The Case for Elementary Specialists

 

Our school started with Distance Learning this fall and the elementary teachers are using Seesaw as a learning management system. The initial problems with the platform drove homeroom teachers to seek out solutions using Google Suites and Zoom to connect with students and provide instruction. The specialist teachers (Art, Music, PE and Foreign Language) were given their own classes on Seesaw, but with no synchronous instruction time. Immediately the problem arose round students only responding to their homeroom teacher’s assignments, and neglecting the ‘specials’ or electives. In some cases, the students would choose to do one assignment in a subject of interest and ignore the rest. A general lack of respect was shown for these ‘specialist’ teachers, both verbally from students, and in the fact that their class rosters were not updated with changes and withdrawals. They reached out to me for help, and I was left wondering: “Why do we have specialist teachers in the elementary school?” If these teachers offer instruction for elective courses that are not part of the core curriculum, then shouldn’t their classes be considered as enrichment, and therefore optional to the student? If these classes are considered an essential part of the elementary curriculum, then why are they not taught alongside all the other core subjects by a generalist trained in that age level’s pedagogy?

Some countries have not moved much past the one-room schoolhouse, where elementary students are instructed in all subjects by one teacher. Others are investing in a host of specialists for high status subjects, with an interest in gaining higher test scores.
What is the role of a specialist elementary teacher? Is there any evidence that specialist teachers ( as opposed to classroom generalists) in the elementary school can have an effect on student achievement?
The classroom generalist vs subject specialist argument is an old one. However, there is little evidence to suggest a research based reason to adopt one model over the other. Many articles cited Lobdell, L., & Van Ness, W. (1963) who made a study of the self-contained classroom and the modified self-contained model, which uses specialist teachers for the arts, PE and other non-core subjects. Since then the pendulum has swung from an Australian study The use of subject specialist and generalist teachers in NSW 2010 which argues against forcing the elementary classroom teacher to specialize; to one 2014 Canadian study Specialist Teachers which saw a concern with the increasing use of classroom generalists, and the cutting of specialists.

The literature suggests that specialists were brought in to the elementary school to provide a previously nonexistent arts and wellness curriculum. The positive results prompted further specialization in core subject areas such as Math and Reading. This caused a backlash when students as young as 5 were being instructed by more than five teachers, and no longer feeling the security of staying in one room with one caretaker.

With the lack of any evidence linking the current organizational structure to a significant impact on student achievement, a wide variety of teacher allocation models have arisen in schools today. One study focused on the reasons that led principals to adopt one method over another. Many administrators relied on trial and error. They wanted their classroom teachers to focus on basic skills only, and used the specialists as support teachers to alleviate the lesson load and assist with scheduling.

One study that showed concrete positive results for using a specialist in the classroom was done on a BLS class in primary school(2016). In this case the students who were taught the technique by an outside specialist shower higher ability in the skill than those taught by a classroom generalist.

There are some studies that have found, in elementary schools, a correlation between the hiring of a math or literacy coach, with higher student performance in those areas. However, they are the first ones to agree, the results may be due to the fact that districts who can afford to hire specialists often have more resources, and their student population is made up of a higher economic families.

With the absence of evidence for or against the use of specialist teachers in the elementary classroom, thinking has settled on the following: models using classroom generalists benefit the students, whereas models using specialists in come capacity offer greater benefit for the teacher. The benefits for the student seems to cover the social side of relationships, connectedness and a feeling of security; where the teacher gains confidence, planning time and greater job satisfaction. Another study out of Iowa Elementary School Organization: Self-Contained and Departmentalized Classroom Structures.(1989) found no evidence of the effect of organizational structure on student achievement or development. If this holds true, then we can conclude that students will learn in a variety of models, with both generalists and specialists, in just one room, or moving between physical areas.

One last study, by Brobst, J. A., & Markworth, K. A. (2019): Elementary content specialization: Perspectives on perils and promise, echoed this last assumption. Although the study only took into account the teaching of Math and Science in the elementary school, it found one challenge to implementing specialists was the generalists concern for losing control of their students' learning. The classroom teacher feels great ownership and responsibility over their class, and is reluctant to allow another teacher to share in the teaching. The study suggested that the best use for specialists in the elementary school was for professional development, in assisting and supporting the classroom generalist. This would support the need for collaboration between specialist and generalist, with one offering enrichment and depth to the other's curriculum.

*Photos taken during specialist classes at the American International School of Abuja, Nigeria.