We often pay little attention to the dynamics of how schools assign teachers & students to classes. However, these decisions matter on multiple levels because relationships are at the core of education.
Our study unpacks the multidimensional effects of having a teacher twice.
/2
Having a repeat teacher is more common than we might think.
In TN, the context of our study, we find that 44% of students in grades 3-11 were taught by a teacher more than once during our eight year panel.
/3
The vast majority of repeat student-teacher matches appear unintentional rather than formal policies such as looping teachers w/ entire classes across multiple grades.
/4
Elementary school students often have the same teacher twice when a teacher makes a permanent change to a higher grade.
Secondary school students have repeat teachers primarily because MS and HS teachers teach classes across multiple grades.
/5
Understanding the effects of having the same teacher multiple times is critical b/c:
1) It is happening now, largely unintentionally
2) Intentional looping has been proposed as a potential approach to better support students in the wake of COVID-19
This presents a challenge because student & teacher assignments are not random. We leverage panel data methods to isolate plausibly exogenous variation in exposure to repeat teachers using a range of high-dimensional fixed effects & complement these w/ sorting tests.
7/
We find that repeat teachers increase students’ test scores across all grade levels. Effects on tests scores are 0.02 (SD), equivalent to a 0.10/0.15 SD improvement in the distribution of teacher quality.
This is relatively small, but encouraging given the minimal $ costs.
8/
We also find that these repeat interactions decrease absences and disciplinary infractions for students across grade levels.
Absences ⬇️ by 0.5% overall
Suspensions ⬇️ by 1 percentage point (a 10% reduction)
Again, not large but certainly consequential.
9/
We also find substantial heterogeneity in the effect of repeat teachers.
Test score gains are most pronounced among higher-performing & white female students, while gains in attendance and discipline are largest for lower-performing students and male students of color.
10/
Our results may even **understate** the potential benefits of intentional looping. We find evidence that the effects of having a repeat teacher are larger when there are more students in a class who have the teacher for a second time - consistent with positive peer effects.
11/
Looping is not costless. It requires teachers to master new pedagogical content & skills.
Teachers gain grade-specific skills w/ experience @david_blazar
But the benefits we find suggest there are also important returns to increased experience working w/ the same students.
Repeat students & teachers have more time to get to know each other’s teaching styles & learning needs, as well as to develop stronger relationships.
13/
There is now evidence from TN as well IN (@nayoung_edu@BrianKisida Koedel), NC (Hill @daniel_b_jones), and even Chile (Albornoz, Contreras & Upward) suggesting that the positive returns to additional teaching experience w/ the same students is a widely generalizable pattern.
14/
This paper by @LeighWedenoja, John Papay (@BrownEduDept) and me has been a long time in the making, and we are thrilled to share this updated version.
A Brief How-to Guide to Public Engagement in #Academia.
📦in 10 tips . . .
1) Adopt a Healthy Mindset
Avoid public engagement burnout by deciding what amount of energy and time you want to invest. Don’t compare yourself to others by counting followers or bylines. Do as much or as little as you want, and lean into the aspects that bring you joy.
2) Understand What Makes Your Research Relevant
Public engagement is much more effective when you can articulate how your research relates to and informs questions that are of interest to families, communities, and the general public. Think purposefully about this connection.
I hope this attention elevates the importance of teachers' work and pushes us to reflect as a society about how we value and support the teaching profession.
Here are my three 🗣️ sound bites 🗣️ for framing this issue.
1. Teacher shortages are REAL, but they are not UNIVERSAL.
E.g. they occur (sometimes acutely) in pockets - in some regions, for some schools, for some position types. The overall degree of shortages can move up or down, but it is not broadly spread or distributed equally.
2. "Teacher shortages" 🚫
"Teacher shortages AT current wages and working conditions" ✅
Talking about teacher shortages in the abstract makes the problem sound intractable and implies supply is fixed. Existing shortages are of our own making and are within our ability to fix.
I typically have between 6 to 12 undergrad RAs working with me at a time. Expectations are to work 5 to 10 hours a week w/ flexibility around midterms & finals. Students are paid an hourly wage set by University. I aim to have students be part of team for at least a year. 2/
Tip #1) Recruit students early (e.g. sophomores). There are large fixed costs to training RAs so the payoff to both prof. and students is much higher when students work with you for multiple years. 3/
"Apply DiD in context, not every 2x2, mostly event studies"
2. First, some framing. I study the economics of ed & ed policy. DiD is a bread & butter method in this context where there is large amounts of variation in policy adoption across states/districts/schools.
3. I’ve been collecting DiD method papers for well over a year, putting off a close read until finally my R&Rs all started to ask: but what about the new DiD lit?
I'm thrilled to share that our paper "The Big Problem with Little Interruptions to Classroom Learning" is forthcoming at @AeraOpen ensuring open access to policymakers & practitioners.
"Public address systems are the most malevolent intruder into the thinking taking place in public school classrooms since the invention of the flickering light. In the name of efficient management, they regularly eviscerate good teaching. . . "
2/n
"[Interruptions] are a symbol of misplaced priorities, of schools that fail to value conditions for serious intellectual activity."
3/n