Teachers and students
Here, I summarize four recent studies of experiences at school, focusing on teachers, students, diagnostic categories, and race. This is a longer than usual post, but the studies are related in dealing with expectations and biases. First, Chunta & DuPaul (2022) published “Educational Diagnostic Label and Teacher Self-efficacy: Impact on classroom intervention choice” in School Psychology. I’m going to start with the impact statement, then part of the abstract:
General education elementary school teachers are more likely to select academic interventions (AIs) for children with learning disabilities as compared to ADHD, based on the student’s diagnostic label as compared to their specific areas of need. Consequently, academic needs in children with ADHD may be overlooked based on the impact of their diagnostic label on intervention selection. Although teacher self-efficacy may predict teacher selection of specific class-based AIs, it does not moderate the relationship between diagnostic label and intervention selection.
This study examined the relationship between diagnostic label and teacher self-efficacy on intervention choice using a sample of 206 general education elementary school teachers (female = 69.9%; White = 60.7%). Results showed that teachers were significantly more likely to endorse AIs for children with SLD as compared to ADHD (ds = 0.29–0.35), even when children had identical academic needs. Furthermore, self-efficacy did not moderate this relationship but was an individual predictor of intervention endorsement.
Tragically, these data are consistent with my experience, in that kids with ADHD tend to be given the “poor kid you can’t do anything for” expectation while the learning-disabled diagnosis elicits moves to help the student learn more easily. The next study is similarly distressing.
Second, Bergold & Steinmayr (2023) published “Teacher Judgments Predict Developments in Adolescents’ School Performance, Motivation, and Life Satisfaction” in Journal of Educational Psychology: Teachers’ judgments of what their students are able to achieve have been documented to impact student performance, in the sense of a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, because those effects were mostly small, some researchers have disputed their practical importance. The present study documents unique direct effects of teacher judgments on math and reading performance, ability self-concepts, educational aspirations, and life satisfaction in reading only. The results also show that these effects encompass both negative effects of underestimation and positive effects of overestimation. Teacher judgments thus affect many student outcomes at the same time, underscoring their practical importance for students’ lives. In addition, results suggest that overestimations, not accurate teacher judgments, are most conducive to adolescents’ performance and socio-emotional development.
The present study investigated the effects of teacher under- and overestimations on adolescents’ school performance in math and reading, motivational constructs (ability self-concepts, intrinsic motivation, and educational aspirations), and subjective well-being. Participants were 1,092 ninth graders (roughly half female, mean age 15), 52 math teachers, and 48 German instruction teachers. Teacher judgments uniquely and directly predicted developments over 1 year in performance (math and reading), ability self-concepts, aspirations for both school education, vocational education and life satisfaction in reading only. The significant effects were located at the student level. Both math and German teachers showed a tendency to overestimate their students on average. Underestimation had negative effects and overestimation had positive effects; most effects were linear.
I love this study because it suggests that teachers who overestimate students’ potentials are much more effective in developing positive student attitudes and motivation.
The next two studies deal with race. The third study, Hwang & Markson (2023) published “Black and White Children’s Race-based Information Endorsement and Teacher Preference: Effects of school and neighborhood racial demographics” in Developmental Psychology. I am beginning with the impact statement, then an edited abstract: This study reports findings that Black and White children in the United States are more likely to endorse information from, and to choose as teachers, White adults compared to Black adults. Children attending schools with a greater number of Black teachers and living in zip codes with a larger Black population are more likely to select Black adults in certain contexts.
Their study involved presenting two teachers, one accurate and one inaccurate, counterbalanced by race. Three-year-old children were more likely to select the accurate Black adult over the inaccurate White adult if there were more Black teachers in their schools and larger Black populations in their neighborhoods. Exploratory analyses indicated that 5- to 7-year-old White children who had non-White classroom teachers chose Black adults more than those who had White classroom teachers, but classroom teacher’s race did not relate to Black children’s teacher preference. The findings suggest that both microlevel factors (e.g., children’s classroom teachers) and macrolevel factors (e.g., proportion of Black teachers in children’s schools and Black population in their neighborhoods) could influence who children choose to learn from and prefer as teachers.
Finally, Osborne et al. (2022) published “Responding to Racism at School: Ethnic-racial socialization and the academic engagement of Black and Latinx youth” in Child Development:Guided by the Theory of Racial Socialization in Action, this study examined observed caregiver-provided ethnic-racial socialization in response to a school-based discriminatory dilemma. Forty-five Black and 36 Latinx caregivers (88% mothers) with low-income and their children (mean age 11 and almost 50% female) participated in Dallas, Texas from 2018 to 2019. Dyads responded to a hypothetical scenario in which a school counselor makes a discriminatory comment to the child. They asked: First, do caregivers differ in their responses to a specific, school-based racially and ethnically discriminatory situation? Second, should differing profiles arise, are they distinguishable by the demographic characteristics of the caregivers in these profiles (i.e., racial/ethnic group, language, nativity, income, education) or that of their children (i.e., sex, age)? And lastly, how are profiles of caregiver ethnic-racial socialization related to youth academic engagement? Results find that caregivers engaged in the dialogue using one of four approaches: Low-engaged, Legacy, Racial Literacy, or High-engaged.
Consistent with past research, the first group of caregivers presented as low across all dimensions and are thus referred to as Low-engaged (n = 21, 26%). During the interaction, caregivers in this profile were more likely to sit further apart or facing away from the child. They were brief in their responses, did not use the conversation as a teaching opportunity, and did not emote enthusiasm during the discussion. In addition to naming racist behaviors explicitly (i.e., beliefs about racism), caregivers in Profile 2 (Racial Literacy group; n = 21, 26%). explained their connections to external and systemic causes (i.e., critical consciousness raising). Combining an educational approach with child-focused messages intended to promote the child's self-esteem (i.e., concerns for emotional wellbeing) is theorized to promote the development of racial literacy (Anderson & Stevenson, 2019). Profile 3 are referred to as Legacy socializers (n = 28, 34%) because they use a more traditional approach, e.g., the naming of racism and provision of recommendations regarding what to do may take precedence over checking on the child's emotional state and reminding them that they are not to blame for the counselor's remark. Finally, caregivers in the Racial Literacy profile (36%) faced the child throughout the discussion, with some displaying physical affection (e.g., holding hands, fist-bumping). They often spent more time prompting suggestions from the child than providing suggestions themselves, although their suggestions were detailed when provided.
Results indicated that Black caregivers were more likely to be in the Low-engaged profile while Latinx caregivers were more likely to be in the Racial Literacy profile. Black American caregivers were also slightly more represented in the High-engaged profile and Black and Latinx caregivers were equally represented in the Legacy profile. Further, results indicated that caregivers of daughters were marginally more likely to be in the Low-engaged profile, caregivers of sons and caregivers of daughters were evenly represented in the Legacy profile, and there were disproportionately more caregiver-son dyads in the Racial Literacy and High-engaged groups. Next, language and nativity were examined for Latinx caregivers only. More English-dominant and U.S.-born Latinx caregivers were in the Low-engaged profile, while more foreign-born Latinx caregivers belonged to the Legacy profile.
After controlling for race/ethnicity and income, children of Legacy caregivers demonstrated higher behavioral engagement in school than children of caregivers in the Low-engaged and High-engaged profiles but did not differ significantly from those with Racial Literacy caregivers. Nearly every caregiver that encouraged remaining respectful toward the discriminatory school counselor belonged to the Legacy profile. In the context of racial and ethnic discrimination at school, respect for authority, akin to the cultural value of respect for elders passed down in Black and Latinx families, may be a tool youth can readily equip in response to discrimination. Combined with preparation for discrimination, these two socialization strategies may promote children's attentiveness and compliance in school.
These two studies emphasize how the cultural diversity of the environment and parental response styles in response to a teacher’s discriminatory statements differentially impact children.