Search Results

A Foot in the Door: Exploring the Role of Student Teaching
Assignments in Teachers’ Initial Job Placements by Krieg, Theobald, &
Goldhaber
Every district wants to get a leg up on
hiring the best new teachers. Want a tip? Get your pick of the teachers by
starting before they even finish training. While teachers are likely to get
their first job near home, they’re even more
likely to get their first job near their student teaching placement—and 15
percent get their first job in the same building as where they student taught.
Left wanting more? Find it here: TQB

I am one of NCTQ’s biggest supporters, but I am
very disappointed with the recent publication of The Good Behavior Game as a
means for improving classroom management.  This is not a criticism of the
Good Behavior Game.  There is also a Classroom Protocol Game produced by
the people at the Huberman Foundation.  There are also discipline
programs—two popular ones are Restorative Justice and Positive Behavior
Interventions and Support (PBIS).  And then there are behavior rubrics and
contracts, and every advocate swears that they have research to back their
game, program, rubric, and contract.

The Good Behavior Game has nothing to do with classroom management; it has to
do with behavior management and the two are separate entities.  As long as
we continue to subscribe to the notion that discipline is classroom management,
we will never attain improved student achievement, which is the goal of
NCTQ.  The purpose of classroom management is to maximize student learning
with a well-organized classroom, not to minimize student misbehavior.

Classroom management is the most misused term in education.  Classroom
management has to do with managing or organizing a classroom for student
learning.  Effective teachers MANAGE their classrooms, whereas ineffective
teachers DISCIPLINE their classrooms.  So many teachers have the mistaken
belief that classroom management has to do with discipline; thus, every day is
a self-fulfilling prophecy of going into battle with the students, because that
is the expectation.  Teachers who incorrectly define classroom management
as discipline are likely to join the ranks of the thousands who quit the
education profession after their first few years on the job.

Classroom management is not about discipline.  It is about organization
and consistency.  Store managers manage a store; they do not discipline
the customers.  Team managers manage a team; they do not discipline the
players.  Likewise, effective teachers have a classroom management plan
consisting of a series of practices and procedures that are used to organize an
environment in which instruction and learning can take place.

Can you imagine asking a store manager what she does and she responds, “I was
hired to discipline the customer,” or a stage manager says, “I was hired to
discipline the actors.”  Yet, when you say classroom management to people
in (and out of) education, they invariably equate this with discipline.

I do not deny that discipline is an issue that must be addressed, and if The
Good Behavior Game helps, that is great; however, no learning takes place when
a teacher disciplines.  Learning only takes place when a classroom is
organized so the students know how to do things (procedures) correctly in the
classroom.  The reason behavioral problems occur in the classroom is
because there is no organized management plan in place so the students know
what to do.

Regretfully, the great majority of teachers think that classroom management is
synonymous with discipline, so they spend their days looking for games or programs
to solve their behavior problems.  To tell me that a game helps classroom
management is not classroom management.  My question is, “How do YOU
manage a classroom, and can you teach someone else how to manage a classroom?”

The GBG cannot succeed on its own any more than a diet book can succeed on its
own.  As Kate Walsh so wisely states, “The GBG serves to keep students
focused on learning by promoting appropriate and on task behavior, but the game
is more effective in an environment where the essential components of classroom
management are already in place.”  So I ask again, “Where is your
classroom management plan?”

Teaching classroom management has been our forte for well over 35 years, over
the course of which thousands of teachers have told us, “Thank you for teaching
me the difference between discipline and procedures.”  Procedures range
from how to head a paper, how to begin class on time, and how to write an
essay.  When students know how to run a classroom, you not only minimize
misbehavior, you have a class that can function on its own, and can even run
itself in the teacher’s absence.  Simply put, when you teach students how
to do things, then they won’t do what you do not want them to do.

We teach teachers how to be proactive, not reactive.  A proactive teacher
has a plan to prevent problems; a reactive teacher has no plan, and when a
problem occurs, they react from one problem to another, looking for a game, an
activity, or a threat.  To be effective and successful, all a teacher
needs is a classroom management plan.

Effective teachers prevent problems with a plan that keeps their students
focused and on task, from the moment the opening bell sounds, until the end of
each day.  This is done with procedures, which simplify the tasks students
must accomplish to increase learning and achieving.  Once taught,
procedures become the responsibility of the students to carry out the
appropriate tasks.  A well-managed classroom is safe, predictable,
nurturing, and focus-driven.  A classroom management plan ensures learning
takes place efficiently, with minimal stress.  When you have an organized
classroom, you avoid the pitfalls of becoming a disciplinarian.

Students want a plan, too.  It is extremely important to realize that many
students come from disorganized, unstructured home environments, where chaos
abounds.  Neglected children crave structure and guidance.  Give them
a well-managed, organized classroom with clear daily practices and procedures,
and they will respond positively.

Chelonnda Seroyer, a high school English teacher in Atlanta, says, “My students
enjoy having a predictable classroom.  They feel safe because they know
what to expect each day.  They like consistency in a world that can be
very inconsistent.”

Amanda Brooks is a teacher in Dyersburg, Tennessee.  Upon completing her
first year of teaching, she said, “With procedures that organized my class, I
never had to waste time repeating what they should be doing or reprimanding
them for bad behavior.  I created an environment where students could just
learn.  I simply taught and enjoyed my students.”

At the end of her second year of teaching, Amanda said, “My state test scores
just came back and my class had the highest test scores in my school, and I am
only saying this to encourage new teachers to get it right on the first day of
school and then enjoy the rest of the school year.”

A veteran teacher of 40 years, Audrey Lowery of Irvington, Virginia, says, “If
our new teachers would implement classroom procedures and keep them separate
from rules, they would be in education for the long haul.”

I trust that those who read about The Good Behavior Game will not misconstrue
it as a panacea for classroom management, because the mission of NCTQ is to
promote teacher quality and quality teachers, such as Chelonnda Seroyer, Amanda
Brooks, and Audrey Lowery know the difference between classroom management and
behavior management.

*Dr. Wong is the author  of several popular books used in teacher education.

Every district HR department looks to find
ways to limit the number of time-consuming interviews of new teacher
applicants. A few weeks ago, Politico
ran a story about “Big Data” tools
designed to give districts a better idea of who is “interview worthy”
based on the perceived skills of candidates (e.g., Teacher Match) and next gen
versions of the old school questionnaires that attempt to elicit the
“attitudes” of teacher applicants (e.g., Gallup’s TeacherInsight
Assessment and the Haberman Star Teacher).
An encouraging new study from Dan
Goldhaber and colleagues examines the Spokane
School District’s home-grown, skills-based screening process. It argues
that by using a two-stage evaluation process that relies heavily on data
generated from letters of recommendation, principals are able to limit precious
interview time to only higher-caliber applicants, resulting in better hiring.                  
The process seems to be working: scores on
the second stage of the pre-interview screening positively (and with
statistical significance) predict value-added measures of effectiveness. Also,
teachers hired by Spokane School District showed higher rates of
retention as opposed to those not hired by Spokane
who were teaching elsewhere in Washington
State.
Ratings on
applicants’ classroom management skills stand out as having the most predictive
power, piquing our interest in what exactly Spokane principal/supervisor screeners are looking for in
applicants with regards to classroom management. The bottom line: even though
the district’s rubric related to classroom management is fairly cryptic (i.e.,
“effective[ly] handl[e]… large/small, ethnically/sociologically diverse
groups”), it appears that screeners are still able to zero in on enough in
the letters of recommendation to identify candidates who are most likely to be
effective.
Given how unsystematic Spokane’s protocol appears to be— screeners receive no training on
how to apply the rubric—it probably helps that 71 percent of hired teachers
have had some previous experience in Spokane
as an employee, a student teacher or both; the study’s authors note that
“screeners may be familiar with those who are writing the letters of
recommendation.”
We have one minor quibble. We wonder how much
better Spokane could do in hiring if
it tightened up the protocol for evaluating classroom management skills and
used more structured interviews to evaluate applicants.

Over the
years, there have been a gazillion studies examining the relative merit of
different pathways into the teaching profession. Almost all come up short,
often because the studies do not clearly define the type of pathway being
analyzed (i.e., just what does it mean to be alternatively certified?)
A new study from Gary T. Henry and his colleagues at Vanderbilt does not
disappoint, breaking down  the
definitions of assorted pathways into more meaningful categories as well as
examining the results of only new teachers (those with less than three years of
experience). After all, should we really judge a preparation program by the
teachers who graduated from Ol’ State U. in 1980 or by those who graduated in
2014?
Henry et al. disaggregate teaching
pathways into multiple distinct categories: out of state, in state, graduate,
undergraduate, public, private, Teach
For America and lateral entry (North
Carolina‘s own alternative entry).
As always, the researchers find more
variation within the groups than across; there are some notable differences in
this study from what previous research has found.
There is
some limited evidence of a “home team” advantage for specific teachers; teachers who were prepared in-state
were more effective than those from out-of-state programs in three of the eight subjects tested. Additionally, teachers prepared in private
institutions were no better than those from public institutions, a finding
we didn’t find surprising given that we haven’t found a discernible difference
between the two in the Teacher Prep Review.
One takeaway
consistent with other studies’ findings: TFA
comes out looking great. Students instructed by TFAcorps members annually gain approximately 18 days of additional
learning in elementary math, 11 days in elementary reading and an astounding 73
days in middle grade math.
While there
aren’t many TFA corps members in North Carolina, other alternatively
trained teachers (referred to as “lateral entry”) have a much harder time
posting gains. Findings conclude they are less effective (especially in STEM
subjects) or, at best, average.
Here’s a finding
we’ve never seen before: in both middle
grade math and reading, teachers trained in graduate school aren’t as effective
as teachers trained as undergraduates— though they do better in high school
science. This needs more research to figure out if those different outcomes are
due to the focus of masters’ degrees, if they were content specific, or in
education.

More teacher experience may have a few more benefits than the research has been touting (not that we really think it didn’t). A new study by Helen “Sonny” Ladd and Lucy Sorenson finds a positive relationship between a teacher’s years of experience in the classroom and students’ achievement and non-cognitive behavioral skills, into at least a teacher’s 12^th year of teaching, far surpassing the 5^th-year crest that most research is telling us represents the end of the climb.
Using a sample of about 250,000 students in North Carolina (a state known for its robust data system) over five years, the researchers find that years of experience are positively related to student test scores, especially in math. The effect is not insubstantial: the positive impact on student achievement from a teacher with five years of experience is about twice as much as the disadvantage presented by a student’s race or family income. Those benefits from experience continue to grow until a teacher has about 12 years of experience. The study also found positive (albeit weaker) correlations with students’ non-cognitive and behavioral skills, including student absenteeism, disruptive classroom behaviors, time spent completing homework and time spent reading for pleasure.
Notably, Ladd and Sorenson found that “high ability” teachers leave the profession more often than those of lower ability.
There are a few methodological concerns to keep in mind: non-random assignment of students to teachers (which happens often when principals reward veteran teachers with higher-ability classes or parents request certain teachers) could throw off estimates. Also, because the data set only includes five years of data, even with the use of teacher fixed effects, no teacher is compared to herself across 12 or more years (for example, the data set does not show Ms. Smith’s effectiveness as both a first-year and a 15^th-year teacher). To sum up, while this research finds a relationship between experience and efficacy, it cannot conclude that experience causes teaching efficacy.

In this month’s Tr3 Trends newsletter, we compare teacher pay in suburbs and cities.

What city is home to the Wright Brothers and the birthplace of the Trapper Keeper? If you said Dayton, Ohio, then you would be right! Dayton is also the location of NCTQ’s latest district study on teacher quality.

Our new website just launched. Make yourself at home and take a look around!

Tammie Schrader’s post yesterday about her experiences as a science teacher and a “teacher of future science teachers” hit home the point that the student teaching experience is of immeasurable value both to improve professional skills and as a test of wh

Better training for teachers can lower skyrocketing suspension rates and make schools safer

I’m quarantined at home with the pink eye. My wife avoids me like I’m a leper and I want to scratch my eye out. On the other hand, I get to miss this month’s faculty meeting.

It’s easy to forget that teachers are asked to be “first responders” for students in times of crisis, among their many other duties.

Pipelines, incentives, retention strategies, and data tracking lead to greater diversity.

The word gap issue hits hard for disadvantaged students and preschool teachers