PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROMOTE SCHOOLWIDE INQUIRY
M. Bruce King
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Wisconsin Center for Education Research
1025 W. Johnson Street
Madison, WI 53706
608-263-4769
fax
608-263-6448
mbking1@facstaff.wisc.edu
15 February 2001
MS # 1363, accepted for publication in Teaching and Teacher Education
This paper was supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement (Grant No. R308F60021-97), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research,
School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Any opinions expressed in this
publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of supporting
agencies. Helen Marks, Fred Newmann, Virginia Richardson, and Peter Youngs provided helpful
feedback on previous drafts. The author also thanks two anonymous reviewers and Greta
Morine-Dershimer for their comments on the initial manuscript.
1
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROMOTE SCHOOLWIDE INQUIRY
Abstract
This paper explores the extent of teacher inquiry, and how professional development can
promote schoolwide inquiry, in seven urban elementary schools in the US. The regular and
systematic inquiry present in two of the schools is highlighted. The schools’ organizational
contexts that facilitate inquiry are also considered. As a key element of professional community,
the ways in which inquiry contributes to, and interacts with, other aspects of teacher community
are examined. The paper also reflects on the issue of strict or flexible community boundaries and
how inquiry can help to keep a school’s faculty focused yet dynamic, as well as open to dissent
and change.
Keywords: Teacher inquiry, Professional development, School organization
2
Professional development to promote schoolwide inquiry
I.
Introduction
Teacher Inquiry
Two strands of the current school reform agenda, both in the US and internationally, are
teacher inquiry and organizational learning. On the one hand, the restructuring and reculturing of
schools should promote inquiry in which educators critically examine their own beliefs and
practices (e.g., McLaughlin & Oberman, 1996; Richardson, 1994). This emphasis on inquiry and
reflection has become one aspect of redefining teacher professionalism in many first-world
countries (Conway, 2001). On the other hand, schools need to become learning organizations
(Argyris & Schön, 1978). Schools as learning organizations help teachers interrogate, integrate,
and apply knowledge and values in the process of continual improvement (Leithwood & Louis,
1999; Louis & Marks, 1999; also Crowther & Kaagan, in press).
This study begins to bring these two strands together. Much of the research on teacher
inquiry has focused on pre-service teacher education or on the individual teacher or small group
participating in some form of action research. But recent research is emerging that shows teacher
inquiry to be necessary for ambitious instructional reform. Also, professional development that
entails inquiry into subject matter and teaching has shown positive results on teacher learning,
practice, or student learning (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1994;
Smylie 1998; Wilson & Berne, 1999). This study seeks to further understand the contributions of
professional development to schoolwide inquiry, as well as the benefits of inquiry to a school’s
professional community.
Teacher inquiry entails a number of critical features. At the individual level, inquiry
suggests a vision of the teacher “who questions her assumptions and is consciously thoughtful
3
about her goals, practices, students, and contexts” (Richardson, 1994, p. 187). Inquiry puts
teacher practice and student learning under scrutiny; and it generates and reinforces core beliefs,
norms, and values of the community. Teachers become students of their craft as they struggle
with key issues of determining academic content or subject matter, implementing instructional
strategies, responding to students’ development, or understanding social conditions of schooling
relevant to equity and justice concerns (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995).
At a minimum, then, collective inquiry involves teachers talking to each other about their
practice and how it relates to student outcomes, and being willing to disagree. Other criteria
indicate more complex inquiry, such as inviting or searching for dissenting viewpoints; making
taken-for-granted assumptions explicit and challenging them; analyzing data, knowledge, and
information; reaching collective understanding or decisions; and sustaining a focus on a specific
topic. Similar to Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) “inquiry as stance,” this conception of
inquiry suggests, not a one-time activity or project, but a defining feature of a community in
which teachers investigate and critically examine practices, theories, and research, and
collectively confront issues in a systematic and continuous way.
Typical professional development activities represent the antithesis of careful inquiry.
These activities tend to be imposed by external authorities without significant input from
teachers and rarely sustained or followed-up. Often, professional development is divorced from
teachers’ work contexts, and presents material that teachers see as irrelevant to student learning
in their specific school settings. Different activities throughout a year or a period of years tend to
lack consistent focus, either for individual teachers or for a school. And, perhaps most
importantly, traditional professional development mirrors traditional forms of instruction where
the learners, the teachers, are passive. In contrast, professional development that promotes
4
inquiry will involve teachers in determining content and process, will relate specifically to their
students, will be sustained and systematic, and will entail active learning that may lead to
important changes in beliefs and practices.
Inquiry and Professional Community
If innovative approaches to professional development stress only individual teachers’
learning, while neglecting to help a whole faculty to integrate their learning for the collective
advancement of students in that school, organizational learning is diminished. We would not
expect substantial changes in practice or student learning for a school as a whole. From this
organizational perspective, inquiry should not be a solo activity, but one aspect of a school’s
professional community. Recent research has shown the importance of teachers’ professional
community for school reform. Drawing on the conceptual and empirical work of Louis, Kruse,
Marks, and colleagues (e.g., Louis, Kruse, & Associates, 1995; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996;
Newmann, King, & Rigdon, 1997; also Westheimer, 1998), a strong schoolwide professional
community consists of (a) a clear shared purpose for student learning, (b) collaboration among
staff to achieve the purpose, (c) professional inquiry by the staff to address the challenges they
face, and (d) opportunities for staff to influence the school’s activities and policies.
Although teachers can engage in careful individual inquiry about their practice, inquiry as
a collaborative activity among teachers at a school is what contributes to professional
community. Because they are in an organizational setting, teacher reflection becomes a joint
responsibility that encourages them to work collectively toward shared understandings and
commitments (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995). Inquiry that is pursued individually by teachers in a
school, even if a significant number of them are doing it, could lead to organizational
fragmentation that weakens overall student and staff learning.
5
Some caution is warranted, though, in advocating a strong professional community in a
school. The term “community” tends to be associated with positive, even progressive, social
conditions. But like other social arrangements, community can have ambivalent tendencies
(Wagner 1994). On the one hand, community entails harmony, consensus, mutual understanding.
On the other, there is an urge to unify to the point where homogeneity is valued, even enforced
(Young, 1990). As Noddings (1996) points out, “In all strong communities, there is a significant
measure of normocentricity … (which) can produce admirable or deplorable results” (p. 254).
Thus shared norms, values, and goals define communities but these can lead to either
strict or flexible boundaries to the community. With strict boundaries, where norms are highly
explicit with little room for negotiation or interpretation, comes silence or exclusion.
Disagreement and diversity are perceived as a threat, and minority viewpoints are unwelcome.
Critical reflection seems essential to avoid these potentially negative outcomes of community.
Inquiry should be seen as an integral part of professional community because when communities
inquire about their norms, values, and goals, as well as practices to achieve them, difference or
conflict is inherent but their cultivation contributes to flexible boundaries. That is, norms are
continually revisited and refined, dissent or new perspectives are welcome, and the community is
dynamic rather than stagnant.
In this paper, then, I will explore the extent of inquiry, and how professional development
can further schoolwide inquiry, in seven urban elementary schools. From these schools, different
examples of inquiry are highlighted, including the regular and systematic inquiry present in two
of them. Aspects of the organizational contexts of the schools that facilitate collective inquiry,
including leadership and structures, will be considered. I’ll then analyze how inquiry contributes
to, and interacts with, other aspects of teacher professional community in these schools, and
6
return to the issue of strict or flexible boundaries and how inquiry can help to keep a professional
community focused yet dynamic, as well as open to dissent and change. The conclusion will
draw implications from the study’s findings and suggest further research.
II.
Research Methodology and Analysis
This investigation is part of a larger study of professional development to build school
capacity. Our definition of capacity included the following five dimensions: the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions of individual staff members; professional community; program
coherence; technical resources; and principal leadership.1 Seven public elementary schools in the
US participated from spring 1997 through fall 1999. They were selected through a national
search for schools serving large proportions of low-income students which a) had histories of
low achievement, b) had shown progress in student achievement over the previous three to five
years, c) attributed their progress to schoolwide and sustained professional development, d)
participated in site-based management, and e) had received significant professional development
assistance from one or more external agencies.2 In addition to the five criteria, the schools were
chosen to represent different approaches to professional development and different kinds of
assistance from district, state, and independent providers (see the Appendix for professional
development and demographic information for each school).
The study intentionally sought out schools that used professional development in
exemplary ways according to the criteria outlined above. One indication that we did in fact locate
such schools is that, according to teacher survey data, all the participating schools scored
consistently higher on dimensions of school capacity than did a comparable sample of schools in
Chicago. On measures of inquiry (or reflective dialogue), the seven schools in the professional
development study were significantly higher than the Chicago schools (Smith 1999).
7
Initial data collection in spring and fall of 1997 involved fieldwork in the seven schools
for three days by a team of two researchers. Visits to the schools were scheduled so that
significant professional development activities could be observed. Observed activities included
workshops or in-services with outside authorities, but also activities internal to the school such as
common planning or release time for teachers to meet in committees, cadres, grade teams, and as
a school as a whole, as well as meetings to network with teachers from other schools.
Researchers also interviewed school staff (10 to 12) and representatives from external providers
of professional development and collected pertinent documents as well as achievement,
demographic, and fiscal information.3
Four of the schools (Falkirk, Kintyre, Lewis, and Renfrew4) with the greatest potential for
comprehensive professional development, that is professional development that consistently
addressed most or all dimensions of capacity, were visited three more times through 1999. The
other three schools (Carlisle, Pitlochry, and Wallace) were visited once more in 1999. Research
methods in the follow-up visits followed the same general pattern as in the initial visits, but
interviews raised issues that emerged in prior visits on how professional development addressed
the different dimensions of capacity.
We conducted two stages of analysis to determine the level of teacher inquiry at each
school, as well as the extent to which professional development addressed inquiry over the
course of the study. The first stage of analysis occurred after each school visit when research
staff compiled field notes from their observations and interviews and wrote a report addressing
the research questions of the full study. At this stage of analysis, the school report focused on
how professional development addressed three aspects of capacity: teachers’ knowledge, skills
8
and dispositions; professional community (each of four dimensions including inquiry); and
program coherence.
The second stage of analysis took place after all data collection had been completed and
all of the school reports were written. We used the reports to rate each school (high, medium, or
low) on several variables. One was the level of collective inquiry at the time of the first visit and
the final visit. A second was the extent to which inquiry was addressed by professional
development over the course of our study. To be rated high on inquiry, professional development
activities at a particular school met at least four of the following criteria. Teachers
 have considerable control over process and content;
 critically discuss issues of school mission, curriculum, instruction, or student learning;
 address areas of disagreement and entertain diverse viewpoints;
 draw upon relevant data and research to inform deliberations;
 sustain a focus on a topic or problem, and reach a collective decision.
Research staff assigned individual ratings for each variable; when there was disagreement, the
ratings were discussed until consensus was reached. The ratings were used to inform
explanations for why some schools used professional development to address capacity more
comprehensively than others did. The next section presents the three major findings of this study.
III.
Findings
1.
In a select sample of schools, only two used professional development to strongly address
schoolwide teacher inquiry. In the other five schools, the extent of collective inquiry was limited.
Even though all the schools in this study used professional development in innovative
ways and demonstrated some gains in student achievement, we found schoolwide inquiry to be
low in five of them. In short, teachers’ work in professional development rarely met the criteria
9
for inquiry. There seems to be at least two possible explanations. One, while inquiry was low at
these schools, it may have been somewhat better than at other schools with little success in
raising achievement. The comparison to the sample of Chicago schools noted above provides
support for this explanation. Alternatively, the low levels may indicate that in the short term,
collective inquiry may not be necessary for school improvement that enhances achievement. In
part IV. Conclusions, I’ll return to this issue and argue why in the long term, professional
development should promote schoolwide inquiry.
Over the course of the study, there were examples of relatively high quality inquiry at the
five low schools. However these examples represent isolated instances of inquiry rather than a
consistent element of the schools’ approaches to professional development. At Carlisle, for
instance, collaboration among teachers was high through grade level team meetings and a mentor
program for new teachers. Teachers consistently reported sharing ideas with and receiving
suggestions from colleagues. But there was little evidence that staff participated in dialogue in
which they critically discussed issues of mission, instruction, or achievement; addressed areas of
disagreement; or used data to inform their deliberations.
At Wallace, there were many instances of teachers’ sharing ideas for practice. However,
inquiry was irregular and rare. An external consultant working long-term with the school
affirmed that the professional development needed to work more on reflective practice. One
veteran teacher said that most dialogue and professional development at the school was too
shallow. She said bluntly, There are too many buzzwords such as reciprocal teaching, problemsolving, blah, blah, blah. What does it mean if it’s not part of you?
Similarly at Kintyre, observations and interviews revealed lots of sharing of ideas but
little inquiry among teachers. But during our last research visit in fall of 1999, staff analyzed the
10
school’s results on state tests. With facilitation from the school’s “resource teacher” (a district
staff person who worked with three or four schools on a weekly basis), teachers made efforts to
generate a collective understanding as shown by their summaries of the data and
recommendations for action to the large group. This activity, along with other professional
development in the fall of 1999, indicated that the school seemed to be taking constructive steps
toward enhancing all aspects of professional community, including collective inquiry.
Professional development that strongly addressed inquiry throughout the study was
evident at two schools. Lewis and Renfrew Elementary Schools consistently involved teachers in
collective inquiry through professional development opportunities. Lewis Elementary, in an
urban district in Texas, enrolled 560 students. Students were 78% Hispanic, 14% white, and 8%
African American, and 93% were on free or reduced price lunch. Since 1994, professional
development concentrated on implementation of Success for All (SFA) programs. With an initial
faculty vote of 100% to adopt SFA, they began implementing the reading program in 1994, the
math program in 1995, and World Lab (integrated science and social studies) in 1997.
In an urban district in California, Renfrew enrolled an ethnically and economically
diverse student body of 675. Students were 44% Hispanic, 14% African American, 38% white,
and 54% were from low-income families. During the study, professional development focused
on developing grade level standards and assessments in literacy and mathematics, and discussing
implications of assessment results for curriculum and teaching. The staff continuously examined
the issue of achievement gaps between students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
As we will see, Renfrew consistently met all five of the criteria for collective inquiry.
Teachers had considerable control over both process and content, and they critically discussed
issues of school mission and assessments and standards for student learning. Areas of
11
disagreement and diverse viewpoints were valued, and teachers drew upon relevant data and
research to inform discussions. In different settings, teachers sustained a focus on critical issues
and reached some collective decisions. Lewis met all criteria but the first one. That is, after
adoption of Success For All, teachers didn’t have a lot of control over the process and content of
professional development.
Inquiry at Lewis
The main goal of professional development at Lewis was to help teachers to faithfully
implement curriculum and methods developed by Success For All (Slavin et al., 1996). When
inquiry occurred, it was usually oriented toward the issue of, “How well am I doing and how
might I do better in implementing the designated strategy to ensure all students’ success?” Both
school-based SFA facilitators, one in reading and one in math, emphasized that, beyond helping
individual teachers to implement the program, their role was to encourage teachers’ questions
and seek their feedback on the program, and to offer workshops based on identified needs.
One important site for collective professional inquiry was the quarterly grade level team
meetings to discuss students’ progress. The meetings occurred for 45 minutes during scheduled
grade level common planning time. The main purposes were to place students in reading classes
for the next 8 weeks and to discuss teachers’ success with instructional strategies. The reading
facilitator said these meetings were productive because they had information on student
achievement and all teachers had input. Teachers examined the results from reading assessments
in order to make recommendations for student placement. All teachers were expected to discuss
recommendations before the reading facilitator gave her input. In these discussions, teachers
revisited learning expectations and reinforced their commitment to and responsibility for
improved learning for all their students. Critical discussion of curriculum and instructional
12
strategies continued in regular grade level meetings independent of the facilitators. Teachers saw
the discussion of student achievement levels and of instructional strategies as directly
contributing to their learning.
The math facilitator said that SFA trainers established effective relationships with Lewis
teachers that encouraged them to reflect on practice. For example, first and second grade
teachers, implementing the program for the first time in ‘97-98, felt comfortable telling the
trainers that certain things did not go well, or that they did not understand aspects of the
program. She had a positive reaction, especially to the training because, as she put it, there was
an open exchange -- they [teachers] were comfortable talking about the lessons, problems, the
whole cycle.
Throughout the four research visits, teachers’ careful consideration of implementation
issues was evident, both in-house in grade level teams (both with and without the school-based
facilitators) and with the external SFA trainers in de-briefing sessions or workshops. For
example, a meeting with the reading facilitator and the “reading roots” (primary level) teachers
dealt their reactions to the recent implementation check by trainers. Discussion of the trainers’
feedback involved reflective professional inquiry in the sense that teachers noticed discrepancies
between the trainers’ oral and written feedback, they raised questions and asked for explanations
for ratings, and they considered the adequacy of trainers’ limited time to observe each classroom.
In short, the teachers took feedback from SFA trainers very seriously and, rather than merely
complaining about ratings that disappointed them, they explored how the trainers may have
reached their conclusions. When some of their concerns were not adequately resolved in the
meeting, they suggested that the issues be raised explicitly with the trainers.
13
Neither Success For All nor district-sponsored professional development emphasized
professional inquiry in the sense of urging teachers to become innovators who critiqued and
discovered effective new instructional approaches, new ways of organizing curriculum, new
approaches to parent involvement or school governance. Overall, professional development at
Lewis put the most emphasis on training teachers in the comprehensive reading, math, and
World Lab programs developed by SFA. But opportunities for staff collaboration and the
prevailing culture that featured clear shared learning goals for the school combined with
facilitator leadership to promote schoolwide inquiry. Though not an explicit focus for the school,
the practice of professional development at Lewis emphasized collective teacher inquiry that
focused on complex technical issues of program implementation.
Inquiry at Renfrew
Professional development at Renfrew focused on teachers clarifying specific outcomes in
literacy and math at each grade level, ways of measuring these outcomes, and reflecting on
results, especially with regard to gaps between students of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.
With financial support from the state’s school restructuring initiative and grants received by the
district, the entire staff met together yearly in two institutes of three to four days each and in
formal inquiry groups of about 15 teachers, which were led by an external coach and meet every
other week for three hours. The first institute occurred before school opened in the fall in which
faculty develop “essential questions” for the year (e.g., What am I doing differently to ensure that
the inequitable pattern of student achievement no longer continues?). The second was held midyear where staff members examined grade level progress in addressing the essential questions.
Staff consistently analyzed standardized and performance-based achievement outcomes in the
mid-year institutes.
14
Ongoing inquiry related to the essential questions was evident in inquiry groups where
teachers also discussed classroom practice and professional readings. One teacher, for example,
described the influence of her inquiry group this way,
We’ve talked a lot about issues surrounding inequality and racism…So when I do go back to
the classroom, I’m always thinking about my kids of color and how I treat them and how
other people treat them, and constantly thinking about what could I be doing or what am I
already doing or not doing enough of and all that. In that way I feel like inquiry has made a
very strong impact. I’m not saying that I’ve completely resolved all of the issues.
One inquiry group facilitator described the work of the groups in this way. She said their
overall purpose was for teachers to
hold up beliefs and principles for critical questioning. It was in this way that the focus was
on practice. The topic of discipline provides a good example. The teachers basically wanted
students to be quieter and more responsive to their instruction. [In inquiry] they tended to
trade very particular techniques for punishment and reward at first, then began to inquire
into the problem in a deeper way. What theories of child development underlay their notions
of who was “in control” of behavior in the classroom? What were patterns of instructional
practice that coincided with more or less “bad” behavior? What were their definitions of
“bad” behavior and where did they come from? To what extent were their definitions
influenced by culture and gender differences, or by students’ family affiliations? They raised
some of these questions themselves, and sometimes I raised them or encouraged them to stick
with them for awhile…
Renfrew teachers participated in collective professional inquiry in other contexts. In
grade level team meetings, teachers scored student work in reading comprehension and writing
15
according to standards in their performance assessment scheme. For one of the teams, an activity
involved keeping a journal on how each teacher responded to students of color who they
considered to be “at-risk.” They also conducted peer observations with a partner teacher that
focused on classroom interactions with those students. Another team decided to have each
teacher target five students having the most difficulty with writing, to use guided writing
activities, and to track progress over a few months.
The practice of collective professional inquiry was an explicit and integral part of the
fabric of teachers’ work at Renfrew. But there was strength, weakness, and ongoing tension in
their use of inquiry. Its strength was demonstrated by the fact that when an external consultant to
the school violated it, she was not invited back. Her in-services were oriented toward
transmitting knowledge and skills, rather than involving teachers in determining the content and
processes for workshops, and engaging them in critical dialogue. On the other hand, it seemed
that it took a considerable amount of time and effort for teachers to prioritize and make decisions
when engaged in inquiry. There was often reluctance among staff to push the process to a
conclusion or collective decision. Unfortunately, many issues were left unresolved and then staff
had a myriad of things to deal with in their various groups.
Furthermore, the conduct of professional inquiry brought conflict to the surface.
Discussions of the extent of teacher responsibility for eliminating differences in achievement
among racial and ethnic groups, and the issue of flexible “developmental” goals for individual
students versus fixed grade level expectations for all, provoked significant disagreement. While
Renfrew teachers have been participating in joint inquiry that few schools have achieved, they
also have faced the special challenge of managing conflict to advance collective professional
growth and minimizing its threat to community.
16
In contrast to the five schools where teacher inquiry occurred only occasionally, Lewis
and Renfrew systematically used professional development that emphasized collective inquiry.
Lewis adopted an external program and inquiry there focused largely on the “how to” of
implementation. Renfrew teachers developed standards and assessments internally, and their
inquiry tended to address the “for what” of instruction – equity in student achievement.
2.
Supports for schoolwide inquiry included organizational structures and school
leadership.
Organizational Structures
Both Lewis and Renfrew scheduled release time for teachers to meet in various groups.
At Lewis, grade level teams met at least twice per week during a 45-minute common planning
period. The teams met with the school-based SFA reading and math facilitators once each month.
Grade team leaders and the principal also met together once per month. Program implementation
checks were regularly scheduled in both reading and math, during which trainers from national
SFA visited the school and observed instruction. During the visits, the school consistently
scheduled time for the trainers to meet with teachers by program component or grade levels.
With considerable external financial support, Renfrew instituted structures that supported
school-based professional development, including collective teacher inquiry. They used seven
staff development days per year for the two institutes. Teachers reported that the extended time
to meet with colleagues, that is, multiple and consecutive days, was a significant foundation for
successful professional development. By banking instructional time, school started an hour and a
half late every Friday, time which the staff used for meetings. Monthly meetings occurred for the
whole faculty, and for grade team leaders with the administration. Multi-grade level teams (K/1,
2/3, 4/5) met every other week, with specific grade group teachers or teaching partners (e.g., first
17
grade teachers) meeting at least weekly. The school’s financial resources freed teachers from
their classes for formal inquiry groups every other week for three hours.
While none of the other schools had the kind of opportunities for professional
development that Renfrew enjoyed, most had instituted more time for teacher collaboration
through common grade level planning periods and extended day-early release. As with all
structural reforms, these may bolster innovation and school improvement but they offer no
guarantees. For example, at Pitlochry, another SFA school with similar structures as Lewis,
professional development did not consistently support inquiry or other aspects of professional
community. In spite of the initial vote of the faculty to participate, not all staff were committed
to school goals or to implementing SFA. Some teachers resisted the amount of preparation time
needed for SFA lessons, the emphasis on cooperative learning, and the shift to nontraditional
instructional approaches, especially in math. Staff also noted that some teachers were uneasy
with facilitator and peer feedback, and this kind of critical discussion of instruction was minimal.
While other teachers liked the help they received from the reading facilitator, it was done largely
one-on-one. Grade level teams, even with common planning time, met irregularly. In contrast to
Lewis, assessments and regrouping of students in reading were done solely by the facilitator and
thus were not a focal point for collective discussion and inquiry. The math facilitator relied on
classroom teachers to contact him for help rather than taking a more proactive role. The fact that
teachers approached him infrequently may be indicative of a lack of trust among staff members
and a culture that did not value careful critique and inquiry.
Leadership
Principals at both Lewis and Renfrew maintained a consistent focus for schoolwide
professional development. They used funding and outside expertise to serve this focus, and
18
“buffered” teachers from outside mandates or reform initiatives that might otherwise interfere
with their school’s efforts. They worked to maintain high teacher expectations for student
achievement and norms of trust and collaboration, and they reinforced open channels of
communication within the school. As we’ll see, the principals of the two schools did differ in
their direct involvement in activities to promote teacher inquiry.
At Lewis, the principal and the facilitators expected teachers to critically engage with
implementation issues and provided forums for addressing these. That is, in this context of
following an externally developed program, teachers considered SFA not simply a “script”
but a comprehensive program (curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessments) in
different subject areas that invited inquiry. Ongoing assistance for inquiry came mainly from
the school-based reading and math facilitators rather than the principal. The facilitators
regularly visited classrooms, offered demonstrations, arranged for teachers to observe one
another, and participated in grade level meetings to discuss instructional issues. Both
facilitators emphasized that their role was to encourage teachers’ questions and seek their
feedback on the program.
The school’s reading facilitator discussed how she tried to improve teachers’ instructional
strategies. Her general approach was to call grade team members together if she perceived any
weaknesses in implementation and to ask them if they had any suggestions about how to deal
with it. She said that teachers’ problem solving together had been a critical component of staff
development. She also has tried to promote teachers teaching teachers at the school. She
encouraged Lewis teachers to offer workshops to the rest of the staff on different program
aspects, and made arrangements for the meetings. Although voluntary, attendance was
consistently high.
19
The school’s math facilitator conducted regular observations of students and teachers.
After identifying students who struggled in math, she would observe their classes and then meet
with the teacher to discuss ways in which these students might be helped. While this activity
entailed meeting with teachers one-on-one, it was consistent with the culture and practice of
teachers examining their implementation of the SFA program in light of their immediate context
and how well their students were doing.
Leadership support for inquiry at Renfrew could be traced to the district superintendent.
His vision for professional development was school based, and entailed an explicit emphasis on
inquiry. As he stated, the
school community has to decide what they will focus on … to create an environment
where teachers can examine their practices in light of a knowledge base, and to really
take a look at their instruction in theory and practice, going out and trying things,
coming back and talking about it, going out and trying it again. It’s more than a
coaching model; it’s much more what we call inquiry-based. It needs to relate to their
practices, to student success and what they mean by student success. It seems to me that
looking at student work should be one of the central organizing elements.
He perceived inquiry to be productive at Renfrew in part because the school had a principal who
passionately believed that teachers needed to be actively engaged in examining their practices.
The school’s principal argued that small teacher inquiry groups would result in school
change. Their model for these groups included norms of confidentiality and privacy. Groups
were not necessarily action oriented but could be. For her, the critical component was tying these
groups to the more public inquiry system conducted at institutes, and grade level and whole staff
meetings that were connected to the school’s essential questions. She said, For me, thinking
20
about pushing the envelope toward change, I’m not sure if I didn’t have this other parallel
strategy going on, which is schoolwide and every body is engaged in it – having those two
strategies, they are very complementary and they really really help.
In facilitating pre- and mid-year institutes, Renfrew’s principal designed activities for the
staff that included examining achievement data disaggregated by race/ethnicity and social class,
discussing instructional strategies and other teacher behaviors that might help students from
different backgrounds, and reviewing results from a staff survey to identify areas needing
attention. Teachers were always involved in planning these activities as well as helping to
facilitate them during the institutes. To make formal policy and plans for professional
development, the principal consulted with the lead teachers from the grade level teams, and no
major change was made without wide support throughout the faculty. In the meetings we
observed, teachers consistently voiced ideas, proposals, concerns, feedback, and criticisms, with
direct encouragement for this kind of dialogue from the principal. She summarized her approach
to fostering teacher inquiry,
My own personal belief is that I will never change anybody’s value system and belief system.
However, I can put them in an environment where they have an opportunity to re-examine it.
I know I have people all over the map in terms of that development. I have people who are in
total denial that they have any biases or prejudices that may be affecting their teaching. I
have people who are on the road to really understanding and figuring out what to do about
that. I have teachers of color who go between being frustrated and angry, and hopeful. To
find the right strategies that meet all those different people… it’s the hardest facilitation I’ve
ever done.
21
She acknowledged that she received critical support from the regional network of schools
involved in the California restructuring initiative and the California Consortium for School
Restructuring (CCSR). The Consortium coordinated regional networks and developed the
“protocol” process to assist school staffs to reflect rigorously, in a supportive context, on its
efforts. Her comments suggest the importance for ongoing professional development and
technical support for school leaders as well as teachers.
At both schools, leadership for inquiry acted not to arrive at predetermined conclusions or
to consolidate the power of those in formal leadership positions. Rather it was facilitative,
promoting broad participation and influence, as well as encouraging open exchange of ideas and
deliberations. Principals and teachers valued both individual and collective growth as important
outcomes of inquiry.
3.
Inquiry and other aspects of professional community interacted and affected one another.
As discussed previously, the study’s framework for professional community included (a)
a clear shared purpose for student learning, (b) collaboration among staff to achieve the purpose,
(c) professional inquiry by the staff to address the challenges they face, and (d) opportunities for
staff to influence the school’s activities and policies. At both Lewis and Renfrew, inquiry helped
to build teachers’ shared commitment and collaboration, and in turn, these aspects of
professional community were foundations for further inquiry. Teacher empowerment was strong
at both schools throughout the study, and seemed to be important for productive inquiry as well
as strengthened by it. But before looking at these two schools, we briefly consider one of the
other schools where professional community suffered because inquiry was weak.
At Falkirk, inquiry and sustaining focus in professional development were chronic
problems over the course of the study, and this seemed to harm the school’s professional
22
community. Some of these problems were due to the shifting educational policy environment.
The state implemented a centralized testing and accountability system that entailed a dramatic
shift from previous policy under which individual schools identified their own learner standards.
The new policies entailed a change in the school’s focus for learning with little teacher
commitment. But some of the problems were school-based. Falkirk was an Accelerated School, a
model that provided structures and processes for school improvement including inquiry (see
Hopfenberg et al., 1993). However, teachers failed to practice the inquiry process well or
consistently. Some teachers said of inquiry that they were “spinning wheels.” Although
collaboration occurred in the Accelerated Schools structures (e.g., cadres, steering committee)
and in grade level team meetings, commitment to shared goals and teacher empowerment was
uneven. Falkirk abandoned the Accelerated Schools model with the change of principals midway through the study.
In contrast, the staff at Lewis adopted their specific direction for school improvement
through a process that entailed broad-based involvement and careful inquiry by teachers. In
1993-94, the teachers began to investigate programs that, based on research, would offer more
success with disadvantaged students than the faculty had been able to achieve to date. The
principal explained that prior to that time, the staff had worked hard and tried a number of things,
but had concluded that nothing produced the results they wanted. A committee of 10 teachers
examined alternatives that included visits to other schools employing different programs and
presentations to the rest of the staff. They were impressed with Success For All and made a
commitment to adopt the program, with 100% of the faculty voting to do so. They used a similar
process in the spring of 1997 to investigate programs for science and social studies. As opposed
to contrived consensus on a decision already made by a principal or accepting an external
23
mandate to adopt and implement a specific program or approach to reform, Lewis serves as a
promising example in which teacher inquiry builds on and reinforces shared commitment,
collaboration, and influence, other aspects of professional community. In a cyclical pattern, as
the school progressed in its implementation of SFA, students became more successful, which in
turn raised teachers’ expectations for learning. Their commitment to learning goals was
reinforced, as was their practice of inquiry to enhance their implementation.
At Renfrew, staff scrutinized conditions of schooling relevant to equity and social justice.
While it was extremely challenging for teachers to examine issues of racism and prejudice in
their own attitudes and practice, it seemed to help generate and reinforce commitment to shared
learning goals. Inquiry both involved and contributed to collaboration in that teachers’ beliefs
and their students’ achievement levels were subject to collective scrutiny in a supportive
environment. Teachers struggled jointly with key issues of determining academic outcomes by
grade level and ways to measure them. One inquiry group facilitator noted the challenge and
importance of inquiry to the schoolwide program and a shared focus. She said that what Renfrew
teachers did with inquiry was incredibly healthy. It’s extremely tense and difficult. But there’s
this sort of kick-over point where if a school as a whole doesn’t come to own the work, it’s never
the school’s work.
Previously, it was noted that communities have shared norms, values, and goals but that
these can result in strict or flexible boundaries. With strict boundaries comes silence or
exclusion; the strength of shared norms imposes uniformity with little or no room for dissent.
However, when communities inquire about their norms, values, and goals, difference and
conflict are inherent, and their cultivation contributes to flexible boundaries and growth.5
24
Renfrew serves as a good illustration. We were initially concerned that the strength of the
school’s professional community could lead to two negative outcomes: (a) silencing or
disempowering some teachers, because collective bonds or norms were so powerful (yet fragile)
that they could not tolerate dissent, or (b) increased conflict that destroys community, when
collective bonds are not strong and mature enough to handle disagreement. One inquiry group
facilitator put it this way, They were always teetering on the brink of fracture caused by the
tension of going too far (toward assumptions of the existence of racism and toward more explicit
anti-racism) for some teachers, and not far enough for others. But through inquiry, the common
focus of the community could be continually negotiated. As one teacher put it, Within that
commonality for the school, it has to be open-ended enough that each person can take that and
make it individual. Collective inquiry, as suggested in this study of schools with innovative
approaches to professional development, was not a common practice or easy to achieve. Yet
when it was, as in Renfrew’s case, collective inquiry with broad involvement and honest
examination of goals, values, and practices at the school level seems to be a key ingredient for
organizational growth and may offer a safeguard against possible negative outcomes of increased
“community.”
IV.
Conclusions
In this study of professional development in seven elementary schools, the extent of
collective teacher inquiry was limited. In most of the schools, professional development
activities that involved inquiry were isolated instances rather than ingrained into the fabric of the
school’s culture. Only at two schools, Lewis and Renfrew, did teachers engage in schoolwide
inquiry in an ongoing and systematic way. These two schools offer at least an existence proof
that innovative forms of professional development can address schoolwide inquiry.
25
But Lewis and Renfrew illustrate contrasting approaches to professional development and
the focus for inquiry. Teachers at Lewis focused on the implementation of a comprehensive
program developed by an external organization that also provided continuing technical
assistance. Renfrew teachers approached school improvement through their own ongoing
development of standards and assessments, and through critical examination of issues of social
and educational equity. These schools illustrate that professional development can meaningfully
address collective teacher inquiry with either approach.
It does not seem particularly surprising that with their approach, Renfrew teachers
engaged in inquiry. At the same time, the more prescriptive program at Lewis might be
associated with limited opportunities or limited need for inquiry. But the Lewis experience with
Success For All suggests that adopting an established program does not necessarily preclude
teacher inquiry and that inquiry, together with school-level decision making, can contribute to
shared learning goals and implementation of the given program. Further research can help
determine if schoolwide inquiry, as well as other aspects of professional community and school
capacity, plays a significant role in different models for comprehensive school reform.
This study does not suggest that schoolwide inquiry is necessary to enhance student
achievement. Certain forms of instruction may be less dependent on collective (or individual)
inquiry even though, as we have seen, teachers engaged in and benefited from inquiry with the
prescriptive SFA program. Some schools at any particular point in time may not be ready, or
attention to other matters (e.g., teacher instructional knowledge and skill in a particular subject
area) may take precedence. That is, in the short term some aspects of the school might deserve
more attention than others.
26
From this study, sustained schoolwide inquiry at two schools strengthened other aspects
of their professional communities—shared commitment to learning goals, collaboration, and
teacher influence. Collective inquiry also seemed to encourage organizational growth by keeping
a community focused, yet dynamic. Coupled with the research on professional community in
schools and on organizational learning, the implication may be that in order to build capacity or
to keep it at a high level, in the long run professional development at all schools should entail
collective schoolwide inquiry. Though this study is suggestive, more research is clearly needed
to help to further understand inquiry’s contribution to and interaction with professional
community, instructional quality, and student achievement.
27
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in
Education, 24 (pp. 249-305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Conway, P.F. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: From a temporally
truncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 17, 89-106.
Crowther, F., & Kaagan, S. (Eds.). (in press). Organisational learning and successful school
reform: Pursuing paths Argyris opened. International Journal of Educational
Management, Special Edition.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hopfenberg, W.S., Levin, H.M., & Associates. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
King, M.B., & Newmann, F.M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi Delta
Kappan, 81 (8), 576-580.
Kruse, S.D., Louis, K.S., & Bryk, A.S. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing schoolbased professional community. In K.S. Louis, S.D. Kruse & Associates, Professionalism
and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 23-44). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
28
Leithwood, K.A., & Louis, K.S. (Eds.). (1999). Organizational learning and school
improvement: Linkages and strategies. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Louis, K.S., & Marks, H. M. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (Supplemental, December), 707-750.
Louis, K.S., Kruse, S.D., & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on
reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Louis, K.S., Marks, H.M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Lytle, S. J., & M. Cochran-Smith. (1994). Inquiry, knowledge, and practice. In S. Hollingsworth
and H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher Research and Educational Reform, 93rd Yearbook,
National Society of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Oberman, I. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher learning: New policies, new
practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Newmann, F.M., King, M.B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance:
Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 41-74.
Newmann, F.M., King, M.B., & Youngs, P. (in press). Professional development that addresses
school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education.
Noddings, N. (1996). On community. Educational Theory, 46(3), 245-267.
Richardson, V. (1994). Teacher inquiry as professional staff development. In S. Hollingsworth
and H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher Research and Educational Reform, 93rd Yearbook,
National Society of Education (pp. 186-203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Dolan, L.J., & Wasik, B.A. (1996). Every child, every school:
Success for all. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
29
Smith, J. (1999). Comparison of teacher survey responses between schools in the WCER study
of professional development to build school capacity and Chicago Public Schools;
technical report. Unpublished manuscript.
Smylie, M.A., Bilcer, D.K., Kochanek, J., Sconzert, K., Shipps, D., & Swyers, H. (1998).
Getting Started: A First Look at Chicago Annenberg Schools and Networks. Chicago:
Consortium on Chicago School Research, Chicago Annenberg Research Project.
Strike, K.A. (1999). Can schools be communities? The tension between shared values and
inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (1, February), 46-70.
Wagner, P. (1994). A sociology of modernity: Liberty and discipline. New York: Routledge.
Westheimer, J. (1998). Among schoolteachers: community, individuality, and ideology in
teachers’ work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wilson, S.M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In
A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, volume 24 (pp.
173-209). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Young, I.M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Youngs, P. (2000). Connections between district policy on professional development and school
capacity in urban elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
30
Appendix
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE SEVEN SCHOOL
Lewis
Renfrew

Success For All—reading, math, World Lab

Grade level standards and assessments

School-based reading & math facilitators


Grade level teams
Essential Questions: Achievement equity,
focus on literacy

Teacher inquiry groups, pre- and midyear institutes, grade level teams
Kintyre
Falkirk

Montessori

Alignment with state assessment

Schoolwide literacy training

Grade level teams

District resource teacher for professional
development
Wallace

Accelerated School Model—cadres,
school as a whole, steering committee

Literacy training for all teachers

Grade level teams

Graduate courses for teachers on site
Pitlochry

Alignment with state & district standards
and assessments

Success For All--reading & math


School-based reading & math facilitators
Responsive classroom


Health education initiative
African-centered language arts


Grade level teams, half-day for professional
development every two weeks, week-long
summer workshops
Monthly meetings for SFA reading
facilitators in the district
Carlisle

Core Knowledge

District curriculum frameworks

Alignment with state assessment program

Grade level teams, new teacher mentors
31
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOOLS
Geographic Region, U.S.
Lewis
Renfrew
Kintyre
Falkirk
Wallace
Pitlochry
Carlisle
Southwest
West
Mid-South
South
Midwest
Southeast
East
Grades in Each School
K-5
Pre-K-5
K-5
Pre-K-5
K-4
Pre-K-5
Pre-K-5
Student Enrollment
575
675
532
498
425
771
502
% Low Income Students
93
54
66
98
100
95
73
Student Mobility %
41
11
6
30
29
50
21
# of Full Time Teachers
42
30
38
40
33
52
22
African American
8 (5)
14 (10)
48 (35)
97 (20)
100 (76)
96 (55)
6 (4)
Asian/Asian-American
.5 (0)
.5 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (3)
0 (0)
77.5 (41)
44 (37)
9 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4 (18)
0 (0)
14 (54)
38 (50)
42(62)
2 (80)
0 (24)
0 (24)
90 (96)
% Ethnic/Race Composition,
Students (Teachers)
Latino/a
White
32
Endnotes
1
See King & Newmann (2000), Newmann et al. (in press), and Youngs (2000) for descriptions
and findings from the larger study.
2
Approximately 80 nominations were received, and information was gathered through a school
questionnaire and phone interviews with principals and other key participants in the schools’
development. Initially, nine schools participated but only seven were followed up.
3
Interviews at each school included the principal, staff members with direct responsibilities for
professional development, and teachers. Among teachers, we interviewed those who participated
in the major professional development activities of the school, representatives from the different
grade levels at the school, at least one who had important concerns about the school’s program of
professional development, and at least one new to the school.
4
School names are pseudonyms.
5
Strike (1999) analyzes this tension in somewhat different terms. He inquires into the extent to
which schools can be communities organized around shared constitutive beliefs without violating
liberal principles of inclusiveness.
33