Teachers Needs

APA Teacher Needs Survey

Page 1

Report on the Teacher Needs Survey

August 2006

Coalition for Psychology in Schools and EducationCenter for Psychology in Schools and Education

Board of Educational AffairsAmerican Psychological Association

Suggested CitationCoalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2006, August). Report on the TeacherNeeds Survey. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education.


Page 2

Report on the Teacher Needs Survey

Coalition Members Contributing to the Survey Design and Results

V. Scott Solberg Coalition Chair, Division 17Larry Alferink Division 25Marc Atkins Division 53Mary Brabeck Board of Educational AffairsJeffery Braden Committee on Psychological Tests and AssessmentCindy Carlson Division 43Jane Close Conoley Board of Educational AffairsJessica Henderson Daniel Division 35Ruth Fassinger Division 44Robert Felner Division 27Amy Fineburg Teachers of Psychology in Secondary SchoolsJeffrey Haugaard Division 37Vinetta Jones Division 15Tom Kubiszyn Committee on Psychological Tests and AssessmentAngeleque Akin-Little Division 16Steve Little Division 16Ane Marinez-Lora Division 35Ray Lorion Division 12Joan Lucariello Board of Scientific AffairsRobert McMahon Division 53Laura Nabors Division 37Angela ODonnell Division 15Samuel Ortiz Committee on Psychological Tests and AssessmentDebra Park Teachers of Psychology in Secondary SchoolsPat Puccio Psychology Teachers at Community CollegesStephen Quintana Committee on Ethnic Minority AffairsStephen Rollin Division 17Sylvia Rosenfield Division 13James Royer Division 15Marissa Sarabando Teachers of Psychology in Secondary SchoolsGary Stoner Division 16Mary Jean Voigt Teachers of Psychology in Secondary Schools

APA Center for Psychology in Schools and Education StaffContributing to the Survey Design and Results

Rena Subotnik, DirectorHeidi Sickler, Program Officer

APA Committee of the Teachers of Psychology in Secondary Schools StaffContributing to the Survey Design and Results

Emily Leary, Precollege Psychology Program Officer


Page 3

ContentsCoalition Members Contributing to the Survey Design and Results....2

Executive Summary...4

Coalition History5

History of the Teacher Needs Survey...........................5

Areas Addressed in the Teacher Needs Survey.......5

Method....6

Teacher Needs Survey Results......7

Sample Characteristics.7

Preferred Method of Professional Development Training.15Training Modality Preferences by Grade Level17Training Modality Preferences by Years Teaching...........23Training Modality Preferences by Educational Setting.29

Professional Development Needs..35Professional Development Needs by Grade Level.37Professional Development Needs by Years Teaching........41Professional Development Needs by Educational Setting.46

Level of Preparation...50Level of Preparation by Grade Level.52Level of Preparation by Years Teaching...60Level of Preparation by Educational Setting.68

Specific Interests76Specific Interests in Classroom Management Skills..77Specific Interests in Instructional Skills.81Specific Interests in Classroom Diversity Skills........86Specific Interests in Communication with Families and Caregivers Skills.......90

Aggregate and Sample Comments.92

References.........98

Appendix A: Tables ..100Appendix B: Glossary of Terms ..102Appendix C: Participating Teacher Organizations. ..103Appendix D: Teacher Needs Survey105


Page 4

Executive SummaryTo help PreK-12 teachers pursue student achievement goals effectively, the Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education recognized the vital importance of involving educators in the design and implementation of professional development (Azin-Manley et al., 1996; Desimone et al., 2002; Kisner et al., 1998; Ruhland & Bremer, 2002). In response to the 2005-2006 on-line Teacher Needs Survey, a total of 2334 teachers from 49 States and the District of Columbia shared their classroom management, instructional strategies, classroom diversity, and parental communication needs with APA for the first time. Such results are noteworthy at a time when two-thirds of teachers report that they have no control over the content or delivery of available professional development (Choy et al., 2006). More importantly, national data suggestthat when teachers think they have influence in determining the content of in-service professional development, they are more likely than those who think they have no influence to participate in such learning opportunities (NCES, 2005). Educator-designed professional development may therefore provide an opportunity to enhance the effectiveness and retention of new and experienced educators (Ediger, 1995; Levine, 2006; NSDC, 1994; Raudenbush et al., 1992). Educators in the Teacher Needs Survey respondent pool indicated:

9 A preference for receiving professional development in the form of in-district workshops with teams of teachers or on-line modules.

9 A preference for receiving professional development activities related to instructional skills and classroom management.

9 A preference for receiving professional development activities related to classroom management among first year teachers.

For classroom management, specific areas receiving the highest interest ratings included:o Ensure that students negative behaviors are not an ongoing distraction to

teachers and their classroomo Ensure that students are socially and emotionally safe in the classroomo Ensure that all students participate in classroom interaction

For instructional skills, specific areas receiving the highest interest ratings included:o Promote critical thinking o Motivate students to learno Design or implement a challenging curriculum, including problem solving

techniques

For classroom diversity, specific areas receiving the highest interest ratings included:o Groups of students of varying grade level readinesso Gifted studentso Special learning needs students

For communication with families and caregivers, areas of greatest interest included: o Behavior problemso Academic problems


Page 5

Coalition HistoryThe Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education began in 2002 as a way to bring together psychologists who are interested in applying psychological science to improve Pre-K-12 education. Within the American Psychological Association, the Coalition has included, but not been limited to, representatives from 14 APA divisions and a number of affiliated groups.

APA divisions that have been actively involved in the Coalition include divisions 5 (Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics), 7 (Developmental Psychology) 12 (Society of Clinical Psychology), 13 (Consulting Psychology), 15 (Educational Psychology), 16 (School Psychology), 17 (Society of Counseling Psychology), 25 (Behavior Analysis), 27 (Society for Community Research and Action), 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women), 37 (Child, Youth and Family Services), 43 (Family Psychology), 53 (Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology), and 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues).

Affiliated groups that have been actively involved include: APA Board of Educational Affairs (BEA), APA Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA), Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (CPTA), Committee of the Teachers of Psychology in Secondary Schools (TOPSS), Committee on Children, Youth and Families (CYF), Council of Representatives Child andAdolescent Caucus (CAC), Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA), and Psychology Teachers at Community Colleges (PTACC).

History of the Teacher Needs SurveyThe Coalitions goal is to support educators ability to apply the results of psychological science in their classrooms and schools. To support this goal, the Coalition began designing an on-line Teacher Needs Survey in May 2004. The purpose of the survey was to ask educators what type of support they would like from psychology and in what format. The Teacher Needs Survey focused on four educational areas: instructional strategies, classroom management, classroom diversity, and parent/caregiver outreach. Between August and December 2004, the Coalitionpiloted the survey nationwide and gathered a sample of 900 Pre-K-12 teachers. At the Coalitions December 2004 meeting, representatives reviewed the survey results. The pilot datawere used to refine the survey, including additions to the demographics section (ethnicity, gender, region, grade); changes to the rating scales (Likert Scale); and a reduction in the number of questions relating to teachers' professional development needs.

Following the 2004 Coalition meeting, proposed revisions were reviewed and adopted in stages. After two mailed circulations of draft revisions, the on-line survey was launched in April 2005. A preliminary report using an initial sample of 499 participants was made to Coalition membersin December 2005. The purpose of the report was to evaluate how the data should be evaluated and presented. Between December 2005 and May 2006, an additional 1835 participants completed the on-line survey making a total respondent pool of 2334 educators distributed among 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Areas Addressed in the Teacher Needs SurveyThe Teacher Needs Survey asked educators to indicate the specific types of training they would be interested in receiving under each of the four areas addressedclassroom management, instructional strategies, classroom diversity, and communication with families/caregivers. In


Page 6

addition, educators were asked to indicate their level of preparation in each of the four areas and to rank order each area with regard to priority of training. Finally, educators were asked to rank the type of training modality they would prefer from options including on-line modules; regional, university, or conference workshops; and in-district workshops. A number of demographic items were also completed.

MethodParticipants represent a convenience sample of educators who responded to the on-line survey. Over 200 educational organizations were contacted of which 84 responded by broadly disseminating the web-link. Organizations included national, state, and district unions and other educational organizations.

In addressing the representativeness of the Teacher Needs Survey respondent pool, a comparison was made with a recent national sample of over 63,000 educators conducted by the NationalCenter for Education Statistics (Strizek et al., 2006). See Tables 1-4.


Page 7

Teacher Needs Survey Results

Sample Characteristics

The 2334 respondents to the Teacher Needs Survey (TNS) were educators drawn from 49 States and Washington D.C.. The highest number for any State was California (n = 207) and the lowest was Alaska (n = 2). A total of 80% of the respondents were women and among those indicating their ethnic/racial background there were 84% who indicated White, 7% African American, 4%Latino/a or Hispanic, 2% American Indian, and 2% Asian American/Pacific Islander.

9 The majority of respondents were from public schools (95%) and 39% taught at the high school level, 26% 6th 8th grade, and 35% Pre-K 5th grade. A total of 80% of the sample taught in Urban and Suburban settings.

9 Comparison with the NCES sample of 63,000 educators indicates that the TNS sample was over represented for female educators (Table 1) and equally representative for educators who identify as White/non-Hispanic, African-American, Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Table 2). The current sample was under represented for Latino/a or Hispanic educators and over represented for American Indian educators (Table 2). The current sample was under represented for parochial schools (Table 3).

Public, 95%

Parochial, 2%

Independent, 2%Charter, 1%

Figure 1: School Type


Page 8

School Type

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentCharter 25 1.1 1.1 1.1Independent 54 2.3 2.4 3.5Parochial 43 1.8 1.9 5.4Public 2121 90.9 94.6 100.0

Valid

Total 2243 96.1 100.0Missing Miss 91 3.9Total 2334 100.0

PreK-5, 35%

Grd 6-8, 26%

Grd 9-12, 39%

Figure 2: Grade Level Taught

Grade Level


Percent"PK-5" 774 33.2 34.6 34.66-8 583 25.0 26.0 60.69-12 883 37.8 39.4 100.0

Valid

Total 2240 96.0 100.0Missing miss 94 4.0Total 2334 100.0


Page 9

Figure 3: Educational Setting

Rural20%

Urban38%

Suburban42%

Educational Setting


PercentRural 459 19.7 20.4 20.4Suburban 941 40.3 41.9 62.3Urban 848 36.3 37.7 100.0

Valid



Page 10

State by State Breakdown

State Breakdown Frequency PercentNo Response 80 3.43Alabama 44 1.89Alaska 2 0.09Arizona 20 0.86Arkansas 21 0.90California 207 8.87Colorado 25 1.07Connecticut 25 1.07Delaware 4 0.17District of Columbia 8 0.34Florida 80 3.43Georgia 47 2.01Hawaii 11 0.47Idaho 4 0.17Illinois 108 4.63Indiana 10 0.43Iowa 51 2.19Kansas 58 2.49Kentucky 32 1.37Louisiana 24 1.03Maine 24 1.03Maryland 29 1.24Massachusetts 74 3.17Michigan 131 5.61Minnesota 99 4.24Mississippi 9 0.39Missouri 55 2.36Montana 50 2.14Nebraska 51 2.19Nevada 12 0.51New Hampshire 7 0.30New Jersey 68 2.91New Mexico 31 1.33New York 124 5.31North Carolina 60 2.57Not Applicable 15 0.64Ohio 83 3.56


Page 11

State Breakdown Frequency PercentOklahoma 13 0.56Oregon 7 0.30Pennsylvania 65 2.78Rhode Island 7 0.30South Carolina 7 0.30South Dakota 3 0.13Tennessee 6 0.26Texas 94 4.03Utah 32 1.37Vermont 30 1.29Virginia 83 3.56Washington 73 3.13West Virginia 6 0.26Wisconsin 117 5.01Wyoming 8 0.34Total 2334 100.00


Page 12

Years of Teaching, Certification Type and Type of Preparation

9 The majority (73%) of respondents reported that they had been licensed five or more years, and 38.1% indicated teaching 15 or more years.

9 The majority (69%) of participants reported holding a regular education license while 28% held either a special education or dual certification license.

9 A total of 89% of the respondents indicated that they had completed pre-service preparation in the form of a bachelors degree, five-year degree, post-baccalaureate, or Masters degree program, while six percent of the sample indicated an alternative certification program and five percent indicated Other.

Other, 3.1%PreLicense, 4.8%

15+ yrs., 38.1%

Provisional, 5.5%1-4 yrs., 13.6%

5-15 yrs., 34.9%

Figure 4: Years TeachingYears of Teaching


PercentPreLicense 108 4.6 4.8 94.5Provisional 125 5.4 5.5 100.01-4 309 13.2 13.6 13.65-15 792 33.9 34.9 86.615+ 866 37.1 38.1 51.7Other 71 3.0 3.1 89.7

Valid

Total 2271 97.3 100.0Missing Miss 63 2.7Total 2334 100.0


Page 13

Dual20%

None3%

Regular69%

Special8%

Figure 5: Certification Type

Certification Type


PercentDual 428 18.3 19.5 19.5None 69 3.0 3.1 22.6Regular 1517 65.0 69.1 91.8Special 181 7.8 8.2 100.0

Valid



Page 14

Post-Bac10% 5yr Deg

4%

M.A.21%

Alt. Cert.6%

Bachelor's54%

Other5%

Figure 6: Type of Preparation

Type of Preparation

Frequency Percent Valid PercentValid Bachelor's 1226 52.5 53.9

5yr Deg 85 3.6 3.7Master's 485 20.8 21.3Post-Bac 233 10.0 10.3Alt. Cert 126 5.4 5.5Other 118 5.1 5.2

Missing Miss 61 2.6 Total Total 2334 100.0 100.0


Page 15

Descriptive Results

Preferred Method of Professional Development Training

Participants were asked to rank order the type of training modality they would like to receive. Modality options included providing instruction modules on-line for use via computer; offering regional, university, or conference workshops; or gathering teams of teachers to attend district-level workshops.

9 Results indicated that most educators preferred in-district workshops with teams of teachers participating. More specifically:

o 53% of the respondents ranked in-district workshops with teams of teachers as their first choice and an additional 31% ranked in-district workshops as their second choice.

o 34% of the respondents ranked on-line modules as their first choice and an additional 25% ranked on-line workshops as their second choice.

o 16% of the respondents ranked regional, university, or conference workshops as their first choice and an additional 42% ranked regional workshops as their second choice.

34%

25%

42%

16%

42% 42%

53%

31%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

On-Line Modules Regional, Univ or Conference In-District Workshops

Rankings for Preferred Method of Professional Development Training

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3

* Note: Percentages across rankings will not add to 100% because a small amount (less than 5%) of participants ranked more than one area as number 1, 2, or 3, respectively.


Page 16

On-Line Modules


Percent1 726 31.1 33.8 33.82 531 22.8 24.7 58.53 892 38.2 41.5 100.0

Valid

Total 2149 92.1 100.0Missing 99 185 7.9Total 2334 100.0

Regional, University or Conference Workshops


Percent1 338 14.5 15.8 15.82 899 38.5 42.0 57.83 904 38.7 42.2 100.0

Valid


In-District Workshops


Percent1 1145 49.1 53.4 53.42 674 28.9 31.4 84.83 325 13.9 15.2 100.0

Valid

Total 2144 91.9 100.0Missing 99 190 8.1

Total 2334 100.0


Page 17

9 Training Modality Preferences by Grade Level:

o Across grade levels, in-district workshops with teams of teachers attending werepreferred over the other two modalities (Pre-K-5 = 60%, 6-8 = 54%, and 9-12 = 47%).

o Across all grade levels, on-line modules were preferred second to in-district workshops (Pre-K-5 = 31%, 6-8 = 33%, and 9-12 = 38%).

60%

29%

12%

54%

30%

16%

47%

35%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PreK-5 Grd 6-8 Grd 9-12

Rankings for In-District Workshops by Grade Level



Page 18

In-District Workshops(a)


Percent1 433 55.9 59.6 59.62 207 26.7 28.5 88.23 86 11.1 11.8 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"



Percent1 295 50.6 54.0 54.02 164 28.1 30.0 84.13 87 14.9 15.9 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8



Percent1 385 43.6 46.8 46.82 288 32.6 35.0 81.93 149 16.9 18.1 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 19

13%

45%43%

18%

40% 42%

17%

41% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rankings for Regional, University or Conference Workshops by Grade Level



Page 20

Regional, University or Conference Workshops(a)


Percent1 90 11.6 12.5 12.52 323 41.7 44.9 57.43 307 39.7 42.6 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"



Percent1 96 16.5 17.5 17.52 220 37.7 40.1 57.73 232 39.8 42.3 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8



Percent1 143 16.2 17.4 17.42 336 38.1 40.8 58.13 345 39.1 41.9 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 21

31%

26%

44%

33%

26%

41%38%

23%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rankings for On-Line Modules by Grade Level



Page 22

On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 222 28.7 30.6 30.62 188 24.3 25.9 56.53 316 40.8 43.5 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"

On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 181 31.0 33.1 33.12 141 24.2 25.8 58.93 225 38.6 41.1 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8

On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 312 35.3 37.7 37.72 190 21.5 23.0 60.73 325 36.8 39.3 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 23

9 Training Modality Preferences by Years Teaching:

o The pattern of training modality rankings were the same across years teaching. In-district workshops with teams of teachers was ranked as the preferred training modality (1st year = 52%, 2-5 years = 48%, 6-10 years = 53%, and 10+ years = 55%) and on-line training was the second preferred training modality (1st year = 39%, 2-5 years = 39%, 6-10 years = 33%, and 10+ years = 33%).

52%

36%

12%

48%

37%

15%

53%

35%

12%

55%

28%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st Year 2-5 Years 6-10 Years 10+ Years

Rankings for In-District Workshops by Years Teaching



Page 24



Percent1 67 50.0 51.9 51.92 46 34.3 35.7 87.63 16 11.9 12.4 100.0

Valid


a Teaching_Experience = 1st year



Percent1 171 45.5 47.9 47.92 132 35.1 37.0 84.93 54 14.4 15.1 100.0

Valid


a Teaching_Experience = 2-5



Percent1 224 50.0 52.8 52.82 150 33.5 35.4 88.23 50 11.2 11.8 100.0

Valid





Percent1 657 51.0 54.9 54.92 335 26.0 28.0 82.93 204 15.8 17.1 100.0

Valid


a Teaching_Experience = 10+


Page 25

18%

37%

44%

16%

39%

45%

16%

39%

45%

15%

44%40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rankings for Regional, University or Conference Workshops by Years Teaching



Page 26



Percent1 23 17.2 18.3 18.32 47 35.1 37.3 55.63 56 41.8 44.4 100.0

Valid





Percent1 58 15.4 16.3 16.32 137 36.4 38.5 54.83 161 42.8 45.2 100.0

Valid





Percent1 69 15.4 16.4 16.42 163 36.4 38.7 55.13 189 42.2 44.9 100.0

Valid





Percent1 183 14.2 15.3 15.32 532 41.3 44.3 59.63 485 37.7 40.4 100.0

Valid




Page 27

39%

25%

36%39%

21%

40%

33%

24%

43%

33%

26%

41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rankings for On-Line Modules by Years Teaching



Page 28

On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 50 37.3 39.1 39.12 32 23.9 25.0 64.13 46 34.3 35.9 100.0

Valid



On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 137 36.4 38.5 38.52 76 20.2 21.3 59.83 143 38.0 40.2 100.0

Valid



On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 141 31.5 33.3 33.32 100 22.3 23.6 57.03 182 40.6 43.0 100.0

Valid



On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 391 30.4 32.5 32.52 315 24.5 26.2 58.63 498 38.7 41.4 100.0

Valid




Page 29

9 Training Modality Preferences by Educational Setting of Teacher Respondents:

o The pattern of training modality rankings were the same across educational settings. In-district workshops with teams of teachers was ranked as the preferred training modality (Rural = 56%, Suburban = 54%, and Urban = 50%) and on-line training was the second preferred training modality (Rural = 31%, Suburban = 32%, and Urban = 37%)

56%

29%

15%

54%

33%

13%

50%

31%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rural Suburban Urban

Rankings for In-District Workshops by Educational Setting



Page 30



Percent1 242 52.7 56.1 56.12 126 27.5 29.2 85.43 63 13.7 14.6 100.0

Valid


a intro_area = Rural



Percent1 480 51.0 54.3 54.32 291 30.9 32.9 87.23 113 12.0 12.8 100.0

Valid


a intro_area = Suburban



Percent1 395 46.6 50.3 50.32 245 28.9 31.2 81.43 146 17.2 18.6 100.0

Valid


a intro_area = Urban


Page 31

16%

44%40%

16%

40%44%

16%

43%41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rankings for Regional, University or Conference Workshops by Educational Setting



Page 32



Percent1 69 15.0 16.1 16.12 188 41.0 43.9 60.03 171 37.3 40.0 100.0

Valid





Percent1 141 15.0 16.0 16.02 354 37.6 40.0 56.03 389 41.3 44.0 100.0

Valid





Percent1 123 14.5 15.6 15.62 338 39.9 42.9 58.63 326 38.4 41.4 100.0

Valid




Page 33

31%

25%

44%

32%

26%

42%

37%

24%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Rankings for On-Line Modules by Educational Setting



Page 34

On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 135 29.4 31.3 31.32 107 23.3 24.8 56.13 189 41.2 43.9 100.0

Valid



On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 286 30.4 32.2 32.22 227 24.1 25.6 57.83 374 39.7 42.2 100.0

Valid



On-Line Modules(a)


Percent1 293 34.6 37.1 37.12 186 21.9 23.6 60.73 310 36.6 39.3 100.0

Valid




Page 35

Professional Development Needs

Participants were asked to rank order their professional development needs. Options included classroom management, instructional skills, classroom diversity, and communication with families and caregivers.

9 Results indicated that instructional skills and classroom management were the two highest ranked professional development need areas.

o 35% of the respondents ranked instructional skills as their first choice.

o 25% of the respondents ranked classroom management as their first choice.

o 20% of the respondents ranked classroom diversity and communication with families and caregivers as their first choice, respectively.

o Classroom management and instructional skills also received the highest percentage of second rankings.

25%29%

23% 24%

35%

27%

21%17%

20%22%

29%30%

20%22%

27%30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Classroom Management Instructional Skills Classroom Diversity Communication with Familiesand Caregivers

Rankings for Professional Development Needs

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4


Page 36

Classroom Management


Percent1 543 23.3 24.8 24.82 624 26.7 28.5 53.33 505 21.6 23.0 76.34 519 22.2 23.7 100.0

Valid


Instructional Skills


Percent1 770 33.0 35.2 35.22 598 25.6 27.3 62.63 449 19.2 20.5 83.14 370 15.9 16.9 100.0

Valid


Classroom Diversity


Percent1 431 18.5 19.7 19.72 470 20.1 21.5 41.33 631 27.0 28.9 70.14 652 27.9 29.9 100.0

Valid


Communication with Families and Caregivers


Percent1 436 18.7 20.0 20.02 489 21.0 22.4 42.43 599 25.7 27.4 69.84 659 28.2 30.2 100.0

Valid



Page 37

9 Professional Development Needs by Grade Level Taught:

o Across grade levels, professional development in instructional skills received the highest percentage of first rankings.

o For Pre-K-5 educators, 29% indicated that professional development in classroom management was their first priority.

o Following instructional strategies, middle and high school educators indicated a more even distribution of first rankings for the three remaining professional development areas - classroom management, classroom diversity, and communication with families and caregivers. For middle school educators, first rankings ranged from 24% for classroom management and communication with families and caregivers to 21% for classroom diversity. For high school educators, the first rankings ranged from 21% for classroom management to 18% for communication with families and caregivers.

29%32%

19%21% 24%

34%

21% 24% 21%

39%

20%18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Professional Development Needs by Grade Level- Rank 1

Classroom ManagementInstructional SkillsClassroom DiversityCommunication with Families and Caregivers


Page 38

Classroom Management(a)


Percent1 212 27.4 28.5 28.52 197 25.5 26.5 55.03 176 22.7 23.7 78.74 158 20.4 21.3 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"

Instructional Skills(a)


Percent1 237 30.6 31.9 31.92 207 26.7 27.9 59.83 151 19.5 20.3 80.14 148 19.1 19.9 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"

Classroom Diversity(a)


Percent1 142 18.3 19.1 19.12 154 19.9 20.7 39.83 201 26.0 27.1 66.94 246 31.8 33.1 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"

Communication with Families and Caregivers(a)


Percent1 152 19.6 20.5 20.52 189 24.4 25.5 46.03 218 28.2 29.4 75.34 183 23.6 24.7 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"


Page 39



Percent1 130 22.3 23.5 23.52 159 27.3 28.7 52.23 115 19.7 20.8 72.94 150 25.7 27.1 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8



Percent1 185 31.7 33.6 33.62 139 23.8 25.2 58.83 147 25.2 26.7 85.54 80 13.7 14.5 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8



Percent1 115 19.7 20.9 20.92 128 22.0 23.2 44.13 155 26.6 28.1 72.24 153 26.2 27.8 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8



Percent1 131 22.5 23.8 23.82 121 20.8 22.0 45.73 134 23.0 24.3 70.14 165 28.3 29.9 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8


Page 40



Percent1 175 19.8 20.7 20.72 254 28.8 30.1 50.83 211 23.9 25.0 75.74 205 23.2 24.3 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12



Percent1 332 37.6 39.3 39.32 233 26.4 27.6 66.93 142 16.1 16.8 83.84 137 15.5 16.2 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12



Percent1 168 19.0 20.0 20.02 182 20.6 21.6 41.63 254 28.8 30.2 71.84 237 26.8 28.2 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12



Percent1 149 16.9 17.7 17.72 169 19.1 20.1 37.83 230 26.0 27.3 65.24 293 33.2 34.8 100.0

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 41

9 Professional Development Needs by Years Teaching:

o A total of 52 percent of the first year teachers ranked classroom management as the number one choice for professional development. Moreover, only a few first year educators ranked classroom diversity and communication with families and caregivers as the number one need.

o For teachers with two or more years of teaching experience, instructional skills received the highest first ranking.

o For teachers between two and five years of teaching experience, 28% indicated their first priority as classroom management.

o For teachers with six to ten years of experience, 26% indicated classroom management as their first priority.

o For teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience, 24% indicated classroom diversity as their first priority and 22% indicated communication with family and caregivers as their first priority.

52%

38%

7% 9%

28%

39%

12%

18%

26%

35%

19% 20% 20%

34%

24% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Professional Development Needs by Years Teaching- Rank 1



Page 42



Percent1 69 51.5 51.9 51.92 37 27.6 27.8 79.73 18 13.4 13.5 93.24 9 6.7 6.8 100.0

Valid

Total 133 99.3 100.0Missing 99 1 .7Total 134 100.0




Percent1 50 37.3 37.6 37.62 54 40.3 40.6 78.23 18 13.4 13.5 91.74 11 8.2 8.3 100.0

Valid





Percent1 9 6.7 6.8 6.82 20 14.9 15.0 21.83 53 39.6 39.8 61.74 51 38.1 38.3 100.0

Valid





Percent1 12 9.0 9.1 9.12 26 19.4 19.7 28.83 41 30.6 31.1 59.84 53 39.6 40.2 100.0

Valid




Page 43



Percent1 103 27.4 28.4 28.42 123 32.7 33.9 62.33 71 18.9 19.6 81.84 66 17.6 18.2 100.0

Valid





Percent1 141 37.5 38.8 38.82 103 27.4 28.4 67.23 66 17.6 18.2 85.44 53 14.1 14.6 100.0

Valid





Percent1 44 11.7 12.1 12.12 73 19.4 20.1 32.23 120 31.9 33.1 65.34 126 33.5 34.7 100.0

Valid





Percent1 64 17.0 17.6 17.62 70 18.6 19.3 36.93 110 29.3 30.3 67.24 119 31.6 32.8 100.0

Valid




Page 44



Percent1 110 24.6 25.5 25.52 109 24.3 25.3 50.83 94 21.0 21.8 72.64 118 26.3 27.4 100.0

Valid





Percent1 150 33.5 34.9 34.92 125 27.9 29.1 64.03 89 19.9 20.7 84.74 66 14.7 15.3 100.0

Valid





Percent1 81 18.1 18.9 18.92 86 19.2 20.0 38.93 118 26.3 27.5 66.44 144 32.1 33.6 100.0

Valid





Percent1 86 19.2 20.1 20.12 100 22.3 23.4 43.53 124 27.7 29.0 72.44 118 26.3 27.6 100.0

Valid




Page 45



Percent1 241 18.7 19.7 19.72 342 26.6 27.9 47.63 319 24.8 26.0 73.64 323 25.1 26.4 100.0

Valid





Percent1 414 32.1 33.9 33.92 306 23.8 25.0 58.93 267 20.7 21.8 80.84 235 18.2 19.2 100.0

Valid





Percent1 292 22.7 23.9 23.92 284 22.0 23.3 47.23 329 25.5 27.0 74.24 315 24.5 25.8 100.0

Valid





Percent1 271 21.0 22.2 22.22 285 22.1 23.3 45.53 309 24.0 25.3 70.84 356 27.6 29.2 100.0

Valid




Page 46

9 Professional Development Needs by Educational Setting:

o Instructional skills was the highest rated area for professional development needs (Rural = 36%, Suburban = 35%, Urban = 34%).

o For Rural and Suburban educators, professional development in the areas of classroom management and classroom diversity were evenly split; for Urban teachers, classroom management was more highly indicated as a professional development need compared to classroom diversity.

o A number of Urban educators also indicated that communication with families and caregivers was an important professional development need (22%) and unlike Rural and Suburban, communication with families and caregivers received a higher rank than training in classroom diversity.

24%

36%

22%18%

23%

35%

22%19%

26%

34%

16%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Professional Development Needs by Educational Setting- Rank 1



Page 47



Percent1 104 22.7 23.7 23.72 138 30.1 31.5 55.33 88 19.2 20.1 75.34 108 23.5 24.7 100.0

Valid





Percent1 157 34.2 36.1 36.12 127 27.7 29.2 65.33 93 20.3 21.4 86.74 58 12.6 13.3 100.0

Valid





Percent1 96 20.9 22.1 22.12 81 17.6 18.6 40.73 114 24.8 26.2 66.94 144 31.4 33.1 100.0

Valid





Percent1 80 17.4 18.4 18.42 92 20.0 21.1 39.53 133 29.0 30.6 70.14 130 28.3 29.9 100.0

Valid




Page 48



Percent1 208 22.1 22.9 22.92 278 29.5 30.6 53.53 231 24.5 25.4 79.04 191 20.3 21.0 100.0

Valid





Percent1 321 34.1 35.3 35.32 240 25.5 26.4 61.73 178 18.9 19.6 81.34 170 18.1 18.7 100.0

Valid





Percent1 199 21.1 21.9 21.92 190 20.2 20.9 42.93 268 28.5 29.5 72.44 250 26.6 27.6 100.0

Valid





Percent1 175 18.6 19.4 19.42 205 21.8 22.7 42.03 236 25.1 26.1 68.14 288 30.6 31.9 100.0

Valid




Page 49



Percent1 210 24.8 26.2 26.22 193 22.8 24.1 50.33 181 21.3 22.6 72.94 217 25.6 27.1 100.0

Valid





Percent1 274 32.3 34.3 34.32 217 25.6 27.2 61.53 170 20.0 21.3 82.74 138 16.3 17.3 100.0

Valid





Percent1 129 15.2 16.2 16.22 193 22.8 24.2 40.43 236 27.8 29.6 69.94 240 28.3 30.1 100.0

Valid





Percent1 178 21.0 22.3 22.32 183 21.6 22.9 45.13 214 25.2 26.8 71.94 225 26.5 28.1 100.0

Valid




Page 50

Level of Preparation

Participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they have received training with regard to classroom management, instructional skills, classroom diversity, and communication with families and caregivers. Each respondent indicated either none, a little, some, or a lot.

9 The table below indicates that 65% of the respondents indicated a lot of preparation for use of instructional skills and 50% indicated a lot of preparation for classroom management.

9 A total of 35% and 26% of respondents indicated receiving a lot of preparation for addressing classroom diversity and working with families and caregivers, respectively.

3%1%

5%

10% 10%

5%

20%

27%

37%

29%

41%38%

50%

65%

35%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

None A little Some A lot

Level of Preparation in Each Professional Development Area

Class Management Instructional SkillsClassroom Diversity Communication with Family and Caregivers


Page 51

Classroom Management


Percentnone 57 2.4 2.5 63.1little 231 9.9 10.2 10.2some 836 35.8 36.9 100.0lot 1140 48.8 50.4 60.6

Valid


Instructional Skills



Valid


Classroom Diversity



Valid


Communication with Families and Caregivers



Valid



Page 52

9 Level of Preparation by Grade Level

o The overall pattern of preparation did not vary by grade levelpreparation was highest for instructional skills and classroom management, respectively, and lowest for addressing classroom diversity and communicating with families and caregivers.

3%

9%

35%

54%

2%

9%

35%

54%

3%

11%

40%47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Classroom Management by Grade Level



Page 53




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 54

1%3%

26%

70%

2%4%

28%

66%

1%5%

31%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Instructional Skills by Grade Level



Page 55



Percentnone 6 .8 .8 74.4little 25 3.2 3.3 3.3some 195 25.2 25.6 100.0lot 537 69.4 70.4 73.7

Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 56

4%

20%

41%

35%

4%

17%

38% 40%

6%

20%

42%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Classroom Diversity by Grade Level



Page 57




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 58

8%

26%

37%

29%

8%

24%

39%

29%

12%

28%

38%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Communication with Families and Caregivers by Grade Level



Page 59




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = "PK-5"




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 6-8




Valid


a Grdlvl1 = 9-12


Page 60

9 Level of Preparation by Years Teaching

o In relation to years teaching, educators teaching six or more years indicated more preparation in each of the four areas.

3%

34%

45%

19%

4%

14%

47%

35%

2%

7%

40%

51%

2%6%

32%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Classroom Management by Years Teaching



Page 61




Valid

Total 134 100.0 100.0 a Teaching_Experience = 1st year




Valid






Valid

Total 445 99.3 100.0Missing miss 3 .7Total 448 100.0





Valid




Page 62

2%

13%

59%

26%

2%

8%

39%

52%

.4%4%

30%

66%

1% 3%

22%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Instructional Skills by Grade Level



Page 63




Valid





Valid






Valid






Valid




Page 64

8%

25%

40%

27%

3%

21%

44%

32%

2%

21%

40%

37%

6%

17%

40%37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Classroom Diversity by Years Teaching



Page 65




Valid





Valid






Valid






Valid




Page 66

13%

32%

39%

17%

12%

33%37%

17%

11%

26%

39%

25%

8%

24%

38%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Communication with Families and Caregivers by Years Teaching



Page 67




Valid






Valid






Valid






Valid




Page 68

9 Level of Preparation by Educational Setting:

o Across educational settings, the highest ratings with regard to level of preparation were for instructional skills followed by classroom management.

2%

8%

41%

50%

2%

11%

36%

50%

3%

8%

36%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Classroom Management by Educational Setting



Page 69




Valid






Valid






Valid




Page 70

1% 3%

27%

69%

1%5%

27%

67%

1%4%

31%

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Instructional Skills by Educational Setting



Page 71




Valid






Valid






Valid




Page 72

8%

25%

45%

23%

5%

20%

40%

35%

3%

15%

39%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Classroom Diversity by Educational Setting



Page 73




Valid






Valid






Valid




Page 74

11%

28%

42%

20%

10%

28%

34%

28%

8%

24%

40%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Level of Preparation in Communication with Families and Caregivers by Educational Setting



Page 75




Valid






Valid






Valid




Page 76

Specific Interests

9 Educators indicated their level of interest in receiving training for specific areas within each of the classroom management, instructional skills, classroom diversity, and communication with families and caregivers topic areas. The summary below relates to the total sample responses to interest items.

9 For classroom management, specific areas receiving the highest interest ratings included

o Ensure that students negative behaviors are not an ongoing distraction to you and your classroom

o Ensure that students, including gifted children and children with disabilities, are socially and emotionally safe in the classroom

o Ensure that all students participate in classroom interaction

9 For instructional skills, specific areas receiving the highest ratings included:

o Promote critical thinking

o Motivate students to learn

o Design or implement a challenging curriculum, including problem solving techniques

o Modify instructional strategies to meet individual student needs

9 For classroom diversity, specific areas receiving the highest ratings included:

o Groups of students of varying grade level readiness

o Gifted students

o Special learning needs students

9 For communication with families and caregivers, specific areas receiving the highest ratings included:

o Behavior problems

o Academic problems


Page 77

Specific Interests in Classroom Management Skills

28%

40%

32%

60%

41%

24%

34%

37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Help students work well independently

Help students work well in cooperative groups

Ensure that students are physically safe andsecure in the classroom

Ensure that students, including gifted children andchildren with disabilities, are socially and

emotionally safe in the classroom

Ensure that students negative behaviors are notan ongoing distraction to you and your classroom

Manage time effectively

Ensure that all students participate in classroominteraction

Communicate effectively with appropriate schoolstaff about students positive and negative

behavior

Interest in Specific Classroom Management Skills: "Very"

Help students work well independently


Percentnot 146 6.3 6.4 27.9little 254 10.9 11.2 11.2neutral 232 9.9 10.2 21.4somewhat 800 34.3 35.3 63.2very 835 35.8 36.8 100.0

Valid



Page 78

Help students work well in cooperative groups



Valid


Ensure that students are physically safe and secure in the classroom



Valid


Ensure that students, including gifted children and children with disabilities, are socially and emotionally safe in the classroom



Valid



Page 79

Ensure that students' negative behaviors are not an ongoing distraction to you and your classroom



Valid


Manage time effectively



Valid


Ensure that all students participate in classroom interaction



Valid



Page 80

Communicate effectively with appropriate school staff about students' positive and negative behavior



Valid



Page 81

Specific Interests in Instructional Skills

58%

30%

37%

48%

34%

32%

20%

40%

57%

43%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Assess students current skills and knowledge

Modify instructional strategies to meetindividual student needs

Motivate students to learn

Work with students struggling with mentalhealth and personal issues

Work with students struggling with physicalhealth issues

Work effectively with students whodemonstrate special needs

Incorporate students cultural background andlife experiences into instructional strategies

Design or implement a challenging curriculum,including problem solving techniques

Design appropriate out-of-class assignmentsand activities

Translate subject matter content intostandards-based activities

Promote critical thinking

Interest in Specific Instructional Skills: "Very"

Assess students' current skills and knowledge



Valid



Page 82

Modify instructional strategies to meet individual student needs



Valid


Motivate students to learn



Valid


Work with students struggling with mental health and personal issues



Valid



Page 83

Work with students struggling with physical health issues



Valid


Work effectively with students who demonstrate special needs



Valid


Incorporate students' cultural background and life experiences into instructional strategies



Valid



Page 84

Design or implement a challenging curriculum, including problem solving techniques



Valid


Design appropriate out-of-class assignments and activities



Valid


Translate subject matter content into standards-based activities



Valid



Page 85

Promote critical thinking



Valid



Page 86

Specific Interests in Classroom Diversity Skills

33%

42%

20%

28%

15%

30%

26%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Students who are ethnic minorities

Students whose first language is notEnglish

Special learning needs students

Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexualstudents

Groups of students of varying socio-economic status

Groups of students of varying immigrantstatus

Groups of students of varying gradelevel readiness

Gifted students

Interest in Specific Classroom Diversity Skills: "Very"

Students who are ethnic minorities



Valid



Page 87

Students whose first language is not English



Valid


Special learning needs students



Valid


Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual students



Valid



Page 88

Groups of students of varying socio-economic status



Valid


Groups of students of varying immigrant status



Valid


Groups of students of varying grade level readiness



Valid



Page 89

Gifted students



Valid



Page 90

Specific Interests in Communication with Families and Caregivers Skills

28%

42%

34%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Behavior problems

Strengths and achievements

Academic problems

Issues with caregivers who are ofvarying ethnicities

Interest in Specific Communication with Families and Caregivers Areas: "Very"

Behavior problems



Valid



Page 91

Strengths and achievements



Valid


Academic problems



Valid


Issues with caregivers who are of varying ethnicities



Valid



Page 92

Teacher Needs Survey Aggregate Comments

INSTRUCTIONAL SKILLS Number of CommentsAssess students current skills and knowledge 4Modify instructional strategies to meet individual student needs 10Motivate students to learn 19Work with students struggling with mental health and personal issues 22Work with students struggling with physical health issues 2Work effec

Documents

Teachers Needs