Tag Archives: Teacher Preparation

Teacher Residencies in the Early Childhood Space: A Q&A With Kelly Riling of AppleTree Early Learning Teacher Residency

Last summer, Justin Trinidad and I published a paper exploring the role that teacher residencies can play as a promising pathway into the classroom. We found that while interest in residencies is exploding across the field, residencies face substantial policy and practical barriers in their efforts to expand.

To better understand these barriers, I spoke to Kelly Riling, who manages the AppleTree Early Learning Teacher Residency in Washington, D.C. In our paper, we profiled AppleTree’s unique residency model, which exclusively prepares early educators; you can read more about it on page 30 here. In this conversation, I asked Kelly for more details about how they’re dealing with the common challenges that residencies face.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

What are the barriers that you face in expanding the AppleTree residency?

The first thing that comes to mind is that we have a limited bench of mentor teachers. All of our residents work with a mentor teacher in the classroom. We need to make sure that the mentor teacher is highly effective and will provide a good model for the resident. We’re expanding the residency program, but we don’t have enough mentor teachers to keep up with the increased enrollment. Our hope is that people who are currently in the program will eventually be mentors, but until then, our solution is to build the capacity of current mentors by developing their leadership skills.

We also struggle with raising awareness of the program and making sure we’re recruiting the highest quality candidates to serve within our schools. 

And then finally — but maybe most obviously — we face challenges with funding. We leverage the available funding as best we can, but we need to balance funding the residency program against other AppleTree priorities. Because public funding isn’t enough to provide a high-quality program, we’re constantly making the case to philanthropists that investing in the teacher pipeline is worthwhile. We’ve had to make difficult tradeoffs: We prioritize providing a salary and benefits for our residents, as well as subsidizing tuition for their master’s degree. But in order to do that, we have a very lean administrative team actually running the program, which comes with its own challenges. Continue reading

Why Some Educators Are Skeptical of Engaging in Rigorous Research — And What Can Be Done About It

In my previous post, I talked about the importance of rigorous research and the need for researchers to engage directly with education stakeholders. Yet some educators remain skeptical about the value of partnering with researchers, even if the research is relevant and rigorous. Why might education agencies fail to see the value of conducting rigorous research in their own settings?

For one thing, letting a researcher into the nitty gritty of your outcomes or practices might reveal that something isn’t working. And since it’s rare that educators/practitioners and researchers are even in the same room, education agency staff may be concerned about how findings will be framed once publicized. If they don’t even know one another, how can we expect researchers and educators to overcome their lack of trust and work together effectively?

Furthermore, engaging with researchers takes time and a shift in focus for staff in educational agencies, who are often stretched to capacity with compliance and accountability work. Additionally, education stakeholders may have strong preferences for certain programs or policies, and thus fail to see the importance of assessing whether these are truly yielding measurable improvements in outcomes. Finally, staff at educational agencies may need to devote time to help researchers translate findings, since researchers are not accustomed to creating summaries of research that are accessible to a broad audience.

Given all this, why am I still optimistic about connecting research, practice, and policy? Continue reading

Why Aren’t We Talking About the Lack of Faculty of Color in Schools of Education?

Headlines about teacher diversity issues often neglect to tell an equally important story: the significant dearth of faculty of color in schools of education. Indeed, there is a large racial gap between the 80 percent of white teachers that make up the educator workforce and the over 45 percent minority student population in America’s public schools, where teacher candidates at schools of education are presumably aiming to teach.

For our new publication out yesterday, Max Marchitello and I spoke with a number of faculty and staff from minority serving institutions (MSIs) on the topic of teacher preparation. These conversations and a comprehensive literature review pointed us to a few key ways that teacher preparation in this country can improve, such as building teacher candidates’ cultural awareness, ensuring candidates engage with diverse students and contexts through well-designed field experiences, and increasing diversity in the teacher candidate pool.

However, without a critical mass of faculty of color in these programs, it will be difficult to implement these recommendations. Diverse faculty can make the institution more inclusive for students of color and help disrupt white dominance that leads future educators to be ignorant of the communities they will likely serve.

Over the past thirty years, we have focused on K-12 educator diversity and seen some gains, but we are not seeing reciprocal change in the faculty of schools of education. According to a recent Inside Higher Ed report, the percentage of underrepresented groups as full-time faculty has not changed much over the past two decades. In 2015, African Americans accounted for six percent of full-time faculty in all U.S. universities, whereas African Americans made up 14 percent of the student population in all U.S. universities. Similarly, Hispanic faculty made up five percent of full-time faculty members compared to the 17 percent of Hispanic students in higher education. While there has been progress in the number of minority faculty, significant gaps persist.

Faculty diversity is important to teacher preparation for a few key reasons. First, more diverse faculty helps recruit more diverse teacher candidates, as studies show that students find security in sharing a background or experience with faculty. Second, diverse faculty are important to the issue of helping teacher candidates unpack their own biases and understand the points of view of educators of color. For instance, in a 2008 study, a researcher observed a teacher preparation program’s classroom discussion of bilingualism with a classroom of majority Latino teacher candidates. Initially, white candidates focused on the economic downsides of bilingualism, but then shifted to the moral necessity of dual-language teachers when discussing the topic with Latino classmates. In addition, faculty of color’s research focus and what they incorporate into classes likely will vary from white professors, which will help train all teacher candidates, and offer different, more complete perspectives on classroom management, student discipline, and more.

In order to address faculty diversity, schools of education need to interrogate their hiring practices and eliminate sources of bias. Institutional leadership must carefully examine where disruptions occur for prospective candidates of color in the faculty pipeline. For instance, when the Rowan University College of Education refocused on creating a culture that embraces social justice and equity, leadership began prioritizing hiring faculty specifically embedded in this work.

Without acknowledging that the quality of teacher preparation is inextricably linked to the inclusion of historically underrepresented groups in faculty, teachers will remain insufficiently prepared to educate diverse students. Diversifying faculty, like other changes to long-standing institutions, is undoubtedly a difficult challenge, but it is an incredibly important stride towards educational equity.

I Wish I Had Learned About the Science of the Brain and Toxic Stress

This post is part of a week-long series about educator and leader pipelines. Read the rest of the series here.

The first time I met Martin*, his fellow kindergartners were at the rug listening to a book, and he was under a chair. I was a first-year teacher visiting the students who would be in my first grade class the next year. I watched as Martin noisily crawled under desks while the teacher read aloud; she had clearly reached her limit and decided to attempt to ignore the behavior for the time being. Like me, her teacher training had not prepared her for what to do in the “child-under-desk” scenario.

I resolved that when Martin joined my class the next year, I would make sure that he participated in class activities. I spent the summer reading up on classroom management and student engagement. What I didn’t know until many years later is that there is a body of knowledge on the science of the brain and stress that would have made me a much more effective teacher to Martin — and many of the other students in my class.

The author at the graduation ceremony for her teacher preparation master’s program.

Martin, a stocky, apple-cheeked boy with a winning grin, turned out to be one of my most rewarding and challenging students. Each day that he was in my class, I braced myself for some kind of outburst or confrontation. He threw tantrums, as well as the occasional backpack, book, or pencil. He had a hard time sitting still. He picked fights. He became quickly frustrated and often refused to do work. On the other hand, he regularly made me and his classmates laugh. He relished my praise and listened attentively when I sat down with him one on one. He was so proud and delighted when he finally started to read.

I thought of Martin many times this summer as I read The Deepest Well by renowned pediatrician Nadine Burke Harris. In the book, Harris lays out in detail how adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have a profound impact on children’s and adults’ physical and mental health. She describes her journey to understand and incorporate into her medical practice lessons from a seminal study, published in 1998, that found longterm health effects related to ten specific ACEs: physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; physical and emotional neglect; loss of a parent to death or separation; a parent who is alcoholic, depressed, or mentally ill; or witnessing a mother being abused. Continue reading

Traditional and Teach For America Preparation: One Teacher’s Experience

Courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action

This post is part of a week-long series about educator and leader pipelines. Read the rest of the series here.

While Teach For America (TFA) welcomes fully certified teachers from traditional programs at institutes of higher education, most of their corps members come in and attend TFA’s summer sessions without prior teacher training. Fully certified teachers might wonder if there is a place for them in TFA, and TFA-trained teachers might question what they missed by not having teacher preparation as an undergraduate.

I interviewed one educator who completed both pathways: my daughter Gabriella Nelson. She completed teacher training at Grinnell College, then enrolled in Teach For America and attended their summer institute in the Mississippi Delta region.

Gabriella is now the academic coordinator at the school she joined through TFA six years ago. In addition to overseeing curriculum, she coaches grade 6-12 ELA other subject teachers, bringing lessons from her classroom experience and dual preparation to shape and encourage her colleagues. In our conversation below, we touch on the reason for her choices, the differences in each type of preparation, and what she finds most helpful to prepare teachers.

This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

How did you choose a college for your teacher preparation?
I looked for colleges with good educational programs where I could get my license in four or four and a half years. I picked Grinnell College because I knew that they put you in the classroom earlier than the student teaching programs in other schools. I was in a classroom beginning the second or third semester of college. I also liked that education wasn’t a major — you had to major in a subject, and I felt that was better content than what I perceived some “education major” coursework included.

Grinnell created a strong foundation for knowing how to plan my classes — they did a good job of preparing us in that respect. But the program didn’t talk a lot about classroom management. Another weakness (not their fault) was that learning how to teach in rural Iowa is not necessarily the most translatable experience to where I ended up teaching.

You also chose to participate in Teach For America (TFA) after graduation and attended their summer institute. Tell me about that choice.
I chose TFA in part because they sent me an email in October of my senior year inviting me to meet with them and apply. At that time, I was unsure of where to go teach and I knew their process would help me make that choice. Also, educational inequality was something I wanted to focus on: to be around people who valued making education more equitable.

How did TFA’s summer institute training compare to your traditional training?
Grinnell had a general focus on social justice, but I didn’t get explicit preparation for teaching in diverse settings. TFA’s institute had specific sessions geared towards diversity, equity, and inclusion. For example, we learned how to teach students who didn’t share your culture, and strategies inclusive of all learners. A lot of time was spent on building cultural competency.

You ultimately taught in Memphis with TFA. Did you feel prepared to enter your classroom on the first day?
I felt prepared and then very quickly realized I was not prepared. In theory, I knew what I was supposed to be doing and had my plans, but nothing prepares you to be the only one in the room responsible for all these students. I hadn’t really practiced for that.

In theory, teaching should be easy — best practices, best classroom management, etc. — but you are not teaching in a vacuum. The hardest thing is that you never know what is going to happen. Will there be a fire drill? What kind of attitude will the kids have? Will the school flood? There were so many different things that could happen. Constantly adapting and working through the sheer number of decisions you have to make every day was overwhelming. Responding to students, switching up a lesson, calling out a student for a uniform violation or letting it go — nothing can prepare you for how much decision making is happening all of the time. And those decisions potentially have a long-lasting effect on student outcomes. Learning how to productively manage that pressure takes a lot of practice.

What have your experiences taught you about what works in traditional and/or alternative pipelines for teachers?
More programs should follow the Grinnell-like model where you are in the classroom earlier. I wish more of them would make students really study some content – Grinnell’s academics were more rigorous than some “standard” education preparation programs.

I recommend a more rigorous and regular support system for new teachers: a combination of classroom support, checking in with teachers to make sure things are going okay, and anecdotal coaching to relate to them that you also struggled when you were new. This support is better if it is school-based rather than someone coming in from the outside because every school is different.

After serving as a classroom teacher for three years, and one year split between teaching and administrative work, I’m now a full-time K-12 academic coordinator for about 700 students and 45 – 50 teachers. The value of what I do is that I’ve been here and understand this school’s culture and can coach from that lens. Outsiders may not understand the culture and norms our teachers face. At the very least, the coach should have taught in the same city or the same general environment. A suburban teacher coaching in a Title 1 school is not effective.