Teachers want to teach in good schools because the job is easier. There are more applicants. The hiring committee has no idea which teacher knows their stuff and will be able to connect with kids. All they know is who was charming and extroverted at their interview.
Good school districts often end up with a lot of ex sorority girl teachers who fit in with each other and are well liked by their colleagues but don’t necessarily communicate the material they are supposedly teaching to the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this question is narrowed to "in a top public district".

1. Teacher is super important, and it has as much to do with their particular relationship with your child as it does any measure of quality, but yes some teachers are more consistently able to provide positive learning experiences for a greater percentage of their students than others.

2. A "top" district usually speaks more to the readiness and academic support at home for students (tightly correlated to SES) than it does to the teachers, you'll find a healthy mix of both awesome and terrible teachers at a "top public district". Also at a top private. Also at a mid public district. Also at a mid private. Also at a low-test-scores public district.

People who live in districts that are considered better than the neighboring ones are often surprised at how many of their children's teachers suck. Then they go online to ask other people's experiences so they can make sense of it all. And then they realize that so-called good districts just have a lot of parents who supplement the academics to make up for the poor quality teaching.

I wish I knew this before. We would have lived in a cheaper area with more diversity and just supplemented at home or centers like we do now. But I guess there are fewer centers in those areas, so we would have ended up driving around more.

What's better A) stressed out good teachers jumping through all the administrative demands or B) a non stressed veteran teacher who has been frauding and covering up crime for decades to appease the admin and attain job security and support.

It's a catch 22 bc if you report you get fired and if you data fraud you get support. A lot of teachers have to get fired a couple of times before they understand the unwritten rules they don't teach in grad school.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this question is narrowed to "in a top public district".

1. Teacher is super important, and it has as much to do with their particular relationship with your child as it does any measure of quality, but yes some teachers are more consistently able to provide positive learning experiences for a greater percentage of their students than others.

2. A "top" district usually speaks more to the readiness and academic support at home for students (tightly correlated to SES) than it does to the teachers, you'll find a healthy mix of both awesome and terrible teachers at a "top public district". Also at a top private. Also at a mid public district. Also at a mid private. Also at a low-test-scores public district.

People who live in districts that are considered better than the neighboring ones are often surprised at how many of their children's teachers suck. Then they go online to ask other people's experiences so they can make sense of it all. And then they realize that so-called good districts just have a lot of parents who supplement the academics to make up for the poor quality teaching.

I don't understand why this question is narrowed to "in a top public district".

1. Teacher is super important, and it has as much to do with their particular relationship with your child as it does any measure of quality, but yes some teachers are more consistently able to provide positive learning experiences for a greater percentage of their students than others.

2. A "top" district usually speaks more to the readiness and academic support at home for students (tightly correlated to SES) than it does to the teachers, you'll find a healthy mix of both awesome and terrible teachers at a "top public district". Also at a top private. Also at a mid public district. Also at a mid private. Also at a low-test-scores public district.

Teacher quality is one thing. Another is teaching kids that it's ok to do crime and violence in the classroom. In that case it doesn't matter how "good" a teacher is. There is no way to means test it if the students are not accountable for learning and teachers get no support and orders to create false data.

Anonymous wrote:When I was getting my educational degree, the state of the research at the time (2010) indicated that teacher quality had the greatest influence on education and that principal quality had the second greatest influence. Unfortunately, defining quality is a bit difficult. Different studies use different metrics. One of the creators of a teacher evaluation tool has even decried the way it has been applied in schools.

LOL. That's like dentists conducting a study that concludes dentists have the greatest influence over the health of people's teeth.

The good teachers won't stick around if they are required to fraud the data and also cover up crime and violence.

One of my children won the lottery and has only had great teachers, coaches, etc in preschool and elementary school. All 3 kids are high achieving, but two of my kids have chips on their shoulders based on different experiences. The one with only good adults in his life does not.

I used to wonder about that kid turning out fragile, but just the opposite. He oozes a strong sense of self. He makes friends easily and learns quickly. Also in middle school, he’s had his share of not as great teachers. He’s better at his siblings with accepting them and also in a way dismissing them.

I used to wonder what’s in it for the teachers? Over time, I’ve come to think birds of a feather flock together. Great teachers who find each other in things like great teaching teams also probably see a quality of life improvement.

But unfortunately we do still have limited control. If I could’ve picked the same experience for the other two kids, I would’ve.

Anonymous wrote:In any school, public or private, there are two determiners of success. The first is parent income. The second is teacher quality. I'm a teacher and teacher quality matters a lot.

DP and I would add that teacher morale matters as well, and this is often overlooked or ignored. A high-quality teacher who is experiencing fatigue and frustration isn’t going to perform as well in the classroom.

When I was getting my educational degree, the state of the research at the time (2010) indicated that teacher quality had the greatest influence on education and that principal quality had the second greatest influence. Unfortunately, defining quality is a bit difficult. Different studies use different metrics. One of the creators of a teacher evaluation tool has even decried the way it has been applied in schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People call a school district "good" when it has good test scores and all the kids speak English. But in these kinds of districts the parents tend to provide all the acceleration, enrichment, and other supplements that make kids score well on exams. The teachers range from sh** to great but none of them have as much influence over academic achievement as the parents do. I would even go so far as to say that teachers in "good" districts get lazy and complacent because they know the kids get academic instruction outside of school.

I mostly agree with the above.

W pyramids are good because of all the outside school supplements - at home, at a tutoring center, with a tutor or whatever.

Outside supplementing also is a large part of iwhy HHI correlates with educational attainment.

So does school even matter then? I should just supplement outside of school and assume school is for socialization? What kind of socialization is another question, I guess. But supplementing everything doesn't seem to leave a lot of time for DD's interests.

Yes- the school matters too because of the peer group. You want a school culture where most families highly value education. In addition to the importance of what's happening at home and teacher quality, the kids influence each other a lot too.

In any school, public or private, there are two determiners of success. The first is parent income. The second is teacher quality. I'm a teacher and teacher quality matters a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People call a school district "good" when it has good test scores and all the kids speak English. But in these kinds of districts the parents tend to provide all the acceleration, enrichment, and other supplements that make kids score well on exams. The teachers range from sh** to great but none of them have as much influence over academic achievement as the parents do. I would even go so far as to say that teachers in "good" districts get lazy and complacent because they know the kids get academic instruction outside of school.

I mostly agree with the above.

W pyramids are good because of all the outside school supplements - at home, at a tutoring center, with a tutor or whatever.

Outside supplementing also is a large part of iwhy HHI correlates with educational attainment.

[/b]So does school even matter then? [b]I should just supplement outside of school and assume school is for socialization? What kind of socialization is another question, I guess. But supplementing everything doesn't seem to leave a lot of time for DD's interests.

Depends on the school. After 2-3 years at the same school you know if its reputation as a "good" school is due to demographics or actually the service provided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People call a school district "good" when it has good test scores and all the kids speak English. But in these kinds of districts the parents tend to provide all the acceleration, enrichment, and other supplements that make kids score well on exams. The teachers range from sh** to great but none of them have as much influence over academic achievement as the parents do. I would even go so far as to say that teachers in "good" districts get lazy and complacent because they know the kids get academic instruction outside of school.

Everyone in my district works and most of them full-time and in office. Where is everyone getting the time and energy and sanity to basically homeschool the entire K-6 curriculum at home when you have 2-3 kids in different grades?

???
People hire private turors and send their kids to learning centers.