OP here. Interesting conversation. I am not sure what the takeaway is, and agree I need to simply go through the process and hope for an "aha" moment.

You can't generalize all schools and all teachers.

Back when I was younger I used to think that private schools were for delinquent. Because most of the people that ended up going there got expelled from public school or had serious behavior issues.

But that also goes back to the OP's original question. Where in making this consideration, the OP has to remember that not all of the private schools are the same. So might be better if they went the other way around of what they did and ask private school teachers what they think about teaching at their specific school. (if the OP didn't already) Or the OP would have to just interview at the different schools and see if they can find one that has the environment that they're looking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, "Yay!!" because that particular student is not in the right environment. Many private schools are reserved for the most accomplished learners. If a student can't keep out, he or she should find another place. That is where public schools work. They do provide services for learning challenges. But that doesn't make the public school the best place for those who are great learners.

Ah. Private schools are for "the most accomplished learners". Public schools are for the hoi polloi. Got it.

Private schools are largely for people with money... that's about it. Yes, they have great test scores, etc.. because that is largely a reflection of the parents' SES. Public magnet schools are for "the most accomplished learners".

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, "Yay!!" because that particular student is not in the right environment. Many private schools are reserved for the most accomplished learners. If a student can't keep out, he or she should find another place. That is where public schools work. They do provide services for learning challenges. But that doesn't make the public school the best place for those who are great learners.

Ah. Private schools are for "the most accomplished learners". Public schools are for the hoi polloi. Got it.

Private schools don't have to deal with problem children as much and are not legally obligated to provide IEP/504. Yes, they can kick out the problem kid to keep their test scores high. It is *a lot* easier to teach in private schools. I think some teachers choose private schools for this reason.

However, please don't think that all public school teachers lack passion. Look at that math teacher in LA whose one student got all the answers right on the AP calc test. That guy is a dedicated teacher. There are many more like him.

How many private school kids go on to be Intel semifinalists? Many are from public schools, where those teachers are passionate about what they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the fundamental differences between private schools and public schools is the expectation of what the teacher should be doing.

In private the teacher is expected to move the student forward and provide instruction that empowers the student to reach their potential. The teacher starts with a more capable set of students but can't rely on outside enrichment or tutoring to achieve results. This means providing more feedback to students. There are many practices in MCPS such as not grading homework, not providing any feedback on written assignments, not sending home quizzes and tests and in elementary school not giving any meaningful assessments to students that would never fly in private. In this sense private is more work but its directly aligned to activities in the classroom and more meaningful for the teachers.

Private school teachers do not have to deal with the constant data collection for the county, state, and central office. Parents in public school have no idea how much more time is spent collecting data points prop up a position that everyone has reached mediocrity. Private school teachers do not have dumb down the entire class to create the illusion that a failing students isn't failing. A failing student in private is counseled out. Private school teachers do not have to deal with constant trend of the moment nonsense for curriculum changes that impede learning. This is especially bad in MCPS.

Are you listing this as one of the advantages of private schools? "If a student isn't learning, the school can just kick out the student, yay private schools!"?

Yes, "Yay!!" because that particular student is not in the right environment. Many private schools are reserved for the most accomplished learners. If a student can't keep out, he or she should find another place. That is where public schools work. They do provide services for learning challenges. But that doesn't make the public school the best place for those who are great learners.

Anonymous wrote:One of the fundamental differences between private schools and public schools is the expectation of what the teacher should be doing.

In private the teacher is expected to move the student forward and provide instruction that empowers the student to reach their potential. The teacher starts with a more capable set of students but can't rely on outside enrichment or tutoring to achieve results. This means providing more feedback to students. There are many practices in MCPS such as not grading homework, not providing any feedback on written assignments, not sending home quizzes and tests and in elementary school not giving any meaningful assessments to students that would never fly in private. In this sense private is more work but its directly aligned to activities in the classroom and more meaningful for the teachers.

Private school teachers do not have to deal with the constant data collection for the county, state, and central office. Parents in public school have no idea how much more time is spent collecting data points prop up a position that everyone has reached mediocrity. Private school teachers do not have dumb down the entire class to create the illusion that a failing students isn't failing. A failing student in private is counseled out. Private school teachers do not have to deal with constant trend of the moment nonsense for curriculum changes that impede learning. This is especially bad in MCPS.

Are you listing this as one of the advantages of private schools? "If a student isn't learning, the school can just kick out the student, yay private schools!"?

One of the fundamental differences between private schools and public schools is the expectation of what the teacher should be doing.

In private the teacher is expected to move the student forward and provide instruction that empowers the student to reach their potential. The teacher starts with a more capable set of students but can't rely on outside enrichment or tutoring to achieve results. This means providing more feedback to students. There are many practices in MCPS such as not grading homework, not providing any feedback on written assignments, not sending home quizzes and tests and in elementary school not giving any meaningful assessments to students that would never fly in private. In this sense private is more work but its directly aligned to activities in the classroom and more meaningful for the teachers.

Private school teachers do not have to deal with the constant data collection for the county, state, and central office. Parents in public school have no idea how much more time is spent collecting data points prop up a position that everyone has reached mediocrity. Private school teachers do not have dumb down the entire class to create the illusion that a failing students isn't failing. A failing student in private is counseled out. Private school teachers do not have to deal with constant trend of the moment nonsense for curriculum changes that impede learning. This is especially bad in MCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is confirming what I have thought about teachers at my son's private vs. the teachers at our local MCPS school (where he was previously).

The teachers at his private may be paid less, but they are there because of heart, not money. I much prefer someone who is passionate about the teaching aspect of the job as opposed to the salary and benefits. And from what I have gathered, teachers in private schools have more time to teach and interact with students because they don't have to deal with the bureaucracies of public schools. While I was impressed by many of my son's teachers in public school, I am in awe of the teachers I have met at this private. These impressive educators have chosen this particular school because they embrace the culture Nothing beats a teacher that that loves the teaching vs. the salary.

This might be the case, OR they might not be certified, which would make them ineligible for a public school job.

The certification means nothing IMHO. While some of the teachers at MCPS are great, I have met many certified teachers who are underwhelming. The teachers to whom I have been exposed at DS's private are all amazing. Two are new to the school and both relocated to take the positions. One was educated at a Jesuit university and wanted to teach at a Jesuit high school. The other has a Harvard graduate degree and relocated after living overseas for a few years to take this job (he is an alumnus). Never have I seen such a thing at MCPS...never. All of the teachers are believers in the type of education our boys are getting and you can see the passion in their faces. So happy he is there!

I went to Harvard, and I moved overseas to work; I teach in a private school now: see, PP, you can trust me! However, I still don't think that private school teachers are better or more qualified, and I do not believe that hiring a high proportion of young, inexperienced teachers, most of whom lack certification (hence a practicum), is an ideal strategy for assembling a superior staff. I just don't. I work at an independent school because it is easier than public in many ways, and part of the reason I feel this way is surely because I went to private school myself. I'm comfortable around the people with whom I work, but that doesn't make me (or any of them) a better teacher. I find the incompetence of some of my inexperienced, uncertified colleagues exasperating, and I'm continually surprised that parents are OK with some of the things that go on in those classrooms.

Oh, you're the MD Public Schools forum poster who says that public schools don't teach values. Thank you for providing that context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The certification means nothing IMHO. While some of the teachers at MCPS are great, I have met many certified teachers who are underwhelming. The teachers to whom I have been exposed at DS's private are all amazing. Two are new to the school and both relocated to take the positions. One was educated at a Jesuit university and wanted to teach at a Jesuit high school. The other has a Harvard graduate degree and relocated after living overseas for a few years to take this job (he is an alumnus). Never have I seen such a thing at MCPS...never. All of the teachers are believers in the type of education our boys are getting and you can see the passion in their faces. So happy he is there!

That is not a question of opinion, it's a question of fact. The fact is that you can't get a job with MCPS unless you're a certified teacher. So obviously the certification does mean something.

If you're happy with your son's teachers, that's great. But it's odd to expect teachers to be uninterested in their salary and benefits.

(There are plenty of teachers in MCPS who are MCPS graduates.)

I rest my case. MCPS graduate to me is not an impressive qualification.

I much prefer that my children's teachers be mission driven as opposed to financially driven. That is the nature of the vocation of teaching. The government and unions manage to make it more about career and money. It's sad really.

Argument: Only in private schools do people choose to teach at the schools they were students at.
Counter-argument: Actually this happens in MCPS too.
Response: That only further proves how bad MCPS is.

Interesting logic.

PP here. That was NOT the argument. The comment about the teacher being an alumnus was just an added thought. Of course MCPS teachers can be alumni of MCPS. It doesn't matter, and saying it is so is not impressive. I do find it impressive, though when a teacher is an alumnus from my DS's school because it is such an awesome school that teaches fabulous academics and strong values...the latter which is desperately missing from most public schools...especially MCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The certification means nothing IMHO. While some of the teachers at MCPS are great, I have met many certified teachers who are underwhelming. The teachers to whom I have been exposed at DS's private are all amazing. Two are new to the school and both relocated to take the positions. One was educated at a Jesuit university and wanted to teach at a Jesuit high school. The other has a Harvard graduate degree and relocated after living overseas for a few years to take this job (he is an alumnus). Never have I seen such a thing at MCPS...never. All of the teachers are believers in the type of education our boys are getting and you can see the passion in their faces. So happy he is there!

That is not a question of opinion, it's a question of fact. The fact is that you can't get a job with MCPS unless you're a certified teacher. So obviously the certification does mean something.

If you're happy with your son's teachers, that's great. But it's odd to expect teachers to be uninterested in their salary and benefits.

(There are plenty of teachers in MCPS who are MCPS graduates.)

I rest my case. MCPS graduate to me is not an impressive qualification.

I much prefer that my children's teachers be mission driven as opposed to financially driven. That is the nature of the vocation of teaching. The government and unions manage to make it more about career and money. It's sad really.

Argument: Only in private schools do people choose to teach at the schools they were students at.
Counter-argument: Actually this happens in MCPS too.
Response: That only further proves how bad MCPS is.

Interesting logic.

Anonymous wrote:I have dealt with horrible teachers in MCPS. That certification means nothing. The fact that they keep them year in and year out means everything to me. I would love to be at private but financially we can't afford to send our kids there.

There are also horrible teachers (with or without certification) at private schools.

Anonymous wrote:

I rest my case. MCPS graduate to me is not an impressive qualification.

I much prefer that my children's teachers be mission driven as opposed to financially driven. That is the nature of the vocation of teaching. The government and unions manage to make it more about career and money. It's sad really.

I much prefer my doctors and lawyers to be mission-driven as opposed to financially-driven. That is the nature of the vocation of healing and -- well, ok, nobody ever said that being a lawyer was a vocation. But guess what? Jobs are about money! That's not the fault of the government and the unions. That's the free market at work. In general, people don't want to, and can't afford to, work for free.

I have dealt with horrible teachers in MCPS. That certification means nothing. The fact that they keep them year in and year out means everything to me. I would love to be at private but financially we can't afford to send our kids there.