Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, a burnt out teacher with 30 years of experience and a high school degree vs. a young creative teacher with 3 years of experience, a Master's in Education and excited to be there.

Which one do you choose?

+1! I'd want the young teacher hired in 2011, not the teacher awaiting retirement hired by DCPS under WTU in 1981. I know I'm not the only one.

Yes, because then they can leave the year after they teach your child to go into the private sector where they will brag about their "meaningful experiences" teaching for 4 years and the next classrom can experience yet another shiny new teacher who won't stay

Better an enthusiastic novice, than an "experienced" (old-fashioned programmed) burnout. Any day!

The excellent teachers that I had as a child in the public schools generally had decades of experience, so I don't think it's an either or situation.

I've never understood these "corporatizing reformers" who want better teachers, but want to pay them less. Basic freshman economics says that if you want to attract a better applicant pool, you offer a higher salary.

The world has changed quite a lot, as has the education landscape, since back when you were in school.

There was a time when General Motors was the biggest cog in the economic engine of the United States, and over time the unions slowly dragged the competitiveness down and down and down. So much so, that the "Japanese imports" that people made fun of in the '70s were kicking Detroit's ass by the 90's. Unions serve no interests other than their own, and ultimately they haven't served those very well. Such is the same with teacher's unions.

"I'll care about students when they pay union dues. Until then, they're just grist for the mill." (Al Shanker - Lion of the Teacher's Union)

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, a burnt out teacher with 30 years of experience and a high school degree vs. a young creative teacher with 3 years of experience, a Master's in Education and excited to be there.

Which one do you choose?

+1! I'd want the young teacher hired in 2011, not the teacher awaiting retirement hired by DCPS under WTU in 1981. I know I'm not the only one.

Yes, because then they can leave the year after they teach your child to go into the private sector where they will brag about their "meaningful experiences" teaching for 4 years and the next classrom can experience yet another shiny new teacher who won't stay

Better an enthusiastic novice, than an "experienced" (old-fashioned programmed) burnout. Any day!

The excellent teachers that I had as a child in the public schools generally had decades of experience, so I don't think it's an either or situation.

I've never understood these "corporatizing reformers" who want better teachers, but want to pay them less. Basic freshman economics says that if you want to attract a better applicant pool, you offer a higher salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely this is a concern for me. High teacher and administrator turnover is inherent to the "free market" model of charter schools, which is based in large part on breaking teacher's union and ending tenure. If I had to chose between a crappy inbounds and charter I would go charter. But if there is a decent DCPS option, I will go for that any time, specifically for reasons of stability and connection to the neighborhood.

Why are you lumping all charters into your assessment?

Name me a charter that provides teacher tenure, plus at or above-market pay and benefits, and then I won't lump them together.

Name me a job in the private sector that provides tenure, and then I won't lump teacher tenure in the pile of "I am union, hear me roar! Who cares if we're higher cost/lower performance? We donate heavily, so you need to discount the students and the educational outcomes. Teaching is all about... TEACHERS."

Or didn't the legendary Teacher's Union Boss Al Shanker say it best? "I'll care about students when they pay union dues. They're just grist for the mill."

Inspirational!

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.

Yeah, a burnt out teacher with 30 years of experience and a high school degree vs. a young creative teacher with 3 years of experience, a Master's in Education and excited to be there.

Which one do you choose?

+1! I'd want the young teacher hired in 2011, not the teacher awaiting retirement hired by DCPS under WTU in 1981. I know I'm not the only one.

Yes, because then they can leave the year after they teach your child to go into the private sector where they will brag about their "meaningful experiences" teaching for 4 years and the next classrom can experience yet another shiny new teacher who won't stay

Better an enthusiastic novice, than an "experienced" (old-fashioned programmed) burnout. Any day!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely this is a concern for me. High teacher and administrator turnover is inherent to the "free market" model of charter schools, which is based in large part on breaking teacher's union and ending tenure. If I had to chose between a crappy inbounds and charter I would go charter. But if there is a decent DCPS option, I will go for that any time, specifically for reasons of stability and connection to the neighborhood.

Why are you lumping all charters into your assessment?

Name me a charter that provides teacher tenure, plus at or above-market pay and benefits, and then I won't lump them together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely this is a concern for me. High teacher and administrator turnover is inherent to the "free market" model of charter schools, which is based in large part on breaking teacher's union and ending tenure. If I had to chose between a crappy inbounds and charter I would go charter. But if there is a decent DCPS option, I will go for that any time, specifically for reasons of stability and connection to the neighborhood.

Why are you lumping all charters into your assessment?

Yeah I think the ones that have a special focus like YY are more likely to have high standards for behavior and academics. And the charters that start earlier.

When we started HRC it was chaos in 5th because they got such a wide range of kids with different standards of behavior from their prior schools and a range of educational levels as well. Somehow, by the end of 5th grade, most of the disruptive behavior had been dealt with, the educational gaps had mostly been bridged, and classes could actually discuss history or geography or learn Latin.

But I also think that is part of a school that goes all the way through 12th - if these kids are in it for the long haul, you are more dedicated to them perhaps, and teaching at a HRC is an educational experience for the teachers as well. They do tend to put the teachers with more teaching experience in the 5th grade, so they probably know how to handle disciplinary issues better, but they are still young and enthusiastic and we have not seen much turnover.

What I really like is that they have to have a degree in the subject they are teaching, not have majored in education, which is kind of notorious for being easy and not teaching much at least at many schools. Even at Princeton, where TFA started, you can get certified but you have to major in a real subject, and one that is taught in schools if you want to teach at a HRC.

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely this is a concern for me. High teacher and administrator turnover is inherent to the "free market" model of charter schools, which is based in large part on breaking teacher's union and ending tenure. If I had to chose between a crappy inbounds and charter I would go charter. But if there is a decent DCPS option, I will go for that any time, specifically for reasons of stability and connection to the neighborhood.

Why are you lumping all charters into your assessment?

Absolutely this is a concern for me. High teacher and administrator turnover is inherent to the "free market" model of charter schools, which is based in large part on breaking teacher's union and ending tenure. If I had to chose between a crappy inbounds and charter I would go charter. But if there is a decent DCPS option, I will go for that any time, specifically for reasons of stability and connection to the neighborhood.

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.

Yeah, a burnt out teacher with 30 years of experience and a high school degree vs. a young creative teacher with 3 years of experience, a Master's in Education and excited to be there.

Which one do you choose?

+1! I'd want the young teacher hired in 2011, not the teacher awaiting retirement hired by DCPS under WTU in 1981. I know I'm not the only one.

Yes, because then they can leave the year after they teach your child to go into the private sector where they will brag about their "meaningful experiences" teaching for 4 years and the next classrom can experience yet another shiny new teacher who won't stay

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.

Oyster's principal has been there for 7 years. I'm also happy to see her go. If you're going to drag Oyster into this to make your point, at least get your facts straight.

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.

Yeah, a burnt out teacher with 30 years of experience and a high school degree vs. a young creative teacher with 3 years of experience, a Master's in Education and excited to be there.

Which one do you choose?

+1! I'd want the young teacher hired in 2011, not the teacher awaiting retirement hired by DCPS under WTU in 1981. I know I'm not the only one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talking with mothers at the playground, you might be in the minority. I'm glad you have not experienced the incessant emails about little Johnny not sitting still in daily five, etc.

Oh but I have got them: If the school is sending incessant emails about behavioral or any other issues then the parent should have a meeting with the teachers and ask for a formal evaluation. I did. My child has an IEP and is now getting the supports and services he needs.

I agree that the school can do a better job about communicating when a child should be evaluated but am very happy with their support for SN services once we got the IEP. The teachers are not sending the emails b/c they want to harass the parents about "typical" little boy behaviors but the parents need to pick up the ball too.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you parenting a girl and a boy?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talking with mothers at the playground, you might be in the minority. I'm glad you have not experienced the incessant emails about little Johnny not sitting still in daily five, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i have one boy and one girl…and everybody i know that also has one boy and one girl would agree that boys have a much harder time sitting still than girls. it just is the way it is, there is nothing "1950s" about it.