Promoting behavioral success in schools: Given this emphasis in these articles on the applied use of behavioral practices, the purpose of this brief commentary is to highlight and comment on some of the big ideas that link these practitioner-focused articles. Specifically, three main questions are addressed: A commentary on an article by Atkins, Graczyk, Frazier, and Abdul-Adil that appeared in this issue on pp.
Rick DuFour and Mike Mattos Instead of micromanaging teachers, principals should lead efforts to collectively monitor student achievement through professional learning communities.
Principals are in a paradoxical position. No Child Left Behind admonished educators to use "scientific, research-based strategies" to ensure that all students learn. Likewise, Race to the Top requires educators to use "research-based" school improvement models.
Unfortunately, the core strategies of both of these reform initiatives largely ignore this call for practices grounded in research. Principals are being asked to improve student learning by implementing mandated reforms that have consistently proven ineffective in raising student achievement.
The current emphasis on using more intensive supervision and evaluation of teachers to improve school performance illustrates this irony. According to Race to the Top guidelines, this more rigorous supervision process should influence a teacher's professional development, compensation, promotion, retention, tenure, and certification.
Ultimately, the evaluations should reward highly effective educators with merit pay and remove those deemed ineffective. Faulty Logic At first glance, this approach to improving schools seems to make sense.
After all, research does say that teacher quality is one of the most significant factors in student learning. Further, there's almost universal agreement that the current system of teacher evaluation in the United States is ineffective.
Like the children of Lake Wobegon, almost all teachers are deemed to be above average, if not superior. Tenured teachers are almost never found to be unsatisfactory.
So why not make tougher evaluation of teachers a cornerstone of school improvement? Why not require principals to spend more time in classrooms supervising and evaluating teachers into better performance? The premise that more frequent and intensive evaluation of teachers by their principals will lead to higher levels of student learning is only valid if two conditions exist.
The first is that educators know how to improve student learning but have not been sufficiently motivated to do so.
The second is that principals have the time and expertise to improve each teacher's professional practice by observing that teacher in the classroom. Neither of these conditions exists. Do Carrots and Sticks Motivate Teachers? We can find no research to support the assumption that educators choose to use mediocre instructional strategies and withhold effective practices until they receive increased financial incentives.
As former principals with almost six decades of experience working with teachers, we found that the members of our faculty, almost without exception, started each day with honorable intentions, worked tirelessly on behalf of their students, and used the best strategies they possessed to promote student success.
Further, there's little evidence to support the idea that offering stronger rewards when educators move in the right direction and applying more dire consequences when they don't—dangling crunchier carrots and wielding sharper sticks—spurs teachers to better performance. A research-based program for improving schools would not be tied to merit pay.
As for wielding sharper sticks, in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Daniel Pink presents compelling evidence that this approach has a decidedly negative effect on the performance of knowledge workers like educators.
This is not new information. Edwards Deming argued that leaders must "drive out fear" from their organizations because appeals to fear resulted in short-term thinking, fostered competition rather than collaboration, and served as a barrier to continual improvement.
A research-based program for improving schools would not be tied to sanctions and punishments intended to generate fear.The actions that we’ve outlined are just a few ways that faculty members and administrators can provide support for students facing immigration-related crises.
Although they are small steps, our research and work with students suggest that they can and do make a difference. For some students, success will be getting a good grade. For others, it might mean increased involvement in class. You can help all of your students attain their full potential, regardless of the way they measure success.
Following are eight strategies that you can employ to help students succeed. These facts make the case, the authors assert, for improving not only the recruitment and training of school principals but also their ongoing development and evaluation. In addition, they cite the need for expanded study of how leadership in other areas of the school community—such as teacher leadership—can contribute to student achievement.
The data collected in this survey reveal optimal areas where a university administration can partner closely with instructors to enhance the student experience in online learning environments and afford online instructors with adequate support and assistance. (Contains 6 tables and 1 figure.).
Goyne () states that” administration should encourage other teachers to seize opportunities to share their strengths with other members of the staff” (p.2).
By providing opportunities, teachers are accepting leadership roles. Furthermore, participating teachers learn new skills to increase student learning. Student-level factors include what students bring into the classroom from home: their overall knowledge and learned intelligence, their motivation and the atmosphere of their home.
A classroom teacher has very little influence on home environment, but can influence learned intelligence and student .