Enhancing Teachers’ Capacity to Manage Classroom Behavior as a Means to Reduce Burnout: Directed Consultation,Supported Professionalism,and the BASE Model

Abstract

More than a buzzword, teacher burnout captures the zeitgeist of the last few years as schools grapple with the challenges of education in a post-COVID-19 pandemic world. Garwood sounds an alarm and issues a call to action to address teacher burnout given its implications on students in general and, more specifically, on its implications for the fidelity of service delivery interventions for those students most in need. Of the malleable factors related to burnout, this article focused on teachers’ capacity to manage classroom behavior and discusses the potential of the Behavioral, Academic, and Social Engagement (BASE) Model to disrupt processes that can lead to teacher burnout. To illustrate the model’s potential, we present perspectives from middle school teachers shared in focus groups about challenging classroom behaviors and their professional development needs, and we discuss how the BASE Model can help address teachers’ capacity for managing their classroom context. Implications for teacher training and supported professionalism to reduce burnout are discussed.

Garwood (2023) succinctly painted a dire picture for the teaching profession and student success: unless we address teacher burnout—particularly among special educators—we are at risk of compromising the fidelity of service delivery interventions for our most vulnerable youth. This has the potential to cause long-lasting harm to the students we are meant to serve. Students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) typically struggle to regulate their emotions, display appropriate behavior, and engage in positive social interactions, particularly with peers, all of which can impede their development (Kauffman & Landrum, 2018). As one of the protected disability categories outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004), youth with EBD have a fundamental right to receive services that will support their optimal adaptation and functioning in the school environment.

Given the extreme stress experienced within the teaching profession during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2021; Pressley, 2021), a renewed focus on teacher burnout comes at a critical time (Garwood, 2023; McDaniel et al., 2024). Defined as “a psychological syndrome emerging as a prolonged response to chronic interpersonal stressors on the job” (Maslach & Leiter, 2016, p. 103), the concept of burnout captures the experience of increasing exhaustion and compromised commitment to the job. Burnout was originally observed in health care professionals but can also manifest among teachers (Iancu et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017) given the stressful nature of the profession (Kyriacou, 2001).

Maslach and colleagues (2001) conceptualized burnout as having three dimensions: feeling exhausted at the job, feeling a lack of accomplishment in the job, and feeling cynical toward the job. As the name implies, burnout may lead to detrimental consequences for teachers. For instance, studies have found that teachers experiencing burnout are more likely to feel irritable or have compromised mental health (Schonfeld & Bianchi, 2016). Teachers experiencing burnout also tend to have lower levels of job satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009, 2011) and higher levels of intention to quit the profession (e.g., Madigan & Kim, 2021). The strain on the education and economic sector (Sorensen & Ladd, 2020) of teachers experiencing compromised mental health or leaving the profession altogether underscores the need to address teacher burnout.

Burnout is also associated with a host of problematic outcomes for students. A recent systematic review by Madigan and Kim (2021) found evidence that teacher burnout is associated with student academic achievement and student motivation. Specifically, students with teachers experiencing burnout tend to perform worse on tests or have lower grade point averages (GPAs) and lower motivation compared with students whose teachers did not suffer from burnout (see Madigan & Kim, 2021 for review; Shen et al., 2015). Teacher burnout can also influence other domains of student well-being such as adjustment (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Its effects can manifest on a physiological level with teacher burnout being associated with high levels of the stress hormone cortisol in elementary school students (Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016).

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the links between teacher burnout and student outcomes. Maslach and Leiter (1999) described a process wherein teachers who are experiencing burnout may be less likely to spend time planning lessons, may be less prosocial to their students, and may provide less encouragement toward students which can lead students to feel incompetent and disengaged from the learning process. Also conceptualized as a burnout cascade model, researchers posit that overworked teachers may react in more punitive ways to student behavior which can negatively impact the classroom climate (e.g., lack of a warm, caring environment) and thereby result in more challenging behavior from students causing additional teacher stress (e.g., Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). The real-world educational implications of teacher burnout underscore the need to intervene in this cyclic process.

Reducing Burnout by Enhancing Teachers’ Capacity for Effective Classroom Management

Garwood (2023) focused on a specific effect of teacher burnout that has far-reaching consequences: Burnout can impede teachers’ willingness to implement evidence-based practices and can compromise the fidelity of intervention (see also Oakes et al., 2013; Ransford et al., 2009; Ross et al., 2012). Among the various student, teacher, and organizational-level factors (e.g., administrators) related to burnout (e.g., Saloviita & Pakarinen, 2021), Garwood (2023) makes a reasonable argument for focusing on malleable teacher factors as a viable starting point in efforts to address this issue. Of the malleable factors outlined by Garwood (2023), this article will focus on capacity and efficacy for behavior management.

Existing evidence supports the need to focus on managing student behavior as a key factor in addressing teacher burnout. For instance, a meta-analysis found an overall positive association between teacher burnout and student disruptive behavior (Aloe et al., 2014). Furthermore, self-efficacy for classroom management was related to all dimensions of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lower personal accomplishment; Aloe et al., 2014). Likewise, in a national survey of rural special educators, a third of teachers reported being asked to address the academic, behavioral, emotional, and social support needs of students outside their areas of certification and expertise (Berry et al., 2011). Reflecting on the responses of others in the surveys and teachers we work with in the field, one teacher stated “The diversity in the classroom [is a challenge], I have LD, BD, ID, and autistic with one assistant. It is very difficult (p. 8).”

Behavior management is a part of the multidimensional construct of classroom management defined by Doyle (2006) as “how order is established and maintained in classroom environments” (p. 99). The goal of classroom management strategies is to create a classroom context that supports student engagement, learning, and positive interaction with peers (Brophy, 2006; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). Management of behavior can be understood as teachers’ strategies to respond to student misbehavior in the moment and strategies to prevent misbehavior in the future (Bear, 2014; Doyle, 2006; Martin et al., 2016). Given the prevalence of disruptive behavior—which can derail instruction time—it is imperative that teachers are equipped to promote productive student behavior while reducing the occurrence of problematic patterns (Harrison et al., 2012; Levin & Nolan, 2014; Rose & Gallup, 2005).

Why would building teachers’ capacity for effective classroom management help prevent burnout in the presence of challenging or disruptive student behavior? The transactional model of stress and coping provides a framework for understanding this process (Aldwin, 2007; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). According to this model, when individuals face a challenging situation, they appraise whether they are competent to handle the situation. If they perceive they have the competence to handle the situation, they will engage in action-focused coping strategies versus emotion-focused coping that can arise when they feel they have little control over the situation (Kyriacou, 2001). In situations where they do not feel equipped or able to handle the situation, individuals will engage in strategies to reduce their stress ranging from constructive (e.g., reappraisal) to unconstructive (e.g., avoidance; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Kyriacou, 2001). Applied to the classroom setting, if a teacher is faced with a challenging student behavior issue but feels they have the requisite skills to effectively address it, they will manage their stress well and are thereby less likely to experience burnout. However, if they perceive they do not have the capacity to manage the behavior, they may experience stress that can compound and lead to burnout. Consequently, bolstering teachers’ skills and perceived competence in addressing student behavior is a good starting point.

From the Frontlines: Teachers’ Perspectives

Before we describe intervention components and associated professional development frameworks to enhance teachers’ classroom management, it is useful to consider teachers’ views of students’ behavioral issues and their perspectives of their own training needs to address these issues. Our work reflects three decades of intervention development and evaluation research that begins with sitting down with teachers, administrators, parents, students, and other stakeholders to identify what they believe their issues and needs are in their specific situation and clarify the types of evidence-based supports and approaches that align with their collective concerns. We have also conducted numerous surveys of teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives. In more recent work we have conducted formal focus groups with middle school teachers (7- and 8^th-grade teachers). To illustrate the types of concerns and strategies we have consistently heard from teachers and administrators over the past three decades, we summarize the key issues raised by focus group participants related to early adolescents’ behavioral difficulties and their perspectives on their professional development needs to assist them in better supporting the school success of students who struggle. Recruitment and data collection procedures, participant characteristics, and analytic procedures can be found in Dawes and colleagues (2021).

School and Classroom Behavioral Difficulties in Early Adolescents

Participants were asked to share their perspectives on the biggest behavioral difficulties their students experienced. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis. One theme was that students struggled to know how to act in school in general and more specifically how to interact with teachers. For instance, teachers shared that students used inappropriate language at school, destroyed school property, and struggled with knowing how to behave in different parts of the building. Several participants shared how students would wrestle with one another, touch other students, or engage in roughhousing behavior. As for student–teacher interactions, several participants shared that students were sometimes disrespectful or defiant, challenged the teacher, and seemed not to know how to communicate with the teacher. Teachers observed that students struggled to balance their need for independence from adults with their need for attention and support (i.e., dependence) on adults. Participants also shared how poor social interactions would escalate. These behaviors would often undermine students’ academic success: Teachers described how disruptions or off-task behaviors could interrupt academic learning time.

Teachers’ Reported Strategies for Addressing Student Behavior

Participants used numerous strategies to deal with challenging behaviors including both proactive and reactive measures. In terms of proactive strategies, participants shared how they would set clear rules and expectations for behavior in the class. Some would also give more responsibility to students that tended to act out in class such as having the student pass out papers. One teacher would involve their students in coming up with a plan to manage behavior. For instance, the plan that three strikes during class time would lead to a phone call home. As for reactive strategies, teachers used both individual and whole-class consequences. One participant reported calling out a student misbehaving in front of the whole class while another participant reported giving the whole class a consequence when one student misbehaved. Teachers would also send students to in-school detention. However, many noted that this strategy backfired academically: Those students sent to in-school detention were missing important learning opportunities and were typically those who needed to be in class the most to address their gaps in learning. Furthermore, participants reflected on the fact that those students in in-school detention were the ones who could not necessarily work independently and needed more support.

While discussing strategies for behavioral issues, participants also shared barriers to addressing behavior. Several participants discussed how challenging certain students could be in terms of having consistent behavioral patterns that require a lot of teachers’ attention. From the teachers’ perspective, some students purposefully challenge boundaries and then are resistant or immune to the consequences of those challenges. One participant lamented the cycle wherein they would keep having to write referrals (i.e., office referrals) for students who do not respond to that referral as a consequence and seem not to learn from that experience. Some participants described students as manipulative and as “working the system” to their advantage. Clearly, specific students with behavioral challenges dominate teachers’ energies and the traditional approaches (e.g., office referrals) are often unsuccessful.

Another theme from participants was conflict between teachers and administrators. For example, when trying to remove students from the classroom, participants shared that there could be conflict between teachers and administrators with administrators wanting students to remain in the class and teachers wanting them to be removed. Some participants expressed the desire for administrators to be the ones to deal with students who disrupt instructions. For the times that administrators do intercede, teachers wanted more follow-up from administrators about what happened after the discipline. A theme throughout their discussion was the need for more communication between teachers and administrators to better support students’ behavior.

Support Needs

Participants were also asked to share what supports they wished were available to help them. Their responses ranged from initial training suggestions to school support practices. First, teachers disclosed that initial teacher training was insufficient and that traditional classroom management strategies were not helpful. Second, participants requested more strategies for the following: (a) how to teach students coping skills, (b) how to teach students study skills, (c) how to change the classroom dynamics, and (d) how to reward consistently good kids.

Teachers also expressed a desire for more time to work with and plan within teaching teams or with their co-teachers. Teams were seen to provide a good environment for students but often times structural barriers (e.g., different schedules and class sizes) prevented teaming from being helpful. Some participants reflected on how grouping (e.g., keeping the same configuration of students in each class) in all years of middle school can cause problems with social dynamics.

Many requested consistent expectations for behaviors in the school but also wanted to know what their options were for handling issues personally. As part of that desire for consistency, teachers wanted more follow-up about students’ post-discipline, so they could better understand what happened after the referral and more open communication between teachers and administration.

One theme from participants was the need for evidence-based practices that are given time to work. First, participants shared frustration with practices that are implemented without solid evidence to back it up. Second, participants shared that when implemented practices do not work after a certain time frame, they are abandoned. However, participants noted that constantly shifting practices can negatively impact teacher buy-in and student responses. Accordingly, focus group participants were asked about their perspectives on professional development as related to their support needs and their use of evidence-based practices.

Needed Professional Development Content

Teachers readily admit there is a strong need for professional development as they may have learned information in school but did not retain it. Yet although they acknowledged the need for professional development, many teachers expressed frustration with their current professional development programs, arguing that the information they are given reflects old or outdated knowledge or the strategies do not work: “I think what we would have been taught doesn’t really work anymore.” They argue that poorly designed professional development can be a waste of time, particularly when the content is not helpful. In fact, many teachers stated they were not asked what training they need:

Part of the failure of that training was we weren’t necessarily asked. I think somebody said ‘Oh, this is what they need’ and I think maybe we’ve said this is kind of what we need but [. . .] there was some disconnect between this is what we need and this is who we are going to get. Or this is how we’re going to do it. Because this, the person who came and spoke had no clue what we needed. No clue.

Teachers expressed a need for more information about normative student developmental processes and how students’ stages of development can impact teachers’ instruction and students’ behavior. For instance, teachers question when they can expect students to have “moved on,” how much you can expect them to be able to do, and how much activity they can handle:

And with that, you know, there’s such a variance of what stage students are at. So maybe some more information about, you know, how long those stages can last for students. Because I think that sometimes I know I, I fall into this. I’ve taught 6th grade and then 8th grade. And so I expected students to look very different from the 6th grade student to the 8th grade student. And most of the times they did but there were some things in the 8th grade that I thought they should moved passed this already. Why are we still doing this? But when I look as a parent at my own kids, their stages were all very different of how long. So what’s the norm you know that would be information that would be helpful for teachers. To know what the norm is. Like organization and the ability to keep up with multiple classes on an every other day cycle those kind of things. Are we asking them to move way beyond what they’re truly able to handle?

As it relates to their instruction, teachers want to know more about students’ normative development: “Is there a difference in their wanting to please at those ages or being rebellious at those ages that might impact our choices for how we deliver the instruction?” In terms of giving directions as part of instruction, teachers want to know more about what their students are capable of understanding:

At their stage in development, so when I’m giving directions, I always feel like I’m repeating myself so many times or I feel like I’m being clear but then I’m realizing that they’re just somehow they’re just not understanding and I don’t know if it’s a developmental thing or if it’s just a choice for them.

Relatedly, teachers are interested in learning more about brain development: “I’d like to know more about current research [. . .] in brain development of middle level students. To know what they’re finding that we might not have been taught when we were in school”; as well as the impact of physical development or puberty on students’ functioning at school.

As it pertains to students’ behavior, teachers want to know more about how students’ stage of development relates to their impulsivity and maturity and what is considered age-appropriate behavior. Furthermore, teachers want to better understand how students’ developmental stage impacts their understanding of consequences.

Many teachers expressed a need for a whole child perspective in professional development programs, including a need to understand the context students experience outside of school but also students’ own motivations: “Because there’s a lot of other things going on not involving school things in their heads that I think would be nice to know about.” Pertaining to life outside the classrooms, teachers want to know about the struggles their students face outside of school, particularly about their home life and family composition. Within the classroom, teachers want to better understand students’ academic interests, how to handle a lack of motivation, and how best to reward students in ways that do not remove their intrinsic motivation to succeed:

I think one of the big things that we talk about a lot is motivation. What’s going to motivate them to do better, to improve their grades, improve their behavior, because it, we really struggle with that I think as a grade level.

And what kind of things motivate an 8^th grader because we have, we have a lot of things in our school that are in place as like extrinsic motivators like [school’s reward money] and things like that but when we see it in the 8^th grade these things don’t really work for them so how can we motivate our students to want to be successful without you know doing things that we would do with 6^th graders? I struggle with that.

Relatedly, teachers want training that is relevant to their student body and their school context. Teachers believe that their professional development training should reflect the needs of the students they serve and specific issues their students face. This training should also consider the specific needs of the school or the school’s constraints in terms of resources:

I also just feel like whatever they’re presenting is in a bubble and it’s like in a perfect world this would be fantastic and I don’t think they take into consideration all the stuff that we know that we just understand, like our student population, like our resource availability, like our time, like all that stuff. If I hear it coming from somebody who’s in the room next door, I’m like ‘Wow, they have all the same stuff going against them that we do, and they made it work,’ I’m going to trust them. But if I’m going to some random person from somewhere I don’t know and they’re like this would be great, a tip and trendy [sic], I’m kind of like ‘But will it work for what I’m doing?’ [. . .] I definitely don’t like hearing people that aren’t in the same boat as us.

I feel like when you look at the school system that we’re in as a whole and you think about the different schools and you think about the needs of the different schools, I don’t know that there’s anybody that knows how to train us. Do you know what I’m saying? I don’t know that there’s the resources available because we have such a diverse community. This community is you know this end and that end and it’s really night and day.

Teachers also want a better understanding of how behaviors and academics are intertwined and impact one another: “How intertwined are they? Academically, they’re not studying, they’re poor test takers, they don’t turn in homework but how much of it is related to behavior I guess?” More specifically pertaining to academics, teachers want information about different strategies to teach students about organization skills:

I would love to have somebody tell me [about organization] because I know kids like options and one system isn’t going to work for everybody . . . not necessarily the content but the organization, like reading strategies writing strategies just for science. I know you guys do it in English but for science, I think that would be helpful.

Finally, teachers want applicable strategies they can use in the classroom that are linked to the information they learn. For instance, after learning about some aspects of middle schoolers’ development, teachers then want to learn about strategies that help them work with youth:

[It would be helpful] if the information is paired with tips. So tell us information, but then how do we deal with that. So this is a fact about middle schoolers this may be some ways that might work with them with these stages. Whether it’s delivery or motivation or things that would help us to make sure they’re learning.

Furthermore, teachers want strategy suggestions that can be tailored to teachers’ different teaching styles:

Like, with different personalities for how we teach and we’ve got different methods that are going to work for us. If I try to do something that [another teacher] did or he made, it might feel very uncomfortable and not natural and therefore not have an effect so you know if there was like well if you’re more of a this kind of teacher then these things would work with your students.

Some even suggest there would be a benefit to having workshops specifically designed for specific courses.

Delivery Formats for Professional Development

Teachers provided a range of suggestions for the best formats for professional development, from which several themes emerged. First, teachers want the opportunity to practice and apply the knowledge they learned. Second, teachers want to receive training and then have follow-up opportunities to practice their new skills or strategies. Third, teachers want autonomy in training. And fourth, they made several suggestions for how they would like to receive information as part of their professional development.

Teachers see the benefit in hands-on practice and want a professional development structure that would allow them to work on a strategy during training that they could then take with them:

I think also having something that you can walk away with. So like in person and either having time to work on something in that training or something that you can take away and not just listening to someone lecture the whole time.

Another teacher echoed this sentiment: “I like to [. . .] participate in workshops that teach me not only the information that’s being communicated but also I like to leave with things I can use in my classroom.”

Teachers also want a professional development structure that includes the opportunity for follow-up. One suggestion is to have individual trainings supplemented with meetings and discussion: “. . . if it was supplemented by a meeting that we had to go to make it more of a discussion based thing as opposed to sitting there and getting information.” Another suggestion was to combine reading materials with face-to-face conversations:

We get a lot of articles that we should read or that you know like a lot of things sent out to us for best practice kind of things [. . .] we don’t have a lot of time but I think sit down kind of face-to-face things with meaningful purpose, so kind of pairing them together is helpful.

Teachers reiterate the need for teacher choice in the types of professional development topics, arguing the need for a menu of options they can choose from that would be most relevant to their needs: “I like choice. I think that it was good that we had choice. Different things that you can choose that you feel like you need more help with and being able to choose what you want to go to.” Relatedly, they want to learn at their own pace, which reflects their stance that they should be able to choose professional development topics when they need them: “. . . when you need it instead of you have to do it.”

Finally, teachers supplied several recommendations for specific formats. Some teachers want conference-style professional development programs that have different sessions they can choose to attend. In terms of materials, some teachers want reading materials that they can review and look over during professional development to refer to and take notes on: “If I’ve got it written down then I can go back to it and refer to it whereas if it’s explained to me then like maybe I can record it but then I’d have to find it in the recording.” Some teachers would prefer reading materials with bullet points of the key concepts, whereas other teachers want more in-depth materials that directly links to current research:

And so part of me thinks I’ve read three things that are all different and I don’t know, not saying like this didn’t work for you but like what research is there or what is there to back it up? So sometimes the things that are I guess more condensed or written to be like quick and easily accessible kind of lack that “here is the justification for this” other than my own experience.

Indeed, teachers highlighted the need to provide both short- and long-versions of reading materials to allow for different teacher preferences:

. . . that preference of sending out two different things like here’s a shorter version, here’s a long version [. . .] or here’s the shorter version with the page of references if you would like to, you know, go deeper into this. So that if [another teacher] wants to go into it and see why it is, you know, the justification of it, he can and if she’s okay with the bullet points then that works for her and then you know differentiating for each other . . .

Some teachers expressed a preference for hard-copy reading materials versus electronic reading material, citing that the large volume of emails they already receive decreases the likelihood they would read something else electronically.

We get a lot of articles that we should read or that you know like a lot of things sent out to us for best practice kind of things so. We don’t have a lot of time [. . .] we just get a lot of, here’s a great article and then when it’s in your email and you get hundreds of emails a day It just can be really overwhelming.

However, teachers also see the benefit in having an online resource library or website that houses all of the information they need which would allow them to access the content easily: “if there’s a place like a library like a website with the videos on it like a resource library you could go when you are having specific problems.” In sum, teachers shared a number of considerations related to the content and format of professional development that warrant attention by the research community.

Understanding the Landscape

The points raised by teachers in the focus groups, the review of the literature on the relationship between student behavior and its impact on teacher burnout, and our experiences in the field of developing and evaluating professional development to enhance teachers’ capacity to manage classrooms all converge to paint a very complex and fluid picture. Student behavior is multi-determined and dynamic, its variability and fluidity can be exacerbated by context factors that are also dynamic, and the teacher is in a position of needing to simultaneously support and respond to the needs of each individual student while also promoting the productive functioning of the classroom as a collective.

The potential of a classroom dissolving into chaos and the possibility that certain students with problematic patterns can trigger or be triggered by others to set into motion an out-of-control class can make teaching students with EBD a daunting proposition. Teachers want classrooms that are manageable and predictable, and they want to be trained in strategies that are responsive to their situations and that will consistently work. However the promise of evidence-based practices that will fix “the problem” and work the same way over time as long as the teacher follows the same prescribed implementation protocol with fidelity does not reflect the science of child development and our understanding of the role of behavior in development.

To help teachers be more effective at both supporting students with EBD and managing the classroom as a collective, it is often useful to provide them with opportunities to refocus their understanding of the landscape. First, rather than thinking of development as a normative process that children go through in the same sequence and timeframe with relatively similar functioning and outcomes, it is important to help teachers understand that development is highly diverse, not guided by rote stages, and involves the ongoing and dynamic interactions between children’s personal characteristics and their contexts (Farmer, Lee, & Therrien, 2022). This means it is necessary to help teachers think of development as a process that can be nurtured and leveraged to help students establish new roles, capacities, and relationships that can promote and support new patterns of behavior. Second, it is useful to help teachers to rethink problem behavior. Instead of viewing difficult behavior patterns as problems to be punished or fixed, it is productive for teachers to view such behavior as a window into students’ developmental experiences and needs and to treat it as an opportunity to teach new behaviors that can positively reorganize their developmental systems and realign their developmental trajectories (Farmer, Serpell, et al., 2022). Third, it can be impactful to provide teachers with opportunities to rethink their own role in the classroom. Teachers often view themselves as being responsible for two things: (a) instructing content and (b) maintaining order to facilitate instruction. Yet, teachers can also serve as an invisible hand leading the classroom community and managing classroom social dynamics (Farmer, Dawes, et al., 2018). Teachers are uniquely positioned to develop and guide the classroom as a society by simultaneously directing institutional social and behavioral expectations (i.e., teaching school rules and policies) while providing students with opportunities to collectively construct their own peer culture in which they learn to value and productively support each other’s roles and positive behavior in the community (Farmer et al., 2011).

Helping teachers reframe their thinking about the classroom landscape and their role in managing individual and collective behavior requires an approach that is distinct from traditional professional development. First, it is necessary to understand teachers’ individual and collective circumstances within the school. This requires a multitude of data and activities including talking with teachers and other key stakeholders about their perspectives and needs; observing what is happening in the classroom and school; clarifying the degree to which what is observed aligns with the perceptions of teachers and other stakeholders; understanding the resources, values, goals, and constraints that may influence the teacher support process; relating this information to relevant theoretical and empirical work on children’s development; and leveraging these data to guide the adaptation of evidence-based strategies (Farmer, Lee, & Therrien, 2022). Second, it is important to provide professional development training that is adapted to the school context and that uses real-world examples from teachers’ experiences in their classrooms (Farmer, Hamm, et al., 2018). Third, it is necessary to go beyond typical discrete professional development sessions and have follow-up consultation meetings in which teachers apply practices, reflect on what worked and what did not, suggest and work through strategy adaptation, and collect and respond to data to guide their adaptive practices (Farmer, Huber, et al., 2022). Fourth, teachers can identify focal cases and work with the intervention specialist on their professional development team to establish individualized support plans for students with challenging problems, including progress monitoring protocols and strategy adaptation frameworks that build from the evidence-base, are linked to the knowledge base on relevant developmental process variables, and use ongoing data to tailor supports to specific students and contexts (Farmer, Chen, et al., 2016; Farmer et al., 2021). Finally, these activities can be used to build a team where teachers learn from and support each other, developing a sense of shared responsibility for students with difficult patterns, and establishing synergistic and complementary roles and skills that become mutually beneficial (Hamm et al., 2021). This seems like a lot of work, and it is. However, it is a process that reflects what teachers say they want in professional development, and it has the potential to create a culture in which teachers feel supported and empowered to effectively support the behavior of students with difficult patterns.

The Behavioral, Academic, and Social Engagement (BASE) Model

Reflecting the points raised earlier, we established the BASE model as a professional development framework to support teachers’ classroom management by bridging three distinct but necessary lenses: teachers’ real-life circumstances in the settings where they teach; key practice elements of the evidence base on behavior support and classroom management; and empirical knowledge of developmental diversity and the role of behavior in learning and development. From this multilayered perspective, we challenge the view that each teacher must implement the same manualized classroom management approach with fidelity by following a rigid, scripted protocol. From our vantage, it is necessary for teachers to work within the constraints of their own strengths, resources, and needs while also being responsive to the diverse, dynamic needs of individual students, the composition of the classroom, and the values, expectations, and goals at the community and school level that impact conceptions of behavior and student success. In fact, as we have found working in middle school classrooms, it is very common for the same teacher to need to approach classroom management differently for different classes across the day. A host of factors such as the composition of the class, the time of the day, students’ interest and familiarity with the content, and what comes next can all impact the behavioral dynamics of the classroom. This does not mean we eschew science. On the contrary, science tells us that teachers are working with multiple moving targets in equally fluid contexts. Rather than scripted protocols, we need to provide teachers with contextually tailored strategies that can be modified in relation to changing circumstances with the assistance of data-driven progress monitoring.

Accordingly, the BASE Model was created as an adaptive, evidence-based program developed in over three decades of work in diverse elementary and middle school settings across the United States. BASE has been evaluated in two large-scale randomized control trails aimed at supporting teachers’ capacity to simultaneously be responsive to the needs of individual students and the broader classroom ecology (Dawes et al., 2019; Farmer, Huber, et al., 2022; Hamm et al., 2014). Rooted in developmental science and ecological system perspectives, the conceptual foundations of BASE posit that students develop as holistic beings in context and their behavior is intricately related to their development in other domains (e.g., academic, social) as well as their interactions within the classroom and school ecology (Farmer et al., 2013). Therefore, managing students’ behavior is inherently linked to how they are functioning academically, their day-to-day experiences with peers and school adults, and their roles and relationships within the classroom social structure (Hamm et al., 2020). Consequently, BASE centers on helping teachers understand how the multiple domains (i.e., academic, behavioral, and social) of student functioning operate as a system of correlated constraints in which different factors support and complement each other and work together to sustain a student’s patterns of behavior (Farmer et al., 2020). The ultimate goal is to provide teachers with structures, frameworks, and strategies that help them leverage natural developmental and peer group processes in ways that reorganize problematic correlated constraints and promote the positive realignment of students’ developmental trajectories (Farmer, Serpell, et al., 2022).

The BASE Professional Development and Intervention Support Framework

The BASE model employs a directed consultation delivery framework for professional development and intervention support. Through directed consultation, teachers are guided on how to integrate evidence-based practice elements into their everyday classroom activities (Farmer et al., 2013). This approach consists of four components including (a) ongoing data collection through observations, interviews, and data to understand the needs and resources of the context; (b) general training that is tailored to the specific features of the individuals and context using the data collected previously; (c) ongoing support which includes data on implementation efforts and guidance on how to address implementation difficulties; and (d) implementation consultation which follows a problem-solving process designed to modify interventions for specific situations or settings (e.g., Farmer, Hamm, et al., 2018; Motoca et al., 2014).

A critical feature of directed consultation is the scouting report which is designed to capture information about the classroom’s social functioning, current practices in the classroom, school supports and resources available to teachers, and the specific needs of the focal child (Farmer, Chen, et al., 2016). The goal of the scouting report is to identify possible leverage points where evidence-based practices can be implemented in ways that maximize their effectiveness given the circumstances (Farmer et al., 2013; Farmer, Hamm, et al., 2018). These components are designed to be guided by an intervention specialist, someone who is ideally embedded in the school context with expertise tailoring interventions across multiple domains (Farmer, Sutherland, et al., 2016).

A second key aspect of directed consultation is the concept of supported professionalism (Farmer, Hamm, et al., 2018). Acknowledging increased focus on teacher accountability and standardized student test scores, Wills and Sanholtz (2009) coined the term “constrained professionalism” to refer to their observation that teachers in the 21^st century were being asked to teach in rote ways that undermined their autonomy, were being held accountable for student outcomes that they felt were being influenced by factors that were beyond their control, and being asked to use strategies that were inconsistent with their training and/or the values that attracted them into the profession. In other words, teachers felt as though they were not being treated as professionals, and thus the concept of “constrained professionalism.”

A goal of directed consultation is to flip the feeling of “constrained professionalism” by engaging in “supported professionalism.” We agree with leaders in the field that there is a need for teachers to learn how to use the evidence base and to build from the science of learning and development to tailor strategies to the specific circumstances of students and classrooms (see Cantor et al., 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). In other words, we need to view teachers as adaptive experts and we need to provide professional development and consultation that supports them in this role (DeArment et al., 2013; Farmer, Sutherland, et al., 2016). To do this, directed consultation begins by acknowledging that teachers are the experts with regard to their students, their classrooms, and the expectations and goals that they are working toward. We use initial conversations and observations to gain an understanding of what they are working with through their lens. From this foundation, we focus on developing a partnership relationship where we learn with and from teachers as we help them consider how students’ behavior issues may be informed by a developmental systems perspective and how we might use progress monitoring data to adapt relevant evidence-based strategies. With this approach, teachers maintain a professional posture and autonomy in their actions while learning new perspectives of child development and new strategies for addressing behavior while also learning how to use progress monitoring data to tailor interventions. When done well, the “supported professionalism” component of directed consultation can help teachers move from feeling overwhelmed and undervalued to experiencing a sense of empowerment and support that facilitates their capacity to make a positive impact on the lives of struggling students.

BASE Model Content

The BASE Model includes three components that were designed to work synergistically: (a) Academic Engagement Enhancement, (b) Competence Enhancement Behavior Management, and (c) Social Dynamics Management (Farmer et al., 2013). As part of the Academic Engagement Enhancement training, teachers learn to pace and structure their instruction to keep students’ attention and encourage students’ involvement (Gut et al., 2004; Lee, 2006). For example, the training provides strategies for how to begin class, how to differentiate instruction, and how to organize instruction in ways that promote engagement (Motoca et al., 2014). The Competence Enhancement Behavior Management component helps teachers learn to reinforce positive classroom behaviors (e.g., taking turns and sharing materials) and to provide constructive consequences to productively realign problematic patterns of behavior (Farmer et al., 2006, 2017). The goal of this approach is to use instances of problem behavior to teach and practice new skills. This approach avoids a behavior vacuum wherein the student is always told what not to do but is never taught what they should do nor given the chance to hone that new skill. The Social Dynamics Management component helps teachers recognize the powerful peer group processes that can occur in classroom settings and helps them apply their knowledge of these processes in ways that support learning and appropriate classroom behavior. For example, teachers can leverage their knowledge of productive peer pairings (i.e., what students work well together?) for group work to reduce the occurrence of problematic behaviors and provide a rich opportunity for collaboration that can enhance students’ academic success. Working on these components simultaneously can create momentum in multiple domains which can sustain positive outcomes for students.

Evidence for BASE Model Effects

The effectiveness of the BASE model has been evaluated in both small-scale randomized control trials during intervention development and large-scale cluster randomized trials. One large-scale trial involved 36 rural schools across 10 states in the United States and the second involved 24 metropolitan schools across two states. Results of the evaluations of these trials suggest that BASE model trained teachers (intervention teachers) were more attuned to classroom social dynamics and students’ social relationships and roles within the class and created more supportive classroom contexts promoting positive adjustment for particular students compared with teachers in the control schools (Farmer, Hall, et al., 2010; Hamm et al., 2011). Furthermore, intervention teachers had a higher sense of efficacy to support students compared with control teachers (Farmer, Hamm, et al., 2010). In addition, intervention teachers trained in the BASE model were more likely to use positive feedback and less likely to use negative feedback compared with teachers in control classrooms (Motoca et al., 2014). Importantly, intervention effects were also found for other key adjustment variables for different subsets of students (Dawes et al., 2019). Students—girls specifically—in intervention schools had significantly less social anxiety compared with their counterparts in control schools. Positive effects were also found specifically for ethnic minority youth. Compared with ethnic minority youth in control schools, those in intervention schools reported less defiance toward their teachers and a greater willingness to protect bullied peers. Finally, students from more disadvantaged backgrounds (i.e., lower economic status) in intervention schools reported lower emotional problems compared to their counterparts in control schools (Dawes et al., 2019). Collectively, the results suggest that the BASE model and the directed consultation process help teachers set up positive, supportive classroom contexts that have particular benefits for vulnerable youth.

Lessons Learned and Considerations for Addressing Teacher Burnout

Given that challenging student behavior is associated with problematic student–teacher relationships (Hargreaves, 2000), teacher stress and burnout (Aloe et al., 2014; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Wang et al., 2015), and teacher attrition (Ingersoll, 2001; Klassen & Chiu, 2010), a logical leverage point to disrupt the negative cycle between students’ problem behavior and teachers risk for burnout is to address their capacity and efficacy for managing the classroom. However, this is not about getting teachers to follow manualized interventions with fidelity. Rather, it is about treating teachers as professionals, taking the time to work with and learn from them, and creating professional development and intervention support frameworks that are responsive to the ever-changing needs of their students and the ecologies in which they learn and grow. We briefly outline three lessons learned from our work with the BASE model that we believe can help to address the impact of student problem behavior on teachers’ risk of burnout.

Developmental Diversity and the Dynamics of Behavior

In the initial professional development sessions of BASE, we present a dynamic systems perspective of child development. This is distinct from normative age-graded stage perspectives that teachers have typically learned in undergraduate training. Rather than expecting all students will go through the same developmental stages at the same time and in the same sequence with the same level of functioning and outcomes, we present a dynamic systems view of development that is centered on the interplay between factors within the child and the contexts in which they learn and grow (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1996; Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). We clarify that there is considerable variability in development which is dependent on individuals’ experiences and opportunities, and we emphasize that major positive shifts in students’ learning and functioning are possible across childhood, adolescence, and even into adulthood. We also teach the concepts of equifinality (there are multiple developmental pathways to the same developmental outcome) and multi-finality (individuals with similar characteristics and pathways may have different outcomes: see Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1996). Across the sessions on development, teachers tend to go from confusion to “aha!” moments in which their experiences with their students make sense to them. Many then become highly engaged learners who have a sense that what they are learning about development empowers them to be more effective teachers.

An important part of teaching teachers about a dynamic systems view of development centers on reframing their view of behavior in children’s growth and learning. Because youth development involves the bidirectional contributions of factors both internal and external to the student operating collectively as a system, changes in one factor can impact other factors and the student’s entire developmental system (Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). Because behavior is highly plastic and can quickly reorganize in relation to changes in the child (e.g., new social cognitions, hormonal changes during puberty) or the ecology (e.g., school transitions, changes at home), it can serve as a leading edge in development (Gariépy, 1996). In other words, change in behavior in relation to a change in another developmental factor can also induce changes in other factors within the child’s developmental system (Farmer et al., 2021). This means intervention should focus on preventing the negative reorganization of the developmental system of students who are not demonstrating chronic patterns of problem behavior and promoting the positive reorganization of the developmental system of students who do have chronic patterns of difficult behavior (Farmer, Serpell, et al., 2022). Accordingly, teachers learn to think of behavior as a way to better understand students’ adjustment across all three domains of school functioning (i.e., academic, behavioral, and social) and to manage these domains within the classroom as an integrated whole (Farmer et al., 2020). Rather than thinking in terms of punishing or stopping problem behavior, teachers learn to view it as a way of gauging students’ school adjustment and use it as a guide to help make data-driven adaptations in students’ supports and experiences. This reframing of teachers’ view of behavior can set into motion a shift from reactive to proactive classroom management and can empower teachers to address problems as opportunities.

Taking Supported Professionalism Seriously

To provide more effective and sustained positive supports and opportunities for students with EBD, the field must rethink how we support teachers (both special and general education). The focus on evidence-based practices is warranted, but it is not sufficient. We cannot continue to simply view teachers as consumers of our research. We also cannot continue to think that if teachers implement manualized interventions with fidelity their students will succeed. Teachers of youth with EBD are working with complex, dynamic behavior and associated developmental factors that tend to reflect intensive social histories and mental health problems. These challenges require extensive, multi-factored supports that need to be monitored constantly and adapted in relation to data-driven indices of adjustment (Cantor et al., 2019; Farmer et al., 2021). We need to understand that teachers are frontline workers of a team that requires the support and guidance of others working as intervention specialists and direct care providers from allied fields (Farmer, Sutherland, et al., 2016; Talbott et al., 2020, 2021). We must view teachers as true partners in the intervention and research process, and we need to create new intervention support and research frameworks in which we learn with and from teachers in their role as allied professionals.

Reforming Research to Move the Field Forward

Many advances have been made in research to support students in special education. At the same, it sometimes seems as though we believe that with the current evidence-based research paradigm, we have the correct answers and teachers just need to follow-through by implementing our interventions with fidelity. However, the current reliance on randomized trials and other experimental designs may have placed us in a position of not being responsive to the diverse and dynamic developmental needs of our students or the equally diverse and dynamic circumstances of the teachers who serve them (Farmer, 2020). In other words, evidence-based practices are not particularly scientific if they do not align with the fluid student experiences and characteristics that teachers are dealing with in the day-to-day moments of leading a class. There is a need to shift from intervention delivery and research practices that are centered on static evidence-based practices to more data-driven approaches that build upon and are guided by the science of learning and development in ways that make it possible to use science to tailor intervention to students and circumstances (Cantor et al., 2019; Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Farmer, 2023). The specifics of doing this are beyond the scope of the current paper. However, advances in the science of learning and development, the creation of new analytic approaches to individual diversity and developmental pathways within ecological contexts, and advances in the use of data in coordinated care come together to provide opportunities to better support teachers. If we are truly serious about addressing teacher burnout, we must center teachers as frontline professionals and we must emphasize the critical importance of supporting their role both in intervention delivery and research.