S/O teachers

[Anonymous]

Most teachers at independent schools do not have teaching licenses or certificates. Yet, many of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country (not all, but many), choose to pay big bucks for their students to go to private schools to be taught by these "untrained" teachers. Students from these schools are routinely accepted into top universities. Why do you think that is so? Perhaps the teaching license is less important thank you think?

If the school is full of students that have had to apply to get in, and can be expelled for not cutting it behaviorally or academically, those students are naturally easier to reach. But a public school teacher must reach every student, including those who struggle academically or have little support at home. These types of students are rarely in a private school. (And some parents are willing to pay the big bucks simply to ensure that their snowflake isn't in classes with these kinds of kids).

It takes more training to help struggling/reluctant students, which is a big reason why public school teachers have that training, and why they're paid better than unlicensed teachers. They deserve it. There is no question that their job is harder.

[Anonymous]

My friend has jumped from private schools to public schools. She can't wait to go back to a private school. She said the extra money is not worth it! She has a DH who has a good job so she doesn't need to live off her private school salary. She said she was surprised at how educated the public school teachers are compared to private school teachers. Many of us have more than one Master's degree. She said her past 2 private school hire new college grads with no teacher training. If I am paying $20K=+ to send my child to a private school, I want the teacher to have more education than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I do think you have some cause for concern, but I don't know what you can really do about it.

I've had 2 kids come through FCPS elementaries. Both kids had some first and second year teachers, and while universally sweet and enthusiastic, they had terrible classroom management skills. My sample is about 4 teachers , but based on my own work experience, I think it takes about 2-3 years to get truly competent in almost any job.

They have also had several teachers who had degrees besides elementary education (along with a teaching certificate) and with one notable exception, those were their best teachers.

This! I've heard about this from many friends who have had kids in classes with new teachers. We also had a new teacher who was an assistant teacher in one of DD's classes, and while she was enthusiastic and nice, I was very glad that she wasn't the lead teacher. It's not that new teachers are "bad," but they don't have the experience to handle situations in a way that a more experienced teacher would. It's aggravating from a parent standpoint to have your kids in the experimental class while the teacher tests out what works and what doesn't. There are obviously lots of sensitive teachers on this board who refuse to acknowledge that new teachers can have a tough time adjusting and it impacts the kids. I have 2 very close friends with PhDs who are principals in other states and THEY dread breaking in new teachers.

[Anonymous]

There are obviously lots of sensitive teachers on this board who refuse to acknowledge that new teachers can have a tough time adjusting and it impacts the kids.

I guess I missed those posts. The point I have seen made is that new teachers often make up for their lack of experience with lots of enthusiasm. This is absolutely true. And while new teachers don't know as much about classroom management as more experienced teachers, more experienced teachers may be feeling more burnout and be less gung-ho with each passing year. It's a trade-off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I do think you have some cause for concern, but I don't know what you can really do about it.

I've had 2 kids come through FCPS elementaries. Both kids had some first and second year teachers, and while universally sweet and enthusiastic, they had terrible classroom management skills. My sample is about 4 teachers , but based on my own work experience, I think it takes about 2-3 years to get truly competent in almost any job.

They have also had several teachers who had degrees besides elementary education (along with a teaching certificate) and with one notable exception, those were their best teachers.

This! I've heard about this from many friends who have had kids in classes with new teachers. We also had a new teacher who was an assistant teacher in one of DD's classes, and while she was enthusiastic and nice, I was very glad that she wasn't the lead teacher. It's not that new teachers are "bad," but they don't have the experience to handle situations in a way that a more experienced teacher would. It's aggravating from a parent standpoint to have your kids in the experimental class while the teacher tests out what works and what doesn't. There are obviously lots of sensitive teachers on this board who refuse to acknowledge that new teachers can have a tough time adjusting and it impacts the kids. I have 2 very close friends with PhDs who are principals in other states and THEY dread breaking in new teachers.

Obviously, every teacher was a new teacher at some point! I am sure every teacher on this forum acknowledges that new teachers have a tough first year. We have all been there. If your friends who are principals DREAD "breaking in new teachers", they should not be principals. An important part of their job as educational leaders is mentoring and developing new teachers in their schools. Good schools with good leaders are able to effectively help new teachers grow and thrive.

[Anonymous]

My son had a brand new teacher for first grade. Was she perfect? NO. But he loved her. She was far, far from the worst teacher he ever had. That award would go to a quite experienced teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I do think you have some cause for concern, but I don't know what you can really do about it.

I've had 2 kids come through FCPS elementaries. Both kids had some first and second year teachers, and while universally sweet and enthusiastic, they had terrible classroom management skills. My sample is about 4 teachers , but based on my own work experience, I think it takes about 2-3 years to get truly competent in almost any job.

They have also had several teachers who had degrees besides elementary education (along with a teaching certificate) and with one notable exception, those were their best teachers.

This! I've heard about this from many friends who have had kids in classes with new teachers. We also had a new teacher who was an assistant teacher in one of DD's classes, and while she was enthusiastic and nice, I was very glad that she wasn't the lead teacher. It's not that new teachers are "bad," but they don't have the experience to handle situations in a way that a more experienced teacher would. It's aggravating from a parent standpoint to have your kids in the experimental class while the teacher tests out what works and what doesn't. There are obviously lots of sensitive teachers on this board who refuse to acknowledge that new teachers can have a tough time adjusting and it impacts the kids. I have 2 very close friends with PhDs who are principals in other states and THEY dread breaking in new teachers.

Obviously, every teacher was a new teacher at some point! I am sure every teacher on this forum acknowledges that new teachers have a tough first year. We have all been there. If your friends who are principals DREAD "breaking in new teachers", they should not be principals. An important part of their job as educational leaders is mentoring and developing new teachers in their schools. Good schools with good leaders are able to effectively help new teachers grow and thrive.

My friends told me they dreaded it because they both had to deal with some new know-it-all teachers who were easily offended if offered guidance. Basically, they are teachers who are opposed to learning. Would you want your child in a class with a teacher like that? FWIW, I am always the first to defend teachers - my grandmother was a teacher. But some new teachers really are difficult to deal with. They will figure it out eventually, but who wants to be the one with the kids the teacher practices on?

[Anonymous]

Anyone who has worked at independent schools knows that this is true. What other sources do you want? Independent schools are not going to publish this data. They are not compelled to do so, and in fact, they probably don't even have this information. They don't care. The fact is, the best independent schools want teachers with advanced degrees in their subject area. Many teachers also have master's degrees in education, particularly Early Childhood Education if they are lower school teachers. Very few of them are certified unless they initially taught in public schools. It is true that a degree in math is not enough to become a good math teacher. You need to learn the science, the art, and the craft of teaching in order to be effective. However, good schools understand that this is not necessarily obtained by jumping through the hoops required to obtain state certification, and therefore it is not required at top independent schools. It is understandable for the OP to be wary of having an experienced teacher for their child. I would contend though, that whether or not they are certified is meaningless. If it is a good school, they have probably done a good job in their hiring process, and they have mentoring and support systems to help their new teachers succeed and grow professionally.

I'm guessing you don't really understand certification, PP. Consider the first bolded portion above. If a teacher has an M.Ed, they have already met the requirements of certification, and then some. All they need to do is to file some paperwork that validates they know how to teach. Why wouldn't they do that?

Now let's consider the second bolded passage. Certification insures and validates that you have learned the science, art, and craft of teaching. So. What again is your problem with certification?

Yes, independent schools are filled with unlicensed teachers, who are paid less than their public school counterparts because they are unlicensed. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that they are somehow better teachers with only an undergraduate major in the field. You seem to think that since parents pay big bucks and rich kids go to college that unlicensed teachers are good teachers.

Not a logical progression.

I agree with you that the best teachers have both subject matter excellence and skills in the "art, science and craft" of teaching. Certification insures that teachers have education in both.

Also, I doubt you're a teacher. "Top independent schools" prefer teaching candidates who are either certified, certification eligible, or with a master's plus. And this funny talk about vague mentoring and support systems outs you as someone NOT in the know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone who has worked at independent schools knows that this is true. What other sources do you want? Independent schools are not going to publish this data. They are not compelled to do so, and in fact, they probably don't even have this information. They don't care. The fact is, the best independent schools want teachers with advanced degrees in their subject area. Many teachers also have master's degrees in education, particularly Early Childhood Education if they are lower school teachers. Very few of them are certified unless they initially taught in public schools. It is true that a degree in math is not enough to become a good math teacher. You need to learn the science, the art, and the craft of teaching in order to be effective. However, good schools understand that this is not necessarily obtained by jumping through the hoops required to obtain state certification, and therefore it is not required at top independent schools. It is understandable for the OP to be wary of having an experienced teacher for their child. I would contend though, that whether or not they are certified is meaningless. If it is a good school, they have probably done a good job in their hiring process, and they have mentoring and support systems to help their new teachers succeed and grow professionally.

I'm guessing you don't really understand certification, PP. Consider the first bolded portion above. If a teacher has an M.Ed, they have already met the requirements of certification, and then some. All they need to do is to file some paperwork that validates they know how to teach. Why wouldn't they do that?

Now let's consider the second bolded passage. Certification insures and validates that you have learned the science, art, and craft of teaching. So. What again is your problem with certification?

Yes, independent schools are filled with unlicensed teachers, who are paid less than their public school counterparts because they are unlicensed. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that they are somehow better teachers with only an undergraduate major in the field. You seem to think that since parents pay big bucks and rich kids go to college that unlicensed teachers are good teachers.

Not a logical progression.

I agree with you that the best teachers have both subject matter excellence and skills in the "art, science and craft" of teaching. Certification insures that teachers have education in both.

Also, I doubt you're a teacher. [b]"Top independent schools" prefer teaching candidates who are either certified, certification eligible, or with a master's plus. And this funny talk about vague mentoring and support systems outs you as someone NOT in the know[/b].

You are wrong on every single point you just made. I hardly know where to start. First of all, I have no problem at all with certification. I simply think it is not any indication of whether or not someone is an effective teacher. To say, as you did, that certification "insures" ( by the way, the correct word is "ensure") that teachers will be qualified and effective is not true. There are terrible teachers who are certified who are totally incompetent. Independent school teachers are nor paid less because they are "unlicensed". They are often paid less because the financial structure of private schools is very different from public schools. Also, salary varies greatly in school districts and also from school to school in the independent school world. It has absolutely nothing to do with certification. Finally, your penultimate sentence about "Top Independent schools preferring teacher candidates who are certified or certification eligible" is simply not factual. You do not know what you are talking about. Your final sentence does not even make sense.

[Anonymous]

14:27. There is no guarantee than that an unlicensed teacher is qualified or effective, either. The requirement for teaching certification in nearly every jurisdiction in the country attests that many, many people find certification a decent measure of potential qualification vs, say, your opinion.

Unlicensed teachers are unqualified for the higher paying public school jobs, and are stuck with lower paying private school jobs. Private schools pay less because they *can* for their lesser qualified candidates.

If you don't know that independent schools in DC prefer candidates with M.Eds+ and certification, then you are clearly not involved in teacher recruitment and hiring.

(Oh, and thanks for catching the autocorrect mistake! Odd that you would be confused about the meaning of the sentence such that you needed to point out such a minor point.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:27. There is no guarantee than that an unlicensed teacher is qualified or effective, either. The requirement for teaching certification in nearly every jurisdiction in the country attests that many, many people find certification a decent measure of potential qualification vs, say, your opinion.

Unlicensed teachers are unqualified for the higher paying public school jobs, and are stuck with lower paying private school jobs. Private schools pay less because they *can* for their lesser qualified candidates.

If you don't know that independent schools in DC prefer candidates with M.Eds+ and certification, then you are clearly not involved in teacher recruitment and hiring.

(Oh, and thanks for catching the autocorrect mistake! Odd that you would be confused about the meaning of the sentence such that you needed to point out such a minor point.)

Child, please. You are in way over your head, trying to pretend that you have some knowledge about the hiring practices of independent schools. Bye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
14:27. There is no guarantee than that an unlicensed teacher is qualified or effective, either. The requirement for teaching certification in nearly every jurisdiction in the country attests that many, many people find certification a decent measure of potential qualification vs, say, your opinion.

Unlicensed teachers are unqualified for the higher paying public school jobs, and are stuck with lower paying private school jobs. Private schools pay less because they *can* for their lesser qualified candidates.

If you don't know that independent schools in DC prefer candidates with M.Eds+ and certification, then you are clearly not involved in teacher recruitment and hiring.

(Oh, and thanks for catching the autocorrect mistake! Odd that you would be confused about the meaning of the sentence such that you needed to point out such a minor lefpoint.)


Child, please. You are in way over your head, trying to pretend that you have some knowledge about the hiring practices of independent schools. Bye!

Teacher here. A former colleague of mine now teaches at a top independent school in the area. He says that top private schools DO prefer to hire licensed teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
14:27. There is no guarantee than that an unlicensed teacher is qualified or effective, either. The requirement for teaching certification in nearly every jurisdiction in the country attests that many, many people find certification a decent measure of potential qualification vs, say, your opinion.

Unlicensed teachers are unqualified for the higher paying public school jobs, and are stuck with lower paying private school jobs. Private schools pay less because they *can* for their lesser qualified candidates.

If you don't know that independent schools in DC prefer candidates with M.Eds+ and certification, then you are clearly not involved in teacher recruitment and hiring.

(Oh, and thanks for catching the autocorrect mistake! Odd that you would be confused about the meaning of the sentence such that you needed to point out such a minor lefpoint.)


Child, please. You are in way over your head, trying to pretend that you have some knowledge about the hiring practices of independent schools. Bye!


Teacher here. A former colleague of mine now teaches at a top independent school in the area. He says that top private schools DO prefer to hire licensed teachers.

Yes, we do.