Category Archives: Blog

Teach Up to Cause Children to Meet Higher Expectations

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most common phrases in school mission statements is “we have high expectations.” These words are used to describe school goals for academic learning, athletic and artistic performances, student behaviors, and rankings in state report cards. School boards and school leaders use the phrases “we have high expectations” and “we expect great things” as if just saying the words makes it so. They do not. What usually is not explained is what the school or teachers, coaches, and directors will do to move student achievements from “usual expectations” to “higher expectations.” The action necessary is teaching up, coaching up, directing up, and reinforcing up so that “ups” are achieved. The conversation about the actions needed to move achievement upward and the commitment to those actions is what bridges the distance between having high expectations and achieving high expectations.

Teaching up is a choice.

Carol Ann Tomlinson writes, “Teachers who make the choice to teach up believe, or are at least willing to believe, that all students are capable of much more than they currently show the world. Teachers who make the choice to teach up know that brains are malleable and thrive in rich environments. They also know, perhaps from research, perhaps from their own experiences are learners or as classroom observers, that students who have teachers that set high expectations are more likely to flourish than students who set lower expectations.”

https://ascd.org/el/articles/making-the-choice-to-teach-up

Tomlinson nails it. Teaching up to elevate student achievement is a choice when meeting minimal or usual expectations is a universal expectation or goal. The words “minimal expectations” are not used casually. Too many children and schools struggle to make minimal academic, athletic, and artistic progress. There are a multitude of environmental reasons, including poverty at home and in school financing, lack of home and familial support, lack of food security, challenges in a child’s socio-emotional and mental health, and post-pandemic student apathy that make achieving minimal achievement goals an uphill struggle. Just making minimal achievement goals can take tremendous teaching efforts.

The choice to teach up is to buck the norms in statewide assessments that say “minimal” is good enough or local expectations to be just a little better than a neighboring school and cause children to overachieve.

How much “up” and what does “up” look like?

Once a decision to teach, coach, and/or direct up is made, the real work is identifying how much upward improvement will be the target of higher expectations and the meaningful instructional, coaching, and directing actions needed to elevate student achievements to those expectations. Increasing the desired levels of achievement too much can overwhelm children, but increasing levels too little may seem meaningless. The level “up” should have transferable benefits, like climbing to the next plateau provides a base for climbing to a yet higher plateau on the way to a pinnacle. Increasing knowledge, skills, and dispositions is the scaffolding for future increases in achievement.

Generically, regular teaching is characterized by a teacher making more challenging yet supported assignments for children ready for the challenge. Students are assigned to read texts and materials that are above their current reading level preceded by the teacher pointing out new and significant vocabulary, providing necessary background information and context, and chunking the reading into smaller readings.

Generically, regular teaching is assigning more multiple step math problems, performing more complex music preceded by technical voice and fingering instruction, or diminishing the tolerances in milling a piece of metal preceded by technical instruction in settings, timing, and rate of milling.

Generically, regular coaching and directing is scheduling more successful teams to play and pieces to perform and expecting athletic and performance skills to rise to the level of new competition and expectation.

These kinds of “up” are usual in most teacher’s instruction of children in all subjects and grades, and in athletics and the arts. They are incremental and baked into school curricula.

To be significant, teaching “up” is condensing or leapfrogging usual increments and expectations with the belief that, as Tomlinson wrote, “… children’s brains are malleable and thrive in rich environments…”

“Up” looks like a demonstrably higher sophistication in the quality of student outcomes. To accomplish much higher outcomes requires explicit instruction, coaching, and directing of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required for significantly higher achievement. Usual or regular teaching will not result in unusual or irregular achievements; it takes stronger instructional knowledge and skill.

Teaching “up” requires “upped” teaching.

Teaching, coaching, and directing “up” requires the teacher, coach and director to study, learn, and master skill sets that cause children to learn and master higher order knowledge, skills, and dispositions. These are not in initial educator preparation programs. We must learn to teach up before children can up their learning. For example, there are specific skill sets required to

  • improve children’s close reading and technical writing abilities to elevate and expand their levels of comprehension, understanding, and analysis/evaluation so that they can create more precise or expressive writings, or
  • improve players’ ability to hit a baseball and putting it in play with more frequency and power, or
  • increase children’s ability to understand the uses of perspective and interest in real life drawing, painting, and photographic creations.

Teachers must commit themselves to mastering improvements and changes in how they teach if they want children to master new learning and achieve higher order outcomes.

Teaching for higher order close reading.

Close reading is more than holding the book closer. It is a set of reading practices that require commitment. Most children give a text assignment a single read. They may take notes or create a brief outline. Better students create flash cards to self-quiz their accuracy and memory retention.

Upping reading has children do the following:

  • Read the text multiple times. First to gain a basic understanding and key ideas included in the text. Second, focus on structure, language, and the author’s writing style. They focus on text-specific questions not just questions assigned to any and every text. And in a third reading, children read and reflect on both the text and relate it to their knowledge and understanding of other texts. Children consistently write notes, annotate, and reflect on key literary and text analysis questions.
  • To focus on reading comprehension, the teacher chunks the text and engages children with reading aloud and thinking aloud. Thinking aloud is reacting and responding immediately to what has been read. Doing things aloud takes time and consideration and these two elements push the reading and thinking upward.
  • Teachers teach children a Socratic discussion model and children use this model to up their comprehension, interpretations, and insights. Children are expected/required to engage in discussions. As children listen to other children, they reflect on, consider, and edit and amend their own thoughts and conclusions. Socratic processing benefits the speaker and the listener.
  • Parallel to multi-step reading and Socratic discussion, children use graphic organizing techniques the teacher has taught them to break down the text into logical parts that aid in their memory and recall. They use and then file these organizers for future references.
  • Children act out a part of the literary text, rewrite a part to create a different outcome, or creatively illustrate the setting of part(s) of the text. For non-literary text, children create chronologies of actions leading up to and after the information in the text or create parallels of what else is happening simultaneously with the text.

These, or all of these, are not usual in classroom instruction focused on knowledge and understanding of the general curriculum. In the aggregate, these teaching/learning episodes move a child’s cognitive, social-emotional, and performance-based achievements to higher order levels. They are demonstrable for the teacher’s peers, administrators and the child’s parents to observe and acknowledge.

Coaching up for improved hitting technique.

I played on several state championship baseball teams in my high school years and never was instructed in hitting. To improve hitting, we took more batting practice and rotated in pitchers with different deliveries and throwing velocities. The only critique when we struck out was “you need more practice.”

Coaching up for hitting involves the following:

  • Having the hitter not just assume a batting stance but analyze the set up and stance. Is the stance balanced on the width of the feet with flexed knees, bend or no bend at the waist, and good weight distribution. The hitter needs to talk aloud with the coach about the stance set up in order to understand how a stance and set up work. The hitter needs to do this in the batters box and in front of a mirror or camera. Too many hitters think they are balanced and flexed when they are not. The coach needs to press hands on the batter to check for balance, flex, and weight distribution.
  • In the stance and set up, are the hands in natural position near the back shoulder, does the head position allow for a clear vision of the pitcher and ball in flight, and are the toes, knees, hips, and shoulders aligned. Hitters don’t do this solo, but under the supervision and critique of the coach. Many hitters think their stance and set up are solid when they are not.
  • Swinging the bat is not just swinging the bat. In preparing to swing, the hitter’s weight should be slightly loaded on the back foot while maintaining a balanced posture. The stride forward initiates the swing and rotation of the shoulders. A hitter’s stride is highly individualized, but if it is too long or too short it disrupts the plane, power, and release of the swing. During the stride, the hitter starts with a hip then shoulder rotation to create torque and power. There is a natural release and forward press of the upper body. Coaches can detect better than hitters when the release and press are not natural.
  • Swinging on a plane is essential to striking a thrown pitch. On plane gets the bat into the hitting zone leading with the hands (bat pointing slightly behind the hands). Hitters need to be consistent with their plane – is it down with bat control for hitting hard ground balls, is it parallel to the plate for hitting line drives with power or is it upward for long fly balls. Gifted hitters can change swing planes depending on game situations. Most hitters need consistency and coach supervision, critiquing, and correction to create and consistently be on lane.
  • Getting the bat to the ball is just the start. Hitters need to extend their arms through contact with the ball to drive the ball. Pitch speed, bat speed, and extended driving through the ball create power. Extension plus rotation to a high finish with the bat behind the lead shoulder almost to the hitter’s back makes a complete swing.
  • Hitting coaches study the art and science of swinging a bat and hitting a ball. They know that each hitter has a different physique and baseball personality. Hence, coaching hitters is a highly individualized and personalized endeavor. Coaches use soft toss and front toss drills, live batting practice, video analysis, and consistent work on identifying a pitch as it leaves the pitcher’s hand. Hitters have fractions of a second to make the decision to swing or not swing at a pitch and if they swing their mechanics need to be designed and practiced for hitting success.

The fact is that most coaches coach a team to play baseball or softball. They have a basic understanding of throwing, catching, hitting, running the bases and sliding, and fielding ground balls and pop flies. They do not have the skill sets to up player performance with explicit instruction in any of the game’s skills. It is the difference between a coach saying, “just do this” and another coach saying “this is the physiology and physics of doing this.” Upping requires knowing what up is.

The Big Duh!

Tomlinson told us that “…all students are capable of much more than they currently show the world.” It is a teacher who causes them either to achieve only the minimum expectations that our world holds for our students, athletes, and artists or to show their much higher levels of achievement and performance. It is both a teacher’s decision to teach up and a teacher’s ability to teach up that moves child achievements upward.

Teachers of Bygone and New Eras

Posted on by
Reply

There is a cadre of career teachers in our local school who are on the brink of retirement. Each are nearing their 40-year anniversaries in teaching, several with careers in our local school only. Those in the lower grades are teaching the grandchildren of their first students. Experienced? Measured in decades. Talented? Unbelievable teaching skills. Dedicated? Consistently trying to be better. Passionate about teaching? They put a capital “T” in Teacher! They also are part of a dwindling breed of teachers – those who were called to be teachers not just employed as teachers.

It is a fact that schools say good-bye to veteran teachers every year. In our school we have watched this natural cycle; distinguished teachers retire, and new teachers assume their classrooms However, in past years there was still a remnant of the cadre of the passionate left to carry on. Next year that may not be true.

Differences Matter.

When interviewing candidates for employment, I often asked, “Is teaching your calling or your vocation?”  Some candidates stumbled. They did not understand the question nor the concept of “calling.” Some tried for middle ground saying “both.”  A few either smiled or frowned, either was an appropriate face, saying, “calling.” From an early age, they knew they wanted to be teachers. In school, they selectively considered their teachers as role models. In college, they declared their education majors early and their course work developed necessary academic background. Intuitively, they knew they were meant to be teachers; it was their calling. Not surprisingly, these few formed the cadre of dedicated, talented, veteran teachers who constantly exude their passion for teaching children. They are the backbone of their faculty.

There is no set-in-stone, boilerplate descriptor for a passionate teacher. They exist female and male, of all ethnicities and languages, and teaching all disciplines. Often labeled toward the middle and latter years of their careers as master teachers, they know pedagogy and the content and skills of their subjects. They know how to adjust their teaching to meet their students’ learning challenges. More than anything else, they know how to relate to children and cause all children to learn.

Therein lies a significant difference between those who are called and those who are just employed. The passionate do not teach for teaching’s sake; they teach for learning’s sake.

Walking into a classroom while a teacher works causes a variety of responses from both teacher and students. In some classrooms, the air takes on a new tension because someone is watching. The tension increases when that someone is a principal or superintendent. Teaching and learning become business-like. The visitor is treated as a visitor. In contrast, when entering the classroom of one of the passionate, a visitor is welcomed with a “Hey, look at what we are doing today!” The teacher smiles but does not stop or adjust teaching because someone is watching. Children do not hesitate to explain what they are learning and often ask quiz the visitor showing how smart they are.

There is a difference in classrooms that celebrate learning and those who conduct learning.

Locating a teacher in their classroom also is tell-tale difference. When welcoming and starting a class and providing and modeling initial instruction, the teacher often is front and center before students. Location changes and matters when children are engaged in dependent and independent work and individual and small group work. The passionate are kneeling beside student desks and chairs, sitting, and huddling with a child or small group to help children to clarify or correct their understanding or skills. They listen more than they talk. They suggest more than they tell. They personalize the reality that when a child learns learning a very individual development. The employed teachers retreat to their desks to watch and monitor students and do teacher things. They wait for children to come to them rather than intuitively moving among children to aid, confirm, and clarify their learning.

There is a difference in teaching a classroom of children and teaching for each child in a classroom.

Burning the midnight oil is not just a student’s plight, but also a teacher’s. It refers to doing what needs to be done in preparation for what comes next no matter of the hour. When the school day begins, all teachers are in their classrooms awaiting the first bell. For the employed, a class day begins and ends with contractual bells. For the passionate, the teaching day begins and ends with readiness for what the children need next. As a rule, the first cars in the parking lot in the morning and the last to leave after school are the passionate’s. They also are seen at school on weekends and vacation days. No one asks a teacher to be a slave to their job, but what is slavery to some is being professional to others.

The commitment to teaching is greater than the teaching contract.

When a passionate teacher retires, there is a loss of talent in the school. Their talent is the aggregate of their experience and their professional knowledge and abilities. All teachers begin based upon their baccalaureate and teaching preparation. I have known some to make a career based solely on those credentials; they do only what is necessary to sustain their contract and license. I also have celebrated the awarding of advanced degrees and training for teachers who know that teaching requires lifelong learning and continuous new training. When I clipped and shared professional articles and books with the faculty, some squandered the opportunity while the cadre were eager to talk about what they read and learned.

The cadre is not just passionate about their students’ learning but also about their own continuous development as professional teachers.

It is a new era.

Each year in Wisconsin the number of licenses for baccalaureate-prepared teachers is equal to the number of emergency licenses issued to people who are fully prepared but will achieve their license through on-the-job training. Several years ago, new teachers with emergency licenses only were rare but soon they will be the majority of new hires. Most of the emergency-licensed are second career teachers who come to teaching for a variety of reasons. Few, if any, are called. The shortage of people who want to be classroom teachers is real and many students are taught by not-yet-licensed or prepared teachers. Teaching is a job and there will be no cadre.

The profession of teaching has entered a new era. Most new teachers will be as professional as the business of teaching requires them to be. They will work their contracts. Life for them sets aside the eight hours each day and nine months needed for their teaching job so that they can live their non-job lives.

Years ago, a child seeing a teacher in the grocery store was bewildered because the child only thought of the teacher in a classroom. That was the teacher’s entity. No more. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. To repeat, no one should be a slave to their employment. On the other hand, to swipe a phrase, a presence or absence of a teacher’s “fire in the belly” is clearly discernible. “Fire in the belly” is a critical attribute for master teaching and makes me wonder if we are saying our final farewell to our local Mr./Ms. Chips.

Burying a Myth About Rigor – It Is Too Easy If Every Student Gets a Good Grade

Posted on by
Reply

As a younger associate principal in a larger 1970s high school, I commented at a district-wide AP’s meeting that I was concerned that so many students consistently earned D and F grades, and our school would be working to improve student achievement and diminish the number of Ds and Fs. Our director of secondary education halted me with this guidance. “If every student gets good grades, the instruction has lost its rigor.” End of discussion and I fought the urge to throw my pen at him.

Bell-curved thinking consigned some students to low grades on every assessment.

One of the tools taught in my teacher preparation was how to create a normal distribution of student test scores. It was not difficult, just tedious. The result was a plotting of scores on the bell curve to achieve 2.35% of grades as As, 13.5% as Bs, 68% as Cs, 13.5% as Ds, and 2.35% as Fs. This tool was consistent. On every test, I and my students were assured that almost 16% of the class would receive a grade of D or F – every time. Voila! Rigor was ensured.

Further investigation at the time confirmed for me that bell curving was not just standard practice in our school and school district, it was Gospel. Every teacher I worked with did the math and created a normal distribution to curve student grading. Tedious work but it was the expected practice. It did not matter if the assessment or assignment was 100-item multiple choice test, a 10-item true-false quiz, a five-part essay, a speech, or a term paper, the bell curved normal distribution ruled.

Sadly, students and parents accepted this alignment of grades because that is way things were done. If a student studied harder and improved their performance the next time, their grade always was a comparison to all other students not of what they learned and 15% of students received Ds or Fs.

In that high school, I could not convince the principal or my fellow APs that we should buck the system and drop the bell curve.

Autonomy can change practices.

Time passed. As a high school principal, it was much easier to implement changes. Autonomy has its privileges. In the mid-80s I found a group of faculty who were interested in changing their usual practices to achieve different outcomes. Not all faculty were of this mind, but enough to start a new beginning. We attended conferences with Bill Spady on outcome-based education (OBE) and quickly appreciated his dictum that “you get what you settle for.” We were no longer willing to accept that rigorous instruction and learning required some students to fail. Accordingly, we adopted A, B, C, I grading. Grades of Incomplete (I) were assigned instead of Ds or Fs.

This led to a second outcome-based change in our teaching. In a traditional classroom, when a grade of D or F is assigned, learning stops. Teachers and students go on to the next lesson and what was not learned completely or was learned with errors becomes permanent. In contrast, teachers using a grade of Incomplete told themselves and students that both teaching and learning are not complete and will not be until the I becomes an A, B, or C grade. Our cadre of OBE teachers were committed to adjusting their teaching or what would later be labeled as Tier 2 teaching so that all students would achieve an acceptable level of learning.

Change does not happen easily in schools. Traditional faculty in our school held to their traditional grading practices and a cadre of teachers began using OBE concepts of teaching and learning. The cadre studied Grant Wiggins’ and Jay McTighe’s Understanding by Design. Curricular units were reconstructed so that the curricular outcomes teachers wanted students to achieve drove lesson planning and daily teaching.

Cadre members represented most of the school’s curricular departments and grade levels. When the cadre met, they discussed pedagogy not departmental our grade level issues. They discussed student experiences across subject lines not just within a vertical curriculum. The cadre became increasingly student-focused, especially about the challenges that got in the way of student learning. Some of these challenges were institutional and some were student specific.

Things never came to blows but the contrasting practices were noticed by all faculty, students, and parents. An OBE characteristic that became painfully real was that success begets success. Students in cadre-taught were not failing courses. In successive semesters, and student course registrations trended toward cadre-taught courses. Increased student engagement meant fewer disciplinary referrals. Students and parents wanted out of traditional practices.

Rigor redefined.

After several semesters of cadre work, I asked these teachers to define academic rigor in teaching and learning. They quickly responded with these three points.

  • Rigor is setting high quality curricular standards for student learning of content knowledge, academic skills, and dispositions.
  • Rigor is designing teaching that causes all students to succeed in achieving these standards. Time is not a limited variable. Adjustment of initial teaching is expected.
  • Rigor is accepting multiple ways in which a diverse student group can show the learning of the required outcomes.

Today, several decades of working with other cadre groups, rigor in many classrooms and schools is looking more like an OBE definition than my 1970s director of secondary education. However, Madeline Hunter taught us that in every faculty there will be Ernies. An Ernie, not gender-specific, is a teacher who leans back in a chair saying to self and others “this new discussion of rigor (fill in any other change initiative) will come and go. I do not need to change what I do in my classroom, and no one can make me.” She was right. There are Ernies in every faculty, but the cadres of higher quality teaching and learning are gaining on them.

Getting rigor right is a continuous struggle.

I always hope that lessons learned create new practices. But practices made permanent require little change in the teaching faculty. That is never the case. Forty years later and a new generation of teachers we still battle with the definition of rigor. Too many students receive permanent grades of D or F as educators continue to use D and F grades as a method of labeling student learning. Ds and Fs once again are permanent grades, even with RtI practices.

We have work to do.

Good Classroom Management is Not Easy; It is a Learned and Practiced Skill and Art

Posted on by
Reply

Teacher preparation in the United States is in crisis mode. There are not enough new teachers each year to replace teachers who leave the classroom. The cold fact is that four in every ten young teachers leave classroom teaching for other employment in their first five years of teaching. “Multiple reasons rise to the top of the list. Student behavior is a leading complaint Long hears from teachers who contemplate or leave teaching, and one he believes is among the hardest to address. ‘I don’t think anyone has the answer,’ said Long, referring to accounts of extreme student behavior targeting teachers that has resulted in physical or emotional harm.” Zachary Long quit teaching and with his wife co-founded Life After Teaching. He helps teachers who want to quit teaching to quit.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/behind-the-stats-3-former-teachers-talk-about-why-they-left/2023/04

Student behavior runs teachers out of teaching. It is a fact, but it need not be a continuing fact. When we know teachers quit teaching because of unsuccessful classroom management, we need to aggressively improve how we prepare teachers.

When your boat is taking on water, you can abandon the ship, or you can fix the hole in the hull. We tolerate and accommodate the abandonment of classrooms even though we know a huge “hole” in teacher preparation is classroom management.

A review of teacher preparation curriculum in local colleges of education tells the story. Our local university, for example, provides teacher candidates with 72 credits of college course work toward a major in K-9 education. But there is only one three-credit course that teaches classroom management, and it combines learning theories with student behavior. When we know that an inability to manage children in a classroom setting is one of the leading causes of teacher attrition, is this adequate?

EDUC 340. Supporting Learning and Behavior in the Classroom. 3 Credits.

Course provides pre-service teachers with an understanding of how students learn in educational contexts. Learning theories reviewed, & learning strategies to enhance learning and prevent/manage behaviors are introduced and applied in direct interaction with a learner. Course may be repeated 2 times for a total of 6 credits.
Fall and Spring.

No Longer Is It a Hit Them Hard and Often Response

How to organize and manage groups of students is an age-old problem. The first Normal Schools (state teacher prep schools) endorsed corporal punishment for misbehaving students. Students went to the proverbial woodshed where their teacher administered discipline with a paddle. Teachers taught children to behave by fearing physical punishment. Although some schools began banning corporal punishment as early as 1914 it continued as a disciplinary practice in many states in the late 1990s.

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/corporal-punishment-schools-still-legal-many-states#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Education,dropped%20over%20the%20past%20decade.

When a wooden paddle was considered too harsh, teachers used a gym shoe. I saw the well-known design of a Converse gym shoe on the backsides of my male classmates in the 60s.

On the first day of my first teaching assignment my principal gave me a well-worn wooden paddle and told me to use it. When I asked what a teacher should do if a child’s behavior did not improve, he implied I should hit them harder and more often. I put my paddle in a closet.

Student Discipline as Pedagogy

As often as we talked about paddling back in the day, we clearly understood most of our teachers would never raise a hand to a student. They created patterns of good student behavior through good teaching. It was not a matter of experience, however. We knew veteran teachers whose classrooms were unruly and undisciplined and novice teachers whose students focused on learning not misbehaving. Even before I began my teacher preparation, it was clear that good teaching and good student discipline are linked.

Our task in teacher preparation today is to create highly qualified teachers of both curriculum and student discipline. A teacher who will stay in the profession needs to learn both.

Toolbox Preparation for every Teacher

Classroom management is as important as teaching methods. If a teacher cannot focus children’s attention on the curriculum, how can a teacher teach the curriculum? It is a what to do first dilemma – teach teachers how to teach or teach teachers how to manage children as learners. Both are equally important, and each needs equally strong emphasis.

Field experience tells us that fitting a student management philosophy to a teacher is like fitting shoes. One will feel better, wear better, and be more satisfying than all others. Therefore, teacher prep programs must teach teachers a variety of philosophies and strategies so that a teacher can find a personal plan that refines student behavior and enhances student learning.

The CESA 7 (WI) Teacher Development Center treats Instructional Methods and Classroom Management as toolbox courses that every teacher candidate, regardless of the license sought, must master. In Classroom Management, candidates study several behavioral management philosophies and strategies that allow the candidate to develop a personal and philosophical “fit” to their classroom management plans.

Candidates study and are assessed for their knowledge and understanding of five philosophies and strategies. They know the basis and background of each, their authors, and field studies of their applications. Candidates must know the following:

  • Choice/Logical Consequences
  • Discipline with Dignity
  • Assertive Discipline
  • Social Justice
  • PBIS

As an “apprentice” teacher development program, teacher candidates are employed by a school district and enrolled in the TDC. From day one they are classroom teachers under the supervision of school principals, mentors, and CESA 7 supervisors. CESA 7 enrolls candidates from districts throughout Wisconsin; districts that know CESA 7’s reputation for quality instruction and personal support given to of its apprentice teachers. The TDC licensing program requires four semesters of teacher prep coursework, daily teaching, and synthesis of TDC instruction into classroom applications.

Classroom Management and Instructional Methods are the first courses candidates must complete in their licensing program. The CESA 7 candidate supervisor emphasizes and guides apprentices to engage their students in the teacher’s learned classroom management design. This “guided” implementation sets up the relationship between learning and behavior and expectations for both the teacher’s and all students’ commitment to both.

Support of Novice Teachers is Critical

A second most common reason for teachers to leave teaching is their perceived lack of professional support. It starts with a principal and administrative structure that is hard pressed to meet daily crisis demands and leaves new teacher support as a low priority.

The Learning Policy Institute says, “New teachers who do not receive mentoring and other supports leave at more than two times the rate of those who do.”

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Teacher_Exodus_Infographic.pdf

The CESA 7 TDC answers this dilemma with constant support from its classroom-visiting supervisors, a 24-7 online project specialist, and a curriculum and instruction consultant. TDC experience shows that its staff often understands and responds to candidate classroom problems before the school principal is aware of a problem.

Unlike IHEs that supervise student teachers during a clinical semester only, the TDC conducts supervisory observations and counseling throughout the candidate’s enrollment. Through this process, principals and TDC supervisors see, critique, and guide the development of each candidate’s classroom management practices. TDC teachers do not guess at student behavioral management. Candidates apply the methods they studied, use informed supervision, and refine strategies that work. And, they have ongoing professional feedback on the effectiveness of their classroom management.

The Big Duh!

We know that good teaching and good classroom management go together. We know that positive professional and administrative support is essential for novice teachers. We know that too many teachers leave their chosen profession too early because of problems with student discipline and a perceived lack of professional support. We know that novice teachers who learn and implement good teaching and good student discipline programs are more likely to continue their careers as classroom teachers.

When we know these things as true, teacher preparation programs must fix the hole in our teacher development programs that lead to teacher resignations. We can fix these problems and children can have the prepared teachers they deserve.

Improve How We Treat Our Rookies to Resolve Teacher Attrition

Posted on by
Reply

The first year a teacher is in a classroom is monumental. During that year, one of three things happens. A teacher is successful and starts a career growing every year in her teaching abilities. A teacher is unhappy, decides teaching is not a good career choice, and begins to drift toward a career change. Or a teacher does the minimal needed from a first-year teacher, enough to earn a continuing contract, and begins a career repeating novice teaching skills. The first is great but the second and third are not.

How many promising teachers leave the profession too early. Too many teachers. How many years do we allow a teacher to be a first-year teacher? Too many years. These two truths are connected. The first years of teaching are critical for those who stay and for those who leave. We need to improve how we work with rookie educators.

First year once or first year forever.

Every teacher experiences a first year as a classroom teacher. It is a birthing process. Most teachers grow through their accumulated professional experiences and the quality of their teaching matures and improves over time. It is common to hear a veteran teacher speak of her beginnings. “In my first year I tried to do too much and did not do very much very well. It took experience to know what was essential to cause children to learn.”  Or “I stayed up past midnight every night working on lesson plans. I thought, ‘If I have a perfect lesson plan, I will have a perfect day of teaching.’ I learned that good teaching is what I do once the plan is in motion.” Equally we hear from principals about how a teacher matures over time and her teaching gets better and better.

But this is not true of every teacher; some teach like a first-year teacher repeatedly. They do not advance their pedagogy or ability to connect with children beyond what they did as a first-year teacher. They are not reflective in considering how a lesson might be improved, and they file every lesson for teaching again next year. They consider student achievement data a reflection of the children they teach not the teaching the children receive. They talk at children rather than listening and engaging with them. There are many descriptors for how a teacher is an habitual first-year teacher.

Consider teachers as flowers. The beautiful perennials keep getting better and better as they cross-pollinate and bloom more colorfully year after year. The annuals bloom in their season and then wilt. Annuals are the same year after year. When I think of high-quality teaching and its impact on the lives of children, I know the teachers I want my grandchildren and their friends to have. Perennials, please; no annuals. So, what do we do to cultivate perennials and cull annuals? Begin with the concept of “first year.”

And, like flower seeds, some teachers do not grow into flowering plants or do grow but never blossom. They quit the garden all too early.

There are two kinds of “first.”

There are two events that define a first-year teacher. One is “this is my first year as a professional teacher” and the second is “this is my first-year teaching in this school.” Each is a valid “first” with a uniqueness that makes these events important in a teaching career. Each of these firsts is wrapped in facts and emotions of “never doing this/never been here before.” It is inarguable that the first day of a teacher’s first year is a huge “first.” By the same definition of first, a teacher who has moved to a different school several times experiences many of the feelings and treatments of a first-day educator. These two “firsts” are essential in teacher development, because they make or break a teacher’s persistence. Whether the first time in a classroom or the first time in a school, what happens then affects a teacher’s career.

First year ever teachers have two learning curves – classroom and institutional. While their pedagogical skills are getting their first, independent, away-from-college testing, their institutional learning curve is almost vertical. They teach by transferring their sheltered student teaching experience to their “you are on your own now” classroom. What seemed like confident teaching in student teaching becomes less confident as an employed teacher. Being singularly responsible for children and their learning is a huge undertaking and weighs heavily on a novice teacher.

For a first year ever teacher, onboarding of institutional procedures is a blur. Bell schedules, attendance taking, grading, office referrals, contact with parents, and calendars of in-school meetings are a piling on of information. It feels like boot camp. A novice does not want to run afoul of institutional procedures, but every novice does mess up on one or two. They get lost and can feel lost. It is the ability to rebound that carries them forward.

“First year in a new school” teachers face similar problems with institutional procedures. Not only do they need to learn new procedures, but they also need to forget the procedures of their former school. Even classroom teaching needs to be recalibrated to the curriculum and priorities of their new school. For example, elementary math is not always the same elementary math. Elementary math is the curricular series the school has adopted and when a teacher is handed a new curricular series her teaching of elementary math must be adapted to that series.

All “firsts” need our improved attention if we are to cultivate annually improving teachers.

First year survivors and leavers.

First-year teaching is a survival of the fittest contest. National statistics are not changing and 40% of classroom teachers leave teaching in their first five years in the profession. Stop and consider that fact for a moment. A teacher pays $80,000 or more for a baccalaureate degree and teaching license. Their move to a new town and investment in renting or buying a home is a huge emotional as well as financial commitment. Then they walk away from that effort and expense. The reasons must be ginormous.

Drilling into why this happens exposes a list of usual suspect reasons that have not changed much over time.

  • Inadequate Preparation -Beginning teachers with little or no preparation are 21⁄2 times more likely to leave the classroom after one year compared to their well-prepared peers.
  • Lack Of Support For New Teachers – New teachers who do not receive mentoring and other supports leave at more than two times the rate of those who do.
  • Challenging Working Conditions – Teachers often cite working conditions, such as the support of their principals and the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues, as the top reason for leaving.
  • Dissatisfaction With Compensation – Beginning teachers earn about 20% less than individuals with college degrees in other fields, a wage gap that can widen to 30% for mid-career educators.
  • Better Career Opportunities – More than 1 in 4 teachers who leave say they do so to pursue other career opportunities.
  • Personal Reasons – More than 1 in 3 teachers who leave cite personal reasons, including pregnancy and childcare, as extremely or very important in their decision.

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Teacher_Exodus_Infographic.pdf

Concentrate on the first four reasons.

  1. Hiring teachers is not a game of horseshoes. When there is a shortage of qualified applicants, close to being a qualified applicant is not good enough. However, in too many schools close is good enough. It is wrong to infer that all schools hire unqualified persons as teachers. Yet the reality is that too many schools face too few applicants and our chances to hire a highly qualified teacher every time are becoming scarce.

The choices to not hiring a “good enough” teacher are not teaching the course(s) of that assignment, creating larger class sizes by eliminating a classroom without a teacher, or becoming creative with hybrid instruction that reduces the need for constant face-to-face teaching. Each of these can cause parental and faculty uproar that no principal wants to face. Hence, hiring a “good enough” teacher is too often good enough.

The problem is worsened by some legislation that tries to address teacher shortage by declaring teachers do not need a baccalaureate degree, or unlicensed substitute teachers can be hired as regular teachers, or any military veteran can be hired as a classroom teacher. When these reasonings are apllied, “good enough” really is good enough. Except when we consider child learning. And then unprepared still is unprepared and children suffer when their teacher is not prepared to teach them. Unprepared is never good and far from good enough.

The fix = do not hire “good enough” unprepared teachers. For student learning, unprepared teachers cause more problems than dropped courses and larger class sizes.

Another fix = assign highly qualified teachers to initial and tier 2 instruction only and lesser to unprepared teaches to classroom supervision. Assure that all children get their initial and adjusted instruction from the best teacher available.

  • Hiring is too often a one and done task. The problem with hiring a “close to good enough” teacher is that school principalship is a constant addressing of immediate problems. One hired the problem of a teacher placement is yesterday’s problem. Once the “close to good enough” teacher is hired, principals by necessity turn to the next immediate problem and do not give required attention to their problematic new hire(s).

Most school principals are “fire fighters” – every day is a matter of taking care of immediate and urgently hot problems of student discipline, student attendance, student transportation, building security and maintenance, finding sub teachers, supervising student activities, and resolving parent-school issues. Principals keep problems, like fires, from getting out of control. Professional development is not a September through December issue. It is further back on the fire line.  And observing teachers for professional evaluations waits until late winter and spring. Consequently, new teachers and “good enough” teachers do not see their principal unless the teacher is involved in a hot problem and then it seldom is a positive relationship.

As a generalization, first ever and first year in the school teachers get little personal and professional attention from their principal.

Fix = make principal engagement with each “first” teacher a weekly priority. Even checking in activities count when the “firsts” know the principal is personally interested in their daily teaching. Listening to a “first” is a proactive support.

Mentoring was a school priority du jour a decade ago but has slid back in priorities since. If a mentor is contractually or policy-required, mentor and “first’ relationships are typically on paper not in real time.

Fix = pay mentors, don’t make it volunteer or uncompensated duty.

Fix = require weekly, documented contacts.

Fix = “firsts” need procedural mentoring, and they need curricular mentoring. Do not think mentoring is a one size fits all. By the end of the first year, the curricular needs will outweigh the procedural.

  • Vestiges of seniority benefits are still in play when considering the assignments “firsts” are given. Veteran teachers most often have smaller class sizes, upper-level courses, recently renovated classrooms, even more windows than “firsts.” “Firsts” also are assigned to more supervisory duties than veterans. In my “first ever” year, I was assigned to boys’ restroom supervision during two passing periods every day. Instead of taking care of my needs or arranging for the next class of students, I was expected to stand in and “supervise” boys in their second-floor restroom. The fact that I remember this is testimony to its onerousness.

Fix = reduce the non-instructional assignments usually given to firsts. Not only do firsts not know the routines of these assignments, but it is just another boot camp feature for a first. Children tend to respond better to veteran teachers. Veterans know how to downplay student behavior that needs to be downplayed. Discontinue assigning every lowly duty to “firsts.”

  • Employment is comparative. Even though the average teacher salary in 2024 will be in the mid-$60,000s, “firsts” most often begin much lower. I work in a post-baccalaureate teacher preparation program and see “first year ever” teachers hired in the mid-$30,000s. With households of 2 or more, these “firsts” also qualify for food stamp-assistance in Wisconsin. When they compare their annual salary with other professions requiring a baccalaureate degree, they do not compare well. When they consider their school debts and how long it will take pay off their debt based on teacher pay as compared to other beginning professionals, they do not compare well. Too many novice teachers leave teaching because of inadequate compensation.

Fix = the professional work of a fourth-year teacher qualitatively compares well with a ten-year veteran. By the fourth year, after a “first” satisfies probationary status, pay them the same annual salary as a ten-year veteran. The costs of increasing their annual pay over the 4th thru 9th year is less than the costs for finding new “firsts” who are needed to replace young teachers who leave the profession early.

Cultivate the perennial; weed out the annuals.

The final fix for helping “firsts” who are highly-qualified-teachers-in-the-making is for principals to be more proactive in weeding out “first forever” teachers. One of the hardest smackdowns for “firsts” is their observation that mediocrity is rewarded in public education. An unprepared, “just good enough” teacher gets the same treatment and compensation as a well-prepared, sweating out the details “first.” Adding injury to insult, the “first” who cares is treated the same as the annual who does not care. And when that treatment includes a lack of mentoring, a lack of principal acknowledgement and support, and low levels of beginning and annual increases in pay, it is no wonder that promising “firsts” become “I’m out of here” firsts.