District and State Influences on
Professional Development and School Capacity
Peter Youngs
University of Wisconsin, Madison
August 2, 1999
DELIVERABLE TO OERI – AUGUST 2, 1999
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. Fred
Newmann, Bruce King, and Jennifer Borman provided helpful reactions to earlier
drafts. Any opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of supporting agencies.
p:\pd\manus\findel\pol1py-oeri.doc
1
In the last several years, research on instruction and school organization has
generated new ways of thinking about the capacity of schools to influence student
achievement. One conception, employed in this paper, defines a school’s capacity as
including the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of individual teachers; the strength of
the school’s professional community; and the extent to which its programs are coherent
(King & Newmann, 1999). According to this conception, professional development can
strengthen a school’s capacity by enhancing these three dimensions. Because districts
and states are important actors in shaping professional development in schools, they
have significant potential to affect school capacity (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Spillane & Thompson, 1997). Districts and states
provide professional development directly to teachers, but they also affect school
capacity by initiating a variety of other policies that shape the way professional
development is conducted.
Despite a growing consensus among educators and policy makers regarding the
centrality of professional development in efforts to reform schools, most professional
development efforts fail to take account of new ideas about school capacity.
In
addition, there has been little attention among researchers to the implications of these
ideas for policy related to professional development. Based on a review of research on
district and state policy, this paper examines the extent to which several innovative
reforms related to professional development influence different aspects of school
capacity, as defined above.1 Such reforms include teacher networks, instructional
consulting services, intervisitation, student performance assessment systems, and
school improvement plans. After reviewing research on these reforms, the paper draws
some general policy guidelines and considers the role of individual schools in
1
A number of studies, including the research reviewed in this paper, have examined the influence of professional
development activities on individual dimensions of school capacity. There is virtually no research, though, that has
looked at the influence of such activities on all three dimensions of capacity – teachers’ knowledge, skills, and
dispositions; professional community; and program coherence.
2
determining whether promising professional development activities actually result in
enhanced capacity.
I.
School Capacity and Professional Development
This paper is part of a continuing study of the potential of professional
development to improve student achievement in traditionally low-achieving, highpoverty schools. The conception of school capacity used in the study represents a
synthesis of prior research on school reform and organizational change (e.g., Cohen &
Ball, in progress; Corcoran & Goertz, 1995; Louis, Kruse, & Associates, 1995; Newmann,
King, & Rigdon, 1997; O’Day, Goertz, & Floden, 1995; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994).
According to this conception, a school’s capacity to improve student achievement
includes teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions; the strength of the school’s
professional community; and the degree to which its programs are coherent, focused,
and sustained over time (King & Newmann, 1999).
Technical and other human
resources - such as the school’s operating budget, curriculum and assessment materials,
and administrative leadership – may be important aspects of capacity, but are not
featured in this conception because these resources usually are not directly influenced
by professional development for teachers.
With regard to teachers’ abilities, school capacity includes teachers’ knowledge,
skills, and dispositions related to curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, classroom
management, and expectations for students.
A strong professional community is
characterized by shared goals for student learning; meaningful collaboration among
faculty; in-depth inquiry into assumptions, evidence, and alternative solutions to
problems; and opportunities for teachers to exert influence over the work (King &
Newmann, 1999). Teacher influence has two dimensions – the degree to which teachers
are involved in making meaningful decisions about the operation of their schools
(teacher empowerment) and the degree to which their schools have autonomy from
3
their districts with regard to decisions about curriculum, assessment, and professional
development (school autonomy). Program coherence refers to whether programs for
students and faculty are focused and sustained over time as opposed to being diffuse,
fragmented, and episodic.
This conception of school capacity provides a useful
framework for critiquing both traditional and more innovative approaches to
professional development.
It suggests the need to examine not only whether
professional development impacts teachers’ abilities, but also whether it leads to a
strong professional community and program coherence within individual schools.
Traditional approaches to professional development in most districts and states
typically consist of brief workshops and in-services, and annual supervision by
administrators. Such approaches generally have little long-term influence on any of the
dimensions of school capacity.
Workshops and in-services often have a negligible
impact on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions because they usually place
teachers in a passive role, fail to consider their previous experiences or the contexts in
which they work, and offer few opportunities for follow-up (Corcoran, 1995; Little,
1993). Supervision frequently fails to foster professional growth because administrators
lack experience in the teachers’ content area or have little time to provide assistance to
those who need it (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996). These
traditional approaches are based on theories of teacher learning that do not view such
learning as depending on the development of the school’s organizational capacity. As a
result, they also have little impact on professional community or program coherence.
Given the shortcomings of traditional approaches, researchers have identified a
number of principles based on theoretical and empirical analyses to guide the design of
professional development activities. For one, professional development should provide
teachers with meaningful opportunities to actively engage with new disciplinary ideas
and acquire new instructional strategies (Little, 1993; Corcoran, 1995).
Such
opportunities are crucial in helping teachers learn to promote critical thinking, active
learning, and genuine understanding among students.
Second, professional
development should involve collaboration with colleagues and opportunities to engage
4
in reflective inquiry (Elmore, 1997; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996).
Collaboration enables teachers to share knowledge about curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessment while inquiry can lead them to examine their beliefs and assumptions about
teaching and to consider alternative solutions to problems.
A third principle is that professional development should take individual
teachers’ backgrounds into consideration as well as the contexts in which they work
(Little, 1993). This stands in contrast to traditional approaches which typically present
the same content to teachers with different levels of experience and who work in
different settings.
When professional development takes account of teachers’
experiences and work contexts, it is more likely to result in substantive changes in their
practices. Finally, given that implementation of complex reforms often requires support
over a number of years (e.g., Fennema et al., 1996; Stein & D’Amico, 1998), professional
development should provide teachers with sufficient time and follow-up support,
including regular feedback from accomplished practitioners (Corcoran, 1995; Elmore,
1997).
In recent years, several states and districts have implemented a variety of
innovative approaches to professional development that reflect these principles. This
paper is based on a review of empirical research on such approaches, and focuses on
teacher networks in California (known as the California Subject Matter Projects) and
instructional consulting services and intervisitation in New York City’s District 2. I
chose to examine these two initiatives for several reasons. First, provide opportunities
for teachers to construct their own understandings of content and pedagogy, learn to
engage students in active learning, and reflect with others on their practice. Second,
these programs have been in place for many years and have influenced significant
numbers of teachers. Third, research has been conducted that examines the impact of
these programs on various dimensions of school capacity.
This paper also examines the impact on school capacity of two other innovative
reforms, student performance assessment systems and school improvement (SI) plans,
both of which have important implications for professional development and teacher
5
learning.
I chose to study how the student assessment systems in Kentucky and
Maryland influence capacity because these states were among the first to implement
performance assessments on a statewide basis and many other states are considering or
have already implemented similar assessments. Similarly, I elected to examine SI plans
in South Carolina and Chicago because many states and districts in the U.S. require
schools to develop such plans and research from these two jurisdictions enables us to
consider the impact on capacity of SI plans in two significantly different contexts.
In reviewing empirical research on the role of state and district policy, I could
find no studies that examined the influence of professional development on all three
dimensions of school capacity. It is also important to point out that the various studies
cited below employed a range of different research methodologies.
Pennell and
Firestone (1996), for example, interviewed teachers who had participated in activities
sponsored by three of the California Subject Matter Projects (CSMPs), their principals,
project directors, and state-level officials; and observed several CSMP activities. In
contrast, Medina and St. John (1997) conducted in-depth interviews with 12 teacher
leaders who had participated in CSMP activities and surveyed over 200 other teacher
leaders. Finally, it should be noted that some of the programs examined in the paper
have been studied more extensively than others. In Chicago, for example, Bryk and
colleagues drew on data from surveys of more than 80 percent of elementary school
teachers and principals in the district, in-depth case studies of six elementary schools,
and a synthesis of findings from two separate case-study projects involving 22
elementary schools (Bryk et al., 1998). In a different study, Jennings and Spillane (1996)
interviewed administrators and teachers in four schools and three districts in South
Carolina, but spent much less time observing instruction and did not collect survey
data.
Despite these limitations, the findings from these studies enable us to consider
the influence of teacher networks, consultants, intervisitation, performance assessment
systems, and intervisitation on the three dimensions of school capacity – teachers’
knowledge, skills, and dispositions; professional community; and program coherence.
6
Such an analysis is needed given the fact that very few studies have examined the
influence of these reforms on school capacity, even though many districts and states are
considering or have already implemented one or more of them.
II.
Districts and States as Providers of Professional Development
A.
Teacher Networks
The first part of this section examines whether teacher networks in California
enhance the development of different aspects of school capacity. In recent years, a
number of states have established teacher networks and provided other opportunities
for teachers to learn about new content, pedagogy, and assessment through summer
institutes or regional service centers. In California, for example, the California Subject
Matter Projects were established in the 1980s as part of the state’s efforts to align
professional development with subject-area frameworks, textbooks, and assessments.
There are CSMPs in eight content areas, including literature, writing, mathematics,
science, and history-social science. Each project offers a three- to five-week summer
institute to which teachers must apply. In addition, some projects offer institutes and
workshops that are open to all. Accomplished teachers are usually selected to
participate in the invitational institutes while less experienced teachers typically attend
the open institutes and workshops.
The CSMPs have two main purposes. They are designed to promote studentcentered teaching and constructivist learning and to help teachers develop leadership
skills and assume leadership positions within the projects, in schools, and in the
statewide educational arena. The projects employ a teachers-teaching-teachers model
and have attempted to recruit “the most talented and experienced teachers in the state”
so that they “can share their knowledge with their peers” (Stokes, Hirabayashi, & St.
John, 1998, p.1). According to the principles underlying the CSMPs, teachers are seen as
creators of curriculum, pedagogy, and professional development, rather than as passive
recipients of information. The principles also state that individual and school change
7
should be seen as long-term processes and support should be provided to teachers over
many years (California Subject Matter Projects, n.d.). Finally, the CSMPs seek to form
self-sustaining learning communities for teachers that are not typically located in their
schools.
Researchers have examined the nature of the professional development that
occurs at CSMP sites as well as its impact on participants and teacher leaders (i.e., those
who facilitate the institutes and workshops).
Firestone and Pennell, for example,
studied the projects in writing, mathematics, and literature (Firestone & Pennell, 1997;
Pennell & Firestone, 1996). They found that participants in the invitational institutes
sponsored by these sites often co-created the agenda and shared their expertise through
a variety of learning activities.
At many sites, only teachers who expressed a
commitment to constructivist conceptions of teaching were selected to attend the
institutes. In the open institutes and workshops, by contrast, teacher leaders usually
delivered information about constructivist approaches and modeled instructional
practices for other teachers. These activities were generally aimed at practitioners who
were less experienced with such approaches (Pennell & Firestone, 1996). While it was
important for these teachers to be exposed to new ideas from their disciplines and new
pedagogical approaches, they were less likely than the participants in the invitational
institutes to translate these new disciplinary ideas into learning activities appropriate
for their students.
In studies of all eight of the subject matter projects and over 200 teacher leaders,
including case studies of 12 teacher leaders, Inverness Research Associates also found
that the nature of professional development varied among sites (St. John et al., 1995;
Medina & St. John, 1997). At the more fully developed sites, teachers’ knowledge was
the starting point for site activities and the leaders were usually teachers who had
previously been participants at the sites for many years. The studies revealed, though,
that less mature projects and sites generally viewed their disciplines as the only
legitimate sources of knowledge. Instead of providing opportunities for teachers to
create their own knowledge, these sites attempted to transmit knowledge and skills to
8
participants (St. John et al., 1995).
As a result, teachers at these sites had few
opportunities to reflect on the implications of new disciplinary ideas for their practices.
Influence on Teachers’ Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Findings from these studies indicate that the CSMPs potentially enhance school
capacity in several ways. First, participants in the invitational institutes acquired
knowledge about new disciplinary ideas and instructional strategies.
At institutes
sponsored by the literature project, for example, secondary school teachers learned to
teach literature from a variety of perspectives, place questions at the center of
instruction, encourage diverse interpretations of literature, and assess what students
have learned through multiple activities (Ramage & St. John, 1997). The writing project
institutes introduced elementary school teachers to the different stages of the writing
process as well as strategies for helping students select their own topics and engage in
peer editing. For their part, institutes for middle school math teachers addressed such
topics as identifying patterns, computing fractions, predicting odds, and calculating
volume.
While teachers with constructivist beliefs usually acquired content knowledge
and/or pedagogical strategies as a result of their experiences in the invitational
institutes, the CSMPs had a much different effect on teachers with little prior exposure
to constructivist approaches. In open institutes and workshops, inexperienced teachers
often sought curricular materials and ideas for lessons, but they generally had little
reaction to the conception of teaching underlying the activities. On the other hand,
teachers with more experience using traditional approaches were more likely to openly
question the value of constructivist programs. In their classrooms, both groups of
teachers “treated what they learned from programs as add-ons to their more traditional
lessons” (Pennell & Firestone, 1996, p.61). The marginal impact on these teachers’
instructional practices was probably due to their being placed in a passive role, a failure
9
to consider their previous experiences and the contexts in which they worked, and a
lack of follow-up in their classrooms.
Another important aspect of school capacity involves teachers’ expectations for
students.
The case studies of teacher leaders conducted by Inverness Research
Associates provide examples of teachers who maintained high expectations for their
students. One of the profiled teacher leaders was a writing teacher at a middle school
with homogeneously-grouped classes who treated the students in her remedial class the
same as the students in her gifted and talented class. Another of the profiled leaders
was a math teacher who found that his use of portfolios and problems with multiple
solutions enabled all of his students to experience success. “The kind of creative work
that kids can do now,” he reported, “is a whole level above what you can get from
traditional teaching” (Medina & St. John, 1997, p.8).
Influence on Professional Community
In addition to influencing teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions, the
CSMPs seemed to influence school capacity by providing opportunities for teachers to
collaborate with peers, engage in reflective inquiry, and assume a variety of leadership
roles.
At the invitational institutes, teachers collaborate with peers in developing
agendas (for the institutes), creating lessons, and reflecting on their experiences with
new strategies. Further, when they return to their schools, many participants were
more disposed to work collaboratively with peers. In the best cases, CSMPs enable
teachers to work with each other in ways that promoted both the ability and the
propensity to work collegially. For example, one institute participant noted that it was
“the interactive discussion of our use of teaching ideas, more than just the ideas, that is
important” (Medina & St. John, 1997, p.7). At the same time, though, Pennell and
Firestone (1996) found that participants at the open institutes and workshops were
much less likely to work collaboratively with peers. In addition, in their study of all
eight projects, Inverness Research Associates rated “many CSMP sites relatively low in
10
terms of the degree to which they challenged the intellectual reflection and inquiry of
teachers” (St. John et al., 1995, p.III-10).
The CSMPs also offered a variety of leadership opportunities for teachers. As a
result of their participation in project institutes, many teachers served as institute
directors, workshop coordinators, and members of various state and regional
committees. All Bay Area (BAWP) activities, for example, were staffed by teacher
leaders who have attended the BAWP’s invitational institutes.
In addition, many
institute participants assumed leadership positions in their schools and districts,
“designing and adopting curriculum, presenting workshops to colleagues, (and)
planning and facilitating programs for staff development” (Medina & St. John, 1997,
p.18). In a survey of 206 institute participants, Medina and St. John (1997) found that
over 90 percent designed and wrote curriculum for their classrooms and served on
curriculum committees at their school. In addition, over 90 percent had presented
workshops to teachers in their districts, and 80 percent had helped plan district
professional development activities (Medina & St. Jean, 1997).
Despite their emphasis on preparing teacher leaders, the CSMPs seem to have
had little influence on whether teachers who participated in project activities were
involved in establishing shared goals or making meaningful decisions at their schools.
This may have been due to the fact that the conception of teacher leadership underlying
the CSMPs did not involve training teachers to actively address such issues in their own
institutions. Further, by enabling accomplished teachers to collaborate and engage in
reflective inquiry with peers from other schools, the projects have lead many of them to
identify much more strongly with these practitioners than with colleagues at their own
schools. This may have made it difficult for the projects to have any positive impact on
professional community within individual schools.
Given the uncertain impact of the CSMPs on professional community, it would
be useful for researchers to investigate attempts that some of the projects have made to
establish partnerships with individual schools engaged in reform. The Writing Project,
for example, is one of the few projects that has expanded its offerings beyond summer
11
institutes and workshops to include providing technical assistance to entire faculties
over time. Researchers could examine the ways in which project staff work with these
schools, how many teachers from these schools have participated in summer institutes
and other project activities, the nature of the professional relations between these
project participants and other school staff, and how these overall efforts by projects to
promote restructuring affect school professional community.
Influence on Program Coherence
With regard to the third component of school capacity, the CSMPs seem to have
had little effect on the focus and continuity of professional development at individual
schools. While project participants had opportunities to focus on the same areas of
professional development over time, most of the projects did not work with individual
school faculties. According to Inverness Research Associates, “with the exception of the
Writing Project, many CSMP sites have not yet found ways to directly and formally
connect their work with individual schools and districts” (St. John et al., 1995, p.III-5).
B.
Instructional Consulting Services and Intervisitation
The remainder of this section considers the extent to which the use of consultants
and intervisitation in Community School District 2 in New York City seems to promote
the development of various dimensions of school capacity. While many school districts
employ consultants to provide brief workshops and in-services on a range of topics,
District 2 has had them work in a sustained way with individual teachers and groups of
teachers at their schools.
Through intervisitation and a professional development
laboratory, District 2 has also provided opportunities for teachers to observe
accomplished peers. The district’s approach to professional development is designed to
promote collaboration, provide ongoing support to teachers as they attempt to
implement new curriculum and pedagogy, hold all teachers and administrators
12
responsible for instructional improvement, and have teachers focus improvement
efforts on specific parts of the curriculum for long periods of time (Elmore, 1997).
After Anthony Alvarado became superintendent in 1987, District 2 elected to
focus on improving instruction and student performance in reading and writing. The
district, which includes about 30 elementary and middle schools, hired consultants with
expertise
in
literature-based
approaches
to
literacy
instruction
to
provide
demonstration lessons to teachers, observe teachers in their classrooms, and provide
them with feedback. Consultants in the district have “typically work(ed) one-on-one
with eight to ten teachers for blocks of three to four months each” as well as working
“with grade-level teams and larger groups of teachers during planning periods, lunch
hour, and after school” (Elmore, 1997, p.17).
A related form of professional development in District 2 has been the use of
intervisitation to expose teachers to exemplary practices. During consultants’ visits,
teachers have frequently visited their peers’ classrooms either to observe another
teacher presenting a lesson or a consultant giving a demonstration lesson. Similarly,
groups of teachers have often visited other schools in anticipation of developing new
instructional practices.
District 2 has also established a professional development
laboratory which has enabled teachers to visit accomplished peers in their classrooms
for extended periods of time. Each visiting teacher spends three weeks of intensive
observation and supervised practice in a resident teacher’s classroom (Elmore, 1997).
While the visiting teacher works with the resident teacher, an experienced and wellqualified substitute takes over their classroom.
The district’s approach to literacy instruction, known as the Balanced Literacy
Program, has been in place for more than a decade. District staff monitor teachers’
implementation of the components of this program by observing classrooms and
speaking regularly with principals and consultants.
When it became evident, for
example, that many teachers were struggling to implement guided reading, district staff
decided to provide more professional development on this element of Balanced Literacy
(Stein, D’Amico, & Israel, 1998). The district began offering full-day sessions in which
13
new and struggling teachers discussed the theory underlying guided reading and
observed live demonstrations of quality practice. Through intervisitation, teachers also
have had opportunities to see “what is involved in all the interactions that comprise
guided reading in a (classroom) setting” (Stein, D’Amico, & Israel, 1998, p.10). Finally,
to help these teachers improve their guided reading instruction, consultants and
principals observe their classrooms and reflect with them on their practice.
A few years ago, district staff developed a series of guidelines for classroom
instruction and professional development in literacy. These guidelines, consistent with
the Balanced Literacy model, emphasized the need for teachers to allocate specific
amounts of time to the following instructional activities: guided reading, shared
reading, independent reading, word study, read aloud, and writing. While district staff
pay close attention to the implementation of Balanced Literacy, their ultimate aim is not
to ensure that teachers are spending particular amounts of time on each of the program
components. Instead, they are seeking “to get each teacher to the point where she
understands each of her students deeply and can plan and deliver instruction to meet
that child’s needs” (Stein & D’Amico, 1998, p.20). District staff view the Balanced
Literacy Program as providing a scaffold for new and struggling teachers and lowperforming schools until they develop expertise at identifying students’ needs and
planning and delivering instruction to meet these needs.
Influence on Teachers’ Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Researchers have studied the impact of consulting services and intervisitation on
teachers and schools in District 2. Findings from these studies indicate that the district’s
approach has enhanced teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions in the area of
literacy instruction. In a study of nine teachers in three elementary schools, Stein and
D’Amico found that all of the teachers were allocating a significant amount of time to
literacy instruction (1998). An average of 1.8 hours was devoted by the teachers each
morning to district-recommended literacy activities.
14
In one school, teachers
“implemented a morning literacy program that - in form - was almost completely
congruent with the literacy block structure set forth by the district” (Stein & D’Amico,
1998, p.14). At a second school, the teachers regularly engaged students in guided
reading and shared reading and, as recommended by the district, spent much more
time on reading activities than writing.
These findings suggest that elementary school teachers in District 2 are disposed
to focus on literacy. Further, the district’s use of consultants and intervisitation has
fostered teachers’ acquisition of knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to guided
reading, shared reading, independent reading, word study, read aloud, and writing. In
a study of 12 teachers in three elementary schools, though, Stein, D’Amico, and Israel
(1998) reported that teachers’ actual practices in guided reading and word study were
uneven.
In 72 classroom observations, the researchers found that the teachers
frequently provided meaningful support to students during guided reading.
In
addition, they occasionally helped them acquire general reading strategies for later
independent use (Stein, D’Amico, & Israel, 1998). At the same time, the researchers
noted that it was rare “to find focused Guided Reading sessions in which the teacher
had a clear instructional purpose for the lesson” (Stein, D’Amico, & Israel, 1998, p.9).
Stein, D’Amico, and Israel (1998) also examined the teachers’ approaches to the
study of words. According to the tenets of the Balanced Literacy Program, the study of
words ideally would be closely integrated with the literature-based instructional
strategies that make up the program. The researchers found, though, that only a few
teachers had a plan of word study topics to be covered in their grade, incorporated
purposeful attention to words in their lessons, or were able to integrate knowledge of
students’ needs, literature, and upcoming topics in planning instruction (Stein,
D’Amico, & Israel, 1998). In addition, the principals at all three schools indicated that
many of their teachers lacked the ability to assess students’ experiences with texts and
use this data in making instructional decisions.
District 2’s approach to professional development has also influenced teachers’
expectations. Many teachers throughout the district “report feeling that they are held to
15
much higher expectations than peers in other districts, although usually without seeing
these expectations as negative” (Elmore, 1997, p.34).
Influence on Professional Community
District 2’s approach to professional development potentially enhances the
development of professional community by providing opportunities for teachers to
collaborate with peers, promoting shared goals within individual schools, and giving
principals and schools autonomy to make decisions about professional development. It
is not possible, though, to say whether the district’s use of consultants and
intervisitation promotes reflective inquiry because the available research did not
examine whether such inquiry was occurring. With regard to collaboration, schedules
in many schools are arranged so that teachers from the same grade level are able to
meet during their planning periods to plan instruction. For their part, consultants
generally “establish close working relationships with small groups of teachers” and
often meet with them during common planning periods (Elmore, 1997, p.17). As part of
the PDL, visiting teachers collaborate with resident teachers as well as the substitutes
who take over their classrooms.
In the three schools in their study, Stein and D’Amico found some evidence of
shared goals.
The teachers at each school generally “expressed similar vision(s)
regarding instructional aims and practices” (Stein & D’Amico, 1998, p.14). Despite the
focus on instructional improvement in District 2 and the findings from Stein and
D’Amico’s study, though, there is little evidence from individual schools of agreement
on specific outcomes within different content areas.
Due to principal and teacher
turnover, two of the schools face particularly strong obstacles to developing shared
goals with regard to student outcomes. According to Stein, D’Amico, and Israel, the
efforts of new principals at these schools “to repair some of the previous poor staffing
choices have led to a significant number of new and inexperienced teachers” (1998,
p.22).
16
With regard to teacher influence, District 2’s approach to professional
development provides some degree of autonomy to individual schools. Each school is
“allocated a lump sum for professional development that they decide how to spend in
accordance with a school site plan” (Elmore, 1997, p.33). Principals are responsible for
developing these plans which must include objectives and strategies for meeting them.
From the data available, it is unclear the extent to which teachers are involved in the
formation of these plans. If teachers in most schools have little role in developing these
plans, this would pose a serious threat to the development of school capacity. While
principals are required to develop school site plans, district staff establish the structure
for the plans, determine which consultants can be employed by schools, “oversee and
review principals’ priorities and pay regular visits to schools and classrooms to review
principals’ progress” (Elmore, 1997, p.33).
There is evidence that some schools in District 2 have less autonomy to make
decisions about instruction than others. In their study, Stein and D’Amico (1998) found
that teachers in two of the schools were expected to closely follow the district’s
guidelines for literacy instruction. These schools were designated as Focus Literacy
schools because they had consistently failed to meet the district’s expectations on
standardized reading tests. In contrast, teachers from the third school implemented
some practices that did not come from the Balanced Literacy Program and were less
likely than other teachers in the study “to incorporate all of the Balanced Literacy
components into any given morning’s activities” (Stein & D’Amico, 1998, p.16). Unlike
their counterparts in the third school, the teachers and principal in the Focus Literacy
schools received much more intensive instructional support from district staff as well as
being subject to tighter oversight. While the district’s approach may potentially weaken
teacher autonomy in these schools in the short-term, it is part of a long-term strategy to
enhance teachers’ abilities and student performance by combining regular monitoring
with an infusion of resources and assistance.
17
Influence on Program Coherence
The district has promoted program coherence by focusing its professional
development efforts on literacy for a sustained period of time. Aware that teachers
were unlikely to make changes in their instructional practices in several content areas at
once, district staff worked to “create the expectation that system-wide changes (could)
occur in certain domains and that over time these changes (could) reach progressively
more content areas and more teachers” (Elmore & Burney, 1997, p.8). For their part,
teachers indicated that the district’s priorities have been clear, and that they have rarely
received conflicting signals about which activities they should engage in (Elmore, 1997).
This, of course, is a radical departure from teachers’ experiences in most other districts.
District 2’s use of consultants and intervisitation has also fostered program
coherence. District staff “recruit, select, and oversee the professional developers who
work in the area of literacy with teachers” (D’Amico & Stein, 1998, p.10). As a result,
they have been able to ensure that each consultant was committed to the district’s
approach to literacy instruction.
These consultants have worked with individual
teachers and groups of teachers in an ongoing way. This has enabled teachers to
develop and refine practices to which they were first exposed in off-site, summer
training or in observing lessons taught by consultants or peers. As part of the PDL,
after visiting teachers have completed three weeks in resident teachers’ classrooms, the
residents follow-up by observing the visitors’ practice in their own classrooms and
providing feedback to them (Elmore, 1997).
Finally, the district has contributed to program coherence in individual schools
by stressing the need for teachers to employ a common set of literacy activities and to
devote particular amounts of time to each activity. Evidence for this comes from Stein
and D’Amico’s study of nine teachers in three schools (1998). As mentioned above,
teachers in one school implemented a literacy program that was very similar to that
recommended by the district while teachers in another school scheduled guided
18
reading and shared reading on a regular basis and, consistent with district guidelines,
focused much more on reading activities than writing.
In sum, teacher networks in California and instructional consulting services and
intervisitation in District 2 are based on better understandings of teacher learning than
traditional approaches and have positively influenced teachers’ knowledge, skills, and
dispositions; aspects of professional community; and, in the case of District 2, program
coherence. At the same time, these new approaches haven’t progressed to the point
where they view teacher learning as being closely related to the development of the
organizational capacity of the school. In the next section, other policies are considered
that influence professional development, namely, student performance assessment
systems and school improvement plans.
III.
Other Ways That Districts and States Influence Professional Development and
School Capacity
A.
State Standards and Assessments
In the early-1990s, Kentucky, Maryland, and a few other states developed
innovative assessment systems that measured student achievement in relation to
performance standards and featured assessment methods other than multiple-choice
questions. Kentucky’s assessments (the Kentucky Instructional Results and Information
System - KIRIS) were first administered in 1991-92 in grades four, eight, and twelve in
reading, writing, mathematics, science, social studies, arts and humanities, and practical
living/vocational studies. The assessments feature short answer, essay, and multiplechoice questions; performance events; and portfolios (in writing and math).
The
Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), first implemented in
1990-91, includes assessments in reading, writing, math, science, social studies, and
language administered in grades three, five, and eight. Maryland’s assessments consist
entirely of open-response questions.
19
KIRIS
and
MSPAP
are
designed
to
increase
teachers’
emphasis
on
communication, problem-solving, and higher-order thinking skills, and decrease their
emphasis on lecturing and engaging students in rote tasks. In recent years, several
researchers have studied the impact of these assessments on teachers’ instructional
practices and expectations for students, as well as the nature of the professional
development activities associated with them. After reviewing research on the impact of
the assessments on teachers’ abilities, this section examines the potential influence of
professional development related to the assessments on collaboration and shared
commitment. The potential impact of professional development on reflective inquiry,
teacher empowerment, and program coherence is not discussed here because the
studies reviewed did not address these issues.
Influence on Teachers’ Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Through surveys, interviews, and classroom observations, researchers have
found that both KIRIS and MSPAP have led to meaningful curricular and pedagogical
changes. In a 1994 survey of 216 fourth- and eighth-grade teachers and 115 principals
from throughout Kentucky, Koretz and colleagues (1996a) found that 97 percent of
fourth-grade teachers indicated they had increased their emphasis on writing for a
variety of purposes. In addition, approximately 40 percent reported focusing more on
literary comprehension and analyzing and evaluating texts, and decreasing their
emphasis on spelling, punctuation, and grammar (Koretz et al., 1996a). In math, more
than 80 percent of fourth-grade teachers reported an increase in emphasis on
communication and problem-solving using meaningful tasks, and 65 percent indicated
they were focusing more on application. Meanwhile, 42 percent reported a decrease in
emphasis on number facts and computation (Koretz et al., 1996a).
In a 1994 survey of 410 elementary, middle, and high school teachers in Jefferson
County, Clifford (1995) also found that many teachers reported making significant
20
changes in their practices. Over 86 percent of the teachers indicated their use of openended questions and writing assignments had increased over the previous three years;
and about 70 percent reported allocating more time to problem-solving, inquiry, and
group projects. In addition, 51 percent indicated that they lectured less often than
previously (Clifford, 1995).
In a study of 13 schools in four rural Kentucky districts, researchers from the
Appalachian Educational Laboratory (AEL) examined the impact of KIRIS on
instructional practices in fourth-, fifth-, and eighth-grade classrooms (1994). Based on
observations in 73 classrooms and interviews with 37 teachers and 13 principals, they
found that the most salient effect of KIRIS was an increased emphasis on writing and
the writing process (1994). Their study also revealed widespread use of the following
instructional strategies: “traditional and nontraditional uses of textbooks and
worksheets, group work, hands-on activities, and use of authentic literature to teach
reading” (AEL, 1994, p.2).
With regard to MSPAP, Koretz et al. (1996b) surveyed 226 fifth- and eighth-grade
teachers during 1994-95 to learn about the impact of the assessments on their practices.
Almost 90 percent of fifth-grade teachers reported increasing their emphasis on writing
for a variety of purposes while 67 percent indicated spending more time on analyzing
and evaluating texts and about 50 percent reported focusing more on literary
comprehension (Koretz et al., 1996b). In math, approximately 80 percent of the teachers
indicated they were spending more time on communication, problem-solving, and
application (Koretz et al., 1996b). At the same time, 44 percent reported decreasing
their emphasis on number facts and computation (Koretz et al., 1996b).
In a qualitative study of 23 teachers from two districts in Maryland, Firestone,
Mayrowetz, and Fairman found that 15 of the teachers “could describe changes in their
teaching made to accommodate” MSPAP (1998, p.103).
These changes typically
involved the implementation of test-preparation activities, though, and were rarely
accompanied by more significant changes in instructional practice. During a series of
classroom observations, for example, the researchers found that teachers spent 84
21
percent of the time having students solve routine problems in which they repeatedly
used one of a small number of procedures. In contrast, students spent only 16 percent
of the time applying procedures to new situations, which they are often required to do
on MSPAP, or inventing new procedures and analyzing new situations (Firestone,
Mayrowetz, & Fairman, 1998).
In another study, Almasi and colleagues examined the influence of MSPAP on
changes in literacy instruction at five highly-innovative elementary schools (Almasi et
al., 1995).
In interviews with teams of third- and fifth-grade teachers as well as
administrators from each school, “all individuals within each school reported that the
nature of instructional tasks designed for students and the instructional methods used
by teachers have changed as a result of MSPAP” (Almasi et al., 1995, p.17). At all five
schools, there was more of an emphasis on authentic literature than on basal readers,
students were doing much more writing than previously, and writing had been
integrated with other subjects. These findings may not generalize to other Maryland
elementary schools, though, because the schools in the study were “deliberately
selected as exemplars of instructional change” (Almasi et al., 1995, p.36).
In a third study, Goldberg and Roswell (1998) surveyed approximately 50
teacher-scorers in the Charles County school district to ascertain the impact of
participating in MSPAP scoring sessions on their instructional and assessment practices.
After scoring, teachers rated their knowledge of performance instruction and
performance assessment much higher (3.6 on a 5-point scale) than prior to scoring (2.7).
In addition, they predicted that their use of performance-based instructional activities
(3.7) and performance assessments (3.6) would increase from the levels they reported
prior to scoring (2.9 and 2.7, respectively) (Goldberg & Roswell, 1998).
These studies provide evidence that many teachers in Kentucky and Maryland
have made significant curricular and pedagogical changes as a result of KIRIS and
MSPAP. Such changes may not represent professional learning, though. Instead, they
may simply be due to teachers aligning instruction with the demands of the new
assessment systems. Consequently, it is difficult to make inferences from these studies
22
about the impact on teachers’ abilities of professional development related to the
assessments.
Koretz et al. (1996a, 1996b) also examined the influence of MSPAP and KIRIS on
teachers’ expectations. In Maryland, 63 percent of fifth-grade teachers and 48 percent of
eighth-grade teachers reported that their expectations for students had increased
(Koretz et al., 1996b). Far more teachers indicated, though, that their expectations for
high-achieving students had increased (36 percent) than for average-achieving (19
percent), low-achieving (15 percent), or special education students (18 percent) (Koretz
et al., 1996b).
In Kentucky, the results were similar: more than 50 percent of teachers indicated
that their expectations had increased for students, but more teachers reported that their
expectations had greatly increased for high-achieving students (24 percent) than for
average-achieving (20 percent), low-achieving (18 percent), and special education (14
percent) students (Koretz et al., 1996a). In both studies, the researchers note that the
fact that more teachers report increased expectations for high-achieving students than
for other students may pose a threat to equity (Koretz et al., 1996a, 1996b). They also
correctly observe, though, that “(e)xpectations are only one aspect of equity” and
further research “would be needed to determine whether teachers’ perceptions of
changes in expectations are mirrored by changes in actual opportunities to learn”
(Koretz et al., 1996b).
Influence on Professional Community
Researchers have also examined the nature of professional development
activities associated with KIRIS and MSPAP. In Kentucky, some studies have found
that teachers had few opportunities to collaborate with colleagues as they attempted to
change their practices in accordance with the new assessments. In a study of three
districts, Keane (1995) conducted focus groups with groups of eighth- and twelfth-grade
teachers from each district. In some of the interviews, teachers indicated that lack of
23
time prevented them from meeting with colleagues to plan or share new instructional
strategies. According to Keane, “(A)ll the groups interviewed implied a need for a
system in which teachers could plan together and, in some cases, teach together in order
to connect lessons across disciplines and garner support from their colleagues” (1995,
p.163). Similarly, in their study of 13 schools, AEL researchers also found little evidence
of schoolwide instructional planning (1994).
Other researchers found that professional development activities associated with
KIRIS generally provided teachers with few opportunities to engage in reflective
inquiry. To examine the nature of professional development in Kentucky, McDiarmid
and Kelly (1997) visited 21 schools throughout the state and surveyed teachers and
principals at 77 other schools.
They found that most professional development
activities were designed to help teachers prepare students for the new assessments.
Only rarely did these activities “focus directly on teachers’ understanding of the topics
and procedures they were to help their pupils learn” (McDiarmid and Kelly, 1997, p.16).
Guskey and Oldham also observe that “pressure for immediate improvement in scores
has prompted many schools to develop professional development programs that focus
narrowly on the particular assessment formats and scoring procedures” that comprise
KIRIS (1997, p.433).
While research in Kentucky provided little evidence that teachers had
opportunities to collaborate in implementing KIRIS, Koretz et al. found that 85 percent
of the teachers surveyed in Maryland reported working “with their colleagues in
preparation for MSPAP” (1996b, p.21). In addition, Firestone, Mayrowetz, and Fairman
reported that six of the 15 teachers from Maryland in their study found “their in-service
days or other scheduled meetings during the year” to be “useful for developing or
exchanging MSPAP activities” (1998, p.109). There is little information in these studies,
though, about the nature of such collaborative efforts.
In fact, it may be that
collaboration among teachers in Maryland has little impact on their knowledge or
instructional practices, other than helping them learn to prepare students for the
assessments.
24
Another important aspect of professional community is developing a shared
commitment among faculty in individual schools to improving instructional practice
and student achievement. In their study, Koretz et al. (1996b) found that many teachers
in Maryland reported morale to be low in their schools. Over 70 percent “disagreed
with the following statement about their school, ‘Teacher morale is high,’ and 57
percent responded that MSPAP has led to a decrease in morale in their school” (Koretz
et al, 1996b, p.24). While teacher morale and shared commitment are different concepts,
it is likely that low teacher morale weakens efforts to establish and maintain shared
commitment. In particular, when individual teachers feel negatively about their work
environment, they may be less likely to come together as group to try to improve their
school as a whole.
B.
School Improvement Plans
A number of districts and states require schools to develop school improvement
(SI) plans in which staff review achievement data, establish goals regarding student
achievement, and identify strategies for meeting the goals.
In such jurisdictions,
professional development associated with the SI plans can enhance teachers’
knowledge, skills, and dispositions; professional community; and program coherence
within individual schools. This section reviews research on the implementation of SI
plans in three districts in South Carolina (Jennings & Spillane, 1996) as well as research
on efforts in Chicago to decentralize power and authority within schools (Bryk et al.,
1998). SI plans played an important role in Chicago’s reform efforts and while Bryk and
his colleagues did not focus specifically on such plans, it is possible to make inferences
based on their findings about the effect of these plans on school capacity. In particular,
the results from both of these studies suggest that SI plans are more likely to promote
the development of school capacity when principals and teachers are trained in
appropriate planning procedures, when principals are willing to share decision making
with teachers, and when schools have authority over hiring personnel.
25
In 1993, the legislature in South Carolina passed Act 135, which mandated that
each school in the state develop a comprehensive plan for school improvement. Plans
were required to include a mission statement describing the school’s goals; a list of
beliefs about teaching and learning; specific outcomes delineating what students had to
achieve before graduating; and strategies for improving the school’s performance. In
order to make school decision making more inclusive, the regulations accompanying
the act required that school planning committees include teachers, parents, and
community members, as well as administrators (Jennings & Spillane, 1996). Further, a
significant amount of state professional development funds were allocated for training
administrators and teachers in participatory decision-making procedures.
In 1988, the Illinois legislature enacted Public Act 85-1418, which was designed to
replace centralized bureaucratic control in the Chicago public school system with more
local decision making.
PA 85-1418 required schools “to develop three-year
improvement plans, evaluated and updated annually, to assure progress toward both
local and legislatively mandated goals” (Bryk et al., 1998, p.27). The Act created Local
School Councils (LSCs) for each school consisting of six elected parents, two elected
community members, two appointed teachers, and the principal.
The LSCs were
granted authority to hire and fire the principal, and were required to approve the
annual school budget. Professional Personnel Advisory Committees (PPACs),
composed of teachers, were also established in each school to serve in an advisory role
on school decisions regarding curriculum and instruction. For their part, principals
acquired more control over their budgets, personnel, and building facilities although
their lifetime tenure was replaced with four-year contracts subject to LSC review.
Influence on Teachers’ Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Jennings and Spillane (1996) studied the processes that four elementary schools
in South Carolina went through in developing and implementing their SI plans. Two of
the schools were located in a large, urban district while the others were in small, rural
26
districts. All four served high percentages of low-income students. Their research
indicates that professional development related to schools’ SI plans had varying effects
on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and expectations for students. At Forest School, located
in the urban district, teachers learned about innovative instructional ideas through
regular work with external consultants at the school and by taking courses together at a
local university. Further, the principal and many of the teachers believed that all of
their students were capable of critical thinking, problem-solving, and conceptual
understanding. In contrast, the principal at Butler School, one of the rural schools, did
not feel that all students were likely to achieve advanced learning goals. Instead, he
believed that teachers should focus on helping students acquire basic literacy and
numeracy skills, a conviction that was shared by many of the staff.
In Chicago, Bryk et al. (1998) initially conducted case studies of how 22
elementary schools responded to Act 85-1418. This research revealed that each school
was engaged in one of four distinct patterns of organizational change: a focus on
environmental order, peripheral academic changes, a “Christmas tree” approach in
which an abundance of programs are implemented, or emergent restructuring
involving a systemic approach to school improvement. Based on surveys of teachers
and principals, the researchers estimated that during the early years of reform, 35 to 41
percent of Chicago elementary schools were engaged in emergent restructuring
featuring a systemic approach. To varying degrees, the rest of the schools followed
unfocused approaches.
Bryk et al. (1998) found that some of the emergent restructuring schools had used
professional development to enhance teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions. At
Bella School, for example, the principal focused on improving writing instruction and
used discretionary funds to create a position for an instructional supervisor in writing.
The supervisor “mentored teachers in their classrooms, encouraged peer observation,
facilitated faculty conversations about teaching and learning, and worked with each
teacher regarding assessment of students’ progress” (Bryk et al., 1998, p.118). As a
27
result, many teachers at Bella acquired new knowledge and skills for teaching writing,
and their expectations for students’ work were raised.
Influence on Professional Community
Based on Jennings and Spillane’s research, professional development related to
the SI plan process appeared to strengthen several aspects of professional community in
the urban schools, but had little impact on professional community in the rural schools.
The influence of professional development on professional community seemed closely
related to whether administrators in the various districts were disposed to share
decision making with teachers and others. The urban district placed great emphasis on
involving teachers, parents, and community members in the SI planning process.
Several months were devoted to “training staff members in the participatory
management process advocated by the state so that they would be prepared to work on
planning committees” (Jennings and Spillane, 1997, p.6). Principals were not permitted
to chair the planning committees at their schools and while central office staff were
assigned to assist schools in developing their plans, they were directed not to lead
discussions or vote on issues.
Consistent with the district’s guidelines, the principal at Forest School did not
attempt to control the SI planning process; instead, she encouraged teachers to be
actively involved in this process and related activities, which contributed to shared
goals, collaboration, and empowerment.
Following Act 135’s passage, a group of
teachers at Forest worked for a year to develop four learner standards for their school
as well as strategies for attaining them. During this time, the group sought input from
the rest of the staff and actively worked to enlist their support. As a result, “more and
more of the teachers at Forest began to feel that they (had) a genuine role to play in
making decisions for their school” (Jennings and Spillane, 1997, p.7).
The four
standards were featured in the school’s SI plan and each teacher joined one of four
cadres to work on one of them. The cadres provided staff with “opportunities to
28
discuss curriculum and instruction with each other as well as develop action plans for
schoolwide implementation” (Jennings and Spillane, 1997, p.14).
Unlike their counterpart at Forest, the principals at the rural schools did not seek
or make substantive use of teacher input in developing their SI plans. As a result, the
planning process at their schools did little to promote shared goals or empowerment
among the staff.
The principal at Browning, one of the rural schools, created a
committee of teachers and community members to provide feedback during the
planning process, but found that the committee wasn’t much help to him. As a result,
he developed the plan himself.
At the other rural school, Butler, the principal
organized a day-long meeting of teachers and parents to finalize the SI plan after he had
already developed much of it independently. At both schools, Jennings and Spillane
(1997) found that the principals frequently made decisions about curricular and
budgetary decisions on their own.
The initial case studies of the 22 Chicago elementary schools revealed that each
school had a distinctive local politics based on the interactions among the major sites of
power at the school – the principal, the school faculty, and the LSC. Some of the schools
were characterized by strong democracy while others featured consolidated principal
power or adversarial politics. The researchers then identified noteworthy features that
distinguished among these three categories. These features included the nature of
principal leadership, the extent of collective faculty activity, the degree to which the
LSC was active, and the nature of conflict at the school (Bryk et al., 1998).
Based on
surveys of teachers and principals and additional case studies, the researchers estimated
that 37 to 44 percent of Chicago elementary schools were characterized by consolidated
principal power; 28 to 34 percent were strong democracy schools; 18 to 26 percent were
in a mixed category – either had maintenance politics or were in a transition between
consolidated power and strong democracy; and four to nine percent had adversarial
politics.
Bryk et al. (1998) found that principals in the strong democracy schools were
much more likely than their counterparts in the consolidated power schools to support
29
the involvement of teachers and parents in the decision-making process, which
contributed to empowerment.
At Thomas School, for example, a large group of
regular-classroom and bilingual teachers worked together to create the school’s SI plan,
and the principal and several teachers “actively reached out to parents” (Bryk et al.,
1998, p.63). In contrast, the principal at Howard School provided little support to the
LSC and PPAC, and often made unilateral decisions about how to spend the school’s
discretionary funds.
Strong democracy schools were also characterized by more
collective faculty activity than consolidated power schools.
At Bella School, the
principal allocated time for teachers to work collaboratively and reflect on their practice
as they implemented a new approach to literacy instruction. At Alexander School, on
the other hand, the teachers were unable to organize a PPAC and “showed little interest
in their own growth as professionals” (Bryk et al., 1998, p.56).
Based on in-depth research at six actively restructuring schools, Bryk et al. found
that changes at these schools contributed to shared goals, collaboration, and
empowerment. The principals at these schools established high expectations for teacher
performance, and “(t)hose who fell short and were either unwilling or unable to
improve were encouraged to leave” (Bryk et al., 1998. p.234). As a result, more than 40
percent of the faculty at five of the six schools were replaced during the first four years
of reform (1989-1993). Because the newly-hired teachers usually embraced the school’s
mission and goals, teacher leaders at these schools began to enjoy more support from
their colleagues and “a genuine collective responsibility for change grew among” their
faculties (Bryk et al., 1998. p.234).
The principals at the six restructuring schools also created time for teachers to
meet and strongly encouraged them to collaborate. At Hoynes School, for example, the
principal frequently visited teachers’ classrooms and many teachers observed each
other. In addition, the school used some of its discretionary funds to extend school
hours and compensate teachers for meeting after school. Finally, the six principals
shared a significant amount of decision-making responsibility with teachers.
The
PPAC, though, “was not the primary vehicle through which teachers voiced their views
30
in any of these schools” (Bryk et al., 1998. p.237). Instead, the teachers at each school
developed governance structures that were appropriate to their own circumstances.
Influence on Program Coherence
As mentioned above, Bryk et al. found that 35 to 41 percent of the elementary
schools in Chicago took a systemic approach to school improvement. This does not
mean, though, that the programs for students and teachers at all of these schools were
focused and sustained. Among the six actively restructuring schools, the researchers
found some instances of faculty-wide professional development. At Spry School, for
example, several teachers participated as a group in the Illinois Writing Project in a
sustained effort to implement writing across the curriculum.
Teachers at Ebinger
School were among the first to participate in professional development - designed to
help them integrate mathematics and science instruction - that was offered by the
Teachers’ Academy for Math and Science (Bryk et al, 1998). Bryk et al. concluded,
though, that “intensive faculty-wide efforts such as these were more the exception than
the norm, even in these six schools” (1998, p.233).
In South Carolina, the SI plan process was designed to promote program
coherence by having schools focus on a clear set of goals and strategies for attaining
them over time. At Forest, the development of learner standards and strategies for
attaining them probably contributed to coherence by providing a focus for professional
development. With regard to the other schools, it is not possible from the available data
to determine whether the SI plan process promoted coherence.
IV.
Policy Guidelines and the Role of Individual Schools
In recent years, several researchers have called for professional development to
be reformed based on new understandings of teacher learning (Little, 1993; Corcoran,
1995; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996). Many of the policies and programs
reviewed above reflect these new conceptions of professional development and
31
promote various aspects of school capacity. The teacher networks in California, for
example, reflect the knowledge base on teaching and provide opportunities for
participants to increase their content knowledge, collaborate with peers, and engage in
reflective inquiry. District 2’s use of consultants takes account of the contexts in which
teachers work, provides them with sufficient time and follow-up support, engages them
in collaboration, and promotes program coherence.
Finally, in some cases, the
implementation of SI plans in South Carolina and Chicago takes account of the contexts
in which teachers work, is linked to school initiatives, and leads to shared goals,
collaboration, and teacher empowerment.
While these approaches to professional development are based on better
understandings of teacher learning than traditional workshops and in-services, they
don’t view such learning as being closely related to the development of school capacity.
Initial findings from a continuing study of professional development and school
capacity (King & Newmann, 1999) provide some support for the notion that building
capacity leads to improved student achievement. To the extent that further research
confirms these findings, it will be important for professional development to be focused
on school capacity. In order to increase the likelihood that professional development
will address capacity, states and districts should consider the following policy
guidelines:
1. Professional development strategies should reflect a conception of school
capacity and should help teachers learn to actively address aspects of capacity in their
schools. While the California Subject Matter Projects helped accomplished teachers
develop leadership skills and enabled them to acquire content knowledge, collaborate
with peers, and reflect on their practice, they appear to have had little impact on
whether these teachers were involved in establishing shared goals or making important
decisions at their schools. This may have resulted from the fact that the conception of
teacher leadership underlying the CSMPs did not involve training teachers to address
school capacity. By contrast, after the urban South Carolina district trained teachers in a
participatory management process, many of them became actively involved in
32
developing SI plans, which potentially contributed to professional community in their
schools.
2. Professional development strategies must achieve a balance between
promoting coherence within and providing autonomy to individual schools. Districts
can promote internal school coherence by requiring schools to focus professional
development on one content area or one schoolwide reform model for an extended
period. At the same time, they must provide opportunities for faculties to participate in
making meaningful decisions.
District 2’s approach to professional development
provides some autonomy to schools, but teachers in some schools may not be involved
in creating school site plans. When teachers have little role in developing these plans,
school capacity is unlikely to be enhanced.
3. States and districts should be mindful of how reform initiatives are likely to
influence the nature of teachers’ learning experiences. After KIRIS was implemented in
Kentucky in the early-1990s, for example, most professional development activities
instructed teachers on how to prepare students for the new assessments. At the same
time, though, teachers had few opportunities to engage in reflective inquiry or deepen
their understanding of the topics and procedures their students were expected to learn.
Policy makers also need to consider how efforts to reform professional development
will be affected by existing policy and practice. Educators frequently “witness policy
collisions between present reforms and their predecessors, many still reflected in
statute, regulation, policy, and local habit” (Little, 1993, p.140). In California, while the
subject matter projects were designed to promote student-centered teaching and
constructivist learning, participants with more experience using traditional pedagogical
approaches often questioned the value of or resisted constructivist programs.
It should be noted that even policies and programs based on these guidelines
cannot ensure improvements in student performance. In fact, schools themselves play
an important role in determining whether professional development strengthens school
capacity and leads to increased student achievement. In Chicago, for example, the
principals in strong democracy schools encouraged teachers to participate in the
33
decision-making process and created time for them to collaborate and reflect on their
practice. In contrast, the principals in consolidated power schools made most decisions
on their own and took few steps to foster professional community. Similarly, the
principal at the Forest School in the urban South Carolina district promoted shared
goals, collaboration, and empowerment by involving teachers in the SI planning process
while her counterparts in the rural schools did not solicit or make use of teacher input
in creating their improvement plans. Without strong facilitative principal leadership,
even well-designed professional development strategies that address each aspect of
school capacity are unlikely to result in sustained improvements in student
performance.
V.
Conclusion
There is a growing recognition among educators and policy makers that teachers
must have extensive opportunities to participate in professional development in order
for school reform efforts to succeed.
While traditional approaches to professional
development have generally had little influence on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and
dispositions, several states and districts have implemented innovative programs that
place teachers in a more active learning role, take account of the contexts in which they
work, and provide sustained follow-up support as they attempt to make changes in
their practices. These new approaches - which include teacher networks, the use of
consultants, and intervisitation - have the potential to significantly augment the abilities
of individual teachers. It is also important, though, to consider whether they are likely
to have a positive impact on the practices of entire faculties and the coherence of school
programs over time.
By employing a conception of school capacity in reviewing
research on these approaches and related reforms, this paper suggests that capacity can
be a useful lens in assessing the potential impact of state and district professional
development efforts on professional community and program coherence.
34
References
Almasi, J.F., Afflerbach, P.P., Guthrie, J.T., & Schafer, W.D. (1995). Effects of a statewide
performance assessment program on classroom instructional practice in literacy.
College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center.
Appalachian Educational Laboratory. (1994). Instruction and assessment in accountable
and nonaccountable grades. Notes from the field: Education reform in rural Kentucky,
4(1), 1-12.
Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J.Q. (1998). Charting Chicago
school reform: Democratic localism as a level for change. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
California Subject Matter Projects (n.d.). The California Subject Matter Projects: Statement
of CSMP mission, history, and principles. Oakland, CA: Author.
Clifford, L.S. (1995). The impact of state-mandated student performance assessment on
instructional practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville.
Cohen, D.K. & Ball, D.L. (in progress). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Corcoran, T.B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state
policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.
Corcoran, T., & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance schools.
Educational Researcher, 24(9), 27-31.
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1996). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. In M.W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.),
Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp.202-218). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Elmore, R.F. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional
improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York: National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Elmore, R.F. & Burney, D. (1997). School variation and systemic instructional improvement
in Community School District #2, New York City. Pittsburgh: Learning Research
and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Firestone, W.A., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment
and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
35
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V.R., & Empson, S.B. (1996).
A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics
instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 403-434.
Firestone, W.A. & Pennell, J.R. (1997). Designing state-sponsored teacher networks: A
comparison of two cases. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 237-266.
Goldberg, G.L. & Roswell, B.S. (1998). Perception and practice: The impact of teachers'
scoring experience on performance-based instruction and classroom assessment.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego.
Guskey, T.R. & Oldham, B.R. (1997). Despite the best intentions: Inconsistencies among
components in Kentucky’s systemic reform. Educational Policy, 11(4), 426-442.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for
beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Jennings, N.E. & Spillane, J.P. (1996). State reform and local capacity: Encouraging
ambitious instruction for all and local-decisionmaking. Journal of Educational
Policy, 11(4), 465-482.
Keane, E.A. (1995). The implementation and impact of a statewide performance and assessment
policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia
University.
King, M.B. & Newmann, F.M. (1999). School capacity as a goal for professional
development: Mapping the terrain in low-income schools. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal.
Koretz, D.M., Barron, S., Mitchell, K.J., & Stecher, B.M. (1996). Perceived effects of the
Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corporation.
Koretz, D.M., Mitchell, K.J., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of
the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). Los Angeles:
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Louis, K.S., Kruse, S.D., & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives
on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
36
McDiarmid, G.W. & Kelly, P.P. (1997). Teachers planning professional development in a
reform context: The case of Kentucky. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Medina, K. & St. John, M. (1997). The nature of teacher leadership: Lessons learned from
the California Subject Matter Projects. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research
Associates.
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
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. & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the
public and educators. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for
Education Research.
O’Day, J., Goertz, M.E., & Floden, R.E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform.
(CPRE Policy Brief RB-18). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium
for Policy Research in Education.
Pennell, J.R. & Firestone, W.A. (1996). Changing classroom practices through teacher
networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and
circumstances. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 46-76.
Ramage, K. & St. John, M. (1997). The influence of professional development on classroom
practice: The California Reading and Literature Project. Inverness, CA: Inverness
Research Associates.
Spillane, J. & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The
local education agency’s capacity for ambitious educational reform. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 85-203.
St. John, M., Dickey, K., Heenan, B., Hirabayashi, J., Medina, K., & Ramage, K. (1995).
Evaluating a statewide professional development system. Inverness, CA: Inverness
Research Associates.
Stein, M.K. & D’Amico, L. (1998). Content-driven instructional reform in Community School
District #2. Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center, University
of Pittsburgh.
Stein, M.K., D’Amico, L. & Israel, N. (1998). Observations, conversations, and negotiations:
Administrator support of literacy practices. Pittsburgh: Learning Research and
Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
37
Stokes, L., Hirabayashi, J., & St. John, M. (1998). Contributions of the California Subject
Matter Projects to teachers’ classroom practice and leadership: Results of a survey of
CSMP teacher leaders. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.
Talbert, J.E. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school
contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123-153.
38