Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Difference Between Smart Principals And Stupid Principals When Hiring Teachers For Their Vacancies.



Over the summer I applied to ten vacancies in my subject area and received not one interview. I had no better luck at the DOE "job fairs", as many of the interviewers (principals, assistant principals, deans, school secretaries? Who knows?) simply had a tag that said "interviewer". Was it my breath? Could it be I had body odor? Maybe it was the way I dressed? Of course the real reason was my age and salary. That brings me to the title of this post. "The difference between smart principals and stupid principals when hiring teachers for their vacancies".

Stupid principals, many of them "Leadership Academy Principals" (17% of the total Principal population) hired the most inexpensive teacher they could recruit, preferably one or two year novice and untenured teachers. Failing that, the stupid principals would hire "newbie teachers" from the alternate certification programs (Teach for America, Teaching Fellows) by falsely claiming that the available ATRs did not fit the school's vision. These stupid principals are now saddled with teachers that have little or no classroom experience, incomplete knowledge of the curriculum, and non-existent classroom management skills. In other words the stupid principals are "penny wise and dollar foolish" as they make the children guinea pigs and expose them to poor teaching as these "newbie/novice teachers" blunder their way through a school year while academically hurting the students that they are supposed to help. Occasionally, one of these teachers turns out to be a "diamond in the rough" and will eventually become a "quality teacher" but at what cost to student learning as many of these "newbies" can't teach and academically harm the children under his or her care?

Smart principals on the other hand hire few "newbie teachers" and wait to fill the vacancies once the school year starts. These principals interview ATRs during the first week or two and weed out the ones that don't seem to click. Some principals require the teacher to do a demonstration lesson in front of a live class to see how the interaction between the teacher and the class works. Furthermore, smart principals also know that the ATRs are free to them and it gives both sides a chance to see if it is a good fit. In fact the ATR saves the school money since Tweed actually picks up the salary for the school year. True, what happens the next year? Hopefully, the ATR and the smart Principal finds that the ATR is an asset to the school and will find a way to add the ATR to the budget. Potentially, it could be a win-win for all as the smart Principal gets a "quality teacher" the students advance academically, and the ATR can finally show the skills acquired through the years.

For the stupid principals it is "children last" as the school and the students are exposed to an unknown factor in helping them to achieve academic achievement. By contrast, for the smart Principal it is "children first" as the school obtains an experienced "quality teacher" at little or no cost to the school and if it works out, a win for all, especially the students.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

So many stupid principals. Even the ones not graduates of the "Leadership Academy" or whatever it is called are playing the newbie game. My old school hired about 6 brand spanking new teachers. And half of them are daughters or sons of friends! What a farce!

reynolf oliveros said...

can you define any further Medical Assistant Schools in MS? I am still in vague about the topic though.

Anonymous said...

Chaz,

Why is a newbie teacher that become a quality teacher a “diamond in the rough” but in your opinion all old teachers are quality teachers??? Were all the teachers from you old generation “diamonds in the rough”? Must have been something in the water back than to make you such great teachers.

A smart principal would NOT hire you. As soon as you didn’t get your way in a new school you would be on this blog trashing the principal and claiming ageism or racism or any other ism you could think of. I would hire an experienced teacher in a second but the last person I would hire is you. You are too much of a loose cannon and risk for any principal to hire.

Chaz said...

Anon 3:31

First, not all experienced teachers are "quality teachers" but no "newbie" can be a "quality teacher" in their beginning of their teaching career.

Second, it takes between five to eight years to achieve mastery in teaching. Therefore, onl experienced teachers can be a "quality teacher".

Finally, a smart Principal would think of the children first when hiring a teacher not his or her biases.

I guess for you it is not what is best for the students in the school but what is best for the Principal. I pity you for not putting the children first. I can only assume you are either a "Leadership Academy Principal" or an E4E drone. In either case you are what is wrong in getting the students to achieve their academic potential.

Anonymous said...

I said I would hire experienced teachers but I would not hire you. You are a risk for any principal to hire. If you don't get your way, you will end up accusing the principal of ageism and try to rally all teachers against the principal. You are a major risk!!

I am not against hiring older experienced teachers.

Chaz said...

Anon 8:01

First, let me remind you what you said previously "but in your opinon, all old teachers are quality teachers"? You said old not experienced.

Second, you don't know me since I don't use my name in the blog simply because of people like you. You represent what is wrong with the DOE as you use "old" rather than "experienced" teachers and falsely assume my behavior in school that are far from the truth.

You, are what's really wrong in the DOE.

Anonymous said...

You use young and inexperienced interchangeably. You are a hypocrite.

Chaz said...

Young and inexperienced are highly correlated in the teaching profession and with the exception of some teaching fellows, the statement is true. As for being a hypocrite? It is obvious you don't even understand the meaning.

Anonymous said...

Old and experienced are also highly coordinated!!!! That is why they are used interchangeably.

Chaz said...

Not true' Teachers in their 30s and 40s are not considered old and many of them have over ten years of experience. By contrast teachers in their twenties barely achieve tenure by the time they reach 30 and still have another three to five years of teaching to be considered "experienced" by educators.

Anonymous said...

You are a second career teacher so you weren't young and inexperienced. You were just inexperienced.

Chaz said...

I was a PPT or what is now known as a teaching fellow and it took me years to become a "quality teacher".

Anonymous said...

How is that a second career? You are a career teacher.