Anyone worried about inexperienced teachers at MV, YY, CM and other HRCS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it is true that many charters have less experienced teachers however their academic credentials are typically superior. Given enough time, many of these teachers will far outclass the typical DCPS teacher.

This is particularly true with respect to evaluations. Older teachers are highly resistant to results-based evaluations, data-driven metrics, and general standards. Good young teachers expect that and take to it as part of the improvement process.

I think this fails to distinguish between teachers with 0-2 years of experience and those with, say, 3-15+ years of experience. I have been teaching for 13 years, graduated from college in 1997, and I understand the importance of standards and metrics (as well as the way in which data can be inadequate reflections of important learning.) I wouldn't assume that just because a teacher isn't brand! new!, she is clutching her chalk and cursing computers. I wouldn't even assume that teachers in their 60s are resistant to standards, either.

I will also say that, with 13 years of teaching under my belt, I am a much better teacher than I was in my first 1-4 years, and I continue to get excited about new ways to teach. I am still dedicated. I still love teaching and have good and bad days with classroom management. At the end of the day, I would prefer to send my child to a school with more experienced teachers than teachers in years 0-2. However, if the school had an exciting mission, a solid principal, and ongoing training for their teachers, that would probably trump experience for me, unless I had the chance to find out otherwise.

Final thought - I think all but about 15% of new teachers can handle well-behaved kids who are more or less on track academically. It's very hard, though, to deal with challengers even in a largely calm environment, and hard to identify and address what a kid isn't getting until late in year 2 (at least, it was for me.) If you feel like your child will present these kinds of challenges to a teacher, you might think seriously about veering toward a school with a more experienced staff. I think I really nailed some misbehavers in my earlier years that now I would know how to diffuse with a laugh. I also think I handled things so ineffectively at times that even the kids who were well-behaved realized it would be fun to get out of hand and joined in the merriment. So if you have a choice, think about the child you're sending -- and know that your kid will have good years and bad years, good teachers and okay teachers and bad teachers, wherever she or he goes. Just thought I'd share from the teacher's POV!

[Anonymous]

Thanks, np here who enjoyed hearing the teacher's perspective.

[Anonymous]

OP here, +1

[Anonymous]

MV parent here. My kids both have young teachers, one of which might be called "inexperienced". But all of them are great and classroom management, and make learning fun for the kids. The "inexperienced" teacher may be the best teacher I have every seen in a classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it is true that many charters have less experienced teachers however their academic credentials are typically superior. Given enough time, many of these teachers will far outclass the typical DCPS teacher.

This is particularly true with respect to evaluations. Older teachers are highly resistant to results-based evaluations, data-driven metrics, and general standards. Good young teachers expect that and take to it as part of the improvement process.

I think this fails to distinguish between teachers with 0-2 years of experience and those with, say, 3-15+ years of experience. I have been teaching for 13 years, graduated from college in 1997, and I understand the importance of standards and metrics (as well as the way in which data can be inadequate reflections of important learning.) I wouldn't assume that just because a teacher isn't brand! new!, she is clutching her chalk and cursing computers. I wouldn't even assume that teachers in their 60s are resistant to standards, either.

I will also say that, with 13 years of teaching under my belt, I am a much better teacher than I was in my first 1-4 years, and I continue to get excited about new ways to teach. I am still dedicated. I still love teaching and have good and bad days with classroom management. At the end of the day, I would prefer to send my child to a school with more experienced teachers than teachers in years 0-2. However, if the school had an exciting mission, a solid principal, and ongoing training for their teachers, that would probably trump experience for me, unless I had the chance to find out otherwise.

Final thought - I think all but about 15% of new teachers can handle well-behaved kids who are more or less on track academically. It's very hard, though, to deal with challengers even in a largely calm environment, and hard to identify and address what a kid isn't getting until late in year 2 (at least, it was for me.) If you feel like your child will present these kinds of challenges to a teacher, you might think seriously about veering toward a school with a more experienced staff. I think I really nailed some misbehavers in my earlier years that now I would know how to diffuse with a laugh. I also think I handled things so ineffectively at times that even the kids who were well-behaved realized it would be fun to get out of hand and joined in the merriment. So if you have a choice, think about the child you're sending -- and know that your kid will have good years and bad years, good teachers and okay teachers and bad teachers, wherever she or he goes. Just thought I'd share from the teacher's POV!

Thank you and thank you for being a teacher!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it is true that many charters have less experienced teachers however their academic credentials are typically superior. Given enough time, many of these teachers will far outclass the typical DCPS teacher.

This is particularly true with respect to evaluations. Older teachers are highly resistant to results-based evaluations, data-driven metrics, and general standards. Good young teachers expect that and take to it as part of the improvement process.

I think this fails to distinguish between teachers with 0-2 years of experience and those with, say, 3-15+ years of experience. I have been teaching for 13 years, graduated from college in 1997, and I understand the importance of standards and metrics (as well as the way in which data can be inadequate reflections of important learning.) I wouldn't assume that just because a teacher isn't brand! new!, she is clutching her chalk and cursing computers. I wouldn't even assume that teachers in their 60s are resistant to standards, either.

I will also say that, with 13 years of teaching under my belt, I am a much better teacher than I was in my first 1-4 years, and I continue to get excited about new ways to teach. I am still dedicated. I still love teaching and have good and bad days with classroom management. At the end of the day, I would prefer to send my child to a school with more experienced teachers than teachers in years 0-2. However, if the school had an exciting mission, a solid principal, and ongoing training for their teachers, that would probably trump experience for me, unless I had the chance to find out otherwise.

Final thought - I think all but about 15% of new teachers can handle well-behaved kids who are more or less on track academically. It's very hard, though, to deal with challengers even in a largely calm environment, and hard to identify and address what a kid isn't getting until late in year 2 (at least, it was for me.) If you feel like your child will present these kinds of challenges to a teacher, you might think seriously about veering toward a school with a more experienced staff. I think I really nailed some misbehavers in my earlier years that now I would know how to diffuse with a laugh. I also think I handled things so ineffectively at times that even the kids who were well-behaved realized it would be fun to get out of hand and joined in the merriment. So if you have a choice, think about the child you're sending -- and know that your kid will have good years and bad years, good teachers and okay teachers and bad teachers, wherever she or he goes. Just thought I'd share from the teacher's POV!

Thank you and thank you for being a teacher!

+1 I so appreciate this response. The only thing I take issue with is the idea that it's inevitable that my child will have bad teachers. I know I'm being unrealistic but I just don't accept that cop out. If a teacher is bad he/she shouldn't be teaching or there should be significant supporting in place to minimize the badness. I expect administration to do their job--observe, intervene, support and if all else fails, remove.

[Anonymous]

What works for one child doesn't work for others. I didn't have bad teachers when I was growing up but definitely clicked with some rather than others.

My kids started at one of the EOP schools where most of the experienced teachers had been fired under Rheeform, and were replaced by shiny new teachers straight out of superior colleges. Their classroom management skills were terrible - lots of yelling and punishing, and they lacked that teaching experience that gives them that valuable 6th sense about when problem child #3 is about to blow his / her stack. At our not so shiny school now, we have teachers with 30 years experience, and the difference is amazing. My one son has trouble sitting still, and I love that my kid is not the first wiggly kid they've seen. At his old school he was"bad" all the time; in his new school he's just fine.

I think the charters that think their new teachers are just fine haven't seen what happens when kids get older and the problems get more entrenched. That's when you really want the older teacher with more experience who has seen it all before and can address the needs if everyone in one classroom so that the "problem child" doesn't even know he's a problem because he is diverted before he goes too far down the road

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that, although these schools are highly regarded, their teachers typically only have two years experience and this is typically the case at charter schools. Apparently positive educational outcomes are directly linked to teachers with more experience. http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_ladd_on_the_importance_of_experienced_teacgers_1.pdf

So wouldn't it make sense to favor a mid range to good DCPS over charter with teachers with little experience? So Shepherd Park or a Hearst over MV or CM? I would love to know what others think.

OP here, the fact that the Hearst principal is resigning reminds me of one thing the HRC seem to have over DCPS: vested principals/Exec Dir/Admin and low turnover in this regard. At DCPS seems like every 4 years you can expect a new principal. See Hearst and Oyster, for example. The age of having the same principal in a school for 20+ years are long gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that, although these schools are highly regarded, their teachers typically only have two years experience and this is typically the case at charter schools. Apparently positive educational outcomes are directly linked to teachers with more experience. http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_ladd_on_the_importance_of_experienced_teacgers_1.pdf

So wouldn't it make sense to favor a mid range to good DCPS over charter with teachers with little experience? So Shepherd Park or a Hearst over MV or CM? I would love to know what others think.

OP here, the fact that the Hearst principal is resigning reminds me of one thing the HRC seem to have over DCPS: vested principals/Exec Dir/Admin and low turnover in this regard. At DCPS seems like every 4 years you can expect a new principal. See Hearst and Oyster, for example. The age of having the same principal in a school for 20+ years are long gone.

Having a principal stay for a long period of time isn't necessarily a good thing for a school. Turnover and transition happen in all industries, a school with a long term strategic plan developed by school officials, faculty, staff, parents, community, etc. will transcend the experience of any principal and live on long after they are gone. The problem with DCPS isn't turnover, it's that planning anything (facilities, services, etc.) is a completely foreign concept in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

YY parent. I have found the inexperienced young teachers without children have absolutely no clue about six and seven year old boys inability to sit still for hours.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, I must agree that many teachers have absolutely no clue about neurotypical boy behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YY parent. I have found the inexperienced young teachers without children have absolutely no clue about six and seven year old boys inability to sit still for hours.

Another YY parent of a first grader boy. That hasn't been our experience at all. No one expects 6/7 yr olds, boys or girls, to be able "to sit still for hours." The classrooms don't have desks but tables and academic work, "the daily five", is done by moving from station to station. Kids are expected to be able to sit on the carpet during morning meeting and group instruction for 45 minutes max but even that usually involves standing up and moving and not just sitting.

[Anonymous]

CM parent here. I had similar concerns about the very young teachers at CM. I have been pleasantly surprised by their enthusiasm and teaching skills. One of my kids has had some issues, and the compassionate methods her teacher has used to help her through some difficult situations has warmed my heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, I must agree that many teachers have absolutely no clue about neurotypical boy behavior.

First, I take issue with boy vs. girl behavior. Do you really think that 6 year old girls will sit quietly in little dresses while boys play trucks in the dirt? How 1950s in your thinking.

Second, this is not the case in my charter school at all. Our teachers, young as they may be, have been trained on young children and know that kids need to move around - even while they are learning. I've seen her reading a book and there will be kids who will sit and listen, while some kids will need to get up (yes, neurotypical kids) and move around the class. It's not a "boy" thing - it's a kid thing.

[Anonymous]

It seems like people are equating "good teacher" with "good classroom manager," and I'm sure that if your child's classroom is being poorly managed, that's what you'll hear about. But a major part of teaching is knowing how to reach all different students' interests, learning styles, and abilities, as well as spot gaps in understanding and address them. I think that comes with more experienced teachers. Think about it: didn't you get better at aspects of your job as time went on? That is a big one, for teachers.