This article was originally published by ASCD.
Team-teaching models provide a built-in support system for new educators, making the job less isolating.
The teaching profession is increasingly comprised of new teachers. In the last three decades, both the number and proportion of new teachers have increased: There were approximately 300,000 first-year teachers in 2017–18 compared with 84,000 in 1987–88 (Ingersoll et al., 2021). This is problematic because new teachers are more likely to leave teaching and are generally less effective than seasoned teachers (Papay & Kraft, 2015).
Moreover, alternate routes to teaching are becoming increasingly common pathways for new teachers. Yet alternatively prepared teachers leave at higher rates due to lower levels of preparedness and commitment (Redding & Smith, 2019).
At the same time, U.S. schools are dealing with an unprecedented crisis in educator staffing. Many recent reports describe dire staffing shortages, large declines in teacher preparation enrollment, a rise in burnout and turnover, and a host of negative effects these trends have on schools and students. Given these challenges, it’s crucial to develop and retain as many new teachers as we can—and high-quality support will be necessary to increase these novices’ effectiveness and retention (Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017).
While the need to support new teachers has never been greater, the infrastructure for supporting them is increasingly fragile in light of decreased funding and current staffing challenges so many schools are facing. This raises the question of how school leaders can best support new teachers—and whether traditional approaches and models of schooling are well-positioned to do so. 
We believe (and research supports) that isolated one-teacher, one-classroom staffing models are problematic for new teachers. A different arrangement—team-based staffing models—can help leaders meaningfully integrate supports for new teachers. In these models, a small team of educators shares a common roster of students, and each team deliberately includes educators with complementary skills and expertise. While the size of educator teams varies, most have between three and five full-time educators who share a roster of between 75 and 150 students. In many cases, there is also an “extended team” of educators (e.g., part-time teachers, tutors, and paraeducators) who push into the learning space strategically over the course of a week or unit. This team of educators consistently collaborates, distributes teaching, and differentiates roles so that no one teacher is solely responsible for an entire classroom’s learning experience. We argue that these models could be especially helpful for early-career teachers and share emerging evidence on how using them improves outcomes for educators.
We believe (and research supports) that isolated one-teacher, one-classroom staffing models are problematic for new teachers. A different arrangement—team-based staffing models—can help leaders meaningfully integrate supports for new teachers. In these models, a small team of educators shares a common roster of students, and each team deliberately includes educators with complementary skills and expertise. While the size of educator teams varies, most have between three and five full-time educators who share a roster of between 75 and 150 students. In many cases, there is also an “extended team” of educators (e.g., part-time teachers, tutors, and paraeducators) who push into the learning space strategically over the course of a week or unit. This team of educators consistently collaborates, distributes teaching, and differentiates roles so that no one teacher is solely responsible for an entire classroom’s learning experience. We argue that these models could be especially helpful for early-career teachers and share emerging evidence on how using them improves outcomes for educators.Working in Isolation—and Why It’s Harmful
For half a century, scholars have critiqued what sociologist Dan Lortie (1975) called the “egg-crate” model of school. In this model, each teacher works in their own compartment of the “crate,” typically with a group of 20–30 students, isolated behind their classroom walls, interacting minimally and sporadically with colleagues.
One problem with this arrangement is that it siloes significant knowledge, social capital, and expertise within individual classrooms, leaving teachers to navigate challenges largely on their own—especially novice teachers who need substantial social and instructional support. Unlike other professions where seasoned veterans and novices collaborate to foster mutual support and growth, schools often maintain the egg-crate model (Wise, 2012).
Harvard’s Susan Moore Johnson (2015) applied social capital theory to argue that these compartmentalized school structures severely limit teachers’ development. This theory emphasizes the importance of relationships as resources to develop human and instructional capacity. Moore Johnson contended that the egg-crate model cuts teachers off from an essential part of all teacher support—systematically learning from expertise that exists within the school. She writes, “The more robust the teachers’ instructional repertoire and the more opportunities they have to exchange and integrate promising ideas and techniques into their own teaching, the more likely it will be that all students—not only those assigned to the more effective teachers—will experience the benefits of expert teaching” (p. 119). Research on teacher collaboration supports this view. For example, in a study of over 9,000 Miami-Dade County teachers, Matt Ronfeldt and colleagues (2015) found that teachers and schools engaging in higher-quality collaboration saw greater gains in math and reading.
The isolation of the egg-crate model is particularly problematic for new teachers. They are often left to “sink or swim,” even when support structures like induction and professional learning communities are in place. Supports like these are essential, but routines and structures can be difficult to implement consistently and effectively given a variety of logistical and scheduling constraints. These problems are exacerbated in schools dealing with staffing shortages. Schools facing vacancies and substitute shortages are relying on teachers and principals to cover classrooms, reducing time available for teacher collaboration and professional development. Meanwhile, educators are experiencing increased burnout (Torres et al., 2023).
Strategies to Support and Keep New Teachers
We have found that the following evidence-based strategies are key to effectively supporting and retaining new teachers, especially when implemented in a team-teaching model.
Induction is a set of practices and programs that orient, guide, and support new employees. Researchers find that induction has a positive impact on new-teacher commitment, retention, instructional practices, and student achievement, and that the greater the number of supports provided, the stronger the effects on these outcomes (Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). Common induction supports include being assigned a mentor, participating in new-teacher seminars, having common planning time with other teachers, receiving supportive communication with administration, extra help (such as a teacher’s aide), and a reduced teaching load. A recent international study on which induction practices are most effective showed that team teaching—having new teachers co-teach with experienced teachers—was associated with positive instructional outcomes (Reeves, Hamilton, & Onder, 2022). Team-based teaching models can theoretically integrate most of these supports without the logistical constraints of the egg-crate model, such as requiring substitutes to give teachers time to collaborate.
2. Professional Learning Community
Teaching can be isolating, especially for brand-new teachers who are learning on the job while typically given their own classroom and the same responsibilities as more experienced colleagues. Although Lortie depicted the egg crate as a structure where teachers valued privacy, new generations of teachers consistently rank cooperation with colleagues as one of the most important aspects of the job that improves their teaching (Simon & Johnson, 2015). Schools where teachers can rely on colleagues for social and instructional support have “integrated professional cultures” where deliberate exchanges are made between novices and veterans in ways that bolster teacher effectiveness and commitment (Kardos et al., 2001). Team-based models can help leaders provide these deliberate exchanges and daily opportunities for aligned professional learning through common planning, shared goals, and peer observation/feedback.
3. Specialized Roles and Career Ladders
Teachers who feel successful and supported are more likely to stay in their jobs. In marked contrast with traditional models where teachers are asked to be experts in everything, team-based models can help teachers specialize in ways that align with their interests and expertise. Career ladders can be embedded, allowing novices to grow into lead teachers or other roles. These opportunities are especially important for keeping this generation of new teachers in classrooms because, compared to prior generations, they are more interested in pursuing roles that increase their influence on colleagues, students, and schools. Having clear avenues for professional growth at the start of one’s career could bolster commitment and retention within a school or classroom (Donaldson et al., 2008).
Implementing Team-Based Models
Grouping teachers into teams could potentially break the egg-crate model and efficiently provide new teachers with such evidence-based supports. But how are these models implemented, and do they actually live up to this promise?
The Next Education Workforce initiative at Arizona State University is one specific team-based model aiming to redesign the standard one-teacher, one-classroom approach to staffing schools. As we’ve noted, the egg-crate model requires one teacher to be all things to all students at all times: a particularly daunting task for anyone, but near-impossible for first-year teachers still developing their craft (particularly those entering with little prior preparation). In stark contrast, novice teachers on Next Education Workforce teams share a roster of students with other educators who typically have more experience. The exact design of the team-based staffing model varies based on the local context. That said, many teams include one lead teacher who manages the team’s responsibilities and schedules and serves as a coach for other teammates. Teams may also include multiple certified teachers, teacher candidates, special educators, paraeducators, and community educators, such as tutors or project-based mentors connected to local industries.
With a flexible schedule, teams can group and regroup students throughout the day, teaching separately or together, to best meet students’ needs. Most decisions about how to group and schedule students are made collaboratively by the educator team. At times, one educator, particularly one with deep expertise in a content area, may leverage student data and their understanding of the students to propose an instructional approach to the rest of the team. When implemented well, these models fully break open the traditional egg-crate model, with teachers constantly collaborating instead of working in isolation. Figures 1 and 2 show a typical egg-crate model and an example of a teaming configuration.
While this increased collaboration may be appealing to educators of all levels, the potential benefits to new teachers—especially how collaboration organically embeds the evidence-based strategies just outlined—are particularly striking.
For example, when a new teacher is inducted, placing them on a team ensures that many of the strongest evidence-based induction supports—mentorship, common planning time, and more support in the classroom—will be present, just by nature of that teacher sharing a roster of students and regularly collaborating with more experienced educators. Sharing the tasks of teaching may also reduce a new teacher’s teaching load by allowing for specialization. These supports will occur naturally in the everyday work of planning and teaching with teammates, rather than requiring experienced educators to leave their own classrooms or use their own planning time to support a new mentee.
In terms of professional learning, in such models, teams share the same student and classroom context, which increases the relevance of professional learning—and sense of community—for all team members. Teams can share strategies for working with their specific roster of students and connecting with families, and can provide regular feedback on each other’s practices. Regular availability of instructional support and learning provides the “integrated professional culture” Kardos recommended.
Finally, team-based models allow for specialization in tasks and alternate pathways into and through the profession. A new teacher on a team could focus on planning for a specific content area and rely on their teammates for specialization in other subjects. One teammate could manage family communication, while another might manage technology integration and online learning. Distributing tasks allows new teachers to focus on honing specific skills rather than trying to do everything at once. New teachers can add more tasks and responsibilities to their plates as they develop their practice and eventually take on leadership positions within their teams.
Finally, team-based models allow for specialization in tasks and alternate pathways into and through the profession. A new teacher on a team could focus on planning for a specific content area and rely on their teammates for specialization in other subjects. One teammate could manage family communication, while another might manage technology integration and online learning. Distributing tasks allows new teachers to focus on honing specific skills rather than trying to do everything at once. New teachers can add more tasks and responsibilities to their plates as they develop their practice and eventually take on leadership positions within their teams. Early Evidence of Impact
Next Education Workforce models are currently being implemented in nearly 100 schools in dozens of districts nationwide. While research on these models is still preliminary (and more research is needed on whether these models solve the problems with the egg-crate model), early evidence is promising. In an evaluation conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins, teachers working in team-based models said they deeply appreciated the built-in support system, which made the job less overwhelming. Teamed teachers reported feeling more supported and less isolated and lonely in their roles. Even experienced teachers currently working on teams recalled the stress of their first year on the job and wished they’d had this increased support earlier in their careers. In another Johns Hopkins study, teamed teachers reported higher levels of collaboration and job satisfaction than their non-teamed colleagues (Johns Hopkins, 2022a, 2022b). Teamed teachers are also much more likely to plan to stay in the profession than their non-teamed colleagues, a particularly exciting finding given high rates of turnover, especially among new teachers (Laski, 2024).
The current model of teaching is too often unsustainable and difficult for novice teachers, and big problems require big solutions. School systems and leaders should consider models that break open the traditional teaching structure to make the profession more appealing and sustainable.
References
- Donaldson, M. L., Johnson, S. M., Kirkpatrick, C. L., Marinell, W., Steele, J. L., & Szczesiul, S. A. (2008). Angling for access, bartering for change: How second-stage teachers experience differentiated roles in schools. Teachers College Record, 110(5).
- Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., Collins, G., & Harrison, B. (2021). The demographic transformation of the teaching force in the United States. Education Sciences, 11(5), 234.
- Johns Hopkins. (2022a). Results from the year one survey of Next Education Workforce (NEW) teachers.
- Johns Hopkins. (2022b). Elements of the Next Education Workforce Models: Qualitative Report.
- Johnson, S. M. (2015). Will VAMS reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school? Educational Researcher, 44(2).
- Kardos, S. M., Johnson, S. M., Peske, H. G., Kauffman, D., & Liu, E. (2001). Counting on colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2).
- Laski, M. (2024). Early evidence of improved educator outcomes in Next Education Workforce models. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
- Papay, J. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement. Journal of Public Economics, 130, 105–119.
- Redding, C., & Smith, T. M. (2019). Supporting early career alternatively certified teachers: Evidence from the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Survey. Teachers College Record, 121(11), 1–32.
- Reeves, T. D., Hamilton, V., & Onder, Y. (2022). Which teacher induction practices work? Linking forms of induction to teacher practices, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109.
- Ronfeldt, M., & McQueen, K. (2017). Does new teacher induction really improve retention? Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 394–410.
- Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3).
- Simon, N., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–36.
- Torres, C., Burroughs, N., Frausel, R., Gardner, J., Zuschlag, D., & Reichel, C. (2023). Final report: The state of the educator workforce in Michigan; An in-depth look at K-12 staffing challenges.
- Wise, A. E. (2012, January 24). End the tyranny of the self-contained classroom. Education Week.
