A brief history of the mounting pressures in Education.
Many educators refer to the decision to teach as a calling. I would gather, these educators are also centered in many spheres of their lives as helpers. They slip into this role naturally in a professional setting. Who better to help, than our next generation of learners? However, a snowball effect began in the early 2000s, which created rising demands for the content taught, student performance, and teacher accountability measures, including rigorous evaluation systems. Professional development (PD) often focused on academic achievement, but few opportunities for PD brought to light the importance of the teacher-student relationship on student achievement, a crucial component for the coming years.
Impact of NCLB on Teachers
The pressure mounting on teachers began in the early 2000s with the nation’s intention set toward a uniform, standards-based curriculum. In the year 2001, the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act drew attention to instructional content across the nation, having a direct impact on what teachers were doing each day in the classroom. Several authors questioned the impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on teacher commitment and job satisfaction (Dee & Jacob, 2010; Grissom, 2014; Williams, 2008). Despite hypothesizing the negative effect due to teachers focusing on academic material over student relationships, teaching to the test, and having less autonomy over classroom content, in a surprising turn, many teachers reported feeling more support and attentiveness to education from families, administrators, and the general public (Grissom, 2014). In addition, even though there were many factors affecting student achievement out of teachers’ control, authors Grissom et al. (2014) gathered data that suggested in the years following the NCLB act, teacher commitment and job satisfaction were higher than in previous years. Although appearing to unite schools in their desire to meet NCLB’s demand of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), research was somewhat contradictory to reports from urban settings with more diversity (Williams, 2008), which stated that the lack of funding in these areas ultimately impacted students’ readiness to perform on standardized tests. This, in turn, had a part in unfairly impacting teacher evaluation scores and demoralizing teachers from these diverse, urban settings. Williams (2008) suggested money would have been better spent on increasing teacher salaries for these areas, as an attempt to attract higher quality teachers and compensate for the challenges of teaching underprivileged students. Williams argued that NCLB allocated funds in all the wrong places, and the focus should have pivoted from the curriculum to the retention and attraction of highly qualified educators. Soon enough, the accountability would shift from curricula to educators, but perhaps not in the way that this author imagined.
From Standards to Teacher-Based Accountability
In the years after NCLB, the wave of educational reforms refocused on teacher accountability, viewing teachers as the engine for student performance on state tests. Media outlets report this charge as largely beneficial for teachers, even touting a pay raise as part of the benefit for increased student performance (Sawchuk, 2009). With this new wave came the implicit understanding that the burden of responsibility was now placed on teachers, emphasizing the importance of administrators retaining highly qualified teachers. In 2009, the Gates Education Foundation (GATES) introduced a 575 million dollar grant that would help the United States reach this goal, linking student achievement to teacher salaries, and rewarding the participating counties with millions of dollars for providing evidence of highly qualified teachers and effective professional development. Teachers in these states were evaluated by a combination of their administration, peer evaluators, and of course, student testing scores. In 2011, the Department of Education offered state waivers to bypass some requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, but states were required to show proof of linking student achievement outcomes to teacher evaluation systems. When GATES funding ran out, many states removed teacher salary compensation, however, teacher evaluation systems remained in place, taking into account student performance on standardized tests, and judging teacher efficacy based on student outcomes. Thus, student outcomes, measured solely by academic performance, were forever linked to modern-day teachers’ evaluation and efficacy considerations. As teachers adjusted to this new norm, an unprecedented challenge approached in the background; the global pandemic of 2020.
COVID-19 Pandemic Complications
With the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic requiring virtual instruction, families saw a window into the challenges of motivating students and keeping engagement high during instruction. For a brief moment, there was parent-teacher solidarity in the public eye, as parents at home struggled to navigate the challenges of supporting their students academically. A glimmer of hope emerged as the public realized educating “every child” required much more effort than what was commonly believed.
To fill in the pandemic learning gaps, teachers found themselves shifting instructional measures to continue to meet these high demands. Comparisons across the country about who was “doing it best” triggered even more maladaptive behaviors in teaching professionals, who strived to make up for the lost time in the classroom by working late, being available 24/7 to students through email, and giving countless hours of extra help. As authors Kise & Holm (2022) note, this accumulation of maladaptive habits is hard to change, especially in a culture that reinforces the overextension of teacher bandwidth. More powerful than any monetary amounts are the dopamine hits from positive labeling: the teacher who constantly checks emails is “attentive and available” and the after-hours extra help is seen as “dedication” to her profession. Commended as superheroes, many teachers were willing to drain their mental health reservoirs to meet the needs of their students. Generally speaking, it is rare for career demands to switch so swiftly, but more common in helper roles such as nursing, public service professions, and education, where being in the business of people requires a higher level of emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills. Most of the educators surviving in the current climate of their workplace have drawn on emotional agility, which is likely a pre-existing personality trait versus learned practice.
The return to the in-person classroom in 2021 was welcomed, but the lack of normalcy was alarming; teachers found themselves juggling students’ varying emotional needs in the wake of a pandemic. Many students entered the classroom with trauma from adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), resulting in hard-to-manage behaviors and social learning deficits. The ability to adapt to a changing audience of personalities, of emotional needs, and connect with multiple students in light of this variation was an untaught skill set for both pre-service and veteran teachers. And so, educators and school leaders turned to the growing body of research investigating the impact of student behaviors on teacher wellness, teacher efficiency, and student achievement (Aldrup, 2018; Brunzell et al., 2021; Luthar & Mendes, 2020; Wall, 2021).
Sources
Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126-136.
Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2021). Trauma-informed teacher wellbeing: Teacher reflections within trauma-informed positive education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(5), 91-107.
Dee, T., & Jacob, B.A. (2010). The impact of No Child Left Behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 149-207.
Grissom, J. A., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Harrington, J. (2014). Estimating the effects of no child left behind on teachers’ work environments and job attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 417-436.
Luthar, S. S., & Mendes, S. H., (2020). Trauma-informed schools: Supporting educators as they support the children. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology,8(2), 147-157.
Kise, J. A. G., & Holm, A. C. (2022). Educator Bandwidth: How to reclaim your energy, passion, and time. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Sawchuk, S. (2009, November 19). Winners named for Gates teacher grants. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/winners-named-for-gates-teacher-grants/2009/11
Wall, C. R. G. (2021). Relationship over reproach: Fostering resilience by embracing a trauma-informed approach to elementary education. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 30(1), 118–137.
Williams, J. (2008). The war on education: The negative impact of the no child left behind act on inner-city public schools, students, and teachers. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 11(3), 573–598.
Curious Kate 