« Good classroom management advice ... | Main | New post at the Teacher Research Blog »



I agree and I've been pushing, within my own department, to have the 9th grade classes spread out among ALL the teachers, not just the new ones. New teachers often get a full program of all 9th grade, traditionally the most difficult group to teach, for a variety of reasons.


The assumption here is that "AP" and honors students are "better" and easier to teach, an attitude shared by many teachers. However if one actually rises to teach better trained students then it can be just as much work. Personally I would rather teach the "regular" classes because I don't have to deal with the overwrought parents worried about their darlings placing out of college classes and the snotty attitudes of both the students and the "AP" teachers. Additionally I am not sure if giving everyone several preps would lead toward less burn out. Yes, there is a problem, a big one, with teacher retention especially of new teachers. I suspect that many teachers quit so quickly because teaching is not as easy as they thought it would be. One cannot just opine from the front of the room and expect the children to sit placidly. A lighter schedule would be grand, but l take lighter to mean less students not "easier" ones. The hardest class I ever had was a Gifted class of 8th graders who could out think me on pretty much everything, and I had a master's from an elite east coast college. I would have quit if I had had them the first year I taught. More mentoring from experienced teachers would help. Smaller classes for all would be the best solution for a lot of educations ills.

Tim Fredrick

We could have a debate about which students are "easier" to teach. All students present challenges for teachers to overcome.

I argue, though, that *for a new teacher* honors/AP students would be easier to teach as they would most likely mirror the teacher's own experience. Most (not all, I know) teachers like English and did well in it in middle and high school. It is hard for many new teachers to understand the perspective of an underachiever. Students in honors/AP classes also buy into school a little more and thus are willing to cut the new teachers some slack. Underachievers have been faced with inexperienced teacher after inexperienced teacher - many who have abandoned them - and thus present some additional challenges for new teachers. Imagine how differently struggling students might/do act when they know they are faced with an experienced teacher.

BK Teaching Fellow

In my personal circumstance, the disconnect is very clear. I am a special education teacher. That means that my students are of the highest needs. I am also a New York City Teaching Fellow- which means that I have the least amount of experience and qualifications. Those elements on paper will clearly not produce a quality outcome for a student, nor will a teacher probably thrive in that first year (so I’ve been told).

Like I wrote in my blog, what I think needs to happen is that the hiring organizations, be it NYCTF, TFA, the DOE etc, need to be more selective with who they let into the program. Maybe there needs to be a class visit element to the application process so that the prospective teachers know what they are getting into!

Because like the Village Voice article indicates, the people who are quitting teaching are often the same ones who feel disillusioned and deceived by "lofty subway ads." I did not decide to become a teacher because of a subway ad! I am a teacher because I am emotionally connected to the community that I am serving- and if I have the tools to make change, and if I am in a position of power (however large or small it is) then it is my responsibility to attempt to reverse some of the trends that are negatively impacting our communities!

I think the problem is that the need of teachers (bodies) in NYC is so huge, that programs like NYCTF and TFA have been given green lights to hire at ease, without potentially weeding out teachers whose intentions are not in the right places. After all, many TFs that I’ve talked to have told me that they are in it for the ‘free’ masters degree.


I've never even read gateacher's blog before, but it broke my heart to see her leave after one week. It also makes me, an alternatively certified teacher who's blogged about her prep experience for the past year, quite scared that all this reflection and seeking advice in the blogosphere does not guarantee my perseverance. I'm thankful my small school assigns its lower-level English classes to a very experienced teacher down the hall. That doesn't mean I have the AP kids, just the upper half.

My state has a ridiculously easy alternative certification program. I agree; some amount of student teaching or at the very least, observation, should have to occur. Do you know, under NCLB, I am considered a "highly qualified teacher," and I've never taught a single high school class, or even observed one in my subject area?


Yes, we could debate forever which students are easier. Personally any who are not mine are the easiest. As far as experienced versus new teacher being better able to teach that itself is determined by the quality of the teacher not the amount of experience. The teacher next door to me for the last three years had taught for 27 years. She constantly referred to her non-ap students as stupid and illiterate. She controlled both the ap and regular students through worksheets, office referrals and fear of failure. Did she help either class? I doubt it. As far as new teachers having it easier with AP classes because they came out of AP tpye classes themselves: that just leads to reproduction of the dominant classs, as well as reproduction of a priveledged way of viewing literacy. It is the emotional connection to the students and the community as BK teaching fellow said above that can make a difference in a classroom. If a new teacher can only connect to the ap kids because those students are more like the teacher, then perhaps the new teacher should rethink their purpose. Watching my own children sit through incompetent first year teachers as well as incompetent 'experienced' ones I don't see their fellow classmates cutting either one any slack. Honors students just have more subtle ways of slamming a teacher; I'd rather have the in your face student over the smary high acheiver. Ok, enough of my soap box. I'm sorry if I bothered anyone.

Tim Fredrick

I'll say this ... In the past three years, I've taught a student teaching seminar at a local university. This is a generalization and there are cases where this is not true, but it is true for most new teachers: Those who had placements with students who have had more success in school and have bought into the idea of "school" have a less stressful time (maybe "easier" is not a good word, after all). Those who have placements with students who have experienced little or no success in school and don't buy into it at all have a more stressful time - many questioning whether teaching is for them. This is the evidence I'm using for my analysis that new teachers should be placed with higher achieving students.

In addition, there is a disturbing premise behind the more-experienced-teachers-teach-the-high-achieving-students phenomenon ... it implies that the "better" students deserve the "better" teachers. I've heard people say as much. The reverse, which no one ever says (at least not on the record), is that the students who struggle more don't deserve the most experienced teachers - new teachers will be fine. I think this is partly based on the idea that many believe that you have to be a more experienced teacher to teach the "better" students. Anyone who has worked with students who struggle with school know this is not true.


I suppose I am just a bit defensive. I have avoided the ap/honors classes for several years now (I have taught them before), I take umbrage at the assumption that the best teachers are teaching the ap classes. My experience has shown me that class assignments are more a matter of luck than skill. A few years ago a teacher left at christmas; her replacement a new teacher walkied into her all ap schedule and managed just fine. The next year she gave advice to more experienced teachers and another new teacher on how to manage a classroom, because she felt that since she had relatively few problems that she must know how to run a class. The oblivious arrogance was stunning. Last year she had one regular class in addition to her ap schedule and struggled constantly with behavior. Yes, ap/honors classes are easier to manage. Yes, regular/ students who struggle need qualified teachers, but then so do high end students (not all of whom are in ap type classes). GT students drop out at a high rate because the way school is done does not meet their needs. Yes, we could retain new teachers if they had easier to handle classes, but then we could also retain experienced teachers if they had easier to handle classes. In teacher polls classroom management issues are always key reasons for stress and for teacher burnout. Money is always below behavior. Smaller classes would solve to some degree management issues. Also more training in what kinds of activities to actually use in the classroom to keep the students engaged not just busy.


Wow, I am a veteran teacher who teaches in a small NYC High School that does not track students. We have no AP, no low level classes, and certainly no coveted positions except for possibly teaching senior classes. As educators in our small learning community the seniors teachers in each subject area opted to teach the incoming freshmen last year. The result was fantastic, there were very few discipline problems and the students really walked away from the experience with a level of ownership of the school. I guess we will see how it plays out in their sophomore year this fall.

I'm looking forward to repeating the same thing this year.

New teachers should have not traveling programs, too many preps, or struggling freshmen.


I don’t find this to be too surprising that teachers receive the most undesirable classes and schedule. Obviously new teachers are the “low man on the totem pole” and would naturally pick up what is left over after the veteran teachers get their pick. This is not desirable in any stretch of the imagination, but really it is the fairest approach for both parties. As I will be a new teacher within the next 2 years it is discouraging to think that my first year and possibly the next several after that will be very tough and trying times. But it will only encourage me more to work hard to persevere through it so that I can do more of the things that I want in the future. This system of giving the new teachers the roughest schedule is basically a trial by fire, a final weeding out process. It insures that only those educators that are truly passionate about teaching and really have the drive to continue will work hard enough to make it past the first few years. Of course it would be easier for the new teachers to be given a group of “good students” that will make for the easiest experience possible for that first year helping them to get accustomed the new position. However as I discussed before this would allow several teachers to get deep into the career before having to deal with an adverse situation and they quite possibly will not be ready to deal with it. this method of bringing in new teachers may be rough and seem unfair to those of us entering in but really it will only make us better educators in the long run.

Kathleen  Thompson

As I begin my junior year of college, in further preparation for my teaching career, this is a problem I have observed. My boyfriend is a first year teacher, and he not only has more work to do because he has no prior lesson plans, but he also has so much added work that has been thrown his way. For example, he has a mentor teacher whose lessons he can follow, but some of the plans are dated and he needs to take extra time to fine tune his own lesson plans that will be unique to his teaching style. This time deticated to lesson plans, resulting in more effective learning in his class, is restricted by other responsibilities. For example, he is also been asked to help coach cross country after school, then track in the spring, work on assisting in set designs for the theater classes, has just experienced a class size increase, and just recieved a student from Thailand who speaks no English. These added stressors impede on his teaching, and therefore the effective learning of his students. Do you know if the union has taken any active steps in improving this?


I am currently in my junior year in college and studying to be a high school math teacher. The statistics for novice teachers leaving the field are frightening. Very frightening. Of course, like any human I've experienced the "What if I don't like it?" "What if I'm not prepared?" and all the other "what if" questions. But then I stop and think: there are veteran teachers, and although all of them will not be willing to lend a hand, one teacher will, AND every teacher has been in the same "unprepared" boat - not all of them have sunk either! However, these fears are all overruled by my undying desire to help students, to care for students, and to be there for students. That is what is important.

Sure, having a lighter load will give me time to practice so that I can gain confidence and expertise. But, maybe it's not suppose to be that way? Maybe new teachers aren't suppose to be cut any slack? I'm pretty sure the students, curriculum guidelines, and standards won't be cutting me slack. And perhaps, those "teachers" who walk out within the first years aren't there to truly help students.

Then again, I could very possibly become a statistic.


After sitting and thinking about both sides to the argument I think I would agree; that new incoming teachers should have a lighter load to help ease in to the profession. I am currently finishing up my teaching certificate, and in class many of my teachers are voice how the first 3-5 years are the hardest. So my question to that is, if we already know the beginning is the hardest why aren't we trying to fix it. Level of Content usually goes hand in hand with "good and bad" students, who better to teach the higher level content then the young teachers who just finished learning it. While the older mentor teacher can take notes from their own class, and instruct the newer teacher with working methods.


I totally agree with your standpoint on new teachers. I am in the process of becoming an educator myself and I really find the whole process quite disturbing. For one, giving new teachers the most demanding students could really put down the teachers confidence level. I understand that the experienced teachers want seniority and I agree that they should, but the students should be more equally distributed among the teachers. Also, I feel that this flaw in the system affects the students just as much, if not more, than the teachers. Students that struggle need the most help. They would receive the most help from experienced teachers . With this system, the struggling students are taught by the new teachers, so maybe this is why they continue to struggle. What worries me most is that these kids need help and it seems like the experienced teachers are only interested in how smooth they can get their classes to go. I really hope that this system gets more attention in the future and starts to change.


Dr. Fredrick,
I agree that if we are in the teacher education program at our university that alone is what we should study. But what I really worry about, as a future educator is that I won’t have enough experience to handle an actual classroom. Sure I’ll be student teaching my senior year but is that really enough? Of course we should learn about teaching but learning first hand is the only way to really have the confidence and knowledge of teaching a classroom. Also when I observe a classroom I’m always wondering what I should be looking for. I just wish I could just teach a class one day with students to know how it feels to be in front of a classroom and teaching.


[email protected]

As people begin to age the gods employ corrupting tactics. They ultimately begin to look down on the children and the wisdom they recently understood:::
They voluntarily turn their back on their opportunity to ascend and instead embrace evil.
It's not old people who go to heaven. Old people must come back because of the mistakes they've made throughout their lives. Children are the ones who have the opportunity to ascend.

Children are discounted by adults in society. The gods corrupt people as they age, use trust-building tactics and soon adults view the children as ignorant, yet to understand the god's system, and subsequently look down on the children. This is one of the most bitter, painful ironies the gods employ, for people consciously turn their back on and lose their opportunity to ascend::::
Religions teach that old people to go to heaven when they die. They don't. Old people are reincarnated. It's the children who go to heaven, those who have a chance at immortality.
The wisdom the gods impart to children, either through their innocence/purity or religious-based educational pursuits are the gods sharing the truth with their most favored people::::It's the children whom the gods teach the right way for it is the children who have a chance. For example, they teach children to have faith, for understanding the god's geographical clues hurts people by illustrating negative things, opening the door for the god's to employ deceptive tactics.
Old people don't go to heaven. Old people must come back because of the mistakes they've made throughout their lives. It's the children who have the opportunity to go to "heaven". They must behave apprioriately, think correctly and be genuinely god-fearing. Their innocence and lack of desensitization ensures they have a real opportunity to achieve this goal.

This is charecteristic of the gods methodology::::The big prize gone early, deception compels people to chase something that has already been decided. They sent this clue with boss as well. It is also a clue supporting my claim RW&B's german is in fact Christianity's Anti-Christ. Logic also dictates, considering the definition.
The confusion over this multi-dimentional positioning will serve as an effective tactic, eliminating many additional disfavored in the process, for positioning states the Apocalypse to be a continuation of WorldWarII's Aryan superrace ideals, positioned as punishment for the 5th century invastion of the Roman Empire:::John's Fourth Reich.
This amounts only to "nested theater":::::Levels of positioning enables the gods to scapegoat:::::RW&B merely is the tool the gods chose to execute the final scene of their scripted theater that is human history.

Just as they would have had me chase boss so would they have wanted me to sign on to this theater, evil by definition, and chase this role of Anti-Christ. By doing so I would have incurred evil and would have been punished, painfully "losing" Anti-Christ in the process.
Does that mean RW&B is not the Anti-Christ?? I suspect as they would have "offered" it to me so will there be a fake Anti-Christ for those in these generations to accept as well. But it is a clone host. This is ALL clone host theater, created not as a clue to me but instead designed to be preditory on the disfavored, designed to increase indecency and further the god's goal of justification towards The End.
We were all merely peasants centuries ago, struggling with our disfavor, but without the enormity of temptations, real and telepathic, which exist today.

They have shared I was positioned to some disfavored as the Second Coming of Christ, explaining all the evil surrounding me and RW&B's placement in the "eye of The Beast" was to positon the sabotage of my candidacy (Damien Omen, Big Army Men, etc).
The Big Lie of course is that Christianity is evil. The reverse positioning nature of Planet Earth dictates that good is demonized, as we wintessed in World War II, while evil is put on a pedistal, as we see with the Italians.
The truth? The gods used their tools to create this and the rest of the incidents surrounding this Situation to distract the people from my message, for I speak the truth:::Only you can save you. You have to be responsible for your own relationship with the gods.

The gods are asexual. They have no sex organs nor rectums.
When the gods take children these individuals have the opportunity to become "god-like". Temptations are employed and, if sucessful, these are the individuals who make up the human race's immortals.
I believe there are opportunities that exist for females that do no exist for males. I don't mean to paint with a broad brush but women's "sexual peak" may represent the transistion to "sociological males" and their "fall from grace". Considering today's promiscuity I question whether this is currently applicable, and is yet anther 20th century-earlier phenominah.
I believe Purgatory is real. I think it is a temporary destination, perhaps sparsely utilized until the Apocalypse, but this will be the destination for those who "ascend" during the event. As they've said this planet will too be disposed of one day and it is imperative people try to avoid that destination, for there may be no escaping its fate.

NYSTCE study guide

I am agree with you.New teacher faced a lot of difficulties in their early days.The responsibility is depend on both the teacher and the organization.I think there should be lighter program for the new teachers in their early stage.

Praxis study

I also agree with you. It is real fact that at starting of any occupation there are alot of problems ahead. But it doesn't mean to leave.

celebrity tube

Don't keep teachers. Throw them away.

rc helicopter reviews

Impressive blog! -Arron

Moncler Frakke

I'm interested in such offer,The sound quality in these podcasts is really poor. I feel bad about complaining about something that is free, but I think it is important.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

NY Times Education Section

Blog powered by Typepad