Professional Development that Addresses School Capacity:
Lessons from Urban Elementary Schools
Fred M. Newmann, M. Bruce King, and Peter Youngs
University of Wisconsin, Madison
January 5, 2001
For
publication in the American Journal of Education.
Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 28, 2000.
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. Michele Fine, Charles Payne, Virginia Richardson, and Mark Smylie provided helpful suggestions. Authors are deeply grateful for the assistance provided by staff in the schools, districts and states participating in the study. Any opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of supporting agencies.
Introduction
Professional development for teachers is often recommended as a strategy for school improvement. But professional development has generally failed to improve teaching, because it is usually implemented in ways that violate key conditions for teacher learning. Researchers tend to agree that to promote the kind of teacher learning that leads to improvement in teaching, professional development should concentrate on instruction and student outcomes in teachers’ specific schools; provide opportunities for collegial inquiry, help, and feedback; and connect teachers to external expertise while also respecting teachers’ discretion and creativity. Finally, these experiences should be sustained and continuous, rather than short-term and episodic. These points have been made by Corcoran (1995), Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1996), Hargreaves (1995), Lieberman (1995), Little (1993), Lytle and Cochran-Smith (1994), Renyi (1996), and Richardson (1994). We agree that individual teacher learning would be enhanced if professional development were more consistent with these points. But, as explained below, professional development is more likely to advance achievement of all students in a school if it addresses not only the learning of individual teachers, but also other dimensions of the organizational capacity of the school.
We present a conception of school organizational capacity and argue that professional development ought to address all aspects of capacity rather than only the competence of individual teachers. Based on a study of urban elementary schools across the United States, we describe how professional development at seven schools studied over two years addressed main aspects of school capacity. Because of non-comparable data on trends in student achievement, we were unable to examine the extent to which comprehensive professional development boosted student achievement. But we were able to identify factors that help to explain why professional development in some schools addressed multiple aspects of capacity more than in others. Finally, we discuss implications of the conceptual framework and findings.
School Capacity: An Organizational Perspective for Professional Development
Each school contains a
unique mix of many teachers’ and students’ competencies and attitudes, and a
unique set of social, cultural, and political conditions, all of which
influence how teachers interact with students (Bryk et al. 1998; Fine 1994;
Fullan and Stiegelbauer 1991; Louis and Miles 1990; Lytle and Cochran-Smith
1994; Sarason 1982). Individual teacher competence is the foundation for
improved classroom practice, but to improve achievement of all students in a
school from one academic year to the next, teachers must exercise their
individual knowledge, skills, and dispositions in an integrated way to advance
the collective work of the school
under a set of unique conditions. The
collective power of the full staff to improve student achievement schoolwide
can be summarized as school capacity.
Recognizing that student
learning and the teaching that affects it depend upon a variety of factors in
the school and the community, we present one formulation of these influences in
Figure 1. This scheme represents our synthesis of a variety of research (e.g., Cohen 1995; Fine 1994; Fullan 1993;
Gamoran, Secada, and Marrett 2000; Hill and Celio 1998; Lee, Bryk, and Smith
1993; Rowan 1990). The figure shows
student achievement affected most directly by the quality of instruction. Instruction in turn is affected by school
capacity, and capacity is affected by actors which sponsor policy or programs
on a variety of issues, for example, curriculum and assessment standards, teacher
certification, hiring and promotion, school size, school governance procedures,
and, of course, professional development.
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
Of course, many factors not listed in the figure also influence student achievement and the quality of instruction. These include organizational features such as time for teachers to plan and school autonomy from unreasonable bureaucratic constraint, school learning climate, the level of support from parents and community organizations, and school funding. Our point is not to offer a comprehensive model of all the factors that affect student learning, but to suggest that many factors influence instruction through their influence on school capacity. Viewing school capacity as the key to improved instruction offers a parsimonious way of interpreting how a long list of otherwise discreet factors may affect instruction.
What do we mean
when we say that something, such as raw material, a product made of material, a
human being, a group of people, has high or low capacity? Capacity often refers to the potential of
material, a product, person or group to fulfill a function if it is used in a
particular way. For example, a piece of iron has the capacity to be a skillet
for cooking, a building to be a theatre, a person to be a teacher, a group of
adolescents to be a political force in the community. To characterize the capacity of an entity, one must first
describe its intended function. Once
one knows the intended function, one can then characterize capacity at any
point in time as high or low, depending upon the complexity and magnitude of future investments necessary to fulfill the
potential to carry out the function.
At a given point in time, the less complex and the lower the costs (in effort and resources) of future investment in development, the higher the capacity. Thus, Carnegie Hall has higher capacity for offering live entertainment through classical music than Yankee Stadium, because converting Yankee Stadium into a concert hall would require far greater resources than producing a concert in Carnegie hall. Similarly, a college graduate who excelled in mathematics has higher capacity for becoming an effective mathematics teacher than one who failed in math and dislikes the subject. The purpose of our empirical research is not to compute the actual transition costs of schools moving from low to high capacity, but to examine the extent to which professional development addresses key aspects of schools’ capacity to offer instruction that boosts achievement, and to explain why some schools have more success than others in doing so.
Different renditions of school capacity have been discussed in the literature on school reform and organizational change. The conception in Figure 1 is a synthesis of ideas from different lines of research on school improvement.
· School capacity includes the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of individual staff members. Staff must be professionally competent in instruction and assessment centered on curriculum appropriate for their particular students, and they must hold high expectations for all students’ learning. The contribution of these individual human resources to student achievement is well recognized in research on teacher education and in programs of professional development.[1]
· Individual teaching competence must be put to use in an organized, collective enterprise. This element of capacity calls attention to the educative importance of social resources in the school, which we summarize as schoolwide professional community. A strong professional community consists of (a) the staff sharing clear goals for student learning, (b) collaboration and collective responsibility among staff to achieve the goals, (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. Definitions of professional community vary slightly in the literature, but studies have shown higher school professional community to be associated with higher student achievement (Louis, Kruse and Marks 1996; Lee and Smith 1996; Louis and Marks 1998).[2]
· A third dimension of school capacity is program coherence, which we define as the extent to which the school’s programs for student and staff learning are coordinated, focused on clear learning goals, and sustained over a period of time. Program coherence can be considered an indicator of organizational integration. When schools pursue programs that are uncoordinated with one another or that address only limited numbers of students or staff, or that are terminated after a short period of time in order to adopt newer approaches considered to be more “up-to-date,” organizational fragmentation weakens student and staff learning.[3]
· Instruction that boosts student achievement requires technical resources, that is, high quality curriculum, books and other instructional materials, assessment instruments, laboratory equipment, computers, and adequate workspace (e.g., Corcoran and Goertz 1995; Gamoran, Secada, and Marrett 2000; O’Day et al. 1995). Reform efforts to improve academic standards and assessments, to provide better technology, higher quality children’s literature and systematic curricular programs, and to remodel outdated physical facilities can be seen as efforts to improve school capacity through the enhancement of technical resources.
· Finally, school capacity requires effective principal leadership (e.g., Hallinger and Heck 1998; Smylie and Hart 1999). In most schools, the principal has the legal authority to affect each of the above aspects of capacity, for better or worse, depending upon the quality of leadership. Teachers and other staff may also exert positive and negative leadership. But since legal responsibility for the school resides primarily with the principal and since research has shown the principal to be so influential in the life of the school, we recognize the principal’s leadership as a critical force in the school’s capacity to educate students.
As shown in Figure 1, we view the different components of capacity as interactive. For example, teachers with a sound knowledge of subject matter may be more likely to select high quality instructional materials, but high quality materials may also help to improve teachers’ subject matter knowledge. A faculty with a strong professional community might be more likely to integrate curriculum across grade levels to increase program coherence, but it is also possible that adoption of a coherent curriculum framework could stimulate increased collaboration and consensus and thereby enhance professional community.
Figure 1 suggests that a school’s capacity can be improved or limited by a variety of policies initiated by the school itself and by external agencies, especially the district, the state, and reform projects of independent organizations such as foundations, universities, or professional associations. Professional development can affect all aspects of capacity. Whether voluntary or required, the topics of professional development can influence teachers’ knowledge, skills and dispositions. The extent to which professional development is structured as an individual or collaborative activity, the extent to which it fosters professional inquiry, and the extent to which it promotes teacher influence in the school all affect professional community. Professional development can promote program coherence by supporting focused, integrated work over a sustained period of time, or it can exacerbate program diffusion by promoting unrelated, short-term innovations. Professional development may improve the quality of the school’s technical resources, for example, when teachers are assisted in preparing curriculum units or new assessments. And professional development for principals can enhance principal leadership.
Policies in other areas also have impact. For example, the kinds of knowledge, skills and dispositions that teachers have or need to have are affected by standards for curriculum and assessment, and policies on teacher certification, hiring, and promotion. Professional community is influenced by school size, the extent to which hiring policies attract teachers who have similar educational philosophies and an interest in collaboration, and the extent to which school governance supports teacher influence in school decisions. Program coherence is affected by the degree of integration among curriculum standards and the extent to which program mandates and incentives for innovation promote focused and sustained school improvement.
The main implication of this
conception of how schools contribute to student achievement is that
professional development should attempt to address all aspects of school
capacity. A reasonable case might be made that professional development should
be designed to fit the specific capacity needs of a school at a particular
point in time. For example, in one
school the most obvious immediate need might be individual teacher expertise in
teaching reading, while in another school, it might be reducing fragmentation
in professional development. We agree
that in the short term, some dimensions of capacity might deserve more
attention than others. As an analogy consider efforts to maintain good
health. Professional knowledge suggests
that everyone should attend to all aspects of preventive health, even though in
the short run some aspects may need more attention than others. Similarly, in
order to build capacity or to keep it at a high level, in the long run all
schools should aim professional development at all dimensions. In this study we
could not compare schools on achievement trends, but it should still be
instructive to document how professional development can address all aspects of
capacity and to explain why some schools seem able to do this better than
others.[4]
Sample
Nine public elementary schools 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 three to five years prior to participation in this study, 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. 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.[5]
The schools were located from coast to coast. As shown in Table 1, they included grades pre-K or K to grades 4 or 5, and enrolled from about 500 to 800 students. Demographic characteristics of staff and students varied, but the schools reflected many urban schools in the United States with large percentages of African American, Asian, and Latino students and large percentages of students from low-income families. Annual student mobility averaged 31%.[6]
INSERT TABLE 1
All schools reported that more than 50% of their students in the early 1990’s scored below national grade level norms or minimum testing standards issued by their states or districts for reading and/or mathematics. In six schools at least 80% of the students scored below such indicators in at least one of the two subjects.
Data
collection in spring and fall of 1997 involved fieldwork in the nine 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.[7]
Researchers interviewed school staff (10 to 12)
and representatives from external providers of professional development,
observed professional development activities and classes, and collected
pertinent documents as well as achievement, demographic, and fiscal
information.[8]
After initial visits to nine schools in 1997, we chose seven schools for follow-up that planned to sustain professional development aimed at the key aspects of capacity and that represented different district and state policy contexts. Four of these schools with the greatest potential for strong professional development were visited three more times through 1999 and the other three schools were visited one more time 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 capacity.
Research staff compiled
field notes from each observation and audio taped interview conducted during
site visits. For each visit to a school, a school report summarizing field
notes and observations was written. The school report focused on how
professional development addressed three aspects of capacity: teachers’
knowledge, skills and dispositions; professional community (each of four dimensions);
and program coherence. We focused mainly on these aspects of capacity because
professional development typically does not focus substantially on improving
technical resources or principal leadership. But we did make observations about
the quality of professional community, program coherence, technical resources
and principal leadership. Research staff reviewed each report to determine
whether it adequately addressed the research questions and offered sufficient
support for claims. The revised reports served as the database for individual
and cross-case analyses.[9]
After data had been collected and all school reports written, the three members of the research team read all reports and individually assigned ratings to each school on several variables: the level of school capacity at the first visit, the extent to which professional development strongly addressed each dimension of capacity over time, the extent of principal leadership for professional development aimed at each aspect of capacity, the extent to which the school received technical assistance addressing aspects of capacity from external agencies, the extent to which district and state policy supported professional development, and level of school capacity at the final visit. Ratings were then compared, and in cases of disagreement the ratings were discussed until consensus was reached.[10] The ratings were used to inform explanations for why some schools used professional development to address capacity more comprehensively than others.
How Professional Development Addressed
School Capacity
The first objective of the empirical work was to describe how some schools used professional development to address capacity more comprehensively than others did. All of the schools appeared to have high potential for addressing all aspects of capacity. But after two years of data collection, it became clear that the schools varied considerably both in their approaches to professional development and in the extent to which they addressed capacity comprehensively. Table 2 illustrates the range in researchers’ final ratings of the extent to which the three main aspects of capacity (teachers’ knowledge, skills and dispositions; professional community; and program coherence) were addressed over the two-year course of the study. Note that two schools, Lewis and Renfrew, addressed capacity more thoroughly than the other five schools.[11] We will describe these two schools’ approaches to professional development and how they addressed the three main dimensions of capacity. Then we will describe professional development at Falkirk, the school rated lowest on these criteria.
Table
2
Ratings
of Comprehensiveness of Professional Development
(Scores could range from 0-8)
School |
Rating |
Lewis |
7.5 |
Renfrew |
6.5 |
Kintyre |
5.5 |
Wallace |
5.5 |
Carlisle |
4.75 |
Pitlochry |
4.25 |
Falkirk |
1.25 |
Lewis Elementary School: Strong Professional Development through an
External Reform Program
Lewis Elementary, in an urban district in Texas, enrolled 560 students, most of whom were Hispanic, with ninety-three percent receiving free or reduced price lunch. Since 1994 professional development concentrated on implementation of Success For All (SFA) programs (see Slavin et al. 1996). Additional topics that received significant attention during the two years of our study were the teaching of writing, preparation of curricular units on space, oceanography and weather, preparation for the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) tests, and technology.
The Lewis principal, Mr. Aldridge, explained that prior to 1993 the staff had tried a number of different programs, but none seemed effective in boosting achievement of the low-income Hispanic group served by the school. A committee of ten faculty members spent the 1993-94 year investigating innovative programs, including visits to schools that participated in them. In spring 1994, they recommended adoption of the SFA program, and the staff decided to adopt it with a vote of 100%. They began implementing the reading program in 1994, the math program in 1995, and the World Lab program in 1997.
As a consequence of adopting the SFA programs, all Lewis teachers participated in several professional development experiences with grade level or school colleagues:
· Initial training of 2-3 days from SFA trainers on each of the three programs, geared to specific grade levels.
· Feedback from SFA trainers on the quality of implementation at least twice a year. SFA trainers visited the school, observed teachers’ instruction, and met with teachers by program component or grade levels for debriefing.
· Participation in an annual 3-day SFA national conference to learn more from SFA trainers and from colleagues in participating schools nationwide. Mr. Aldridge sent about ten teachers per year (at least one from each grade level who reported back to colleagues after the conference) on a rotating basis so that each teacher could attend about once every four years.
· Ongoing assistance from the full-time school-based reading and math facilitators who visited classrooms, offered demonstrations, arranged for teachers to observe one another, and participated in grade level or reading group meetings to discuss instructional issues.
The school structured sustained time for the SFA training and professional development on other topics. The district, which required each teacher to engage in 42 hours of professional development per year, provided 4 full days per year that the school used for the objectives it defined in its school improvement plan. In addition, Lewis arranged for 6-8 half days a year by adding 5 instructional minutes per day to the required daily schedule. The principal allocated funds to pay substitutes for individuals or small groups of teachers to attend conferences or other special professional development activities. Finally, each teacher had 45 minutes of planning time per day scheduled in common with grade level colleagues. All grade level teams used this time to meet at least twice a week. The reading and mathematics facilitators met with each grade level team once a month, and the principal met with team leaders once a month.
We now illustrate how this approach to professional development addressed each of the main aspects of capacity targeted in the study.
Teacher Knowledge,
Skills and Dispositions
In four visits to the school we found professional development continuously addressed specific teaching strategies in reading, writing, mathematics, World Lab, helping students with the social skills necessary for cooperative learning, and in the last year of our research, technology. After initial SFA training, teachers said they continued to learn to improve their teaching from national conferences, the local facilitators, and school colleagues. As new teachers joined the staff, their initial training was supplemented by mentoring from the school facilitators. We observed teachers using SFA curriculum and strategies in all the classes we visited. In addition to teaching specific skills such as letter and sound recognition or writing meaningful sentences, SFA professional development sessions introduced teachers to new subject matter content in mathematics and social studies/science and reinforced high academic expectations for students. Grade level team meetings and special professional development sessions addressed issues of aligning the math and World Lab curriculum with the state tests and integration of technology into the SFA curriculum. Most teachers said one or more of these activities had positive impact on their knowledge, skills or dispositions.
For example, one teacher said the SFA training taught specific teaching skills:
It gives teachers strategies the kids can use themselves to sound out words and develop themselves as better readers. They give you enough strategies so that if one strategy doesn't work with one kid, you've got another one to try. It helps the kids, but it also helps my confidence as a teacher (1/97).[12]
Another said that SFA raised expectations for student achievement:
Reading expectations are high, but the math expectations are astonishing. These kids are expected to know things in math that we probably wouldn't have talked about six years ago…I saw the kids trying, I saw them working in cooperative groups. I realized, 'hey, maybe they can do this.' When the scores went up, that's the one indicator that convinced me (1/97).
Professional development at Lewis put most emphasis on two aspects of professional community: clear shared learning goals for the school and staff collaboration. The SFA program provided a well-defined, comprehensive curriculum for the teaching of reading, mathematics, and social studies/science, along with clear student outcomes to aim for in each grade. Thus, the staff’s adoption of the program directed the school’s professional development toward widely shared learning goals. In addition to the common learning agenda that SFA presented, the staff was united on the goal of having at least 80% of the students performing at grade level on the state tests. When asked to describe the school’s central goals, on both our initial and final visits, virtually all staff, including many teachers new to the school and to SFA, emphasized student success in reading and mathematics through use of the SFA program.
Professional development helped to strengthen a collaborative work culture in two ways. First, the principal was committed to whole school development, that is, the entire faculty working together on common goals and programs, and to structuring teachers’ work around collaborative planning in grade level teams. To facilitate this, he arranged for common team planning time and gave high priority to schoolwide and grade level team professional development. Second, the SFA program itself promoted staff collaboration. Committed to cooperative group learning for students, much of the SFA training involved staff in cooperative activity to simulate what would be expected of students. During implementation checks SFA trainers sought and discussed teacher feedback about the program – how to cope with difficulties, possible suggestions for program revisions, and orientation to forthcoming changes – in teams at the school.
During each of our visits several
teachers mentioned that they relied on their team members for constructive
feedback. One teacher put it this way, The climate here is that you’re kind
of an outcast if you don’t want to be part of the team… At our grade-level
meetings, we plan what we’re going to do for the next week and how we’re going
to address school issues (5/99).
At times, teachers’ collaborative activity involved professional inquiry. For example, teacher teams met every eight weeks with the reading facilitator to examine recent reading assessment results, and to decide collectively which students ought to be moved to a different reading group and what strategies seemed effective and ineffective with particular students.
Teacher influence, the fourth
dimension of professional community, involved two main issues at Lewis. The first was the extent to which faculty
had a meaningful voice in school policy on professional development and other
important matters, an issue relevant to all the schools in the study. The
second was whether the prescribed SFA programs, especially in reading, diminished
creativity, choice, and spontaneity to the point that teachers perceived a
denial of professional discretion and judgment that reduced their professional
commitment.
On the issue of teacher influence in school decision making, the system for faculty input, implemented in the last year of the study, channeled faculty recommendations and concerns from teams to team leader meetings with the principal. Teachers said this system worked well enough to insure sufficient faculty input. One teacher said that the principal’s formal solicitation of faculty concerns through the weekly team meetings had increased the sense of faculty input: I think our concerns are listened to a lot more now. For example, taking on this new writing program from SFA. Last year, Mr.Aldridge really wanted us to take it on. But people had some really straightforward concerns so he decided to back off (5/99).
On the issue of SFA’s possible
suppression of faculty creativity and judgment, from our initial visit to the
final one, teachers tended to agree that teacher’s choices were limited, but
not to the point of reducing their effectiveness or commitment. As one teacher said, It’s a structured program and we try to maintain the integrity of the
program. In our view, there are many ways
to explore adapting curriculum to fit SFA.
The opportunities are definitely
there for creativity on the teacher’s part through ‘adventures in writing,’
through creating your own ‘meaningful sentences,’ through ‘Book Club,’ through
your presentation of the material (5/99). As a further example, Lewis
teachers in grades 3-5 were successful in developing alternative team score
sheets in math, with the approval of national SFA.
Program
Coherence
Professional development activities
at Lewis were focused and sustained on the clear school mission of increasing
student achievement through the SFA programs. SFA itself showed coherence of
instructional philosophy, curriculum materials, and teaching and assessment in
reading, mathematics, and social studies/science. Faculty agreed that
professional development for SFA was tightly aligned to the curriculum,
instruction, and assessment in the program and provided continuous follow-up
through implementation checks, the activities of the school facilitators, and
the annual national conferences.
During 1997-98 professional development included some initiatives not tightly aligned with the SFA program, but in 1998-99 professional development had a consistent focus on the SFA program and integrating technology with it. Virtually all staff agreed with one teacher who said, We didn’t go off on any other tangent. It was all directly related to our program. In the past we’ve had sessions on TAAS, on poverty, a shot here or there, and everything wasn’t really related. But this year I felt everything was related to our program…even technology dealt with things we can use in the program (5/99). It is possible that future efforts to align curriculum and instruction more tightly with new state assessments may pose a threat to program coherence. Some teachers said that preparation for the state assessment detracted from the more important mission of the school grounded in the SFA program. But most faculty members perceived reasonable consistency between SFA and the state assessments.
Renfrew Elementary School: Strong Professional Development through a School-Based Approach
In
an urban district in California, Renfrew enrolled an ethnically and
economically diverse student body of 675.
The students were 44% Hispanic, 38% white, 14% African American, and 54%
were from low-income families. During
the study, professional development focused on clarifying faculty-developed
assessment outcomes at each grade level, measuring student performance on these
outcomes, and discussing implications of the results for curriculum and
teaching. Special emphasis was devoted
to outcomes and teaching for literacy and mathematics, and the staff
continuously examined the issue of achievement gaps between students of
different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Although the principal changed about halfway through the study, the new
principal built upon the staff's prior work.
In contrast to Lewis, Renfrew crafted its own approach to curriculum, instruction, and assessment, rather than implementing a program developed by an external provider. Yet Renfrew did rely on substantial external financial support. In 1992 the school submitted a successful proposal to participate in the state’s school restructuring program (SB1274, see Szabo 1996) that provided from $35,000 to $54,000 per year for professional development for six years. In 1996, the school began to receive three years of district funding through the Annenberg Challenge, which included significant amounts for professional development.
Schoolwide
professional development occurred through several mechanisms. For at least six
years, Renfrew used seven staff development days per year for schoolwide
institutes. The pre-service institute
was held before school began (3 days) in which faculty developed “essential
questions” for the year (e.g., What
am I doing differently to ensure that the inequitable pattern of student
achievement no longer continues?). In the mid-year institute (4 days), teachers
examined grade level progress in addressing the essential questions. Ongoing inquiry related to the essential
questions occurred also in bi-weekly grade level and monthly faculty meetings,
and in formal inquiry groups of about 15 staff each, which were led by an external
coach and met every other week for three hours. By banking instructional time, similar to Lewis, school started an hour
and a half late every Friday, time which the staff used for meetings. Monthly meetings occurred for the whole
faculty, for lead teachers with the administration, for math articulation teams
(MAT), and for MAT chairs with the administration. Grade level teams (K/1, 2/3, 4/5) met every other week, with
specific grade group teachers or teaching partners (e.g. first grade teachers)
meeting at least weekly.
Through these
activities, Renfrew staff translated broadly stated performance outcomes that
they initially articulated in their state restructuring proposal (e.g.,
students becoming effective communicators and global citizens) into specific
performance outcomes in language arts, mathematics, social studies, and
science. From these performance
outcomes they developed assessment instruments and evaluation criteria for each
grade level. They tried to improve instructional strategies in literacy through
training for most staff members in Reading Recovery (see Clay 1993).
More recently they used cross-grade “math articulation” teams to clarify
objectives, curriculum, and teaching for problem solving and algebraic
thinking. And, after three years of
inquiry on the issue of how to increase equity in achievement, they recently
began staff training in the program, Teacher Expectations for Student
Achievement (TESA, see http:// www.lacoe.edu/TESA/).
Aspects of School Capacity
We now illustrate how this approach to professional development addressed each of the main aspects of capacity targeted in the study.
Teacher Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions
Professional development contributed to teachers’ knowledge of assessment, particularly the process of setting student performance outcomes, technical aspects of scoring student work, and the complexities of designing curriculum and teaching to help all students perform at expected levels.
One teacher said that the new outcomes and assessments really guide my teaching, and that having to score student papers according to common rubrics had been very educational for us. She explained, If you were scoring alone, you might give the paper a 3, because you know how hard the kid is working, but if you're scoring with other teachers, you can see the paper is still a 2. It's much more informative to let the school and family know where that child is at (5/97).
Professional development also enriched teachers’ instructional strategies in literacy and math. As one teacher said, because of the Reading Recovery training and the use of running records, teachers could actually tell very concretely how kids are reading. We first came to understand that all books have a certain level of difficulty based on the number of words, and the text that we were using at the time. And we saw that most of our first graders could not read it. We learned from Reading Recovery that in order for a child to learn how to read, they need to read texts at their level (5/97).
Finally, sustained examination of the gap in achievement between whites and students of color addressed teachers’ knowledge of effects of teaching strategies and their expectations. One teacher described the impact of an inquiry group discussion of an article by Lisa Delpit: I went back and I started really looking at my class. I would listen to myself and the way I addressed different students and after reading the article, I tried to make sure I was very explicit in my directions. I can see that for some children that really worked (12/98). In a similar vein, another teacher said, When I find any of my kids off task, I try to bring them back in a more positive way…A lot has come out of our discussions about talking to kids with respect, especially kids of color who have been unsuccessful, to make everyday more positive (12/98).
A third teacher
said that due to the school's focus on equity issues, she has become more
sensitive to students' different cultures and she seeks feedback from
colleagues on whether a specific lesson is culturally appropriate. For example, for non-fiction descriptive
writing, she asked students to write about a family celebration, a family
tradition, and a recipe. She also did a photography unit concentrating on
students' individual neighborhoods and the different cultures.
Professional
Community
Renfrew's
professional development addressed each dimension of professional
community. Through the institutes and
grade level meetings, faculty put considerable effort into shared learning
goals by defining academic outcomes for each grade level. The institutes and inquiry groups emphasized
a shared commitment to reducing the achievement gap between whites and students
of color. And recent efforts of the math
articulation teams articulated a schoolwide conception of algebraic thinking to
guide the mathematics curriculum. All
teachers expressed a strong commitment to helping all students succeed
academically. But by the time of our
last visit to the school, teachers said that the commitment to equity varied
between teachers and grade level groups, and that the emphasis on schoolwide
standards might interfere in some cases with unique needs of both students and
teachers. While professional
development addressed shared learning goals throughout the school, Renfrew
teachers seemed somewhat less united on learning goals than teachers at Lewis.
Professional development consistently emphasized collaboration through grade level teams, cross grade inquiry groups and math articulation teams, and in whole school institutes. Collaboration led to grade level standards and assessments in math and literacy, an extensive database on student achievement on school-based assessments (summarized by grade level and individual classroom, and also by race/ethnicity, language, and economic status), a schoolwide discipline plan, and a school-based definition of algebraic thinking.
The numerous meetings we observed indicated strong norms of collegiality, trust, and openness. One teacher said the grade level teams helped with the new emphasis on algebraic thinking: In the grade level teams and the MATs, there is a lot of peer support because this is a harder way to teach math (12/98). A third teacher said the grade level discussions of student progress needed to be supplemented by feedback from the whole staff: You really need that external set of eyes. No matter how hard you work as a team, you really need to present that to the staff and get people’s feedback. That’s key. She explained that the staff pressed her team to create and give assessments in instructional areas that they had not up to that point (2/98).
Inquiry groups and grade level meetings supported reflective inquiry. One teacher said that the on-going discussions in her inquiry group about equity were very useful. She said,
Constantly having the opportunity to reflect upon that (equity) and have it always right here, so it doesn’t get lost in the day to day teaching routine…I feel re-energized, even during the hardest, heart-wrenching discussions. I’m really excited about getting into my classroom the next day. Every time I leave inquiry, I feel that I’ve been able to take a step back and I’m able to look at my classroom and my students in different ways (12/98).
Inquiry in one grade level team focused on the required standardized achievement test. In order to help student performance on the SAT-9, the team had each teacher look at the past year’s results for their class, and identify the areas of the test on which their students scored above and below average. In team meetings, teachers discussed these areas and helped one another to address the areas of concern. Staff consistently analyzed standardized and performance-based achievement outcomes in mid-year institutes.
Renfrew established strong norms of teacher influence in decision making. To make formal policy and plans for professional development, the administration consulted with the group of 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. Similarly, in grade level team meetings, teacher leaders consistently asked for feedback from colleagues and tended to make decisions through group consensus. One teacher said, We come up with the staff development we want…That’s the most empowering part of it, and provides such ownership over our staff development (5/99). The district strongly supported school-based decision making which reinforced the faculty’s sense of influence, but in 1999 teachers expressed some concern that recent district mandates on curriculum standards and assessment might infringe on school autonomy.
In our first two visits to Renfrew we noticed that professional development supported a sustained focus on articulation of grade level student outcomes and assessments, improvement of literacy teaching, and continuous examination of the equity issue. By our final visit we concluded that professional development seemed to bring coherence to instructional programs in math and literacy through grade level standards and assessments, but coherence was lacking in terms of common teaching strategies and cross-grade articulation. Some teachers said they were pursuing too many separate initiatives without time to pursue any in sufficient depth or to generate schoolwide implementation. For example, the school adopted a newly published literacy program for all grades, but only kindergarten and first grade decided to teach the full program. The faculty established a set of cross-grade math articulation teams to define a full math curriculum, but how these teams would connect with grade level teams was unclear. In the meantime, the school adopted a cross-grade math program, but it was not fully used by all teachers. Some veteran teachers had grown weary of the continuous discussion of equity issues without the school’s having reached a common solution to the problem. In response to this last issue, staff participated in initial training for the TESA program offered by a trained colleague. The staff responded very favorably and planned to participate in further training and peer observation to track more carefully the quality of their interaction with low-performing students. The work with TESA had the potential to increase coherence in dealing with the equity issue, and the effort to improve cross-grade articulation in the math curriculum, focused on problem-solving and algebraic thinking, could pay off in increased coherence if the school finds sustained time to focus in these areas.
Falkirk Elementary: Fragmented and Changing
Professional Development
Falkirk,
in an urban district in South Carolina, enrolled about 500 students
pre-kindergarten through grade 5, and 98% were low-income African Americans. At
the time of our first visit, professional development at Falkirk centered on
three strands: Accelerated Schools (see Hopfenberg, Levin, and Associates
1993), literacy and other topics pursued by groups of teachers, and individual
teacher experiences. While Accelerated Schools (AS) provided processes and
structures designed to develop shared decision making and a coherent school
mission emphasizing student achievement, teachers believed that they were
“spinning wheels.” School governance procedures did not offer clear channels
for faculty input, decisions were often made without approval from the steering
committee and school-as-a-whole, and the AS inquiry process was not widely used
to solve problems and inform decisions.
All teachers pursued literacy training, but these experiences varied
considerably across faculty members. Some had training in Reading Recovery, and
others emphasized Carbo’s reading styles (see Carbo 1997) or the Cunningham
four-block model (see Cunningham and Allington 1999). Staff told us that these
and other professional development experiences contributed to individual
teacher’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions, but there was little evidence
that they consistently addressed professional community or program coherence.
The administration defended the school’s eclectic approach to literacy
instruction as responding to different teachers’ needs.
Over the two
years, the school went through a number of major changes, including a new
principal, a new lead teacher, and a large number of new teachers. The state
also implemented a new testing and accountability system. Perhaps due to these
changes, the school failed to give sustained attention to initiatives that had
the potential for schoolwide implementation. For example, just prior to our
first visit, Falkirk had identified five key learner standards as part of the
state system for school improvement and AS cadres at the school were tied to
each standard. However, after the state adopted a more specific testing system,
the school gave little attention to its learner standards, and by the final
year of the study, the Accelerated Schools program was abandoned all together.
During one year, about seven staff met together to study the Cunningham model
for literacy instruction, but their work was not continued, and there was no
serious attempt to implement the model schoolwide. Another group of faculty
participated in a graduate course offered through a local university to examine
implications of the new state accountability system. As a culmination to the
course, participants planned a full day in-service with the rest of the
school’s faculty but it did not occur. While the offering of graduate courses
at the school site had great potential for professional development, the
tendency of the local university to cater to the school’s changing interests
and lack of follow-up at the school failed to increase program coherence.
By fall of 1999
the new principal had begun to generate a common and shared focus for the
school built around a thematic, arts-integrated curriculum with high
expectations for students. Teachers who remained at the school and those hired
for the ‘99-00 school year seemed committed to this focus. One teacher felt
that her colleagues agreed with the emphasis on integrating the arts into the
curriculum, because there was a mass
exodus last year. Many, many, many
staff members left. I believe that the
ones who stayed are invested in the philosophy…I think all of the new staff are
aware of the direction the school is going in, and they support it (10/99). As of the last visit, schoolwide
professional development received more emphasis. Another teacher stressed the importance of professional
development experiences for the whole staff. She said, We’re all concerned about the same thing. What we’re doing … this year
(is contributing to consistency because) we’re all getting the same information
and each grade is working on common approaches (10/99). While grade level
teams met infrequently early in the study, in fall 1999, they met with the lead
teacher at least weekly, and with the new principal monthly. Teachers said they
had adequate time to work collaboratively in grade level teams, and that each
team defined and taught a common curriculum.
At the final
visit, professional development concentrated on three areas – thematic
arts-integrated curriculum development, the implementation in all classes of
strategies and materials in language arts and science geared toward gifted
students, and improving discipline through a character education program.
Coherence across these initiatives seemed weak, both thematically and in terms
of follow-up. A critical issue for Falkirk will be whether staff, under new
leadership, can build on the widespread and shared commitment to the thematic,
arts-integrated approach to develop a more coherent, focused approach to
professional development.
Consideration
of the contrast between Lewis and Renfrew on the one hand versus Falkirk on the
other raises the next question for the study: what factors tend to explain why
some schools used professional development to address school capacity more
comprehensively than others.
Why
Some Schools Addressed Capacity More Comprehensively
As shown in Table
2 and documented above, some schools used professional development to address
capacity much more comprehensively than others. As possible explanations for variability in comprehensive
professional development between schools we considered five main factors.
·
Initial
level of capacity. Schools with
stronger capacity at the beginning of the study, having more effective
individual resources, social resources, and organizational integration would be
more likely to direct professional development to all aspects of capacity.
·
School
leadership. Because school leadership,
especially the leadership of the principal, can exert such powerful influence
on school culture and development, schools with principals who directed
professional development toward these aspects of capacity over the course of
the study would show more comprehensive use of professional development.
·
Funding for
professional development. We suspected
that school expenditures on professional development might be associated with
more comprehensive attention to capacity.
·
Strong
technical assistance from external agencies.
To the extent that a school received
external assistance for professional development that was based on
rigorous research and development related to one or more aspects of school
capacity, we would expect the school’s professional development to address one
or more dimensions of capacity more strongly.
·
Strong
policy support from the district and state.
Districts and states could conceivably sponsor specific programs of
professional development and other policies that assisted, as well as hindered,
schools in using professional development to build capacity. We expected that schools with stronger
policy support would be more likely to employ comprehensive professional
development.
The methodology
section explained how we rated the schools on these dimensions. We found that
comprehensive use of professional development over time was strongly related to
the school’s initial capacity and to principal leadership that channeled
professional development in this direction; positively related to funding; but
not clearly related to external technical assistance or to policy support from
the district and state.[13]
Initial
Capacity
Figure
2 shows a strong positive association between ratings of initial school
capacity and the strength of professional development in addressing the three
main aspects of capacity over time.
INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE
Lewis, with the
highest initial capacity had the strongest professional development. Renfrew,
rated second highest in professional development, received the second highest
rating on initial capacity. Falkirk
with the lowest initial capacity rating had the weakest professional
development. To explain this finding we considered how each aspect of school
capacity might influence the kind of professional development a school
seeks. First, we would expect staff in
a school with higher initial levels of teacher knowledge to be more likely to
see the need for and be interested in further individual professional learning. Second, a staff that has experienced how
strong professional community can enhance teaching effectiveness is more likely
to chose and design professional development that further reinforces
professional community. Similarly, a
staff that has experienced the benefits of strong program coherence would want professional
development itself to be coherent and to enhance coherence in the instructional
program.
While
the findings might be expected, they are also troubling. They suggest that “the rich get richer,” and
that schools that begin with low levels of capacity are much less likely to use
professional development to address all aspects of capacity. We discuss this issue in more detail in the
summary and implications section.
Leadership
over Time
Figure 3 shows a powerful positive association between comprehensive
professional development and the extent to which the principal exerted
leadership to shape professional development along these lines.[14]
INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE
The strong
positive relationship is consistent with prior research indicating that even
while principals may lack full control over their schools, they appear to have
impressive influence over the extent to which professional development
addresses all aspects of capacity.
Compared to principals in the lowest ranked schools, principals in the
highest ranked schools maintained a more consistent focus for schoolwide
professional development, rather than leaving most choices about professional
development up to individual teachers.
They channeled funding and outside expertise to serve the schoolwide
focus and “buffered” teachers from outside mandates or reform initiatives that
might otherwise interfere. 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.
Three of the
schools, Renfrew, Kintyre, and Falkirk, experienced changes in their principals
during the study and all three were hired from outside the school. The new
principal at Renfrew continued the school’s prior thrust for professional
development. The new principal at
Kintyre did not immediately focus professional development on the school’s
prior commitment to Montessori instruction. But eventually she renewed this
emphasis which had been interrupted by professional development to align with
new district curriculum standards which seemed unconnected to the school's
Montessori mission. The new principal at Falkirk completely changed the
direction for professional development established by the former principal. During
the period of our study this created striking problems of continuity for the
staff, but it is conceivable that over the long term these changes might
contribute to stronger professional community and program coherence.
Funding
Schools reported the amount they budgeted from all funding
sources for professional development for each year, from fall 1993 to our first
visit in 1997, and during the academic year of our final visit (spring and
fall, 1999). From these reports we
computed an average per teacher per year. The amounts ranged from a high at
Renfrew of $1653 to a low of $186 at Falkirk, with a mean of $650.[15] As shown in Figure 4 there appears to be a
positive relationship between funding per teacher and comprehensive
professional development. Lewis and
Renfrew, which ranked highest in professional development, also ranked highest
in funding. However Carlisle, which ranked third highest in funding, ranked
fifth on comprehensive professional development.[16]
INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE
High
quality professional development requires funds for teacher release time, fees
for outside facilitators and authorities, travel expense and conference
registration, purchase of materials and equipment, and, ideally, employment of
school-based coordinators to work on a continuing basis with teachers. Although actual costs will depend much upon
the school context, based on the experiences of the schools we studied, we
estimate that professional development targeted on literacy in a K-5 elementary
school of 520 students and 26 teachers would cost about $33,900 per year or
$1300 per teacher.[17]
According to one
estimate, the cost of professional development for high performance schools is
$60,000 to $75,000 per year (Odden and Busch 1998; also Odden 2000). Our figure
is well below this, well below the $6000 per teacher for four years of
intensive work on portfolios in Pittsburgh, and well within the annual $1,150
to $3,500 per employee that leading companies have spent on employee education
and training (Renyi 1996; see Miller, Lord, and Dorney 1994, for costs of
professional development in four districts). Of course, how funds are used can
be more important than the actual level, but even with optimal use of funds, we
think the challenges faced by urban elementary schools would justify at least
this level of funding for professional development.
External
Technical Assistance
We found no consistent relationship between strong technical
assistance from external agencies and comprehensive professional development at
the school (Figure 5). We defined strong technical assistance as provision of
products and services based on careful research, development, trial and
redesign, and the school’s using such assistance on several occasions for at
least one year.
INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE
Lewis rated the
highest on this factor, due to its reliance on the systematically developed SFA
program; as explained earlier Lewis also rated high on comprehensive
professional development. While Renfrew was rated high on comprehensiveness of
professional development, it relied more on its own staff than on external
technical assistance to define its program and teaching strategies. Several
Renfew teachers, at one time or another, took advantage of strong technical
assistance from external programs such as Reading Recovery and other forms of
literacy training, but these did not constitute a central focus for the
school’s professional development. At
Kintyre, because most teachers had in-depth training in Montessori education,
significant exposure to Reading Recovery, and primary teachers had additional
assistance through the Kentucky Early Literacy Program and in use of the Marie
Clay Observation Survey, it also rated high on external technical
assistance. But Kintyre rated only near
the mean on professional development addressing all aspects of capacity because
Kintyre placed less emphasis on professional community and program coherence
than Lewis and Renfrew. Note that
Pitlochry also participated in SFA and, therefore, had access to strong
external technical assistance, but the school did not pursue the training as
thoroughly as the Lewis faculty. At the
time of our final visits, implementation checks were irregular, especially in
mathematics, and enthusiasm for SFA conference participation was much lower than
at Lewis. Pitlochry used professional development to address professional
community and program coherence less thoroughly and therefore ranked much lower
on comprehensiveness than Lewis.
We
conclude that strong technical assistance from external agencies can be very
helpful and in some cases even necessary to institute comprehensive
professional development. For example,
we suspect that if Renfrew had used research-based technical assistance in
literacy, mathematics, and equity for low-income students of color to reach
collective decisions for the school’s instructional program, they would have
enhanced program coherence and teachers’ knowledge in these areas more than we
observed. Renfrew’s recent interest in
pursuing TESA training suggests that the school may take more advantage of such
assistance in the future. At the same time, access to strong technical
assistance alone is insufficient for addressing all aspects of capacity. At
Kintyre, for example, external assistance focused primarily on teachers’
individual knowledge and skills, without necessarily contributing significantly
to professional community and program coherence. And other schools in the study
had access to technically strong assistance, but did not follow up with it. For example, Falkirk dropped Accelerated
Schools and Wallace failed to implement widely the training faculty received in
an externally developed program to build students’ cooperative social skills.
Policy
Support
Ratings for
policy support showed no consistent connection to comprehensive professional
development (Figure 6). This finding should not be misinterpreted to suggest
that policy support makes no difference, because the narrative information on
the schools showed that policy did have impact that depended on the local
school context.
INSERT FIGURE 6
HERE
Kintyre received
the highest ratings for policy support, because its district offered
significant professional development opportunities in early literacy, resource
teachers to help each school on a weekly basis, and training for school teams
to develop a focused strategy for professional development. The state also provided resources to help a
school with strategic planning, and the accountability system helped the school
to strengthen the reading program.
While Kintyre rated above the mean on comprehensive professional
development, during the early part of our study, the school’s leadership did
not harness these resources very effectively for professional development to
build capacity.
Renfrew, ranked
second highest on policy support, benefited from signficant state funding for
school restructuring, significant district funding to support inquiry groups,
and district policy that supported meaningful school-based management. With initial high capacity and strong leadership,
the school used this kind of support to conduct reasonably comprehensive
professional development.
In contrast,
Wallace, which rated lowest on district and state support, rated as high on
comprehensive professional development as Kintyre. Wallace’s principal found external funds and consultants to help
with professional development. He
organized grade level teams, led by a curriculum coordinator, to work on
articulation of student outcomes and curriculum alignment. So in spite of relatively low policy
support, Wallace used professional development more comprehensively than three
other schools that ranked higher in policy support.
Summary and Implications
We proposed that
if professional development is to boost schoolwide student achievement, it
should address five aspects of school capacity: teachers’ knowledge, skills and
dispositions; professional community; program coherence; technical resources;
and principal leadership. While
individual teacher learning of subject matter, pedagogy, and expectations
remains critical, professional development should be expanded beyond the
improvement of individuals to improvement of other organizational
resources. To illuminate how this might
happen in urban schools serving low-income students, we searched the United
States for elementary schools that appeared to be using professional
development for these purposes, and we studied their efforts for two academic
years.
Concentrating on
how schools addressed the first three elements of capacity, we found considerable
variation in the extent to which schools addressed all elements and differences
in how they did so. The two schools
that ranked highest in comprehensiveness used different approaches, but both
concentrated on improving teaching in literacy and mathematics. Lewis relied almost entirely on professional
development tied to implementation of an externally developed, highly
structured program in reading, mathematics and social studies/science. In contrast, Renfrew organized professional
development to articulate school-defined student outcomes in literacy and
mathematics, to examine achievement data, and to help teachers examine their
pedagogy – all through collaboration in grade level teams, inquiry groups, and
whole school meetings. Schools that used
professional development less comprehensively were less likely to use
schoolwide professional development with a consistent long-term focus; more
likely to use traditional mechanisms such as one-time workshops or college
courses chosen at teachers’ discretion without collaboration and systematic
infusion into the school program. The
main implications of these findings are a) it is possible for urban elementary
schools serving low-income students to organize professional development to
address school capacity comprehensively and b) this can be accomplished through
diverse approaches.
To explain why
some schools used professional development more comprehensively than others, we
considered five main factors: initial level of capacity, principal’s leadership
for this type of professional development, use of external technical
assistance, the extent of district and state policy support, and funding for
professional development. We found that comprehensive use of professional
development was strongly related to the school’s initial capacity and to
principal leadership that channeled professional development in this direction;
positively related to funding; but not clearly related to external technical
assistance or to policy support from district and state.
A main
implication of the strong association between principal leadership and
comprehensive professional development is that professional development for
principals should help them to understand the main elements of school capacity
and how professional development can enhance, neglect or even diminish aspects
of capacity. While some principals in this study exerted more effective
leadership than others, none reported participating in strong programs for
their own professional development. For
example, many principals seem to assume that a central part of their job is to
seek funding to initiate a variety of innovations responsive to the diverse
interests of individual teachers. They
may fail to see how this approach to reform, even while introducing multiple
forms of new professional development, can lead to a fragmented set of programs
that undermines program coherence.
Findings on the
relationship of funding for professional development suggest that more funding
is more likely to support comprehensive professional development. But other information from the schools
suggests two additional points. First,
not only the amount of funding, but how the school chooses to use it, makes a
big difference. Second, the specific
amounts these schools used for professional development probably fall
considerably short of what is needed to build capacity in urban schools that
serve low- income students.
|
Johnstone |
Lewis |
Renfrew |
Pitlochry |
Kintyre |
Falkirk |
Wallace |
Melrose |
Carlisle |
Geographic
Region |
West |
Southwest |
West |
Southeast |
South |
Midwest |
Midwest |
East |
|
Grades in Each School |
K-6 |
K-5 |
Pre-K-5 |
Pre-K-5 |
K-5 |
Pre-K-5 |
K-4 |
K-4 |
Pre-K-5 |
Student
Enrollment[1] |
559 |
575 |
675 |
771 |
532 |
498 |
425 |
259 |
502 |
% Low Income
Students[2] |
63 |
93 |
54 |
95 |
66 |
98 |
100 |
91 |
73 |
Student
Mobility % [3] |
30 |
41 |
11 |
50 |
6 |
30 |
29 |
50 |
21 |
# of Full Time
Teachers1 |
25 |
42 |
30 |
52 |
38 |
40 |
33 |
14 |
22 |
% Ethnic/Race
Composition Students (Teachers)1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
African American
|
9 (8) |
8 (5.5) |
14 (10) |
96 (55) |
48 (35) |
97 (20) |
100 (76) |
99 (84) |
6 (4) |
Asian/Asian-American |
18 (8) |
.5 (0) |
.5 (3) |
0 (3) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
.4 (0) |
0 (0) |
Latino/a |
58 (25) |
77.5 (41) |
44 (36.5) |
4 (18) |
9 (3) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
.4 (0) |
0 (0) |
White |
15 (58) |
14 (54) |
38 (50) |
0 (24) |
42(62) |
2 (80) |
(24) |
(16) |
90 (96) |
% Teachers with
Masters Degree4 |
58 |
21 |
33 |
48 |
90 |
50 |
59 |
91 |
45 |
Average Per
Teacher Annual Prof. Development Funding5 |
$509 |
$946 |
$1653 |
$361 |
$420 |
$186 |
$340 |
$1310 |
$641 |
* Information from Johnstone and Melrose is based on school year 1997-1998. From all other schools, information is from school year 1998-1999.
[1] Based on school reports.
[2] Based on school report of students receiving free or reduced lunch.
[3] Based on school report of students entering, plus students withdrawing from school after fall 1996, divided by total enrollment in fall 1997.
4 Percentages for Lewis, Renfrew, Pitlochry, Falkirk, and Carlisle are based on school reports in 1999. Percentages for the four other schools are based on teachers’ response to a survey in 1997 in which these schools' response rates exceeded 78%.
5 Computed as average amount budgeted for professional development, combining district and other funding sources, as reported by the school, for 5 school years beginning fall 93, 94, 95, 96, and 98, divided by number of full time teachers. For Johnstone and Melrose, only the first four years are included.
Bryk, A.S., J.Q.
Easton, D. Kerbow, S.G. Rollow, and P.A. Sebring. A View from the Elementary S: The State of Reform in Chicago.
Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School
Research, July 1993.
Bryk, A.S., P.B. Sebring, D. Kerbow, S.G. Rollow, and J.Q. Easton. Charting Chicago School Reform. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998.
Carbo, M. What every principal should know about teaching reading. Syosset, NY: National Reading Styles Institute,1997.
Clay, M. M. Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann, 1993.
Cohen, D.K. “What is the System in Systemic Reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), (1995): 11-17, 31.
Cohen, D.K., and H.C. Hill. Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, 1998.
Corcoran, T.C. Transforming Professional Development for Teachers: A Guide for State Policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors Association, 1995.
Corcoran, T.C., and M. Goertz. “Instructional Capacity and High Performance Schools.” Educational Researcher, 24(9), (1995): 27-31.
Cunningham, P.M. and R.L. Allington. Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. 2nd edition. New York: Longman, 1999.
Darling-Hammond, L. “Teachers and Teaching: Testing Policy Hypotheses from a National Commission Report. Educational Researcher, 27 (1), (1998): 5-15.
Darling-Hammond, L., and M.W. McLaughlin. “Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. In Teacher Learning: New Policies, New Practices, edited by M. W. McLaughlin and I. Oberman. New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.
Fine, M. Charting Urban School Reform: Reflections on Public High Schools in the Midst of Change. New York: Teachers College Press, 1994.
Fullan, M. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer, 1993.
Fullan, M. G., and S. Stiegelbauer. The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.
Gamoran, A., W.G. Secada, and C.A. Marrett. “The Organizational Context of Teaching and Learning: Changing Theoretical Perspectives.” In Handbook of Sociology of Education, edited by M. T. Hallinan. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum, 2000.
Hallinger, P., and R. Heck “Exploring the Principal's Contribution to School Effectiveness.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), (1998): 157-191.
Hargreaves, A. “Development and Desire: A Postmodern Perspective.” In Professional development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices, edited by T. R. Guskey and M. Huberman. New York: Teachers College Press, 1995.
Hill, P.T., and M.B. Celio. Fixing Urban Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press, 1998.
Hopfenberg, W.S., H.M. Levin, and Associates. The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Joyce, B., and B. Showers. Student Achievement through Staff Development: Fundamentals of School Renewal, 2nd edition. White Plains, NY: Longman, 1995.
Kennedy, M. Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher Education. Research monograph No. 13. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin, 1998.
King, M.B. Professional development to promote schoolwide inquiry. Manuscript submitted for publication, 2000.
Lee, V.E., A.S. Bryk, and J.B. Smith, “The Organization of Effective Secondary Schools.” Review of Research in Education, 19, (1993): 171-267.
Lieberman,
A. “Practices that Support Teacher Development: Transforming Conceptions of
Professional Learning.” Phi Delta Kappan,
(April, 1995): 591-596.
Little, J. W. “Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), (1993): 129-151.
Louis, K.S., S. Kruse, and H.M. Marks. “Schoolwide Professional Community.” In Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality, F. M. Newmann and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Louis, K.S., and H.M. Marks. “Does Professional Community Affect the Classroom? Teachers' Work and Student Experiences in Restructuring Schools.” American Journal of Education, 106(4), (1998): 532-575.
Louis, K.S., and M.B. Miles. Improving the Urban High School: What Works and Why. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.
Lytle, S. J., and M. Cochran-Smith. “Inquiry, Knowledge, and Practice.” In Teacher Research and Educational Reform, 93rd Yearbook, National Society of Education, edited by S. Hollingsworth and H. Sockett. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Miller, B., B. Lord, and J. Dorney. Staff Development for Teachers: A Study of Configurations and Costs in Four Districts. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, 1994.
Newmann, F.M., B. Smith, and E. Allensworth. “School Instructional Program Coherence and Student Achievement.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2000.
O'Day, J., M.E. Goertz, and R.E. Floden. “Building Capacity for Education Reform.” CPRE Policy Briefs: Reporting on Issues and Research in Education Policy, (RB-18). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1995.
Odden, A. “The Costs of Sustaining Educational Change through Comprehensive School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), (2000): 433-438.
Odden, A., and C. Busch. Financing Schools for High Performance: Strategies for Improving the Use of Educational Resources. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1998.
Renyi, J. Teachers Take Charge of Their Learning: Transforming Professional Development for Student Success. Washington, DC: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1996.
Richardson, V. “Teacher Inquiry as Professional Staff Development.” In Teacher Research and Educational Reform, 93rd Yearbook, National Society of Education, edited by S. Hollingsworth and H. Sockett. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Richardson, V. and P. Placier. “Teacher Change.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching (Fourth Edition), edited by V. Richardson. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, in press.
Rowan, B. “Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the Organizational Design of Schools.” In Review of Research in Education, 16, edited by C, Cazden. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1990.
Sarason, S. B. The Culture of School and the Problem of Change, 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1982.
Slavin, R.E., N.A. Madden, L.J. Dolan, and B.A. Wasik. Every child, every school: Success for all. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin, 1996.
Smith, J. “Comparison of Teacher Survey Responses between Schools in the WCER Study of Professional Development to Build School Capacity and Chicago Public Schools; Technical report.” Madison, WI: Unpublished, 1999.
Smylie, M.A. “From Bureaucratic Control to Building Human Capital: The Importance of Teacher Learning in Education Reform.” Educational Researcher, 25(9), (1996): 9-11.
Smylie, M.A.,
D.K. Bilcer, J. Kochanek, K. Sconzert, D. Shipps, and H. Swyers. Getting Started: A First Look at Chicago Annenberg Schools and Networks.
Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School
Research, Chicago Annenberg Research Project, 1998.
Smylie, M.A.,
and A.W. Hart. School leadership for
teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development
perspective. In Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (2nd ed.),
edited by J. Murphy and K.S. Louis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Szabo, M. Rethinking restructuring: Building habits of effective inquiry. In M.W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 73-91). New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.
Notes
[1] For example, Darling-Hammond’s (1998) review shows that students benefit from teachers with more advanced education, Cohen and Hill (1998) showed student achievement can be attributed to professional development that concentrates on teacher knowledge of specific curriculum reforms, and Kennedy (1998) found that professional development concentrating on subject matter content seemed more effective than that concentrating on more general teaching skills.
[2] We recognize that professional community suggests that individual autonomy and judgment are subordinated to collective interests. Negative outcomes may be incurred from this, such as loss of teacher morale or where disagreement and diversity are perceived as a threat, and minority viewpoints are silenced. A careful consideration of the dynamics of professional community and its costs and benefits is beyond the scope of this article. However, our inclusion of schoolwide professional inquiry as a criterion for professional community is intended in part as a protection against group suppression of individual professional judgment and creativity. Based on the present study, the extent to which schoolwide inquiry can serve as a safeguard against potential negative outcomes of increased community is discussed in King 2000.
[3] Several observers have argued that unrelated, episodic programs undermine schools' capacity to boost student achievement (e.g. Bryk et al. 1993; Cohen 1995; Hill and Celio 1998; O’Day et al. 1995; Smylie et al. 1998). There is has not been much empirical research on the effects of program coherence on student achievement, but Newmann et al. (2000) found a strong relationship between program coherence and student achievement in Chicago elementary schools.
[4] The case for substantial investment in professional
development is vulnerable because of an absence of research that links specific
forms of professional development to changes in teacher learning and practice
and to student achievement gains (Joyce and Showers 1995; Richardson and
Placier, in press; Smylie 1996). Several problems prevented us from drawing
conclusions about achievement trends among the schools. Achievement tests varied across all the
schools; achievement tests changed in six of seven schools during the follow-up
period of our study; one school failed to supply follow-up achievement data;
and no school was able to supply information that permitted conclusions on
individual student achievement change over time.
[5] For example, the emphasis in some schools was to
implement programs of curriculum, instruction, and assessment that had been
previously development by external agencies.
Examples include the Success For All program in reading and mathematics,
Core Knowledge, and curriculum to meet state-specific assessment outcomes. In contrast, in other schools, professional
development aimed more toward unique forms of school development such as the
Accelerated Schools Program of strategic planning and inquiry, or school-based
development of assessment outcomes. As discussed later, adoption of
“schoolwide” professional development did not necessarily indicate
that a school addressed all the key aspects of school capacity.
[6] 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. While the schools seemed to be demographically representative of urban schools, our search intentionally sought out schools that used professional development in exemplary ways according to our criteria. One indication that we did in fact locate such schools is that, according to survey data, all the schools selected scored consistently higher on measures of school capacity than a comparable sample of schools in Chicago (Smith 1999).
[7] We defined professional development broadly as any
formally planned activity intended to advance individual and collective staff
knowledge, skills, or expectations in order to improve student learning. Professional development activities include
attending conferences, taking university courses, and, of course, workshops or
other activities involving outside authorities. But in our view, professional
development activities also consist of common planning and release time for
teachers to engage in reflective inquiry, to refine instructional practices,
and to develop curriculum or assessment practices in their schools, as well as
opportunities to network with teachers from other schools.
[8] 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.
[9] Within each report, to draw conclusions about the
extent to which professional development addressed different aspects of
capacity, we relied on three general indicators: program content, staff
statements about the impact of professional development activities, and the
extent of faculty participation in the activities. For evidence of program content (e.g. what kinds of knowledge,
skills and disposition were promoted, and the extent of coherence among programs),
we relied on written materials from the programs, direct observation of program
activities, and interviews with program representatives and school staff most
familiar with the activities. For
evidence of impact, we relied primarily on teachers’ descriptions and
attributions (as reported in the interviews) about professional development
activities in the past few years that had the most positive (or negative)
impact on their teaching and on the school as a whole, and what specific impact
they had. For evidence of the extent of
faculty participation, we relied on teacher and administrator reports of the
number of faculty participating in the main activities, the frequency of the
activities, and amount of time spent.
Direct observation of professional development activities also offered evidence
on extent of faculty participation. For
example, two of the schools, Lewis and Pitlochry, had adopted the comprehensive
reading program of Success For All (SFA).
Program materials, interviews of national SFA staff, and direct
observation of SFA professional development activities indicated extensive
focus on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to reading
instruction. All interviewed classroom
teachers at each school (10 per school) cited the SFA training having major
positive impact on their teaching.
Statements from administrators and teachers, and our direct observations
confirmed that the full staff at both schools was involved in the SFA program
and had about three full days of initial training, with a couple of days of
follow-up training each year connected to implementation checks from the
national SFA organization, along with continuing assistance from the local
school facilitator. We concluded,
therefore, that professional development in these schools addressed to a high
degree teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to classroom
practice.
[10] Prior to discussion of the ratings all three researchers agreed precisely on 63 per cent of the ratings.
[11] Names of schools and personnel are pseudonyms.
[12] Dates refer to months/years of different research visits.
[13] In Figures 2-6 that show these relationships, researchers’ ratings were converted to standardized scores (mean =0, standard deviation = 1) to facilitate comparison among rating scales with different metrics.
[14] On the one hand, this
finding may seem tautological. Since
we rated each school on whether there was strong principal leadership for
professional development aimed at building each aspect of capacity during the two
years of the study, one might assume that these ratings were equivalent to the
ratings for the school’s strongly addressing each aspect of capacity over
time. One might expect a strong
relationship, but it is not a foregone conclusion. It is conceivable that professional development in schools is
strongly affected by other influences not tightly aligned with principal
leadership. For example, a school
district might press a school to fashion a coherent school improvement plan and
to include professional development consistent with all aspects of
capacity. An apathetic principal may
try to ignore these pressures, but it is possible that effective top-down
district leadership, combined with a faculty sympathetic to district policy
could override the principal’s weak commitment to this kind professional
development and thereby produce comprehensive professional development over
time. Or, a principal may be highly
committed to comprehensive professional development and exert clear specific
leadership in that direction, but the principal might encounter serious teacher
resistance and obstacles in district policy that render the leadership
ineffective, leading to an overall low rating for the school on professional
development.
[15] See Table 1. Some schools reported enormous variations from year to year. For each school we averaged amounts over five years, but did not obtain explanations for variations in spending between years. Reports of budgeted funds for professional development are likely to underestimate actual costs, because they usually do not include the costs of time that school administrators and other staff spend conducting school-based in-service, supervision, mentoring or teaching teachers in less formal contexts, including meetings beyond official school hours. Other studies have discussed a number of difficulties in obtaining accurate information on funding for professional development (Corcorcan 1995; Little 1993; Miller, Lord, and Dorney 1994; Renyi 1996).
[16] The two schools not included in the follow-up study showed similar anomalies. Melrose which ranked lowest on professional development addressing all aspects of capacity during the first visit reported the highest expenditures per teacher across the nine schools at that time. Johnstone which ranked only slightly below Lewis and Renfrew on comprehensive professional development at the first visit reported per teacher expenditures well below the mean for the nine schools in 1997.
[17] The estimate was based on the following components of
professional development: (A) Grade level team meetings once a week for 45
minutes during regular teaching hours.
Teachers plan weekly activities for implementing the literacy initiative
and discuss their experiences. (B)
Teachers work with a literacy coordinator who visits classrooms as a peer
coach, meets with grade level teams, assists with literacy assessment, and
maintains a library of resources. (C) Teachers meet in grade level teams or
cross grade groups to work on curriculum development, assessment, inquiry into
pedagogy, etc. during half - day release time twice a month. This can be arranged by extending the
instructional schedule on several days in order to bank the time used for the
release days when students are dismissed early. These first three strategies involve no extra cost, although a
staff position will need to be allocated to fund the literacy coordinator. The final set of activities involve
additional costs. (D) Teachers meet
with outside authorities, visit other schools, work on special team or school
projects that require at least a full day of work, and some staff members
attend local conferences. Eight days a
year are available for this; four are district provided in-service days that
the district reserves for school-based professional development; for the other
four days, substitutes are hired to release teachers. Cost: substitutes for
26 teachers ($100/day x 4 days) = $10,400; lodging, meals and registration for
10 teachers for 2 days (lodging and meals - $125, registration - $25 per
teacher) = $1500; fees, materials and
travel for 4 outside facilitators = $5000. (E) Teachers work on curriculum
development and assessment during the summer for five days for which they
receive stipends of $100 per day. Cost:
$13,000. (F) One school-wide weekend retreat for all staff for 2 days (Fri eve
– Sun noon). Cost: $4000. The total
cost for these activities is $33,900 (about $1300 per teacher).