Professional Development

Education Program

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Educators and policymakers are realizing that the success of virtually all education reforms--the infusion of technology into the classroom, the implementation of state standards, class size reduction, etc.-hinges on the skill and knowledge of classroom teachers. And while teacher recruitment and preparation policies can help states begin training new educators, only ongoing teacher learning through professional development can make current teachers aware of changing expectations and newly-validated, effective teaching methods.

But not all professional development is created equal. Emerging research outlined in this report demonstrates that the quality and duration of professional development programs is an important determinant in their ability to improve teaching practice and impact student achievement. Yet most policies do not attend to these two critical components.. States that require professional development typically mandate "clock hours" with little regulation on the types of activities that qualify for certificate renewal. And school districts, with minimal guidance and often minimal to no funding tend to rely on less effective one-time in-service and workshop models.

It is with this in mind that states have begun to play a more active role, trying to alleviate disparities in both the quality and quantity of professional development opportunities across school districts through more targeted regulation and resource allocation. States, however, are but one of several actors influencing the delivery of professional development to teachers. School principals, teachers and district personnel are far more likely to determine the content and delivery of professional development across the country (NCES, 1998). Without clear delineation of responsibility for professional development and potential inequities in learning opportunities, policymakers will continue to grapple with how to best move toward more effective professional development delivery.

Making the Case for Quality Professional Development:

According to a poll conducted by Recruiting New Teachers, Inc. "roughly nine out of ten Americans believe the best way to lift student achievement isto ensure a qualified teacher in every classroom" (Haselkorn & Harris, 1998). This public perception meshes well with emerging research demonstrating the importance of teacher knowledge and skill on student performance.

An analysis of 900 Texas school districts found that teacher expertise accounted for 40 percent of their class improvement in reading achievement in grades 1 through 7. Another study, analyzing data from 60 different reports, found that a $500 investment in teacher education and increasing training or experience has the greatest impact on student achievement of several education reforms (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996). This has lead experts in the field like Kati Haycock (1998) to argue, "As we will see, during the five years since Goal 4 [National Education Goals] was enacted, we have more and more evidence that nothing has a greater impact on the success of students than the knowledge their teachers bring to the classroom." One significant influence on the quality of teaching is the quality of professional development provided educators.

A 1993-94 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics (1998) found that 96 percent of public school teachers had participated in some professional development during that school year. The United States Department of Education in its Principles of Professional Development (1995) defines it as "rigorous and relevant content, strategies, and organizational supports that ensure the preparation and career-long development of teachers and others whose competence, expectations and actions influence the teaching and learning environment." Unfortunately it is much more common to find teachers sitting as passive participants while experts train them in new knowledge and skills. In fact, the Education Commission of the States (1997) found that "much of what passes for professional development is only marginally-related to what is known about improved student learning."

An Emerging Vision for Professional Development:

In order to play its part in responding to the public demands for higher levels of student achievement, Dennis Sparks (1997) executive director of the National Staff Development Council advocates for a new vision of staff development that is results-driven, standards-based, job-embedded, content-rich and school-focused.

Results-driven: Judith Renyi (1996), Executive Director National Foundation for the Improvement for Education (NFIE), a foundation of the National Education Association writes that the goal of professional development in schools must be to improve results in terms of student learning, not simply to enhance practice. Results-driven staff development planning begins by answering the question of what students are expected to know and be able to do.

The second step is determining the knowledge and skills educators need in order to ensure the success of the students. Then, staff development experiences are designed to support educators in the acquisition of this knowledge and skills. Results-driven staff development means staff development is evaluated in terms of its impact on adult behavior and student learning rather than time spent by teachers in staff development sessions or participants' ratings of workshops and courses. Yet state policies rarely guide teachers and schools toward specific types of opportunities, rather toward a set amount of time necessary to attain relicensure. In Colorado, school districts used impact on student achievement or an assessment of teacher skills and knowledge far less to evaluate the success of and plan new professional development activities than informal evaluations (Hirsch, 1999).

Standards-based: Forty-nine states have already or are in the process of defining what students must know and be able to do in order to pass courses as well as earn graduation diplomas. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards as well as several states have delineated teaching standards that describe the expectations for teaching competency and give direction for the content of professional development. The National Staff Development Council (1994) in collaboration with more than eleven leading education associations have adopted staff development standards that provide direction for the planning, delivery and evaluation of staff development. These standards provide direction regarding the context, process and content of staff development linked to improved student learning.

Job-embedded: Judith Warren Little (1997) reports that staff development is still typically described as something external to the ongoing work of teaching, something that one "does" or that is "provided" in the form of activities or events while research of the past decade confirms the links of professional development to student learning when it is implemented as teachers working in professional communities within the school. This job-embedded description of professional development can take a variety of forms including study groups, coaching, mentoring, action research, curriculum development, and joint lesson planning. The NFIE (1996) report shows that when professional development is built into the daily, weekly, and yearlong job of teaching, it results in changed practice and student success. One of the most critical barriers to providing these types of opportunities is not resources, but time. In an attempt to facilitate this type of professional development, Arkansas passed legislation in 1997 that requires school districts to provide a minimum of 200 minutes of scheduled time each week for teacher conferences and instructional planning and preparation.

Content-rich: Julia E. Koppich and Michael S. Knapp (1998) report in a seventeen year synthesis of the impact of federal investment in professional development that deeper understanding of academic content and its application in real-world settings is necessary if all teachers are to be successful in helping students to master challenging academic standards. They remark further that teachers' knowledge of subject matter, and their ability to translate that knowledge into classroom learning activities appropriate to learners with different developmental levels and backgrounds, are both crucial components of improving student achievement.

Few teachers completed a pre-service program that fully-prepared them to address the specific content standards their students are expected to master. Teachers need opportunities to acquire deeper understandings of content and to be taught by teachers who model instructional practices aligned to that content (Cawelti, 1995).

School-focused: Linda Darling-Hammond (1998) proclaims that school reform efforts must focus on building the capacity of schools and teachers to undertake tasks they have never before been called upon to accomplish. School staffs need to develop a collective focus on student learning and to take joint responsibility for student achievement. Schools must build the capacity of the their staff to work well as a cohesive unit that strives for continuos improvement (Koppich and Knapp, 1998). Sparks (1997) suggests that staff development is most successful when it focuses on goals for student learning that are based on the unique strengths and challenges of a particular school and its community.

The Initial Preparation and Certification of Teachers:

A large component in determining the scope and activities of teacher professional development is the initial preparation of teachers. While all teachers will need ongoing, sustained learning over the course of their careers, a large burden of training teachers with basic skills and teacher tools falls to teacher preparation programs.

State legislators and other policymakers, largely in fear of micromanaging individual university programs, have been reluctant to impose regulations on teacher preparation programs, relying instead on altering certification and licensure requirements. By mandating specific course requirements, states can leverage teacher preparation programs to offer courses in areas policymakers deem important; many such topics bear directly on classroom teaching, including instructional uses of technology, approaches to reading instruction and the education of at-risk children. For example, The Maryland State Board of Education now requires that all new teachers, and all practicing teachers seeking recertification, complete 12 semester hours in reading instruction.

States have also made modest moves to encourage teacher education institutions to focus somewhat less on inputs-such as the number of courses teacher candidates are required to complete-and somewhat more on outcomes-demonstrations of teaching competence. This can be seen in Georgia where, under a ten-principle plan to improve teacher preparation approved by the Georgia State Regents, all graduates will be guaranteed to be capable with the university providing additional training for those graduates unable to demonstrate effective teaching skills. Other states such as New York and Texas are considering closing education preparation programs if a certain percentage of graduates cannot pass state certification examinations.

Currently, all states have some sort of approval mechanism in place for teacher education institutions, often based on either regional or national standards such as those of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) or the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Forty-five states use NCATE standards as the basis for state program decisions.

Initial certification requirements across the states are common on several fronts. All states require a BA/BS degree from an accredited institution and have basic requirements in general education, studies of subject matter and pedagogical studies. Most states also require a passing score on a basic skills exam encompassing at least reading, mathematics and writing.

While there are common areas and the trend in virtually all states is movement toward performance-based requirements at both the preparation and licensure stage of teacher development, disparities in requirements across the states have a tremendous impact on the ability of states to recruit and retain high quality teachers. Incompatibilities in state laws have been cited as a significant drawback in keeping teachers in the profession due to difficulties around both the portability of pensions and years of experience as well as lack of consistency about necessary coursework. Further, efforts to move toward a performance-based training and licensure system have spurred some to call for the abolition of preparation and certification all together. If determinations on the performance of potential teachers can be assessed, why not open the system to any whom can perform at the requisite level? This at least partially explains the proliferation of alternative certification programs, currently 117 in 41 states and the District of Columbia according to the National Center for Education Information (NCEI). In a recent NCEI poll, 25 states report the number of individuals being licensed through alternative routes has increased in the past five-years.

Professional development becomes a factor in the certificate renewal process, most often between 3 and 5 years after receiving the initial license. Thirty-two states mandate professional development for certificate renewal. Yet most of the requirements are for clock or semester hours, with little regulations to guide the quality and content of these offerings. And while the state education reviews components of professional development in 33 states, even minimal standards regarding acceptable criteria often are absent from the review process (NASDTEC, 1998). In many states, virtually any formalized learning experience can count toward license renewal, even though not all these experiences are relevant to the problems of teaching practice.

Whose Responsibility is Quality Professional Development? - Staff Development Providers:

This emerging vision for staff development often collides with the traditional delivery systems, providers, and incentive frameworks of school systems. While the emerging vision focuses on expectations for high levels of student learning at the center, traditional providers and players in the professional development landscape may suffer severe economic consequences if the vision is to become a reality. For example, if more staff development is to become job-embedded fewer teachers may seek graduate courses to fulfill staff development requirements. If districts decide to reward teachers for knowledge and skills rather than graduate hours, teachers may seek alternatives to traditional graduate courses for professional learning. As teachers become critical consumers of professional development they will opt for learning opportunities that align with district, school, and individual expectations for student results.

Universities and Colleges: These institutions see themselves as well suited to provide staff development because of the content and pedagogical expertise of their staff. Universities have been slow to change their approach to the delivery of staff development to schools. School systems encourage teacher participation in graduate courses by providing incentives on their salary schedules. Few schools establish expectations regarding which courses to complete or award credit for the demonstration of knowledge and skills aligned with standards for students. A small but growing national trend toward the training of teachers through professional development schools has the potential to change the relationships between school systems and universities. According to the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (1998), there are approximately 84 partnerships with professional development schools that include 96 colleges and universities nationwide.

State Departments of Education: States impact staff development through their policy frameworks. Some states require school improvement and/or professional development plans, a certain number of days for professional development, and/or the establishment of a minimum financial commitment to professional growth. A system of federal programs managed through state departments directs staff development resources to national priorities including Goals 2000, reading, math, and science. Some states use a system of regional service centers (e.g. NY, TX, CO, MI) to deliver professional development to local school systems. Some states provide specialized funding for major content initiatives. Regardless of the delivery system, data shows the state plays a minimal role. Only in Delaware did more than 50 percent of school principals report that the State Department of Education had a great deal of influence in determining the content of in-service programs. (NCES, 1998)

Local School Systems and Schools: By far the vast majority of staff development is organized and provided for teachers by local school systems and schools (Choy & Ross, 1998). As presented earlier the most powerful forms of staff development occur at the school level. Little (l997) reports an increase in the number of states requiring school improvement plans but sadly "where they exist, they often do little more than itemize a list of proposed activities." While the most frequent form of staff development provided by school systems continues to be the workshop, an increasing number of school systems are recognizing that their traditional staff development investment has made no significant impact in improving teacher practice or student learning. These school systems are redefining staff development according to the vision discussed earlier in this paper.

Large school systems are more likely than smaller systems to have individuals, and sometimes entire departments, devoted to the design and delivery of professional development. Smaller districts may have one individual with the responsibility, and even smaller ones usually have it integrated into the job of the assistant superintendent for instruction or the superintendent. An NCSL study of school district professional development practices found that 38 percent of respondents had neither a centralized professional development office, nor an identified professional development planner (Hirsch, 1999). A few school systems focusing professional development at the school site are experimenting with local staff developers assigned to each building (e.g. San Diego, District 2 in New York City, San Antonio).

Teacher Unions: Teacher unions can help define the structure of staff development in school systems as well as act as providers. In Montgomery County, Maryland the staff development framework outlined in the contract indicates the high value the union places on this as a benefit and necessity for teachers. NYC teacher unions are one of the major providers for professional development. While teacher unions recognize the importance of continuous learning for their members, they may balk at systems setting expectations and/or requirements with regard to the amount or focus of the learning because they view it as their responsibility.

Professional Organizations: Professional societies offer teachers opportunities to expand content and pedagogical knowledge and skills. They offer traditional methods of support through publications, on-line discussions, conferences, and workshops. On-going meetings, conferences, and workshops provide teachers important opportunities to hear about new developments in their field as well as network with colleagues. Key research findings document the connection between teacher involvement in networks and student achievement gains. "Subject-specific teacher collaborative and networks have grown in size, visibility, and influence over the past two decades." (Little, l997).

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS): The National Board offers an individually-guided development process that awards teachers for demonstrating exemplary practice in their teaching field. Voluntary and targeted toward advanced teachers, NBPTS certification is becoming more common, due in large part to the creation of state incentives. Twenty-three states assist interested teachers with the $2,000 fee to participate in the program and 14 provide license portability. Thirteen states offer salary supplements, as high as $6,000 per year in Mississippi, for attaining National Board certification (NBPTS, 1998).

Federal Government: The Federal Government supports national priorities through its system of special funding. Such funding typically flows through the states in the form of block grants. In addition, quasi-federal agencies identify their own program priorities and through a competitive grant process provide school systems incentives to align their professional development with the priorities of the program.

What Role is Technology Playing in Teacher Professional Development?

Technology is growing in importance, both as a means of delivery and as a topic to address for professional development. With school districts as virtually the only professional development delivery provider in more isolated, rural areas across the country, technology provides a means of bringing quality opportunities to teachers.

Just less than half of public school teachers were exposed to professional development activities that focus on the use of educational technology. This average masks wide differences across the states, ranging from 75 percent of teachers in Kentucky to about one-third in Nevada and Arkansas exposed to technology opportunities. More in-depth activities-more than eight hours-were received by only 15 percent of teachers nationwide (NCES, 1998). Math, science, and special education teachers are more likely to receive professional development on the use of technology than teachers in other disciplines.

Technology is likely to remain a common topic due to funding issues. Several states, in passing large technology expenditures, allocated money to go to professional development. For example, in Arkansas, 15 percent of the $2 million allocated for the Arkansas Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms goes toward teacher training. In Florida, local boards receiving grants under the School Technology Incentive Awards must spend 30 percent on teacher professional development (ECS, 1996).

In Colorado, using new technologies was a common topic addressed in professional development activities, but much less common than programs focused on content standards and assessment strategies (Hirsch, 1999). This appears to be the case across the country as well. The most common topic addressed is methods of teaching in the subject field and state or district curriculum and performance standards (NCES, 1999). Ironically, professional development targeted at state or district standards was reported as the least useful topic by teachers when compared with other areas. Only 12 percent of teachers said these activities improved classroom teaching "a lot." Professional development activities that include in-depth study in the subject area of the teachers main teaching assignment had the greatest impact on improved classroom teaching, yet this was the least common topic addressed with only 29 percent of teachers participating in such an activity (NCES, 1999).

Some answers may be found in the NCSL Colorado study. While state and local standards are the most common topic addressed, the targeted audience for activities is not from one-grade or department. Professional development activities were most commonly delivered to school wide audiences, making it difficult to truly focus on integrating standards into grade or discipline specific pedagogy (NCSL, 1999).

Professional Development Expenditures and Incentives:

The most likely cause for school wide audience targeting and lack of in-depth study opportunity are cost factors. While demonstrably less effective than the quality professional development outlined above, in-service days and school or district workshops remain the most common form of professional development activities. These activities are not conducive to in-depth study, but they are less expensive than other methods and involve less release time and restructuring of the school day.

According to NASDTEC (1998), only 18 states have specific allocations for professional development activities. The amount and the regulations that accompanying funding vary widely. For example, Missouri mandates that one percent of all state aid be devoted to district professional development activities. Other states such as Kentucky and Massachusetts allocate professional development funds on a per pupil basis to school districts ($24 and $75 respectively). These state programs are especially important because research shows that the creation of teacher professional development programs locally may depend heavily on the degree to which the state makes these activities a priority and the level to which it provides financial support to ensure implementation (ECS, 1997).

Even with a specific state allocation, it is hard to get a grasp of professional development expenditures. Professional development spending comes from a variety of budgets and programs at the local district, state and federal level. It is difficult to determine overall spending levels across all possible programs, especially when some of these allocation decisions are made at the school level. Missouri's budget information contained in the appendix gives some indication of the variety of programs that comprise professional development spending.

Another problem comes with defining professional development. While expenditures for specific programs such as in-service workshops can be found in district budgets, more job-embedded activities are difficult to identify. Time spent with colleagues discussing curriculum and students could be considered professional development, but will unlikely be listed as a specific activity and counted as a professional development expenditure.

Without state specific allocations, school districts are often left to their own devices to find professional development funding. In Colorado, this resulted in large disparities across school districts, with total district expenditures for professional development ranging from a low of .001 percent to a high of 7 percent (Hirsch, 1999). It is not surprising that more cost effective forms of professional development such as in-service and workshops would be offered in lieu of sabbatical, continuing coursework and temporary reassignments in districts with less professional development resources.

Conclusion:

Although research over the past few years has demonstrated that professional development that is standards-based and job-embedded have the greatest impact on both teaching and student learning, current policies do not provide the necessary incentives to spur schools and other institutions to offer these types of opportunities. Traditional school design, time and cost factors all play a role in sustaining traditional in-service and workshop delivery systems.

With professional development decisions left largely in the hands of local schools and school districts, inequities in the quality and quantity of professional development offered will likely result across states and even districts. While this allows districts and teachers to use professional development to achieve more local and personal goals, it also can lead to a situation where teachers do not have access to or take advantage of professional development practice that has been proven most effective.

This brief was written by Eric Hirsch, National Conference of State Legislatures, and Stephanie Hirsh, National Staff Development Counsel, with the assistance of the Milken Family Foundation.

References:

American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (1998) Professional Development Schools at a Glance. Washington, DC: Clinical Schools Clearinghouse, AACTE.

Choy, S.P. & Ross, M. (1998). Toward Better Teaching: Professional Development in 1993-l994. Washington DC: US Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). "Reframing the School Reform Agenda" Phi Delta Kappan, p. 754.

Education Commission of the States. (1997). Investing in Teacher Professional Development: A Look at 16 School Districts. Denver, C0: Education Commission of the States.

Education Research Services. (1998). Professional Development for Teachers: Challenges and Trends. Arlington, VA: ERS.

Haycock, K. (1998) "Good Teaching Matters...A Lot: How Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close The Gap." Thinking K-16,. (Vol. 3 Issue 2). 3-14.

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J.E. & Knapp M. (1998). What States Are Doing to Improve the Quality of Teaching: A Brief Review of Current Patterns and Trends. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy at the University of Washington.

Hirsch, E. (1999). Professional Development in Colorado: A Survey of School District Practices. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Koppich, J.E. & Knapp M. (1998). Federal Research Investment and the Improvement of Teaching 1980-1997. Washington DC: USDOE.

Little, J.W. (1997). Working Paper - Benchmarks for Schools. Excellence in Professional Development and Professional Community. Washington DC:

Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1998). State and Local Action Supporting National Board Certification. Southfield, MI: NBPTS.

National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Toward Better Teaching: Professional Development in 1993-94. Washington, DC: NCES (NCES 98-230), U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers. Washington, DC: NCES (NCES 1999-080), U.S. Department of Education.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1995). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York: The Commission.

National Staff Development Council. (1994). Standards for Staff Development: Middle Level Edition. Oxford, Oh: NSDC.

Recruiting New Teachers. (1998) The Essential Profession: A National Survey of Public Attitudes Toward Teaching, Educational Opportunity and School Reform. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers and Philip Morris Companes, Inc.

Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers Take Charge of their Learning: Transforming professional Development for Student Success.. Washington DC: National Foundation for the Improvement for Education (NFIE).

Sparks, D. and Hirsh, S. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development/National Staff Development Council.

Sparks D. (1997). "A New Vision for Staff Development." Principal. September: 21-23.

U.S. Education Department. (1995) Building Bridges: The Mission & Principles of Professional Development. Washington, DC: USDOE.

Visitor counts for this page.

Return to Education Home Page