Pros
Dedicated educators: The teachers in this network care deeply about kids and go above and beyond to build relationships, support student growth, and create engaging learning environments. You’ll find colleagues who are passionate, collaborative, and willing to step in for one another. Focus on student culture and systems: DSST emphasizes structured routines, advisory programs, and character development alongside academics. This creates a consistent environment for students and helps build a sense of belonging. Professional development and leadership growth: Weekly PDs are built into the schedule and often focus on concrete instructional strategies, data analysis, and classroom management. There are also pathways for teachers to step into leadership roles through coaching opportunities, leading PD sessions, or taking on additional responsibilities. This emphasis on professional growth helps newer educators build skills quickly and gives more experienced teachers avenues to expand their impact. Commitment to equity and inclusion (in mission): The network actively voices a commitment to serving historically marginalized students and communities, which is motivating for educators who share this vision.
Cons
Equity in resources across schools: While the network prides itself on equity, the reality on the ground is uneven. Some campuses lack basic supplies for labs or consistent materials for instruction, making it difficult to deliver high-quality lessons—especially in science and technology, which are supposed to be DSST’s hallmark. This creates inequities between schools and adds stress on teachers who end up filling gaps themselves. Workload and burnout: The expectations are high, and while the mission attracts driven educators, the day-to-day workload often stretches staff thin. Teachers frequently wear multiple hats and it can feel unsustainable without stronger support systems in place. PD quality varies: While weekly PDs are valuable, they can sometimes feel repetitive or too network-driven rather than tailored to the specific needs of individual campuses. This can limit their impact and make them feel like a checkbox rather than meaningful development. Network-level versus school-level disconnect: Policies and priorities set by the network don’t always match the realities of what classrooms and teachers need. Feedback loops exist, but implementation feels slow or uneven. Inconsistent student engagement strategies: Depending on the campus, there can be gaps in how student behavior and engagement are addressed. Some teachers receive little support with classroom management when larger cultural issues arise.
