Although the majority of elementary school teachers cover all major subjects in self-contained classrooms, a growing number of teachers specialize in teaching fewer subjects to higher numbers of students. We use administrative data from Indiana to estimate the effect of teacher specialization on teacher and school effectiveness in elementary schools. We find that teacher specialization leads to lower teaching effectiveness in math and reading, and the negative effects are larger when teaching students who are more likely to experience obstacles in school. Moreover, we find no evidence that increasing the proportion of teacher specialists at the school level generates improvements in indicators of school quality. Our findings underscore the importance of fostering opportunities to develop stronger student–teacher relationships.
AckerlundG. (1959). Some teacher views on the self-contained classroom. The Phi Delta Kappan, 40(7), 283–285.
2.
AllenK.KernM. L.Vella-BrodrickD.HattieJ.WatersL. (2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34.
3.
Al-YagonM.MikulincerM. (2004). Socioemotional and academic adjustment among children with learning disorders: The mediational role of attachment-based factors. The Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 111–123.
4.
BakerJ. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 57–70.
5.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
6.
BastianK. C.FortnerC. K. (2020). Is less more? Subject-area specialization and outcomes in elementary schools. Education Finance and Policy, 15(2), 357–382.
7.
BastianK. C.JandaL. (2018). Does quantity affect quality? Teachers’ course preparations and effectiveness. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(4), 535–558.
8.
BlazarD. (2015). Grade assignments and the teacher pipeline: A low-cost lever to improve student achievement?Educational Researcher, 44(4), 213–227.
9.
BouchardK. L.BergD. H. (2017). Students’ School Belonging: Juxtaposing the Perspectives of Teachers and Students in the Late Elementary School Years (Grades 4-8). School Community Journal, 27(1), 107–136.
10.
CampbellP. F.NishioM.SmithT. M.ClarkL. M.ConantD. L.RustA. H.ChoiY. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers’ perceptions, and student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 419–459.
11.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679.
12.
CohenJ.RuzekE.SandilosL. (2018). Does teaching quality cross subjects? Exploring consistency in elementary teacher practice across subjects. AERA Open, 4(3), 1–16.
13.
CondieS.LefgrenL.SimsD. (2014). Teacher heterogeneity, value-added and education policy. Economics of Education Review, 40, 76–92.
14.
CorcoranS. P.EvansW. N.SchwabR. M. (2004). Changing labor-market opportunities for women and the quality of teachers, 1957-2000. American Economic Review, 94(2), 230–235.
15.
CulyerR. C. (1984). The case for the self-contained classroom. The Clearing House, 57(9), 417–419.
16.
CurbyT. W.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.PonitzC. C. (2009). Teacher–child interactions and children’s achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 912–925.
17.
EgaliteA. J.KisidaB. (2018). The effects of teacher match on students’ academic perceptions and attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40, 59–81.
18.
FryerR. G.Jr. (2018). The “pupil” factory: Specialization and the production of human capital in schools. American Economic Review, 108(3), 616–656.
GoldhaberD.CowanJ.WalchJ. (2013). Is a good elementary teacher always good? Assessing teacher performance estimates across subjects. Economics of Education Review, 36, 216–228.
21.
GrantJ.JohnsonB.RichardsonI. (1996). The looping handbook (FredenburgA., Ed.). Crystal Springs Books.
22.
HamreB. K.PiantaR. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?Child Development, 76(5), 949–967.
23.
HanushekE. A.PaceR. R. (1995). Who chooses to teach (and why)?Economics of Education Review, 14(2), 101–117.
24.
HegdeA. V.CassidyD. J. (2004). Teacher and parent perspectives on looping. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(2), 133–138.
25.
HillA. J.JonesD. B. (2018). A teacher who knows me: The academic benefits of repeat student-teacher matches. Economics of Education Review, 64, 1–12.
26.
HoodL. (2010). “Platooning” instruction. The Education Digest, 75(7), 13–17.
27.
HwangN.KisidaB.KoedelC. (2021). A familiar face: Student-teacher rematches and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 85, Article 102194.
28.
JacobB. A.RockoffJ. E. (2011). Organizing schools to improve student achievement: Start times, grade configurations, and teacher assignments. Brookings Institution, Hamilton Project.
29.
JenningsP. A.GreenbergM. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.
30.
LiewJ.ChenQ.HughesJ. N. (2010). Child effortful control, teacher–student relationships, and achievement in academically at-risk children: Additive and interactive effects. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(1), 51–64.
31.
LobdellL. O.Van NessW. J. (1963). The self-contained classroom in the elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 63(4), 212–217.
32.
MeehanB. T.HughesJ. N.CavellT. A. (2003). Teacher–student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74(4), 1145–1157.
33.
MurrayC.MalmgrenK. (2005). Implementing a teacher–student relationship program in a high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and academic adjustment and lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2), 137–152.
34.
O’ConnorE.McCartneyK. (2007). Examining teacher–child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340–369.
35.
OstB. (2014). How do teachers improve? The relative importance of specific and general human capital. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(2), 127–151.
36.
ParkerA.RakesL.ArndtK. (2017, July). Departmentalized, self-contained, or somewhere in between: Understanding elementary grade-level organizational decision-making. The Educational Forum, 81(3), 236–255.
37.
StrohlA.SchmertzingL.SchmertzingR.HsiaoE. (2014). Comparison of self-contained and departmentalized elementary teachers’ perceptions of classroom structure and job satisfaction. Journal of Studies in Education, 4(1), 109–127.
VidergorH. E.Azar GordonL. (2015). The case of a self-contained elementary classroom for the gifted: Student, teacher, and parent perceptions of existing versus desired teaching–learning aspects. Roeper Review, 37(3), 150–164.
40.
WuJ. Y.HughesJ. N.KwokO. M. (2010). Teacher–student relationship quality type in elementary grades: Effects on trajectories for achievement and engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 357–387.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
