Off Switches.

Teachers who try to teach and coach are usually horribly ineffective teachers. There are not enough hours in a day to effectively perform the duties responsibilities of a quality teacher and to also coach a sports team.

This post-er is full of $(%*%&#! TEaching is coaching! There is a lot of coaching in teaching! I'm not saying that all full-time coaches know academic core curriculum well enough to teach it- but effective teachers do study coaching techniques! And teachers who donate some time to afterschool activities (perhaps not champion sports teams) develop far deeper relationships with students, which benefits teaching profoundly. Obviously this post-er is not a teacher.

[Anonymous]

I'm a teacher, but I've never been a coach (for an athletic team).

I think though, that the skills are very different.

If you are teaching an entire 8th grade class algebra, yes you can "coach" them to master the material to the best of their abilities; but your end goal is for all students to master the content to at least a certain standard. The same content. If some kids really aren't getting it -- you provide extra support. And you teach ALL the students in the school.

But if you are coaching a competitive team -- you have one overall goal -- you want that team to beat other teams. Each football player isn't being taught all the same skills -- you have players in different positions, specializing. If some players aren't doing well -- you can drop them from the team to find kids who can do better. And you have kids try out for the team -- you don't put all the kids in the school on the football team and just work with whomever you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been thinking about comments people made about teachers being smart or dim or stupid. I think a lot of us fail to really think about what we want from a teacher for our children. I don't need the person that was the smartest kid in the room. They often lack empathy for a child that is struggling. They may find tasks to easy they fail to break them down sufficiently for their students. When I seen an excellent teacher I see a person that exhibits a lot of self-control that the kids can model. I see a person that has good situational awareness that can see if his or her kids are catching the concept. I see a person that loves to learn but is not so focused on the next new thing that they miss the basics. I want a person that is curious about the world and imparts that world view to the children they work with. These kind of skills don't show up on an SAT but can be seen. Our society focuses too much on smart, dumb. How about competency, effort and enthusiasm as a standard.

YES!! I could not agree more, or said it better myself. I am a teacher, and the ideals you mentioned, are what I strive to fulfill everyday I walk into my classroom. Thank you for a wonderful, insightful, validating post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are teaching an entire 8th grade class algebra, yes you can "coach" them to master the material to the best of their abilities; but your end goal is for all students to master the content to at least a certain standard. The same content. If some kids really aren't getting it -- you provide extra support. And you teach ALL the students in the school.

But if you are coaching a competitive team -- you have one overall goal -- you want that team to beat other teams. Each football player isn't being taught all the same skills -- you have players in different positions, specializing. If some players aren't doing well -- you can drop them from the team to find kids who can do better. And you have kids try out for the team -- you don't put all the kids in the school on the football team and just work with whomever you have.

And where does that leave the smart 8th grader who figures out the material in your algebra class right away?

The situation in which a teacher is facing is trying to teach 25-30 kids of widely varying abilities in a class is going to tax most teachers, however well trained they are. And having a high ability kid in a setting where the end goal is "for all students to master the content to at least a certain standard" is going to frustrate a lot of kids.

It is way more efficient to group kids by ability. That also makes both the teaching and classroom management much much easier. And if the classes are smaller, as in private schools, that simplifies things as well. So in many private school teachers just don't have to be as versed in ed school class management techniques etc etc in order to provide a superior product, closer to "coaching" than "teaching" as the PP defines it.

It amazes me how the education industry is organized. Just imagine if hospitals were organized so that whoever surgery on a particular block had to use the same surgeon, whether they needed brain or knee surgery. Even a highly skilled and dedicated surgeon would end up providing mediocre service to many patients. It is more important to have a simple system with homogenous inputs than focus on trying to find differences between the providers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are teaching an entire 8th grade class algebra, yes you can "coach" them to master the material to the best of their abilities; but your end goal is for all students to master the content to at least a certain standard. The same content. If some kids really aren't getting it -- you provide extra support. And you teach ALL the students in the school.

But if you are coaching a competitive team -- you have one overall goal -- you want that team to beat other teams. Each football player isn't being taught all the same skills -- you have players in different positions, specializing. If some players aren't doing well -- you can drop them from the team to find kids who can do better. And you have kids try out for the team -- you don't put all the kids in the school on the football team and just work with whomever you have.

And where does that leave the smart 8th grader who figures out the material in your algebra class right away?

The situation in which a teacher is facing is trying to teach 25-30 kids of widely varying abilities in a class is going to tax most teachers, however well trained they are. And having a high ability kid in a setting where the end goal is "for all students to master the content to at least a certain standard" is going to frustrate a lot of kids.

It is way more efficient to group kids by ability. That also makes both the teaching and classroom management much much easier. And if the classes are smaller, as in private schools, that simplifies things as well. So in many private school teachers just don't have to be as versed in ed school class management techniques etc etc in order to provide a superior product, closer to "coaching" than "teaching" as the PP defines it.

You may be correct that private school teachers don't have to be as versed in class management and varied teaching techniques, because they have a more homogenous group of students. Students who don't fit the mold the school is looking for are not let into the school, or are counseled out as soon as their different needs become apparent.

I think this provides support for the belief that public school teachers are the better teachers overall. However, private school teachers might be very good at teaching students who fit into the particular group the school serves.

[Anonymous]

Just a tangent: it really irks me when people assume teachers aren't intelligent or didn't do well in school. I graduated summa from an Ivy, have a Masters from an Ivy-equivalent, was Phi Beta Kappa junior year, had 99th percentile SATs and GREs, and I am a teacher. Many of my colleagues were equally intelligent.

I have taught in both private and public, and have had my children in both private and public, and honestly, the answer is: it depends. In both you will find good and bad teachers. There is unfortunately no rule of thumb.