We share evidence-based K-12 learning strategies that empower you to improve education.
Considering effectiveness, I don't feel experience makes the difference. Professionalism is the key. Both veteran and new teachers can have the same qualities: spirit, enthusiasm, knowledge, fear. Professional development is important for all teachers. Information changes rapidly. The quality educator is effective, regardless of how much experience.
Every teacher brings with them different skills and experiences. New teachers have the latest theories on education and practices that are being taught in teacher's colleges. Experience teachers have field tested practical hands on knowledge and are "battle ready". This is something that you don't learn is university or college.
The best fit is when you match New and Seasoned Teachers together for planning and team teaching. I came to teaching later in life with a lot of different exeperiences. This has helped me alot. Working with other teachers in the classroom has added another dimension to my teaching
While new teachers may be better versed in the latest technology and latest research (both very debatable), my experiences as an veteran (yet not old teacher) tells me the quality of new, incoming teachers continues to suffer (for many different reasons). The enthusiasm of these new teachers
is almost non-existent (It's just a job!). Their idea of spending anytime outside the classroom for the district, for grading papers, and for professional development is laughable. Unfortunately (and I hope this is not the trend), many new teachers in my area of the country expect the job's working hours to be 8-3; many expect compensation for any work outside those limited hours, even though they still will not do it; many think they should use all of their 15 sick days and 3 personal days that they get a year (their attitude: they are owed this); and many have no substantial background/education in the fields in which they teach. If you cannot write and speak, for example, you should not be teaching a language arts course. Hopefully, these new teachers will gain experience and learn the ropes to become better teachers than how they have approached their field experience and their first teaching assignments.
You could ask that question and put any profession (prostitutes? car mechanics? ministers?) in it. Like many of the responses so far, I would have to agree that teaching is a talent, or knack, or a gift that gets better with time and conscientious practice.
Lawyers and doctors have a practice. They either get better or fall by the way and become ambulance chasing sharks and quacks. Teachers must also hone their skills or become the deadwood that gets into the press. It's no wonder so many states require educators to continue their education for recertification.
A better question might be, "Are new teachers better prepared to teach critical thinking and other needed 21st century skills than their veteran peers?"
A global, pragmatic approach to education and teaching is essential if we are succeed. Effectiveness should not be assessed solely on two opposite points of view. Many factors impact the effectiveness of successful teaching not just whether a teachers is new or veteran to the field. In my national professional experience I have encountered both good and bad new teachers and good and bad veteran teachers. I encourage the bad to become better and the good to share what it is they do that works in the field with others who need coaching to improve their teaching skills. The character of a good teacher should obviously include a comprehensive knowledge of past, present and future pedagogy. And a good teachers should also demonstrate honesty, respect, responsibility, compassion, self-discipline, perseverance and a sense of giving as they mentor, teach and prepare students to thrive future.
It actually depends on which teachers are being compared. Many veteran teachers stay informed about new and best practices and implement current strategies in their classrooms. They are extremely successful in differentiating instruction and engaging students in developmentally appropriate activities that enable them to master curriculum. Although it is expected that new teachers are knowledgeable about best research based practices, sometimes they are placed in a position in which they do not receive adequate support/mentoring to be successful. Unfortunately some veteran teachers do not stay in tune with the latest best practices and have become stagnant and ineffective. In this case, a new teacher may be more effective.
American public education has been allowed to slip for more than 2 generations now. While good teachers are some of the most exceptional people in our society, the average level of formation of the vast majority of teachers has been allowed to slip because of the failure to realize just how key education is to the survival of this country.
A corporate dominate government that manipulates elections so that it has become irrelevant whether a Democrat or Republican is elected, does not seek the educated electorate that Jefferson and others of our founding fathers thought was the sine qua non of a democracy that would keep such a government accountable to the people who are the source of power in a democracy.
In urban public education where as many as 50% of teachers quit within 5 years or seek upward mobility by going into administration, the average level of teachers has been purposefully allowed to degrade to a level that accepts 43 to 1 teacher to student ratios and an atmosphere where real education to become future knowing and conscientious citizens has fallen by the wayside.
I will have to say "no" because neither new nor veteran teachers are allowed to demonstrate any form of professional talent such as educating students using multiple-sensory, bi-hemispheric instructional methods and implementing individualized, leveled (subject-matter), and differentiated (sensorial strengths) methods of facilitation.
The minute an educator--whether new or veteran-- demonstrates any talent, over-and-above the pedagogy of the "status quo," that person is subject to reprimand or worse--at least in public schools.
If you do not believe me, why is it that only private schools (usually Christian and Jewish) and some public charter schools are doing anything to humanize education by implementing programs such as Dr. Levine's "Schools Attuned," Montessori/Orton-Gillingham, Making Math Real, etc.
I know teachers (I prefer the term educators for thiose who indeed merit being addressed as educators) are under pressure for achievement. But at what cost? Seventy-eight percent of our citizens read at less than fifth grade level, ninety-seven percent of our incarcerated citizens have specific learning challenges and deficits. Only thirty-two percent of our high-school students actually graduate from high-school. What is worse, our traditional schools are catering to only twenty-two percent of our learners (left brain).
Unfortunately, any educator who attempts to educate his/her students in humane effective manner is subject to being ostracized because "self-preservation" (both financial and social) is valued more than community.
As Sir Winston Churchill once said of Americans, "They always learn--too late and after the fact." To this end, many of our teachers, whether novice or veteran appear intent on promulgating a failed system by focusing on symptoms and not on causes. These individuals will tell you that they do not have the time or wearwithall to undertake such a task. I suggest that these individuals visit a Montessori school in Japan or China where over fifty children are enrolled in any specific class.
I will guote the Reverand Martin Niemoeller, "When they came for other human beings, I did not speak out. When they came for me, there was no-one remaining."
The point is effective educators, whether novice or veteran, will not be allowed to practice their profession--moreover demonstrate any form of profesisonalism-- until educational pedagogy is revamped so that individualized instruction becomes the norm.
Why would you want to even ask a question like this? It is loaded and an unnessary question as both types of teachers are important and bring "different" perspectives to the discussion.
I am not giving any more thought to this.
Who ever wrote that question needs to re-direct their thoughts and put "inclusive" not "exclusive" in their vocabulary.
Teaching is a talent. A new teacher with talent is better than an a veteran teacher without talent. A veteran teacher with talent, given the means and opportunity to use her talent, is the best because talent coupled with experience cannot be beat.
Everyone can sell, everyone can play basketball, and everyone can teach. But only those with innate talent will be great salespersons, basketball players or teachers.