Category: Teacher Support

For teachers about their own professional survival: mentorship, avoiding isolation, and classroom systems that hold up under real conditions.

Co-Teaching Models: Which of the Six Actually Works in Grades 6–12

By Clay Shumate

Co-teaching models are the six ways two teachers can share one classroom: one teach one observe, one teach one assist, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and teaming. The first two are the most common and the cheapest to plan. The three that change what students actually experience — stations, parallel and teaming — cost real planning time.

Key Takeaways

There are six co-teaching models, and they are not interchangeable. Georgia’s state guidance rates one teach one observe, one teach one assist and station teaching as low planning cost, parallel teaching as medium, and teaming and alternative teaching as high.
The measured achievement effect is small. Across eleven years of Massachusetts data in grades 3–8, co-teaching raised reading scores for students with disabilities by 0.016 standard deviations and math by 0.026. Middle-grades math was the biggest single effect at 0.036. For students without disabilities, math gained 0.012 and reading showed nothing.
The widely quoted number is roughly fifteen times larger, and both deserve to be on the table. A 2001 meta-analysis averaged about 0.40 standard deviations — but only six studies out of 89 met its inclusion criteria, and few compared co-taught students against a pull-out control group.
One teach, one assist dominates, and that is the problem. In a synthesis of 32 qualitative studies covering 454 co-teachers, 25 of them described the special educator in an assistant-like or subordinate role, and differentiated instruction was rarely observed at all.
Planning time is the binding constraint, not goodwill. One study inside that synthesis found co-teaching teams averaged 45.5 minutes of shared planning a week and said they needed close to three times that.

Two adults in one room is one of the most expensive instructional decisions a school makes. It is also one of the least examined. Schedules get built, names get paired, and then the two teachers are left to work out what the second adult is for. The default answer — one teaches, the other walks around — is the model that research finds most often and recommends least.

This guide sets out the six co-teaching models, what the evidence says about whether co-teaching works, and which model fits which lesson in grades 6–12. The structures and timings below are compiled from the sources listed at the end, so read them as recommendations rather than a record of any one classroom. Where the research population was elementary, it says so.

What Are the Six Co-Teaching Models?

The six co-teaching models are one teach one observe, one teach one assist, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and teaming. They differ in how students are grouped, which adult is delivering instruction, and how much shared planning each one requires before the lesson starts.

Co-teaching is two certified teachers sharing responsibility for instruction, assessment and management in the same classroom at the same time. Georgia’s state guidance names all six and rates each one for planning cost, which is the detail most lists leave out and the one that decides whether a model survives past October.

Graphic describing the six co-teaching models in one line each: one teach one observe, one teach one assist, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching and teaming, each labelled with its planning cost.

Model	What happens	Planning cost	Best for	Main drawback
One teach, one observe	One teacher leads the whole group; the other watches named students and records what they do	Low	Finding out why a specific student stalls, before you change anything	Produces data, not instruction. Useless if nobody reads the notes
One teach, one assist	One teacher instructs; the other circulates and supports	Low	Covering a one-off lesson, or a first week while a pair is still learning each other	The second adult becomes an aide. This is the default and the weakest use of a licensed teacher
Station teaching	Small groups rotate through two or three stations, each teacher owning one	Low	Practice, review, labs, document work — anything with discrete tasks	Noise and timing. One slow station derails the rotation
Parallel teaching	The class splits in half; each teacher teaches the same content to one group	Medium	Discussion, questioning, anything where halving the group doubles airtime	Both halves must arrive at the same place. Requires genuinely shared planning
Alternative teaching	One teacher re-teaches or extends with a small group while the other works with the rest	High	Students who missed a prerequisite, and students who already have it	Visible grouping. If the same students always get pulled, you have built a tracked class inside a period
Teaming	Both teachers present, question and model to the whole group, trading roles	High	Modeling disagreement, two-method explanations, debate and seminar framing	The most planning of any model, and it fails flat if the pair has not rehearsed

Model names and planning-cost ratings follow Georgia Department of Education guidance. The “best for” and “drawback” columns are compiled for this guide and are not drawn from a study.

Notice what the planning column does to the list. The two models that need almost no preparation are the two that leave one teacher doing nothing a trained paraprofessional could not do. The models that justify the second salary are the expensive ones. That tension is the whole subject.

Does Co-Teaching Actually Improve Achievement?

Modestly, and by less than the usual claim. The largest study to date, covering eleven years of Massachusetts testing data in grades 3–8, found co-teaching raised reading scores for students with disabilities by 0.016 standard deviations and math by 0.026. Those are real, statistically significant and small.

Nathan Jones and Marcus Winters compared the same student’s scores in co-taught and single-teacher classrooms over time, using student and school fixed effects on state administrative data from 2007–08 through 2017–18. The math sample alone runs to roughly 129,700 observations for students with disabilities and 285,700 for students without. Their findings, in standard deviations:

Students with disabilities, reading: +0.016, significant, with no difference between elementary and middle grades.
Students with disabilities, math: +0.026 overall — 0.036 in middle grades against 0.014 in elementary, and that difference is itself significant.
Students without disabilities, math: +0.012, significant.
Students without disabilities, reading: no significant effect.

The authors are blunt about the comparison that matters. Their estimate for students with disabilities is far below the roughly 0.40 standard deviations averaged by Murawski and Swanson’s 2001 meta-analysis, and they place their own result around the 30th to 40th percentile of randomized-trial effect sizes — “small” by the standard taxonomy. If you have seen co-teaching sold on the 0.40 figure, this is the number that followed it.

Why the older number is so much bigger

The 2001 meta-analysis is not fraudulent; it is thin. A Virginia Commonwealth University summary of it, which is the version I was able to read in full, records that 89 studies were found, 52 were excluded for lacking substantial data, and only six met every inclusion condition, including a co-teaching treatment lasting more than two weeks. Those six produced a large reported gain in reading and language arts, a moderate gain in math, and moderate reductions in absences and referrals. The same summary records the authors’ own caveat: few of the studies included a control group of students with disabilities in self-contained or pull-out settings, which is the comparison the whole question rests on.

Solis, Vaughn, Swanson and McCulley’s 2012 review of six syntheses is often cited alongside it as independent confirmation. It is not. For student outcomes it draws on the same studies. Two citations, one evidence base.

So the honest position is this. Co-teaching, as actually implemented across an entire state, produces small positive effects for students with disabilities and a small math effect for everyone else. The larger figures come from a handful of studies of deliberately good practice. Jones and Winters say so themselves: their data cannot see what teachers did in those rooms, so their estimate is the average of statewide implementation, not of co-teaching done well.

What a small effect does and does not justify

A district reading those numbers will notice immediately that co-teaching puts two salaries in one room for a gain the authors themselves call small. That is a fair observation and it leads to the wrong conclusion, for a reason the achievement data cannot show. For most schools co-teaching is not an instructional experiment they chose; it is the structure through which students with disabilities receive services in a general education setting rather than a separate one. Dropping it does not return the money. It changes where a student sits all day.

Which makes the implementation finding the actionable one rather than the effect size. Jones and Winters are measuring average practice, and average practice — per the qualitative research in the next section — is one adult teaching and one adult circulating. The arithmetic a district should run is not “is 0.026 worth two salaries,” it is “we are already paying for this; what would it take to move it off the cheapest model.” The research answer to the second question is specific and unglamorous: shared planning time with an agenda, training the pair attends together, and pairing by content rather than by schedule.

Why Is “One Teach, One Assist” So Common, and Why Is That a Problem?

Because it needs no shared planning and no agreement about who is in charge. The cost is that the second teacher stops teaching. In a synthesis of 32 qualitative studies, 25 described the special educator in an assistant-like or subordinate role, and whole-class instruction largely persisted.

Scruggs, Mastropieri and McDuffie’s metasynthesis of 32 qualitative reports pulled together the views of 454 co-teachers, 42 administrators, 142 students, 26 parents and five support staff. Fifteen of the studies were elementary or earlier, fourteen were junior high, middle or high school, and three covered both — so unlike much of this literature, roughly half of it is about rooms like the ones this site is written for.

Their findings are uncomfortable reading, and they have not been superseded:

One teach, one assist was by far the most common model. Parallel, station and team teaching appeared much less often.
In 25 investigations the special educator’s role was described as subordinate, sometimes because of weaker content knowledge in the subject. One study found the special educator “seldom took (or was permitted to take) the lead in instruction.”
Differentiation was rarely observed. In one study teachers used whole-class activities 100 percent of the time. Another reported “little differentiation of instruction to address individual needs.”
Strategy instruction, mnemonics and peer mediation — the practices the literature recommends most — were seldom observed.

The authors’ conclusion is the sentence worth taking to a faculty meeting: the ideal of two equal partners has “largely not been met.” Students with disabilities were receiving good general education instruction with assistance, but possibly not special education. They borrow Hargreaves’ phrase and call much of the practice “contrived collaboration” — partnership produced by a schedule rather than by two people choosing it.

One caveat in their favour, which they raise themselves: ten of the 32 studies deliberately examined outstanding examples of co-teaching. If anything, the picture is more flattering than typical practice.

A smaller 2017 case study makes the same point at close range. Brendle, Lock and Piazza observed two co-teaching pairs and found that neither pair could name the model they were using. Co-planning covered lesson modification and rarely touched how instruction would be delivered or assessed. Only one of the four teachers had ever attended co-teaching training, and none of them had trained together. That study was in a single elementary school, with fourth- and fifth-grade pairs, so treat it as illustrative rather than as evidence about secondary rooms.

Which Co-Teaching Model Should You Use, and When?

Match the model to the lesson’s job. Use stations for practice and discrete tasks, parallel teaching when you need discussion airtime, alternative teaching when a group is missing a prerequisite, and teaming when the point of the lesson is to show two ways of thinking. Keep one teach, one assist for the weeks you have not planned together.

Graphic showing measured co-teaching effects in standard deviations: plus 0.016 reading and plus 0.026 math for students with disabilities, plus 0.012 math for students without, and no significant reading effect for students without disabilities.

The useful question is not “which model is best.” It is “what does this lesson need that one adult cannot do?” Three answers come up repeatedly in grades 6–12.

The lesson needs more student talk

Thirty students and one teacher means most of them say nothing. Parallel teaching halves the group, which roughly doubles every student’s airtime. It is the model that pairs best with a seminar or any structured discussion format, and the one that most obviously justifies the second teacher to a student watching the room.

Some students are missing a prerequisite

Alternative teaching exists for this and is the most easily abused model on the list. The rule that keeps it honest is that the pulled group changes. If the same six names go to the back table every week, the period now contains a tracked class, and the students know it before you do. Pairing it with clear learning targets makes the grouping legible: students can see which target they are working on and when they are done with it.

It also matters how the grouping is named out loud. “Come with me” aimed at the same table every Tuesday is a label. “Anyone who wants another pass at the second target, come over” is an invitation, and it lets a student who has it wrong but would never say so take the help without being assigned to it. Grades 6–12 students will refuse useful support rather than be seen receiving it, which is a predictable behaviour and not a character flaw. Build the model so accepting help is a choice they make.

The content has two defensible approaches

Teaming is where two teachers earn their keep. Two adults solving the same problem two ways, or openly disagreeing about an interpretation and then reasoning it out, is a lesson a single teacher cannot deliver. It is also the highest planning cost on the Georgia list, and it does not survive being improvised.

What all three have in common is that they need agreement before the bell, not during the lesson. That is also why differentiation that does not need five lesson plans matters more in a co-taught room than a solo one: the cheapest differentiation moves are the ones two teachers can run without a second plan.

How Much Planning Time Does Co-Teaching Really Need?

More than schools give it. Inside the 32-study synthesis, one investigation found co-teaching teams averaged 45.5 minutes of shared planning a week and reported needing close to three times that. Another found 40 minutes a week still felt insufficient.

Planning time was the most frequently raised need in the synthesis, appearing in nearly every study. That is not a complaint about workload. It is a structural fact about the models: station, parallel, alternative and teaming all require two people to agree in advance on who does what, with which students, to what standard. Without that agreement the pair defaults to one teach, one assist, because it is the only model that works with no conversation.

Graphic on co-teaching planning time: teams averaged 45.5 minutes a week, said they needed close to three times that, planning time was the most frequently raised need, and protected time with no agenda becomes modification time.

The 2017 case study shows how time alone does not fix it. Administrators there scheduled one day every nine weeks plus a half day every two weeks for collaboration, and the teachers valued it — but they received no guidance on what co-planning should cover, so the time went on modifying worksheets rather than on deciding how instruction would be delivered. Protected time with no agenda becomes modification time.

What if your co-teacher will not plan with you?

This is the question the model diagrams never answer, and teacher compatibility is named as a concern throughout the qualitative research. If the shared planning is not happening, the realistic move is not to fix the relationship first. It is to pick the one model that works with almost no negotiation and run it well.

Station teaching is that model. You can hand someone a single station with a clear task, a time limit and a defined output, and it functions even if the two of you never agree on anything else. It is low planning cost by design, and unlike one teach one assist it puts the second teacher in front of students doing instruction. Start there, keep a written record of what you proposed, and take the pattern to an administrator if it does not move — a pair that cannot plan is a scheduling problem, not a personality one, and it is fixable at the level that built the schedule.

If you are the one asking an administrator for something, ask for the two things the research actually points at: shared planning time with a named agenda, and training the pair attends together. Professional development that only one of the two attends cannot build a shared model, which is exactly what the case study found.

What Does Co-Teaching Have to Do With Treating Students Like Young Adults?

Students read the hierarchy in the room long before they read the lesson plan. When one of two licensed teachers spends every period handing out papers, students learn which adult counts. That lesson undercuts everything a co-taught class is supposed to signal about shared responsibility.

This is where I will put my own view plainly, because the research does not reach it. My position on respect in a classroom is that it is mostly mechanical: you do what you said you would do, every time, and students decide you are credible. A co-taught room makes that harder for two people at once, because now two adults have to say the same thing about deadlines, consequences and what counts as finished. If they do not, students will find the gap within a week and work it.

The other half of it is about teachers, and I have said this before on this site. Keeping your ears open and your mouth closed sometimes pays off; keeping your ears open and asking questions really pays off. In my first year I picked up a review format from another teacher on my hall because he noticed I was short on them and offered. That is what co-teaching is supposed to be an institutional version of — and a pair where one person is permanently the assistant has lost the part that made the informal version work.

The practical test I would apply, as a teacher rather than as a reader of studies: could a student in that room name what the second teacher is for? If the answer is “she helps,” the model is one teach, one assist whatever the schedule calls it.

How Do You Start Co-Teaching Well in Grades 6–12?

Start by agreeing on the non-instructional decisions, then add one new model at a time. The research points at three failure points — no shared planning agenda, no joint training, and no named model — so the first steps are the ones that close those.

Name the model before the lesson, out loud. “Tuesday is stations; you take the document group.” The 2017 case study found pairs who could not name what they were doing, and a model nobody names cannot be improved.
Agree on the boring things first. Who answers a question about a grade. Who calls a parent. Whose consequence applies when both of you saw it. Disagreement here is what students exploit, and it is cheaper to settle in August. A single written routine for late work, missing work and consequences gives both of you the same script to read from.
Take one low-planning model and one high-planning model. Stations cost little and immediately stop one adult from standing still. Pick one of parallel or teaming as the model you will actually build, and leave the others alone until that one is reliable.
Put a standing agenda on the shared planning time. Not “what are we doing” but: which model, who leads, how we will know students got it, and who is being re-taught, and who grades it. Deciding the check in advance is what turns two adults into two sources of information instead of one teacher and one observer. The 2017 case study found co-planning almost never reached assessment, which is how one teacher ends up owning the gradebook and the other ends up owning nothing.
Tell the students what the second teacher is for. Say it in the first week and say it again when the model changes: both of us teach, both of us grade, either of us can answer you. Students work out the hierarchy on their own if nobody states it, and the version they work out is usually the one you did not want.
Rotate who leads. If one of you has never opened a lesson by November, that is the subordinate-role finding happening in your room. Swap on content where the other person is strong.
Audit the pulled group once a month. List the names who have gone to alternative teaching. If the list barely changes, change the grouping or stop using the model.

Where Co-Teaching Goes Wrong

The second teacher is treated as capacity, not expertise. This is the subordinate-role finding, and it is the single most replicated result in the qualitative literature.
Pairing is done by schedule rather than by content. A special educator asked to co-teach four different subjects cannot hold four content loads, which is one reason the literature keeps finding weaker content knowledge as the cause of the subordinate role. The three loads that drive special education burnout are the same loads that make this worse.
Nobody reads the observation notes. One teach, one observe is the only model whose entire output is data. If it is not read and acted on, it is a teacher watching a class.
Alternative teaching hardens into tracking. Same names, same table, every week.
The pair is split up after one year. Teachers in the 2017 case study asked specifically to stay paired. Rebuilding a working pair costs a year of the thing that was working.

What to Do Next

Pick one lesson next week that needs something one adult cannot do, and run stations or parallel teaching for it on purpose. Name the model to your co-teacher and to the students. Then look at the pulled-group list and at who opened the last five lessons. Those two lists will tell you more about your co-teaching than any model diagram.

If you are building the structures a second adult plugs into, the next useful piece is the procedures that carry the most weight in grades 6–12. They are easier to run with two people and they collapse faster when the two people disagree about them.

Sources

Jones, N., & Winters, M. A. (2022). Are two teachers better than one? The effect of co-teaching on students with and without disabilities (Working Paper 2020–1, updated January 2022). Boston University Wheelock Policy Center. Massachusetts administrative data, 2007–08 to 2017–18, grades 3–8. Read in full.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416. 32 qualitative reports; 14 of them junior high, middle or high school. Read in full.
Georgia Department of Education. Co-teaching model one pager. Source for the six model names and the planning-cost ratings. The document states no advantages or cautions per model; those columns in the table above are compiled for this guide.
Brendle, J., Lock, R., & Piazza, K. (2017). A study of co-teaching: Identifying effective implementation strategies. International Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 538–550. Four teachers, two pairs, one elementary school. Read in full.
Virginia Commonwealth University RRTC. Co-teaching efficacy: What does the research say? Used as the readable summary of Murawski & Swanson (2001), Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), and of Solis, Vaughn, Swanson & McCulley (2012). The primary meta-analysis was not reachable; this summary of it was, and the six-of-89 inclusion figures and the verbal effect labels come from the summary, not from the paper itself.

What are the six co-teaching models?

One teach one observe, one teach one assist, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and teaming. Georgia’s state guidance rates the first three as low planning cost, parallel teaching as medium, and alternative teaching and teaming as high. They differ in how students are grouped and which adult is delivering instruction.

Does co-teaching improve test scores?

By a small amount. The largest study, covering eleven years of Massachusetts data in grades 3 through 8, found gains of 0.016 standard deviations in reading and 0.026 in math for students with disabilities, and 0.012 in math for students without. Reading showed no significant effect for students without disabilities.

Why is the 0.40 effect size for co-teaching so much larger?

It comes from a 2001 meta-analysis in which only six studies out of 89 found met every inclusion condition, and few compared co-taught students against a pull-out control group. The 0.40 figure describes a handful of studies of deliberately good practice; the 0.016 to 0.036 range describes an entire state’s typical implementation.

What is the most common co-teaching model?

One teach, one assist, by a wide margin. A synthesis of 32 qualitative studies found it dominant, with parallel, station and team teaching appearing much less often. It requires no shared planning, which is why it wins by default, and it leaves one licensed teacher doing work a paraprofessional could do.

How much shared planning time do co-teachers need?

More than they get. One study inside the 32-study synthesis found teams averaging 45.5 minutes a week and saying they needed nearly three times that. A separate case study found that protected time without a named agenda gets spent modifying worksheets instead of deciding how instruction will be delivered.

Is co-teaching only for students with disabilities?

No, though that is its usual purpose. The Massachusetts study found a small significant math gain for students without disabilities as well, and the qualitative research reports social benefits for them more often than academic ones. Any two teachers sharing a room are using one of the six models whether they name it or not.

My child is in a co-taught class. What should I ask the school?

Ask who the two teachers are and what each one is responsible for, whether your child is being pulled into a small group and how often, and who to contact about grades. A co-taught class is not a lower-level class. If the answer is that one teacher helps the other, the school is using the weakest of the six models and it is fair to ask why.

Which co-teaching model should a new pair start with?

Station teaching. It costs little to plan, it immediately stops one adult from standing still, and it works with content you already have. Then choose one high-planning model, parallel teaching or teaming, and build that one properly rather than sampling all six.

About Clay Shumate

Clay Shumate is a certified secondary Social Studies teacher in the public schools of West Alabama, with seven years of classroom experience, a B.A. in History, and an M.Ed. in Secondary Education. He writes about project-based learning, student responsibility, respect, and practical ways to hold young people to a higher standard while giving them room to learn from mistakes. He is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and writes to its Code of Ethics; this site’s editorial standards and corrections policy are published in full. More about Clay.

October 30, 2026

Top Cheap Classroom Supplies for Grades 6–12 in 2026

By Clay Shumate

Most secondary classrooms run on a short list of boring, refillable supplies: pencils, paper, sleeves, markers, folders, cards, clipboards, sticky notes, and clips. The goal is to stretch a limited budget across five or six class periods, so every item has to earn its spot by getting used the very next day.

Pencils, crayons, colored pencils, a spiral notebook, glue stick, scissors, eraser, paper clips, construction paper, and a ruler arranged on a desk

For grades 6–12 teachers working on a tight budget, the top cheap classroom supplies are bulk No. 2 pencils, plain copy paper, and reusable dry-erase sleeves, because they get used by every class period, every day, and the sleeves turn one printed page into dozens of uses. Plan how students will borrow and return those supplies before buying anything else, since a supply without a routine disappears by October. New to the classroom? Start with the guide to classroom management for new teachers.

One note applies to the whole list. Prices, pack sizes, and shipping change constantly, so check the delivered cost on the day you order.

Quick picks:

Best first step: a free routines checklist before spending anything.
Best everyday buy: bulk No. 2 pencils for every period.
Best reuse value: dry-erase sleeves paired with low-odor markers.
Best for organization: two-pocket folders and binder clips.

1) Elevate the Norm’s Free Routines and Procedures Checklist

The first recommendation costs nothing to download. The Routines and Procedures Checklist is a printable planning pack with space to write your own procedures for entry, materials, help-seeking, transitions, late arrival, and turning in work.

No email address is required to download it. Printing does cost something, whether that’s school copier paper or your own home ink, so print only the pages you’ll fill out.

Here’s why it sits ahead of every physical supply:

It tells you what to buy. Once you’ve written how students borrow a pencil, you know how many pencils you need.
It prevents waste. Supplies without a procedure get lost, broken, or hoarded.
It doubles as sub material. A completed checklist shows a substitute how your room runs.

Next-day use: Fill in the materials and help-seeking sections tonight. Tomorrow, teach just those two procedures in the first five minutes and practice them once with each class.

If you want more background before writing your own, the broader guide on classroom routines and procedures explains how to teach and rehearse each one with adolescents.

2) Bulk No. 2 Pencils

Pencils are the single supply you never want to run out of. A student without a pencil stalls the whole first ten minutes, and a quick, no-drama loaner keeps class moving.

Buy pre-sharpened woodcase pencils in large packs. For five or six sections, start with roughly two to three dozen in a loaner cup and keep a backup box in a drawer. You’ll replace them all year, so a cheap, decent pencil beats a premium one.

Pre-sharpened saves time. A pencil sharpener line during a warm-up is a transition problem.
Mark loaners. A strip of colored tape near the eraser makes the class set easy to spot.
Add pencil-top erasers. Erasers wear out long before the pencil does.

Next-day use: Run a retrieval warm-up where students write three things they remember from yesterday’s lesson, in pencil, on a half sheet. Collect pencils at the door using the borrowing procedure you wrote on your checklist.

3) Plain Copy Paper

Copy paper ranks this high because nearly every other activity depends on it. Even if your school stocks the copier, a personal ream in the room covers the days the workroom runs dry.

Buy standard letter-size, 20 lb paper by the ream or case. Cut some sheets in half ahead of time; half sheets work well for exit tickets and stretch each ream twice as far.

Exit tickets on quarter or half sheets, one of many formative assessment strategies that cost almost nothing.
Source analysis where students annotate a printed primary source.
Folded study guides students build themselves.
A one-pager assignment that summarizes a unit on a single sheet.

Next-day use: For a history source analysis, print one short document per student and have them mark the author, date, purpose, and one piece of evidence in the margins. The same sheet becomes a discussion starter for every section.

4) Reusable Dry-Erase Sleeves

Dry-erase sleeves give the best reuse value on this list. Slide any printed page inside, and students write on the plastic, wipe, and reuse it next period.

A class set of 30 to 35 sleeves covers most secondary rooms. Pick sleeves with a reinforced edge, since flimsy seams split early.

One copy, many classes. A single printed graphic organizer serves all your sections.
Instant formative checks. Students hold up answers, and you scan the room in seconds.
Low-risk practice. Wiping away a wrong answer lowers the stakes for hesitant students.

Next-day use: Put a blank map, timeline, or equation template in each sleeve. Ask four quick questions, have students hold up answers after each, and reteach whichever question splits the room. Keep tissues or old socks nearby as erasers.

5) Low-Odor Dry-Erase Markers

Sleeves are useless without markers, and low-odor markers are easier on a full room of teenagers in back-to-back periods. Fine or bullet tips suit sleeves; chisel tips suit the main whiteboard.

Plan on one marker per student for sleeve work, plus a separate teacher set. Markers dry out faster than any other item here, so they carry the heaviest replacement burden.

Cap check before collection. Students click the cap shut and show it before returning the marker.
Store tip-down or flat, depending on the brand’s instructions.
Keep a dead-marker cup so empty ones never go back into circulation.

Next-day use: Use markers for a “show me” check during notes. Pause after each key idea and have students write a one-word summary on their sleeves.

6) Two-Pocket Folders

Folders are the answer to lost papers. A two-pocket folder per student, kept in the room, holds current work and stops the “I left it at home” problem for anything you don’t send out.

Buy plain poly folders if you can; they outlast paper versions and survive a full year of handling. Assign a color per class period to make sorting fast.

Class work folders: left pocket for in-progress, right pocket for finished.
Emergency sub folder: your seating chart, procedures checklist, and two ready lessons.
Parent communication organizer: printed Parent-Teacher Communication Logs on one side, notes on the other.

Next-day use: Build your emergency sub folder tonight. Include a current classroom seating chart for each period, attendance steps, and one lesson that runs without you.

7) Ruled Index Cards

Index cards are small, cheap, and surprisingly versatile. Ruled 3×5 cards work for almost everything; 4×6 cards give more room for writing.

A pack of a few hundred covers months of quick activities across several sections.

Get-to-know-you cards on day one, kept for reference.
Retrieval flashcards students make and quiz each other with.
Exit tickets that sort easily into “got it” and “needs help” stacks.
Career-prep interview practice, with one question per card.

Next-day use: Run a mock interview activity. Write common job-interview questions on cards, pair students, and have them take turns asking and answering. Students then rate one answer on clarity and respect, which connects to communication skills employers look for.

8) Basic Hardboard Clipboards

Clipboards make any room a work space. Students can write during gallery walks, hallway activities, or anywhere desks aren’t available.

Plain hardboard clipboards are inexpensive and durable. A class set isn’t necessary; 15 to 18 covers partner work in most rooms. Get one for yourself too.

Gallery walks with posted sources or stations.
Outdoor or library work without desks.
Teacher observation notes during group work.

Your own clipboard is useful for private behavior records. Note observable actions (“left seat three times during notes”) with the date and time, and keep the page face down.

Next-day use: Post six images or documents around the room. Students rotate with clipboards and record one observation and one question at each station.

9) Sticky Notes

Sticky notes give every student a quick, low-pressure way to respond. Standard 3×3 pads work best; bulk packs keep the cost per note low.

Keep a few pads in a shared supply bin and one pad at your desk.

Parking lot questions students post without interrupting.
Exit polls sorted on the board by answer.
Annotation flags in textbooks or novels.
Quick reminders for absent students’ work.

Next-day use: At the end of class, have each student write one thing they understood and one question on a sticky note, then post it by the door. Sort them after class to plan tomorrow’s warm-up.

10) Binder Clips

Binder clips are the quiet organizer of a secondary room. They hold stacks of papers by class period, keep sub plans together, and replace staplers for temporary bundles.

A mixed pack of small, medium, and large clips covers most needs, and they last for years.

Period stacks: one clip per class for collected work.
Absent work bundles labeled with a sticky note.
Cable management for chargers and projector cords.
Hanging displays by clipping student work onto string.

Next-day use: Clip a stack of collected work for each period, then attach a sticky note with the date and any missing names. Grading goes faster when papers stay sorted.

How to Stretch a Secondary Classroom Supply Budget

The best way to stretch a supply budget is to buy only what your routines will use every week. Use the table below as a quick comparison of the list.

Item	Daily use	Reuse potential	Replacement burden	Best for
Routines Checklist	Planning	High	Printing only	Setting procedures
No. 2 Pencils	Every period	Low	High	Loaners
Copy Paper	Every period	Low	High	Exit tickets, sources
Dry-Erase Sleeves	Most days	High	Low	Formative checks
Low-Odor Markers	Most days	Medium	High	Sleeve work
Two-Pocket Folders	Daily	High	Low	Organization
Ruled Index Cards	Weekly	Low	Medium	Retrieval, interviews
Hardboard Clipboards	Weekly	High	Low	Gallery walks
Sticky Notes	Weekly	Low	Medium	Quick responses
Binder Clips	Daily	High	Low	Paper stacks

What Does Your School Already Provide?

Ask before you buy. Many schools stock copy paper, pencils, or markers in a workroom, and some departments keep shared clipboards or folders.

Check with your department head, front office, and any supply closet. Ask whether a funding process covers classroom supplies, and whether your school accepts donations from families. Write down what’s available so you don’t duplicate it.

Which Purchases Remove the Biggest Daily Obstacles?

Start with whatever stops class most often. If students show up without pencils, pencils come first. If papers vanish, folders come first.

Watch for one week and note what interrupts instruction. This tells you which purchase will save the most class time. Tie each purchase to your classroom expectations, so students know how the supply fits the way the room runs.

How Do You Compare Delivered Cost per Usable Item?

Divide the total delivered price by the number of usable items. Include shipping and tax, since a cheap pack with high shipping isn’t cheap.

On sites like Amazon, the delivery charge shown on a search page isn’t the product price, so open each listing and check both. Compare the same pack size across retailers like Walmart, Amazon, and wholesale suppliers before deciding.

When Does Buying in Bulk Actually Save Money?

Bulk only saves money on items you’ll use up before the year ends. Pencils, paper, and sticky notes are safe bulk buys.

Markers are trickier because they dry out in storage. Buy them in moderate quantities and restock midyear. Clipboards and binder clips last for years, so one well-chosen purchase is enough.

How to Make Cheap Supplies Support Reliable Routines

Cheap supplies last when students know exactly how to use, borrow, and return them. A written procedure for each shared item saves more money than any coupon.

How Will Students Borrow and Return Shared Supplies?

Set a simple borrowing system before handing anything out. Students take a loaner pencil from one cup and return it to another cup at the door, or they trade a small item (like a student ID) for a supply.

Teach the routine on day one and practice it. Keeping supplies moving cleanly is part of smooth classroom transitions. Assign a supply manager role in each class to check bins at the end of the period; it gives students real responsibility, and the list of student leadership activities has more roles like it.

What Should Be Ready for Tomorrow’s Warm-Up and an Emergency Substitute?

Prep tomorrow’s warm-up and an emergency sub folder ahead of time. Keep half sheets, pencils, and sleeves ready by the door so students can start immediately.

For warm-ups, pull a prompt from a list of bell ringer ideas and keep it consistent. For subs, place a folder with your seating chart, procedures checklist, attendance steps, and two lessons in a clearly labeled spot. Add an early finisher activity so the sub has a fallback plan. The sub plans guide covers what else to leave.

How Can You Keep Behavior Records and Family Communication Private?

Keep records out of student view and write only what you observed. Use a clipboard or folder that stays at your desk, face down, and never leave notes on a projected screen.

Describe actions, not character. “Talked during directions twice” is clearer and fairer than “disruptive.” For family contact, a printed communication log lets you record dates, topics, and follow-ups. Include positive calls too, so families hear good news as well as concerns.

How Will You Know Whether a Supply Is Worth Replacing?

Track how often each supply gets used and how fast it disappears. If sleeves come out three times a week, replace any damaged ones. If clipboards sit untouched all semester, skip buying more.

At the end of each quarter, take a quick count. Note what ran out, what broke, and what never got used. That list becomes your next shopping list, and it keeps your spending tied to how your class works.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the top 10 cheap classroom supplies for middle and high school teachers?

This list is a free routines checklist, No. 2 pencils, copy paper, dry-erase sleeves, low-odor markers, two-pocket folders, ruled index cards, hardboard clipboards, sticky notes, and binder clips. Each one works across several class periods and has a clear next-day use.

What should I buy first with a small classroom budget?

Buy pencils and copy paper first, since they’re used every period. Then add dry-erase sleeves and markers for quick formative checks once those basics are covered.

Is it cheaper to buy classroom supplies on Amazon or Walmart?

Neither is always cheaper; prices and shipping change often. Compare the full delivered cost per usable item, including shipping and tax, on the day you order.

Where can teachers buy school supplies in bulk for cheap?

Teachers buy in bulk from large retailers, wholesale school supply sites, and warehouse stores. Check for case pricing, minimum orders, and shipping costs before comparing deals.

Are reusable dry-erase sleeves cheaper than individual whiteboards?

Sleeves cost less per student in most cases and store flat in a single bin. They also hold any printed template, which individual whiteboards can’t do.

Where can I download free classroom procedure checklists without giving my email address?

Elevate the Norm’s Routines and Procedures Checklist downloads free with no email required. More free teacher printables are available the same way.

When you’re ready for more grades 6–12 materials, the Teacher Emergency Toolkit store on Teachers Pay Teachers has resources you can print and use tomorrow.

About Clay Shumate

October 19, 2026

Teacher Reflection Questions Worth Answering After a Lesson

By Clay Shumate

Teacher reflection questions are prompts you answer about a lesson you just taught in order to decide what to change. The useful ones name a piece of evidence — student work, exit data, who spoke — and end in a decision. Questions that ask how a lesson felt produce a mood, not a change.

Most lists of reflection questions fail on that second sentence. “How did that go?” and “Were students engaged?” are not questions, they are feelings with a question mark attached, and you can answer both of them honestly every day for a year without teaching one lesson differently. Below are the questions that pass the test, the evidence on whether any of this works, and the uncomfortable finding about how badly teachers read their own rooms.

Key Takeaways

A reflection question earns its place when it names evidence and ends in a decision. Everything else on this page is downstream of that one rule.
🔴 Teachers are unreliable judges of their own instruction. Kaufman, Stein and Junker compared 47 teachers’ own survey reports against 422 trained observations. Agreement was decent in one district and collapsed in the other — r = .11 in year two, essentially no relationship.
The teachers who overestimated themselves were the isolated ones. In the same study, teachers who overrated their practice reported little peer conversation about the curriculum; those who underrated it talked with colleagues or a coach regularly and voiced more doubt.
Reflection paired with feedback has real numbers behind it. Kraft, Blazar and Hogan pooled 60 causal studies of instructional coaching and found 0.49 SD on observed instruction (SE = 0.056) and 0.18 SD on student achievement (SE = 0.037).
🔴 Those numbers shrink when the program gets big. In the same meta-analysis, programs under 100 teachers produced 0.63 SD on instruction and 0.28 SD on achievement; programs of 100 or more produced 0.34 SD and 0.10 SD.

Free Download · PDF

Teacher Reflection Questions: The Post-Lesson Card

A three-page printable: the eight post-lesson questions, a six-line lesson log you can fill in, five weak questions rewritten, and the weekly and monthly prompts. No email required.

Download the free PDF

Free. No email address required. Designed for grades 6–12. Browse every printable in Your Free Library.

What Are Teacher Reflection Questions?

Teacher reflection questions are structured prompts a teacher answers about their own instruction in order to decide what to do next. They sit inside what the research literature calls reflective practice, and the models behind them — Dewey’s reflective thinking, Schön’s reflection-on-action, Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, Korthagen’s ALACT model, Brookfield’s four lenses — all share one move: look at what happened, interpret it, decide something, do the thing.

The decision step is the one that disappears in practice. A 2023 evidence review by Carol Campbell and Maeva Ceau at the University of Toronto, written for Wales’s Education Workforce Council, lists “links to action, so that reflection leads to changes in practice” among the conditions reflection needs to work at all — alongside collaboration, scaffolding and protocols, a safe environment, and the use of actual evidence such as student work, classroom data or video.

That review is also honest about the soft spots, and it is worth repeating them before anybody builds a weekly ritual on this. The literature suffers from conceptual ambiguity about what reflective practice even means. Several of the studies it cites are very small. In one study of pre-service teachers, reflective ability decreased over time without support. And it quotes research from outside education on the obvious risk: self-reflection can turn into rumination.

What Should You Ask Right After a Lesson?

Eight questions, ten minutes, before you teach the next period. The short window matters because the details that answer these questions — who spoke, where the room went quiet, which group stalled — are gone by the drive home.

Eight teacher reflection questions to answer in the ten minutes after a lesson, covering what students produced, who did the thinking, where the lesson lost time, which students were never asked anything, what the exit data showed, what you would cut, what you assumed students already knew, and the one change for tomorrow — Eight questions, ten minutes, while you can still remember the room.

What did students actually produce? Not what they did. What exists now that did not exist at the start of the period.
Who did the thinking? Count it roughly. If the answer is you, that is the finding.
Where did the lesson lose time, and to what? Transitions, directions, the technology, a question you did not expect.
Which students did I never ask anything? Write the names. This one is uncomfortable on purpose, and it is the question most likely to change next period.
What did the exit evidence say, as opposed to what I think it said? If you have no exit evidence, that is the first fix — see checking for understanding.
What would I cut if I taught this again with ten fewer minutes? The thing you would cut first is usually the thing that was not doing any work today either.
What did I assume students already knew? Then check whether that assumption held for the bottom third of the class.
What is the one change for tomorrow? One. Written down. With the period it applies to.

Question eight is the whole point. Seven observations and no decision is a diary entry. The two mechanisms the Education Endowment Foundation names under embedding practice — prompting action planning and encouraging self-monitoring — are exactly this step, and they come out of a review of 104 professional development evaluations.

Does Reflecting on Your Teaching Actually Improve It?

Reflection combined with feedback from someone else has solid evidence behind it. Reflection entirely alone does not, and the honest answer is that nobody has run the clean study. What exists is the coaching literature, which is reflection with a second pair of eyes attached.

Five research findings on teacher reflection and improvement with the population of each named: Kraft Blazar and Hogan 2018 on coaching effect sizes, the same meta-analysis on what happens at scale, Kraft and Papay 2014 on supportive school environments, Kaufman Stein and Junker 2014 on teachers misjudging their own instruction, and the EEF guidance report on professional development mechanisms — Two of these five were measured on elementary teachers. That matters for how far you can carry them.

Kraft, Blazar and Hogan’s meta-analysis in Review of Educational Research pooled 60 causal studies of instructional coaching and reported 0.49 standard deviations on observed instruction (SE = 0.056) and 0.18 standard deviations on student achievement (SE = 0.037). By the standards of this field those are large and respectable numbers. Then comes the part that gets left out: effects shrank substantially as programs scaled. Small programs, under 100 teachers, produced 0.63 SD on instruction and 0.28 SD on achievement. Programs of 100 or more produced 0.34 SD and 0.10 SD — roughly half and roughly a third.

Two caveats you should carry out of that. First, the studies measure coaching, in which an instructional expert observes and gives feedback. They do not measure a teacher sitting alone with a set of questions, and it would be dishonest to transfer the effect size. Second, the authors themselves say scaling introduces challenges that demonstration models do not face, which is a polite way of saying the version your district buys will not be the version that was studied. That is also the argument for professional development that changes practice being judged on mechanisms rather than on brand names.

There is one more finding worth knowing, because it reframes the whole question. Kraft and Papay, in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, found that teachers in schools at the 75th percentile of professional environment improved about 38 percent more over ten years than teachers in schools at the 25th percentile. The same teacher, the same decade, a different building — and a materially different trajectory. Whether reflection helps you depends partly on whether anybody around you is doing it too, which is the practical case for collective teacher efficacy.

Why Do Teachers Misjudge Their Own Lessons?

Because we grade our own practice against the practice we can see, and most teachers cannot see much of anyone else’s. Kaufman, Stein and Junker put numbers on this by comparing teachers’ own survey reports of their instruction against trained observers’ ratings of the same classrooms.

Across 47 teachers, 422 observations and 74 surveys in two U.S. districts, self-report and observer ratings correlated reasonably overall — r = .67 in year one, r = .60 in year two. Split by district, the picture broke apart. In one district the relationship held both years. In the other it was significant in year one and then fell to r = .11 in year two, which is no relationship at all. Teachers in one district tended to overestimate their practice; teachers in the other tended to underestimate it.

The explanation the authors found in their interviews is the useful part. Teachers who overestimated reported little peer interaction about the curriculum. Teachers who underestimated reported frequent conversation with colleagues or coaches and expressed more uncertainty about their own teaching. The authors suggest teachers judge themselves against the models available to them — and if you have not watched another teacher work in three years, your reference point is your own memory.

The honest limits: those 47 teachers were K–5, the study was exploratory with a small sample from two districts, it makes no causal claims, and one measure had only 67 percent inter-rater agreement. It is not a secondary-school result and I am not treating it as one. What transfers is not a number — it is the mechanism, and the mechanism is isolation.

What Makes a Reflection Question Useless?

It asks how the lesson felt instead of what the evidence showed. You can answer a feeling question with total sincerity and change nothing, which is why these lists so often get filled out for an evaluation folder and never again.

Five weak teacher reflection questions rewritten as stronger ones, replacing how did that go, were they engaged, did they get it, what should I do better, and do they like this unit, with questions that name evidence — The rewrite in every row does the same thing: it names the evidence.

The question people ask	Why it goes nowhere	Ask this instead	Evidence it needs
How did that lesson go?	Answerable by mood. Yesterday’s “fine” and today’s “fine” are not comparable.	What did students produce that they could not produce at the start of the period?	The work itself, in front of you
Were students engaged?	Measures compliance and volume, both of which a quiet copying task scores well on.	Who did the thinking, and for how much of the period?	A rough count of who spoke and who wrote
Did they get it?	You already believe they did, or you would have stopped.	What did the exit evidence say, and how many students does it disagree with me about?	An exit ticket, a sample of five, a quick poll
What should I do better?	Too big. Produces a resolution, not a change.	What is the one change for tomorrow, and which period does it apply to?	A written note with a class period on it
Do they like this unit?	Popularity is real information about climate and poor information about learning.	Which part of this unit did the bottom third of the class stall on?	Grades or work samples, sorted

Every rewrite in that table does the same thing. It replaces a judgment you make from memory with a judgment you make from something you can look at. That is also the difference between the entries that make keeping a reflection journal worth keeping and the ones that read like a weather log.

Which Questions Belong in a Weekly or Monthly Cycle?

Daily questions are about one lesson. Weekly and monthly questions are about patterns, and they need different evidence. Asking a pattern question after a single period produces noise.

Weekly: Which students have now gone a full week without saying anything in my room? Where did the same five minutes get lost on more than one day? Which assignment generated the most questions, and were they questions about the content or about the directions?
Weekly: What did I grade this week that did not tell me anything I did not already know? That one usually finds an assignment worth cutting.
Monthly: Which standard do I keep reteaching, and is the problem the teaching or the prerequisite? What have I changed this month because of something I noticed, and can I name it?
Monthly: Whose classroom have I actually been inside since the last time I asked this? Given the isolation finding above, this is not a nice-to-have.
By term: The longer-horizon version of all of this is covered under the end-of-year version, and it works better in a cycle than as a one-time exercise in May.

How Do You Reflect Without a Coach?

You replace the second pair of eyes with evidence you cannot argue with, and with one colleague. The coaching research is strong and most teachers do not have a coach, so the practical question is which parts of it you can reproduce on your own.

Three substitutes, in order of how much they cost you:

Student work, sorted. Pull five pieces — top, bottom, and three in the middle — and answer your questions from those instead of from memory. This is the cheapest correction to the self-rating problem and it takes four minutes.
A recording of yourself. Check your district’s policy on recording before you do this, and keep students out of frame where policy requires it. Watching ten minutes of your own instruction answers question two of the daily list instantly and permanently.
One colleague, one question, twice a month. Not a formal observation. Swap a single question — “watch who I call on” — and return the favor. The Campbell and Ceau review puts collaborative and dialogic reflection among the conditions that make reflection work, and the Kaufman study suggests the teachers who talk to colleagues are the ones who see themselves accurately.

My own position, as a classroom teacher: the honest obstacle to this is never the questions. It is that the ten minutes after a lesson are also the ten minutes you need for the next one, and a reflection habit that assumes a free planning period is a habit for somebody else’s schedule. Eight short questions you actually answer beat a two-page form you fill in once in October.

What Should You Write Down?

Six lines per lesson, and the sixth one is the only one that has to be acted on. A teacher reflection form or template fails for the same reason a long questionnaire fails — it asks for more than you will give it on a Tuesday.

The six lines: date and period; what students produced; who did the thinking; the names of students I did not reach; what the exit evidence said; the one change for tomorrow. That is a template you can keep in a notebook or a single document, and it is enough structure to make patterns visible after three weeks. If you want longer worked examples of what reflection looks like written out, those are in worked examples of teacher reflection.

Two rules for the writing itself. Keep it specific enough that a version of you in three weeks can tell what happened. And never write anything about a student you would not say to that student’s family — a reflection document is still a document.

What to Do Next

Pick your last lesson of tomorrow and answer only questions two, four and eight — who did the thinking, which students I never asked anything, and the one change. Three questions, four minutes, one piece of paper. Run that for two weeks before you add anything else, then find one colleague willing to trade a single observation question twice a month. The research does not say reflection alone transforms teaching. It says reflection with evidence and another person in it is where the measured gains are, and both of those are available to you without permission from anyone.

Want this as a printable? The eight questions, the six-line log and the weekly prompts, on three printable pages. Download the free PDF — no email address required.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are teacher reflection questions?

They are structured prompts a teacher answers about a lesson they just taught in order to decide what to change. The useful ones name a specific piece of evidence — student work, exit data, who spoke in the room — and end in a written decision. Prompts that ask how the lesson felt, such as “how did that go,” can be answered honestly every day without changing a single instructional choice.

What are the best reflection questions to ask after a lesson?

Eight hold up in grades 6–12: what did students actually produce, who did the thinking, where did the lesson lose time, which students did I never ask anything, what did the exit evidence say, what would I cut with ten fewer minutes, what did I assume students already knew, and what is the one change for tomorrow. Answer them within ten minutes of the lesson, while you can still remember the room.

Does reflecting on your own teaching actually improve it?

Reflection combined with feedback from another person has real evidence behind it. Kraft, Blazar and Hogan pooled 60 causal studies of instructional coaching and found 0.49 standard deviations on observed instruction and 0.18 on student achievement. Those studies measured coaching, not a teacher reflecting alone, so the effect size should not be transferred to solo reflection. Effects also shrank by roughly half once programs passed 100 teachers.

Are teachers good at judging their own instruction?

Not reliably. Kaufman, Stein and Junker compared 47 teachers’ survey reports of their own practice against 422 trained classroom observations. Overall agreement was moderate, but in one district the year-two correlation fell to r = .11, meaning essentially no relationship. Teachers who overestimated their practice reported little conversation with colleagues; those who talked regularly with peers or a coach judged themselves more accurately. Note that these were K–5 teachers.

What does a simple teacher reflection template need?

Six lines per lesson: date and period, what students produced, who did the thinking, the names of students you did not reach, what the exit evidence said, and the one change for tomorrow. Only the last line has to be acted on. Longer forms get filled in once for an evaluation folder and then abandoned, which is why a short template you complete daily beats a thorough one you complete twice a year.

How can I reflect usefully without an instructional coach?

Replace the second pair of eyes with evidence and one colleague. Sort five pieces of student work — top, bottom and three in the middle — and answer your questions from those rather than from memory. Watch ten minutes of a recording of your own teaching, checking district policy on recording first. Then trade a single observation question with one colleague twice a month, which is the cheapest version of the collaboration the research keeps pointing at.

How often should teachers reflect on their teaching?

Daily for one lesson, weekly and monthly for patterns, because a pattern question answered after a single period produces noise. Weekly prompts work well for who has gone silent and where time keeps disappearing. Monthly prompts suit the standard you keep reteaching and whose classroom you have actually been inside. Reviews of professional development have generally found no link between longer duration and greater impact, so frequency matters more than length.

Sources

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. 60 causal studies; 0.49 SD on instruction (SE = 0.056) and 0.18 SD on achievement (SE = 0.037), with smaller effects at scale. These measure coaching — an expert observing and giving feedback — not solo reflection, and no effect size on this page is attributed to reflecting alone. education.umd.edu
Kaufman, J. H., Stein, M. K., & Junker, B. (2014). Factors Associated with Alignment between Teacher Survey Reports and Classroom Observation Ratings of Mathematics Instruction. Elementary School Journal. 47 K–5 teachers, 422 observations, 74 surveys, two U.S. districts. Reported with the authors’ stated limits: exploratory, small sample, no causal claims, and 67 percent inter-rater agreement on one measure. These were elementary teachers, not grades 6–12. stat.cmu.edu
Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500. Teachers in schools at the 75th percentile of professional environment improved about 38 percent more over ten years than those at the 25th percentile. Cited from the ERIC record, which carries the full citation and abstract; the full text was not reachable from here. eric.ed.gov
Education Endowment Foundation. Effective Professional Development guidance report. Review of 104 professional development evaluations; 14 mechanisms across four groups, including prompting action planning and encouraging self-monitoring. The report states that evidence for a balanced design is early and tentative, and that many reviews found no link between longer duration and greater impact. educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
Campbell, C., & Ceau, M. (2023). Leading Reflective Practice: Reviewing the Evidence. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, for the Education Workforce Council (Wales). Source of the conditions for effective reflection, the named models, and the cautions — including a study in which pre-service teachers’ reflective ability decreased over time without support. ewc.wales

About Clay Shumate

October 17, 2026

Best Value Online PD Subscription for Teachers (2026 Prices)

By Clay Shumate

The best value online PD subscription for teachers is usually ISTE+ASCD’s $99 Enhanced Digital membership, paired with free sources like Edutopia and your state’s PD portal. If you need graduate credit for a raise or recertification, skip subscriptions and buy single Teaching Channel courses ($289–$489) after your district confirms it accepts them.

Key Takeaways

ISTE+ASCD’s Enhanced Digital membership costs $99 a year and includes four member ebooks and two free Learning Academy courses, which ISTE+ASCD values at $130 and $170.
Teaching Channel sells graduate credit per course, not by subscription: $289 for one credit, $389 for two and $489 for three.
Coursera Plus and the ISTE+ASCD Learning Academy each cost $399 a year and only pay off for a teacher who finishes several courses.
A certificate from Coursera, edX or the Learning Academy is not automatically a state-approved CEU, so ask your district before paying.
Edutopia is free and awards no credit; some state education agencies run free portals that award hours that count in that state.

An online PD subscription is a paid plan that gives a teacher a year or a month of professional learning, such as courses, books, webinars or credit, from one provider. Value here means three things together: what you pay, whether your state or district will count it, and whether it changes what you do in class on Monday. This page compares the options we could verify on all three. For a broader look at PD formats, see our guide to online professional development for teachers.

How do the main online PD subscriptions for teachers compare on price and credit?

No single online PD subscription wins on price, credit and classroom use at once, so match the platform to the job: free sources for ideas, ISTE+ASCD for reading, and Teaching Channel for graduate credit.

Platform	Price for one teacher	Credit or record you get	Best for
Edutopia	Free	None	Classroom-tested ideas, videos and podcasts
State portals (example: TEA Learn, formerly Texas Gateway)	Free	State CPE credit, in Texas	Required hours in your own state
ISTE+ASCD membership	$59–$299/yr (digital $59, $99, $199)	Enhanced and Pro include two Learning Academy courses a year	Reading, books, webinars, a professional network
ISTE+ASCD Learning Academy	$399/yr individual subscription	Completion records; 100+ self-paced courses	Teachers who want many short, focused courses
Teaching Channel (formerly Learners Edge)	$289 / $389 / $489 per 1-, 2- or 3-credit course; non-credit $99–$189	Graduate credit through partner universities, or a letter of completion	Salary lane changes and recertification
Coursera Plus	$59/month or $399/yr	Course and Professional Certificates	Teachers who’ll finish many courses, including outside education
edX	Free to audit; verified certificates usually $50–$300	Certificate only on the paid track	Trying a subject before paying
Kappa Delta Pi	$95/yr practicing teachers; $65 candidates	Membership certificate; webinars and workshops	Community, publications, scholarships

Sources are linked in each section below. Prices change, so confirm on each provider’s site before you buy.

What is the best free online PD for teachers?

Edutopia is the best free online PD for classroom ideas, and a state education agency’s own portal is the best free source of hours that count. Edutopia is run by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, a nonpartisan 501(c)(3), which describes it as “a free resource” that spotlights what’s working in education (GuideStar profile). It publishes videos, podcasts and topic pages (Edutopia, About). It doesn’t award credit.

Some states run free portals that do. The Texas Education Agency, for example, launched the Texas Gateway as a free online resource library whose self-paced courses let Texas educators earn continuing professional education (CPE) credit (TEA Texas Gateway announcement). Texas Gateway addresses now redirect to the agency’s TEA Learn site, so Texas teachers should start there. Check your state department of education and your regional in-service center before you pay anyone. More free options are collected in our free professional development for teachers guide.

Is an ISTE+ASCD membership worth it for one teacher?

ISTE+ASCD’s $99 Enhanced Digital membership is the best-value tier for most individual teachers, because it adds four ebooks and two Learning Academy courses a year to the $59 Starter tier. ASCD now operates as ISTE+ASCD, and it lists these individual tiers (ISTE+ASCD membership):

Starter Digital, $59: eight digital issues of Educational Leadership, bi-weekly expert webinars, topic guides and an online network.
Enhanced Digital, $99: everything above, plus four member ebooks and two free Learning Academy courses a year. ISTE+ASCD values the books at $130 and the courses at $170.
Pro Digital, $199: eight ebooks and two research journals, plus a companion membership.
Print versions run $79, $129 and $299.

The membership page also lists 25% off Learning Academy courses. Dues aren’t refundable, though they are transferable, and individual memberships aren’t prorated. If you’d rather have unlimited courses than books, the Learning Academy individual subscription is $399 a year for 100+ self-paced courses in two-hour and five-hour formats, with completion records (ISTE+ASCD Learning Academy). The page doesn’t say those records count as CEUs, so check with your district.

How much does Teaching Channel cost for graduate credit?

Teaching Channel charges per course, not by subscription: $289 for one credit, $389 for two and $489 for three. Non-credit, hours-only versions cost $99, $149 and $189 and come with a letter of completion. New customers get $100 off a first 3-credit course ($80 off a 2-credit course, $59 off a 1-credit course), and buying more than one graduate-credit course in one order takes 10% off (Teaching Channel pricing).

Learners Edge became part of Teaching Channel in 2023 (Teaching Channel), so if you’re searching for Learners Edge courses, this is where they are now. Credit is issued through accredited partner universities, including American College of Education, Southern New Hampshire University, Concordia University St. Paul and others. Two partners accept registrations only from certain states (Teaching Channel university partners).

At $489 for three credits, that’s about $163 a credit, or about $130 a credit with the first-course discount. Before you buy, get written confirmation from your district or state that the credit counts for what you need.

Are Coursera and edX good for teacher professional development?

Coursera and edX are good for learning and weak for credit, because their certificates aren’t automatically accepted as state-approved teacher hours. Coursera Plus costs $59 a month or $399 a year and covers over 90 percent of Coursera’s courses, Projects, Specializations and Professional Certificates (Coursera Plus). Education-specific options exist, such as Commonwealth Education Trust’s Foundations of Teaching for Learning: Introduction, which is included with Coursera Plus and rated 4.6 from 875 reviews (Coursera).

edX lets you audit most open courses free. The audit track doesn’t include certificates or graded assignments, and verified certificates usually cost $50–$300 per course (edX Help Center).

The catch for both platforms: a course certificate isn’t automatically a state-approved CEU. If you need hours that count, ask first.

Is a Kappa Delta Pi membership a PD subscription?

Kappa Delta Pi is closer to a professional society than a course platform: practicing teachers pay $95 a year for webinars, workshops, two publications and scholarships, not formal courses. Kappa Delta Pi dues are $95 a year for practicing teachers and $65 for teacher candidates, and some chapters add local dues. Benefits include webinars and workshops, The Teacher Advocate magazine, The Educational Forum journal, scholarships and discounts (KDP FAQ). Its FAQ doesn’t describe formal courses or continuing education credit.

How should a teacher choose the best-value online PD subscription?

A teacher should choose online PD in this order: confirm what the district counts, use free sources first, then pay only for the one thing needed, whether that is credit, reading or a large course catalog.

Find out what counts. Ask your district which providers it accepts for recertification hours and salary credit. That one email can save hundreds of dollars.
Use free first. Edutopia for ideas, your state portal for hours.
Need graduate credit? Buy individual Teaching Channel courses, and only as many credits as you need. If you are weighing those against Teachstone’s CLASS training, the two are compared side by side here.
Need ideas and reading? ISTE+ASCD Enhanced Digital at $99.
Taking a lot of courses? Compare the Learning Academy ($399) and Coursera Plus ($399) based on which catalog fits your subject.
Apply one thing. PD that doesn’t change a lesson isn’t good value at any price. Our PD courses guide and continuing education guide go further.

Clay’s take: send the district email and use one free source before spending anything, and pay for a subscription only when you know you’ll finish it. That’s a judgment on the prices and credit rules on this page from a grades 6–12 teacher, not a hands-on review of each product.

Does Elevate the Norm offer teacher PD or credit?

Elevate the Norm isn’t a PD platform and doesn’t award credit. Elevate the Norm is this site’s own free grades 6–12 classroom approach, built by Clay Shumate, a certified 6–12 social studies teacher, and it hasn’t been independently evaluated. Its classroom management and project-based learning materials are free with no email gate on the resource library, which makes them a no-cost complement to whatever PD you buy. If you’re weighing a schoolwide framework instead of individual PD, start with the classroom culture frameworks Q&A hub.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best free professional development for teachers?

Edutopia is a strong free source of classroom ideas, videos and podcasts, though it awards no credit. For hours that count, check your state education agency first. Some run free portals: the Texas Education Agency launched the Texas Gateway, now TEA Learn, with self-paced courses that let Texas educators earn continuing professional education credit. Your regional service center is the next place to ask.

How much is an ASCD membership?

ASCD now operates as ISTE+ASCD. Individual digital memberships cost $59, $99 or $199 a year, and print memberships cost $79, $129 or $299. The $99 Enhanced Digital tier adds four member ebooks and two free Learning Academy courses a year, which ISTE+ASCD values at $130 and $170. Dues aren’t refundable, and individual memberships aren’t prorated.

Is Learners Edge the same as Teaching Channel?

Yes. Learners Edge became part of Teaching Channel in 2023, so its graduate-credit courses are now sold by Teaching Channel. A one-credit course costs $289, a two-credit course $389 and a three-credit course $489. Credit is issued through partner universities, and two of those partners accept registrations only from certain states, so check before you enroll.

Do Coursera certificates count as teacher CEUs?

Not automatically. Whether a Coursera, edX or ISTE+ASCD Learning Academy certificate counts toward recertification depends on your state and district, so get the answer in writing before you pay. Coursera Plus costs $59 a month or $399 a year and covers over 90 percent of Coursera’s catalog, which only pays off if you finish several courses your district will accept.

What is the best value PD subscription for one teacher?

For ideas and professional reading, ISTE+ASCD’s Enhanced Digital membership at $99 a year is the best value, because it bundles four ebooks and two Learning Academy courses. For graduate credit toward a salary lane change or recertification, buy individual Teaching Channel courses only as needed, after your district confirms in writing that it accepts them.

Should a school buy PD subscriptions or let teachers choose their own?

This page compares prices for one teacher, not school or district contracts, so it can’t price a group purchase. The step that carries over is deciding which providers count for recertification and salary credit before anyone buys. A district that publishes that list in advance keeps teachers from spending their own money on courses that won’t count.

How much does a graduate credit cost through Teaching Channel?

At Teaching Channel’s listed prices, a three-credit course costs $489, or about $163 a credit. New customers get $100 off a first three-credit course, which brings it to about $130 a credit, and buying more than one graduate-credit course in the same order takes 10 percent off. Non-credit versions cost $99 to $189 and come with a letter of completion.

Will online PD change what happens in class?

Only if a teacher applies something from it. A certificate or a credit shows hours spent, not a better lesson, which is why this page treats classroom use as one of three measures of value, alongside price and whether the district counts the hours. The practical test is to take one idea from each course and use it in an upcoming lesson.

How is this page kept accurate?

Prices and plan details come from each provider’s own site, and we only include platforms whose prices we could confirm. Corrections follow the editorial standards and corrections policy.

Sources

About Clay Shumate

October 14, 2026

Classroom Culture Frameworks With Ongoing Coaching and Feedback

By Clay Shumate

Classroom culture frameworks with ongoing coaching and feedback include Responsive Classroom, Conscious Discipline, CHAMPS, Teach Like a Champion and PBIS. PBIS coaching usually comes through state and district networks; the paid programs mostly price coaching by quote. Coaching is worth it: a 60-study meta-analysis found it improved teachers’ instruction by 0.49 standard deviations.

Key Takeaways

Teacher coaching improved instruction by 0.49 standard deviations and student achievement by 0.18 across 60 causal studies in a 2018 meta-analysis.
Coaching programs with fewer than 100 teachers outperformed larger ones, averaging 0.63 standard deviations on instruction against 0.34.
Virtual teacher coaching showed no statistically significant difference from in-person coaching in the same meta-analysis.
PBIS coaching runs through school, district and state coaches, while Responsive Classroom, Conscious Discipline and CHAMPS consulting are priced by quote.
Two teachers with a camera and one countable target, such as positive interactions per correction, can run a free coaching cycle every two weeks.

Ongoing coaching is repeated cycles of observation, feedback and goal setting with a coach, as opposed to a single workshop. This page covers what each program’s coaching actually looks like, what the research says about coaching, and how to coach yourself or a colleague for free. If you’re comparing prices on books and workshops instead, see the buyer’s guide to classroom culture frameworks. For every framework at a glance, see the classroom culture frameworks Q&A hub.

Why does coaching matter more than the classroom culture framework you pick?

Coaching matters more than the framework because one-time training rarely changes daily classroom practice, while repeated observation and feedback does. The largest review on this is a 2018 meta-analysis by Matthew Kraft, David Blazar and Dylan Hogan in the Review of Educational Research. It pooled 60 studies with causal designs, 56 of them randomized trials (Kraft, Blazar & Hogan, 2018). What it found:

Instruction improved by 0.49 standard deviations across 43 studies.
Achievement improved by 0.18 standard deviations across 31 studies.
Smaller programs did better. Programs with fewer than 100 teachers averaged 0.63 on instruction and 0.28 on achievement. Programs with 100 or more averaged 0.34 and 0.10. The authors point to the difficulty of finding good coaches and getting teacher buy-in at scale.
Virtual coaching held up. They found no statistically significant difference between in-person and virtual coaching, though they couldn’t rule out moderate differences.

What the 2018 teacher-coaching meta-analysis found. — Sixty causal studies, 56 of them randomized. The instruction effect is the big one.

Classroom management research points the same way. In the federally funded CHAMPS trial, middle school teachers got three days of workshops followed by monthly coaching for a full year. They praised more, gave more opportunities to respond, and ran better-organized classrooms (IES).

Which classroom culture frameworks offer ongoing coaching and feedback?

Responsive Classroom, Conscious Discipline, CHAMPS, Teach Like a Champion and PBIS all offer ongoing coaching and feedback. PBIS coaching runs through state, district and school coaches. The paid programs price most coaching by quote, with two listed exceptions: Teach Like a Champion’s $1,500 video session and the $75 Coaching CHAMPS book.

Framework	Coaching format	Who coaches	Price	Grade fit
Responsive Classroom	One-day consultant observation visit; Kaleidoscope observation tool; Quick Coaching Guides	CRS consultants, then school leaders	By quote	PreK–8; secondary course 6–12
Conscious Discipline	Conscious Coaching cohorts (up to 4 people), reflective cycles	Certified instructors	By quote	Early childhood–grade 5
CHAMPS / Safe & Civil Schools	Onsite consultants and coaches; Coaching CHAMPS book	SCS consultants or your own coaches	Book $75; services by quote	K–8; secondary book for 9–12
Teach Like a Champion	Multi-year partnerships; Video Collaborative sessions	TLAC team	Video session $1,500; partnerships by quote	K–12
PBIS	State, district and school coaches	State networks and district staff	Through your state or district; ask locally	K–12
Teachstone (CLASS)	myTeachstone coaching platform	Program or Teachstone coaches	By quote	Mostly early childhood

Which classroom culture frameworks offer ongoing coaching, and in what format. — All five major programs offer coaching. Only PBIS routinely offers it free.

What coaching does Responsive Classroom offer?

Responsive Classroom offers a one-day consultant observation visit with a same-day debrief, then gives school leaders tools to keep observing on their own. In a Consultant Observation and Feedback Visit, a Center for Responsive Schools consultant observes eight to ten classrooms plus spaces like arrival, the cafeteria, hallways and dismissal. The observations run through Kaleidoscope, which produces a school growth profile, and the consultant debriefs with the leadership team that afternoon. The school gets a free pack of Quick Coaching Guides on a focus topic (CRS information sheet).

After the visit, leaders keep using Kaleidoscope on their own. It comes with school and district packages for one school year after a training course and can be bought separately. The Quick Coaching Guides cover 30 topics for reflection and goal setting, and buying ten or more includes a free Leader Guide. Prices are by quote (On-Site Services).

The catch: the ongoing part depends on your own leaders doing the observing. The consultant comes once.

Does Conscious Discipline offer coaching?

Yes. Conscious Discipline offers Conscious Coaching: small cohorts of up to four adults, led by certified instructors, meeting virtually for one hour or onsite for up to six hours. Participants set goals, reflect and practice together in repeated coaching cycles (Conscious Coaching overview). Its training page also lists an ongoing virtual partnership (Conscious Discipline training). Pricing isn’t posted.

The coaching focuses on adult mindset and real interactions, which fits the program’s adult-first design. It’s built for early childhood and PreK–5.

Does CHAMPS offer coaching for teachers?

CHAMPS coaching comes from Safe & Civil Schools consultants and coaches, or from your own coaches trained with the Coaching CHAMPS book. Ancora Publishing points schools to Safe & Civil Schools for in-person help, and sells Coaching CHAMPS by Tricia Skyles, Randy Sprick and Jim Knight for $75.

In an interview, Sprick and Skyles described a “freedom within form” model: the district sets clear targets, and teachers choose how to reach them. Their example targets were 90% student engagement, 90% compliance, and three to five positive interactions for every correction. Skyles argued that without clear targets, coaches have nothing to coach toward (Instructional Coaching Group). The CHAMPS trial’s monthly coaching is the strongest classroom-management evidence on this page.

Does Teach Like a Champion include coaching?

Teach Like a Champion includes coaching through custom multi-year partnerships and paid video review sessions, but a standalone workshop doesn’t include ongoing coaching. The TLAC team, which moved from Uncommon Schools to Together Education in 2022 (TLAC blog), offers multi-year partnerships. In those, it studies video and artifacts from your school, helps build your own video system, and models PD design. Partnerships are quoted individually. Its Video Collaborative, a 90-minute review of your pre-selected classroom footage, is $1,500 a session, and its 41 TLAC Online modules ($68 for one user) can also be used for 1:1 coaching (TLAC workshop pricing sheet).

Can you get free coaching through PBIS?

PBIS coaching is often available to teachers at no direct cost, because it runs through state, district and school coaches rather than a vendor. The Center on PBIS describes coaching at three levels: state coaches work with district teams, and district and school coaches work with administrators and Tier 1 teams. Coaching targets individual skills with feedback, team routines, and the systems that keep PBIS going. The center posts a free coaching self-assessment and practice briefs (Center on PBIS, Coaching).

Start with your district’s PBIS contact. In Alabama, for example, the state department of education partnered with the University of Alabama’s positive behavior supports office to expand training and ongoing support (University of Alabama News).

Is Teachstone CLASS coaching useful for secondary teachers?

Teachstone’s CLASS coaching is built mostly for early childhood programs, so grades 6–12 teachers will usually find a closer fit elsewhere. Teachstone describes myTeachstone as a CLASS coaching platform with frequent online contact between coaches and teachers and online learning communities. Its materials reference Head Start and early childhood quality systems, and pricing goes through sales (Teachstone).

How can a teacher get classroom management coaching for free?

A teacher can get free classroom management coaching by pairing with a colleague, recording short lesson clips, and coaching toward one countable target. The 2018 meta-analysis found virtual coaching held up and smaller programs did better, which is good news for a two-teacher arrangement.

Pick one target. Use something you can count, like positive interactions per correction or opportunities to respond, the same practices that improved in the CHAMPS trial.
Record ten minutes of a lesson. Jim Knight’s Focus on Teaching is a full guide to using classroom video for improvement. Follow your school’s recording policy.
Count, then meet for 15 minutes with a peer. Agree on one change.
Repeat in two weeks.
Use free structure from the PBIS coaching resources or your district coach.

Clay’s take: As a grades 6–12 teacher, I’d try the free routes first: your district’s PBIS coach, or a colleague and one countable target. Pay for vendor coaching when you need expertise your building doesn’t have. That’s a judgment on the research on this page, not a result from my own room.

A free two-teacher coaching cycle in five steps. — Two teachers, one camera, one countable target.

More options are in free professional development for teachers and collective teacher efficacy. If you’d rather customize a framework first, see customizable classroom culture frameworks.

Does Elevate the Norm offer coaching?

Elevate the Norm doesn’t offer coaching, but its free grades 6–12 framework gives a peer coach clear things to look for. Disclosure: it’s this site’s own framework, built by Clay Shumate, a certified 6–12 social studies teacher, and it hasn’t been independently evaluated.

A colleague can watch for whether recognition criteria were announced in advance, whether the teacher followed through exactly as stated, and how transitions run under the 3-2-1-Done class-vs-class point system. The materials are on the free resource library with no email gate. A paid option from the same teacher, the Teacher Emergency Toolkit, includes behavior and MTSS documentation templates that can serve as a record for coaching conversations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which classroom culture frameworks include ongoing coaching?

Responsive Classroom, Conscious Discipline, CHAMPS from Safe and Civil Schools, Teach Like a Champion and PBIS all offer ongoing coaching. PBIS coaching usually runs through state, district and school coaching networks. The paid programs price most coaching by quote, though Teach Like a Champion lists its 90-minute Video Collaborative at $1,500 a session and the Coaching CHAMPS book costs $75.

Does teacher coaching actually work?

Yes. A 2018 meta-analysis by Matthew Kraft, David Blazar and Dylan Hogan pooled 60 causal studies, 56 of them randomized trials. Coaching improved teachers’ instruction by 0.49 standard deviations across 43 studies and student achievement by 0.18 across 31 studies. Programs with fewer than 100 teachers did better than larger ones, which the authors linked to finding good coaches at scale.

Is virtual coaching as good as in-person coaching?

The 2018 Kraft, Blazar and Hogan meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference between virtual and in-person teacher coaching on either instruction or student achievement. The authors noted their estimates were too imprecise to rule out moderate differences. For teachers without a local coach, that makes virtual options, such as Conscious Discipline’s one-hour virtual cohorts, a reasonable choice rather than a second-best one.

How can I get classroom management coaching for free?

Ask your district’s PBIS contact first, because PBIS coaching runs through school, district and state coaches. If none is available, pair with a colleague, record ten minutes of a lesson under your school’s recording policy, and count one target such as positive interactions per correction. Meet for 15 minutes, agree on one change, and repeat the cycle in two weeks.

What does Teach Like a Champion video feedback cost?

Teach Like a Champion’s Video Collaborative, a 90-minute review of a school’s pre-selected classroom footage, is listed at $1,500 per session on the organization’s workshop pricing sheet. Multi-year partnerships, which include studying a school’s own video and building its video system, are quoted individually. The 41 TLAC Online modules cost $68 for one user and can be used for 1:1 coaching.

Should a school pay for vendor coaching or train its own coaches?

The research favors starting small and well staffed. Kraft, Blazar and Hogan found coaching programs with fewer than 100 teachers averaged 0.63 standard deviations on instruction, against 0.34 for larger programs, and the authors pointed to the difficulty of finding good coaches at scale. Many schools can start with district PBIS coaches or the $75 Coaching CHAMPS book before buying vendor coaching.

What should a peer coach look for in a classroom?

A peer coach should look for one target that can be counted, not a general impression. Good examples are positive interactions per correction and opportunities to respond, the practices that improved in the federally funded CHAMPS middle school trial. Sprick and Skyles describe district targets such as three to five positive interactions for every correction, which gives the coach and teacher a shared number to track.

Do these coaching programs work for middle and high school?

Some fit secondary classrooms better than others. The CHAMPS trial studied middle school teachers, Teach Like a Champion covers K–12, and PBIS coaching runs K–12. Responsive Classroom is built for PreK–8 with a separate grades 6–12 course, while Conscious Discipline and Teachstone’s CLASS focus on early childhood and elementary programs. Grades 6–12 teachers should start with CHAMPS, Teach Like a Champion or PBIS.

Sources

How is this page kept accurate?

This page is kept accurate by taking program details and prices from each provider’s own site and study figures from the original paper or official summaries, all linked inline. Confirm current prices with the provider. Elevate the Norm and the Teacher Emergency Toolkit are labeled as this site’s own work. Corrections follow the editorial standards and corrections policy.

About Clay Shumate

October 14, 2026