Abstract
Race and class often marginalize students in impoverished urban neighborhoods, and this reality is evident in consistently low student achievement in many of the schools in these neighborhoods. This study examines how a teacher’s sense of agency can help mediate the detrimental impact of poverty on student achievement. Teachers in a large Northeastern urban school district (N = 1,019) were surveyed about how they perceive obstacles to student learning. The study shows that the ways in which teachers think about obstacles to student learning are strong predictors of student achievement regardless of poverty level. The study suggests ways teachers can achieve a greater sense of agency in the classroom.
Introduction
Race and class often marginalize students in impoverished urban neighborhoods, a reality that is evident in consistently low student achievement in many of the schools in these neighborhoods. This is not a particularly new problem. In fact, it is troubling that in spite of initiatives and funding directed at this issue, not much has changed in decades. While debate exists about variables that lead to student achievement, one linkage that stands out clearly is the relationship between poverty and low student achievement (Hannaway, 2005). This is of particular concern because many areas in which poverty is high are often places dominated by Black and Hispanic students (Orfield, 2001; Pallas, Natriello, & McDill, 1989). The challenges faced by these students is compounded by the oppression experienced in a White dominated culture. Limited access to quality education can only serve to add to the level of powerlessness experienced by these groups. This study investigates ways in which teacher outlook and perspective affect student achievement.
If we are to believe, as the data suggest, that poverty can predict student achievement, we must find a way to break this cycle. The reality is that inequities and inequality are still prominent features in public schools. And, these inequities definitely have a substantial impact on students in low-resourced, urban school districts. Classroom teachers have no control over students’ immediate economic situation. Instead, teachers must think broadly about where they have power.
Against this backdrop, this study examines an area in which teachers do have control and the possibility of mediating the effects of poverty. In fact, what I have found is that in this context, teachers’ perceptions can predict student achievement even in the face of poverty. The situational factors that affect students are often out of the teachers’ control. There are many challenges that need to be addressed systemically. Therefore, it is helpful to give teachers a way to see where they have power and agency. While the importance of teachers’ perceptions and sense of self-efficacy have been explored elsewhere (Bandura, 1996; Brophy & Good, 1974; Jussim, 1991), this article suggests that these factors are uniquely important. The research presented in this article demonstrates that teacher perceptions mediate the impact of poverty even in the most low-resourced schools.
Literature Review
Three areas of literature explored in this article are teacher perceptions, locus of control, and normative adult development. These three areas represent the intersection where teacher identity related to self-efficacy is grounded.
Teacher Perceptions
How teachers view their students also can affect student achievement. Almost four decades ago, Brophy and Good (1974) considered the social constructivist perspective of how beliefs often create reality when thinking about the relationship between teachers and their students. They wondered whether children “become” what teachers expect them to be. They found that teachers not only develop expectations for their students early in the year but also typically confirm these expectations over the course of the year. Later research sought to parse out whether teachers were, in fact, good judges of student ability or whether teacher expectations influence students (Jussim, 1991). In a study of 98 teachers and more than 1,700 sixth-grade students in 79 different school districts, Jussim (1991) attempted to assess to what degree teacher expectations were accurate. He found that teachers’ evaluations of students were biased and that teacher expectations changed student achievement through self-fulfilling prophecies (Brophy, 1982).
Later research also confirmed that teacher expectancies influence student performance more strongly than student performance influences teachers’ perceptions (Miller & Turnbull, 1986).
While researchers tended to agree with the finding that teacher expectations did affect student achievement, the question of how much teacher expectations create versus reflect student achievement still remained. Initially, Dweck (1978) attempted to answer this question, reporting that teachers are more likely to attribute boys’ success to ability and girls’ to effort. In more recent research, Dweck (2007) contends that helping students view effort as a more important variable than ability is integral in long term academic success.
Locus of Control
Along with the long history of studies examining teachers’ perceptions of student achievement, there is a history related to how teachers perceive their own power and self-efficacy in classrooms. Rotter (1966) described the idea of teachers’ internal and external loci of control. She suggested that teachers with internal loci of control see the relationship between their actions and student outcomes. Moreover, Rotter reported that teachers with an external locus of control do not see a relationship between their actions and student outcomes.
Allensworth (2012) suggested that when teachers perceive they have influence in their schools, they are more likely to remain. Influence in this case is described as a place where teachers work together to improve instruction and where the leadership includes teachers in instructional decision making. Furthermore, Allensworth (2012) reported that the schools with the characteristics described above show large improvements in student learning when compared with schools where teachers do not feel supported by one another and leadership around instructional decisions.
Theoretical Grounding
Normative adult development and the role of teacher perceptions are central to this study. While adulthood is often seen as a more stable time in the life span, there is no magic birthday when vulnerability melts away and adults become completely self-assured. Therefore, as adults, teachers are continually developing and coping with how their self-perceptions jibe with their daily challenges. Both of these overarching themes are considered within the framework of Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory (PVEST; Spencer, 1995, 2006), a way to consider context from the perspective of the teacher.
PVEST is a cyclical model representing developmental processes that continue throughout the life course. This model (Spencer, 1995) demonstrates how perceived stress plays a part in how individuals make decisions and how those decisions affect their emergent identities. As a dynamic systems theory, PVEST helps to frame how vulnerability, stress, and coping are inextricably related to individual identity development. Within the context of this study, PVEST supports an understanding of how normative adult development plays a role in how teachers cope with the stress of teaching and how their coping mechanisms affect how they see themselves and perceive their students. Within the educational context, factors such as school climate and teachers’ relationships with supervisors may act as sources of stress or buffers to help protect against stress. PVEST is used to help conceptualize how teachers’ relationships and perceptions are linked to how they view themselves as professionals.
Spencer’s (1995) PVEST helps to explain the dynamic bi-directional influences of teachers’ self-appraisal processes and risks with the way they cope and form identities.
In addition, PVEST provides an identity-focused cultural ecological (ICE) perspective that effectively and explicitly links thinking about identity and context. PVEST is presented with five components: net vulnerability, net stress, reactive coping strategies, emergent identities, and life stage outcomes. The first part of the model net vulnerability level is focused on one’s context, both in terms of protective factors and risk contributors. Factors that may lead to negative outcomes are categorized as risk contributors, while buffers to negative outcomes are conceptualized as protective factors.
Low academic performance, strained relationships, and school violence are the major themes representing the school district at the time of this study. Each of these realities can be viewed through the lens of PVEST. Teachers face challenges ranging from day-to-day scheduling conflicts to school violence. These stressors contribute to the teachers’ net stress. In many cases, too few supports were available to teachers to help counteract the challenges faced. From a PVEST perspective, the remaining questions include how teachers react given the existing conditions and how their identities might shape and be shaped by the coping strategies used.
Using a PVEST, one can think about teachers and the factors that pose risks for them both personally and professionally. The role of self-appraisal in this process is worth considering. The social status and stereotypes of teachers that exist both locally and globally may have influence. When considering the myriad of challenges that teachers face in addition to the special challenges associated with underresourced schools, it is understandable that teachers may view themselves and their students more negatively. Teachers might be left with many questions: Is this profession what they originally imagined and hoped for, and how is the profession viewed by others? Does the outside perspective on teachers affect an individual teacher’s job satisfaction, performance, or self-appraisal? How does the context of the district in turmoil affect the everyday experience of teaching?
This study explores how teacher perceived obstacles to student learning influence student achievement. This examination is built on a theoretical perspective that assumes that as humans, everyone is vulnerable insofar as they possess both protective factors and risk factors that have implications for themselves and others. Thus, in the case of teachers, perceiving and experiencing support as a protective factor have implications for their identities and professional efficacy as teachers and should be associated with student outcomes. However, risk factors that function as challenges and obstacles matter for producing outcomes for self and students.
Method
Data for this study were collected from 31 high schools in a large urban district in the Northeastern United States. More than 1,200 teachers responded to the survey. Only surveys with no missing data were retained for analysis, which reduced the usable number of respondents to 1,019. Data were aggregated at the school level to create a school level profile for analysis. The district is largely underresourced and low achieving. Many of the students served in the district live in poverty as determined using the state guidelines for free and reduced lunches. Furthermore, the school poverty level is represented by the percentage of enrolled students who are eligible for either free or reduced lunch. School poverty levels range from 40.3% to 84.5%.
The outcome variable in this study is academic achievement as measured by the state standardized test scores. This standardized test includes subtests for English Language Arts and Mathematics. The main dependent variable in this study is achievement. I used test scores as the measure of achievement in these analyses. This particular test is a standards-based, criterion referenced assessment used to measure a student’s attainment of the state’s academic standards while also determining the degree to which school programs enable students to attain proficiency of the standards. The scores obtained through the testing system are used to inform decisions about whether the schools are sufficiently making academic strides as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB Act, PL 107-110, 2002). This test utilizes category labels to represent four different student achievement levels including (a) advanced (standardized test scores of 1,492 and above), (b) proficient (standardized test scores of 1,257-1,491), (c) basic (standardized test scores of 1,112-1,256), and (d) below basic (standardized test scores of 1,111 and below). The current data were represented by 1 school (15 teachers) from the advanced level, 3 schools (117 teachers) from the proficient level, 4 schools (226 teachers) from the basic level, and 23 schools (661 teachers) from the below basic level.
Teachers responded to a large survey conducted by a University Consortium that consisted of almost 200 items and asked teachers to respond in relation to many aspects of school climate. Because some of the items on the larger survey were of particular interest, I pulled the items that focus on teachers’ perceptions of themselves and their students, and created a subscale called Obstacles to Student Learning (OSL). The OSL Scale is a 12-item self-report measure that assesses teachers’ perceptions of their students.
The OSL Scale deals specifically with perceptions that teachers hold about the factors impeding student learning. The OSL includes items such as “The attitudes and habits of my students greatly reduces their chances for academic success,” “The lack of basic skills of students greatly reduce their chances for academic success,” and “Poor student attendance greatly reduces their chances for academic success.” Participants responded to each item using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The OSL Scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .79).
Analysis
Utilizing mediators in this analysis is essentially a statistical translation of the PVEST model used to conceptualize the overall study. A mediator variable is one that explains the relationship between two other variables. In this study, I am considering OSL as a mediator between poverty and student achievement. The mediator, OSL, helps establish how and why poverty predicts achievement (Baron & Kenny, 1986). If it is true that fewer perceived obstacles mediate the relationship between poverty level and achievement, one can argue that teachers’ outlook concerning their students may act as a buffer to the stress that accompanies low-resource schools and children living with poverty. From a PVEST perspective, a trusting relationship between teachers and principals may support positive coping strategies for teachers who are faced with challenges.
Hierarchical Multiple Regression
This study explores the predictive ability of a set of contextual variables on the outcome of student achievement. The contextual variables represent both the real and perceived obstacles that include teachers’ perceptions of barriers to supporting student achievement in their schools. Given the wealth of evidence that poverty is a good predictor of achievement, it is expected to see that same result in these data. However, I am interested in examining whether perceived obstacles can mediate the effect of poverty on student achievement.
To test the mediation effect of perceived obstacles in a multiple regression, the analysis will utilize the four-step method established by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, I test to see whether there is, in fact, a significant relationship between poverty levels and school achievement. Next, I check to see that there is a significant relationship between the predictor (poverty) and the mediator (perceived obstacles). The third step is to test whether the mediator (perceived obstacles) is related to the outcome variable (student achievement). Last, I will examine that the strength of the relationship between the predictor (poverty) and the outcome (achievement) is significantly reduced when the mediator (perceived obstacles) is added to the model (Figure 1).
Diagram of path in mediation model.
Results
To analyze the mediating impact of perceptions of obstacles on student achievement, I took a step-by-step approach that is outlined in this section. I will begin with introducing the main research question addressed in the study and then show a model and provide some explanation at each step.
The primary question addressed here is, “Do perceived obstacles mediate the relationship between poverty level and student achievement?”
To test for mediation, I used multiple regression in four steps (see Figures 2 and 3).
Diagram of paths in mediation model.
Diagram of paths in mediation model with standardized coefficients.
Step 1
In this first step, I explored whether there is a significant relationship between poverty levels and student achievement (Figure 2, path c). Poverty level accounts for 57% of the variance in student achievement, F(1, 29) = 41.05, p < 001. As expected, high levels of poverty are significantly related to lower student achievement.
Step 2
In the second step, I attempted to show that poverty level is related to my mediator (perceived obstacles; Figure 2, path a). In this case, poverty level accounts for 62% of the variance in perceived obstacles, F(1, 27) = 46.7, p < .001. In the cases where poverty levels are high, teachers perceive a greater degree of obstacles to student learning.
Step 3
In the third equation, the outcome variable (student achievement) is regressed on both the predictor (poverty level) and the mediator (perceived obstacles). This provides a test of whether perceived obstacles are related to student achievement (Figure 2, path b), as well as an estimate of the relation between the predictor (poverty level) and student achievement when controlling for the mediation effect. In this step, these two variables account for 75% of the variance in student achievement, F(2, 26) = 43.9, p < .001 (Figure 2, path c).
Step 4
In this step, I explore whether the strength of the relationship between poverty levels and student achievement is significantly reduced when the mediator is added to the model. The obstacles perceived by teachers significantly mediate the relationship between poverty level and student achievement. As shown in Figure 3, the initial standardized coefficient between poverty level and student achievement is −.753. After accounting for the mediation effect, that coefficient drops to −.151.
Discussion
The aim of this project was to explore a new way to think about how to support student achievement. As such, student achievement was the main outcome variable. In this section, I will discuss the basic relationship between poverty and student achievement, self-efficacy and its relationship to adaptive coping strategies, and recommendations for teacher education and professional development.
The initial finding in this article that poverty is a strong predictor of student achievement is consistent with what has been found in many other studies of schools serving children in poverty (Hannaway, 2005). The result was expected because this large urban school district suffers from the same systemic issues that have made zip codes a good predictor of student achievement more generally (Blank et al., 1999). However, this was an important result because I hoped to show that low achievement does not have to be a foregone conclusion for children in poverty. With this in mind, I tested to see whether teachers’ perceptions of obstacles to student learning could make a difference for schools where poverty levels are high. This study demonstrates that teachers’ perceptions do make a difference. Even in schools with high poverty, student achievement is higher when teachers perceive fewer obstacles.
Similar to previous findings (Anderson et al., 1992; Hannaway, 2005; Howley & Bickel, 2000), analyses showed that poverty level is negatively related to achievement. More specifically, in schools where relative poverty levels were high, student test scores were lower. In addition, although higher poverty was associated with lower test scores, it was associated with teachers’ perceptions of [more] obstacles to student learning. The size of the school is also associated with student achievement. Schools with larger enrollments tended to report lower test scores. These analyses demonstrated that even when poverty levels were high, teachers’ perceptions of obstacles to student learning were able to mediate the effect of poverty. This is a hopeful result because it suggests that under seemingly adverse conditions, teachers can make a difference just by reframing how they think about their students.
In the process of examining the data, I also found that schools reporting higher test scores also employ teachers who have been teaching for a longer period of time in the school district. While the length of time that teachers had been in the district or teaching, in general, is positively related to higher state standardized test scores, the number of years they spent in particular schools was not related. The following pages will discuss these findings and the implications they may have for some of our most vulnerable youth.
From a PVEST perspective, teachers and students are vulnerable in schools with higher poverty. For the students, limited resources may mean they are facing immediate challenges that seem more important than school. Moreover, it may be understandable that teachers in historically underperforming schools would percieve a high level of obstacles from students who seemingly do not prioritize school. However, the types of obstacles that are expressed by teachers suggest either adaptive or maladaptive coping. Lowered expectations of students as a function of attributing obstacles to student learning as completely beyond the teachers’ control is a maladaptive coping strategy that negatively impacts a teacher’s ability to support student learning.
Coping and Self-Efficacy
Understanding how teachers cope with stressors that develop and how their perceptions affect achievement is important. The OSL Scale allows us to see whether teachers feel that the barriers to student achievement are within their control. Much like Rotter (1966) conceptualized, teachers who see the connection between what they do and student performance are those with an internal locus of control. This study suggests that teachers with an internal locus of control produce students who perform better, even under adverse circumstances. From a PVEST perspective, having an internal locus of control is an adaptive coping strategy that leads to a more positive identity as a teacher—one of self-efficacy. Conversely, coping maladaptively with the challenges associated with teaching may result in an external locus of control and a feeling that “there is nothing I can do” when faced with challenges in the classroom. The relationship between perceptions of obstacles to student learning and teachers’ feelings of agency has important implications. Providing teachers the knowledge that how students are viewed and how they choose to cope with the inevitable stressors that come with the profession of teaching may have an impact on students’ performance.
Teachers face a myriad of challenges including designing lessons, classroom management, professional development, and differentiating instruction. I attempted to focus on the challenges that are not always recognized readily; these include the perceptions and expectations teachers have about their students and personal feelings of self-efficacy as evidenced by the degree to which teachers perceive obstacles to student learning in the classroom and school. This section further addresses how this research speaks to teacher agency and self-efficacy, and methods that have helped teachers’ ability to shift perspectives of themselves and students.
Relating Perceptions of Obstacles With Self-Efficacy
The OSL Scale is not a direct measure of self-efficacy—even so, clear indicators in the measure would suggest that responses to the obstacles measure would be related to teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy. For instance, the items included in the obstacles scale suggest that teachers who perceive greater obstacles to student learning may also feel that the successes and failures of their students are outside of their control. Items such as “lack of basic skills of students,” “lack of motivation among students,” and “poor student attendance” all put the onus on the student. Based on this measure, it does not seem that teachers are seeking solutions to improving student achievement in their own practice. Then again, teachers who have low self-efficacy may truly believe that they do not have the power to make substantive changes (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). These may very well be teachers whose negative sense of self gets in the way of their ability to solve classroom problems effectively. Although this scale did not provide many opportunities for teachers to reflect on their own practice, the two items that follow were related to teachers taking personal responsibility for student learning. Teachers responded to the question, “Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the following items hinder or prevent the students you teach from learning.” The items were, “My own lack of skill in communicating content” and “My own lack of mastery of the content I am teaching.” These two items suggested teachers’ perception that the power to influence achievement is derived from teacher practice. No significant correlations between these two items were found with any of the other variables of interest in the study including, but not limited to, achievement and trust.
In addition to the OSL Scale, two other teacher characteristic variables were good predictors of student achievement. These two variables represent the number of years the teacher has been in the district and the total number of years the respondent has been teaching. This is an interesting finding because it sheds light on the type of teacher who is resilient in the profession. It suggests that teachers who not only remain in the profession but also are committed to the district over time are linked with the most successful students. The combination of low perceived OSL and persistence in the profession of teaching is shown to be the best predictor of student achievement. The data suggest that teachers need to believe they can make a difference. Findings from Bandura (1996) also support this link.
Bandura’s study recognized that teachers’ belief that they could motivate and support student learning influenced the kind of learning environment they created for their students and the level of academic progress the students achieved.
With respect to teacher beliefs, the OSL Scale gave respondents the opportunity to identify factors over which they have some control, such as decision making; voicing concerns and variables outside of their control, including principal backing them up; and creating community. Teachers who identified variables outside of their control were classified as perceiving more OSL. These teachers view OSL as insurmountable. As predicted, teachers in schools where students are performing better academically report fewer obstacles. Conversely, teachers from lower performing schools report a greater number of obstacles.
Self-efficacy, as measured by obstacles, for teachers is shown to be extremely powerful in this study. Teachers’ belief that they can make a difference—that they have the power to create change—may be a deciding factor in whether change is created. However, the nature of the profession of teaching leaves teachers with a great deal of autonomy. Depending on the leadership style of the principal, the autonomy may take the form of neglect. If there is neglect, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to achieve or sustain a sense of positive self-efficacy. However, principals who initiate trusting relationships have the opportunity to provide the support teachers need to follow through on ideas that can lead to a greater sense of self-efficacy and fewer perceived obstacles.
Principals who support teacher self-efficacy are those with clear visions for their school that are effectively communicated to their teachers; they model the behavior they would like to see and are seen by teachers as open, reliable, and competent (Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Without the support of the principals, teachers are left with the wrong kind of autonomy. Blasé and Kirby (2000) describe “autonomy to” and “autonomy from” as competing models in schools. Some teachers report that they desire “autonomy from” intervention by principals. In these schools, teachers displayed a sense of helplessness, boredom, and defensiveness. Teachers who desired “autonomy from” also displayed a lack of commitment to the school and often avoidance behavior measured by frequent absences. However, teachers who desire “autonomy to” equate principal effectiveness with the trust that teachers can make meaningful instructional decisions (Blasé & Kirby, 2000). These teachers have a greater feeling that their expertise can be positive forces in helping students make academic strides.
Based on the data in this study, one might conclude that teachers in the schools with low academic performance and teachers who view obstacles to student learning as outside of their control also fall into the category of teachers who desire “autonomy from” rather than “autonomy to.” Other research (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005) on teacher autonomy recognizes that teachers have a great deal of power to impede initiatives if they do not buy in to them. Teachers may simply “withhold full effort” when it comes to an initiative being attempted (Tschannen-Moran, 2004, p. 66). This can happen when teachers do not feel that their input has been taken seriously or when decisions are made without asking for their input at all. Tschannen-Moran (2004) writes about “contrived collaboration” where school administration makes a decision and then asks for teacher participation afterward. Teachers recognize that their input is not taken seriously and effectively the teachers’ efforts are shut down.
Recommendations for Shifting Teacher Perspectives
Critical theorists (Freire, 1970; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Paris & Ayers, 1994) have long understood that one of the most valuable practices that a teacher can engage in is critical self-reflection. Yet, much of the professional development opportunities provided for teachers are not about self-reflection at all. Instead, professional development for teachers is often focused on practical classroom teaching methodologies. To be sure, new methods for teaching are important. However, learning the procedures without reflection on how and why these methods work (or do not work), and with which students they will work best, and under what circumstances may leave teachers mal-equipped to deal with challenges when they arise. A possible remedy to this limitation in current professional development models may be a focus on teacher research.
Teacher research as described by Cochrane-Smith and Lytle (1999) is a form of practitioner inquiry where the classroom teacher generates knowledge. This is in contrast to the typical model where teachers are given strategies to use in the classrooms, and it ends there. Some teachers utilize the new strategies, some do not, and very few look closely at the strategies to see what works. From a teacher research perspective, teachers would both try out a new strategy, and systematically examine how it works, and make changes based on what they find. Or, teachers would devise teaching strategies on their own based on close consideration of their students and classroom context.
The type of practitioner inquiry supported by Cochrane-Smith and Lytle (1999) and many others lends itself to a greater sense of self-efficacy in teachers. By design, teachers are given the power to make decisions that will support student success. I believe that the findings in this study support the practice of teacher research and inquiry. Through the process of teacher research, teachers generate the knowledge that informs their practice. This is very different from the traditional model of teachers being given information and research that they need to apply to their classrooms. In the latter example, the research is generated outside of the classroom and may not be the right fit for the context where it is being applied. In the teacher research model, the teacher in the context generates the knowledge where it will be applied. This model is likely to increase a sense of internal control and thereby to improve student performance. Therefore, teacher education and professional development should support a “teacher-as-researcher” model.
At the same time, I want to caution that these findings do not suggest that low student performance is the fault of the teacher. While I hope that teachers will discover that their own sense of agency can have a positive impact on student achievement, I want to stress that teachers who do not enjoy that sense of agency are not deficient. Instead, they may be coping as well as they can in school contexts that are often maladaptive. It is my hope that offering the knowledge teachers can make a difference with a change in coping strategies and perspectives, will influence administrators to support their teachers in more effective ways. Discovering how teachers view OSL can mediate the effects of poverty on student achievement. These results, combined with earlier studies, suggest that additional research needs to focus on how to help teachers reframe how they think about OSL. What are the characteristics of teachers who perceive fewer OSL? Research can explore whether this is related to teachers’ cultural identity, personality, age, or some other variable. It would also be helpful to conceptualize ways in which we can help teachers reframe their expectations for students and develop stronger senses of their own self-efficacy.
Conclusion
This article examines how teachers’ ideas about themselves and their students can affect student achievement. We know that poverty often predicts student achievement in some of the most underperforming schools. However, it is not acceptable to decide that educators have no power in contexts serving students with limited economic resources. The research presented here suggests that teachers have the power to mediate the impact of poverty by refocusing their view about OSL. Teachers must be supported in their efforts to understand and embrace the places in which they have power. These places include exploring ways that a teacher could change his or her own practice to make positive change for students and to spend time strategizing about the areas in which teachers have control instead of tunneling in on issues that are beyond a teacher’s reach.
In the current educational context, teachers may be feeling overburdened by testing requirements and, quite frankly, scared that their performance and dedication to the profession will be judged as a function of students’ test scores. This anxiety is understandable and especially salient in schools that serve children from low-resourced backgrounds. I hope this article will serve as a call to action in support of development and growth for pre-service and in-service teachers. Teacher preparation programs and in-service professional development can be reimagined to encourage a strong and healthy sense of self-efficacy that can be translated into higher academic achievement for all students.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.