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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.