A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Designing Effective Development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program - December 1999

Chapter 1

The Policy Context for the Reauthorized Eisenhower Program

The Eisenhower legislation is part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and Congress in 1994 took a dramatically different direction for the ESEA?s programs. In particular, the focus of Title I, the cornerstone of the ESEA, was to change from a program funding "remediation" activities to one that aims at achieving high standards for all students.² Furthermore, the "new" Title I was intended to encourage systemic educational reform through development of state standards and assessments, as well as by supporting school-based education reform through easing provisions for schoolwide projects. As part of ESEA, the Eisenhower program also was re-shaped in 1994 to help move the nation?s children toward high standards by improving the quality of teaching.

These dramatic changes in federal education programs responded, in part, to public concerns about the poor performance of U.S. students compared to those in other industrialized countries. In mathematics and science, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) suggests some explanations for the performance of U.S. students.³ The TIMSS studies found that, while U.S. children generally have grasped "basics" like arithmetic, many are not learning advanced mathematics and science (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1996; Schmidt & Valverde, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 1998b). The studies also found that curricula in U.S. "schools lacks coherence, focus and rigor, compared to that of other countries" (U.S. Department of Education, 1998b, p.10). Because the curriculum frameworks of many states cover many topics-more than are taught in most other TIMSS countries-teachers often cover topics superficially, without spending enough time for students to master the topics. The curriculum within the U.S. also is less demanding than that of many other TIMSS countries. For example, middle school students in the U.S. are reviewing arithmetic and introductory science while their peers in other countries are studying algebra and geometry, physics, and chemistry.⁴ While curricula that emphasize basic skills without also emphasizing more advanced skills may have been sufficient in a manufacturing economy, such curricula appear not to be sufficient in today?s or tomorrow?s work place.

Addressing deficiencies in student performance and in the curricula that students cover requires improvements at all levels of the U.S. education system (Fuhrman, 1993; Goertz, Floden, & O?Day, 1996; Kahle, 1997; Lee, 1997; Loucks-Horsley, 1997; Smith & O?Day, 1991; Webb, 1997a, 1997b). Such improvements are even more necessary because systemic reform efforts are attempting to raise standards of performance for all children, especially those from diverse backgrounds who have traditionally performed poorly in school. Preparation of all children for an increasingly knowledge-based economy requires a dramatic overhaul of all aspects of the education system, according to proponents of systemic reform.

In response to public concerns about education, state and local governments have taken steps to increase children?s achievement in school. Many states and school districts have adopted rigorous content standards, as well as student performance standards, which describe the breadth and depth at which students should master content (American Federation of Teachers, n.d.; Blank & Pechman, 1995; National Education Goals Panel, 1995; Porter, Archbald, & Tyree, 1991; Porter, Smithson, & Osthoff, 1994). The federal government, too, has moved to support states in their development of content and student performance standards. In addition to the Improving America?s Schools Act of 1994 which reauthorized the ESEA, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, enacted in 1994, provides grants to states to support systemic reform initiatives. The National Science Foundation (NSF) also has invested heavily in supporting systemic education reform initiatives in mathematics and science in states, urban and rural areas, and school districts.⁵

National, state, and local efforts to improve education are intended to create a fundamental shift in what students learn and how they are taught. The success of such ambitious education reform initiatives hinges, in large part, on the qualifications and effectiveness of teachers. Thus, if children are to achieve at levels demanded by the high standards adopted by states and districts, teachers will have to help them do so. Teachers are necessarily at the center of reform, for they must carry out the demands of reform in the classroom (Cuban, 1990). As a result, teacher professional development is a major focus of systemic reform initiatives (Corcoran, 1995; Corcoran, Shields, & Zucker, 1998).

To carry out the demands of education reform, teachers must be immersed in the subjects they teach, and have the ability both to communicate basic knowledge and to develop advanced thinking and problem-solving skills among their students (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998; National Commission on Teaching and America?s Future, 1996). The central elements of systemic reform-high standards, curriculum frameworks, and new approaches to assessment aligned to those standards-generate new expectations for teachers? classroom behaviors, as well as for student performance (Bybee, 1993; National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, 1991; National Research Council, 1996; Webb & Romberg, 1994). To help students learn complex knowledge and skills, teachers must understand the disciplines that they teach, as well as how children learn these disciplines.

However, while teachers generally support high standards for teaching and learning, many teachers are not prepared to implement teaching practices based on high standards (Cohen, 1990; Elmore & Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 1996; Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthy, 1996; Grant, Peterson, & Shojgreen-Downer, 1996; Sizer, 1992; Muncey & McQuillan, 1996). Many teachers learned to teach using a model of teaching and learning that focuses heavily on memorizing facts, without also emphasizing deeper understanding of subject knowledge (Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1993; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Porter & Brophy, 1988). Even when they agree that new teaching approaches are needed, teachers often are unaware that their own knowledge and skills, or teaching practices, are inconsistent with high standards, or that they may not have received enough preparation to implement new approaches effectively.

The continual deepening of knowledge and skills is an integral part of any profession. Teaching is no exception (Shulman & Sparks, 1992; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1989). In the context of the ambitious education reforms being undertaken across the nation, the quality of teachers? professional development has come under increased scrutiny. A large body of literature has emerged focusing on what effective professional development for teachers "looks" like. The literature suggests that traditional approaches to professional development, such as short workshops or attendance at conferences, may foster teachers? awareness or interest in deepening their knowledge and skills. However, such approaches to professional development appear insufficient to foster learning that would fundamentally alter what teachers teach or how they teach it. Yet, for many of the nation?s teachers, professional development continues to be characterized by fragmented, "one-shot" workshops at which teachers listen passively to "experts" and learn about topics that are not essential to teaching (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1996). A national survey conducted in 1998 reports that, depending on the subject of the professional development activity, between 44 and 81 percent of teachers reported that professional development activities lasted a total of one to eight hours during the previous 12 months (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a). Even when the professional development focused on "in-depth study in the subject area" of teachers? main teaching assignment, only 56 percent of teachers reported more than eight hours of professional development. Further, a study of professional development in NSF?s statewide systemic initiatives found that activities were often of insufficient duration (Corcoran, Shields, & Zucker, 1998).

Professional development that has a substantial number of contact hours and is sustained over a long period of time is thought to have a stronger impact on teaching practice and to be more consistent with systemic reform efforts than professional development of limited duration (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Hiebert, 1999; Lieberman, 1996; Little, 1993; Richardson, 1994; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley 1989; Stiles, Loucks-Horsley, & Hewson, 1996). Conventional wisdom suggests that certain types of professional development activities are more likely than others to offer such sustained learning opportunities. These approaches include: study groups, in which teachers are engaged in regular, structured, and collaborative interactions around topics identified by the group; coaching or mentoring arrangements, where teachers work one-on-one with an equally or more experienced teacher; networks, which link teachers or groups, either in person or electronically, to explore and discuss topics of intent, pursue common goals, share information, and address common concerns; and immersion in inquiry, where teachers engage in the kinds of learning that they are expected to practice with their students (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). Compared to workshops, these types of activities are typically thought to be longer, to allow teachers the opportunity to practice and reflect upon their teaching, and to be more embedded in ongoing teaching practices. A 1998 national survey found that many teachers believe that job-embedded, collaborative professional development activities, such as common planning time, being formally mentored by another teacher, or networking with other teachers outside the school, are more helpful than traditional forms of professional development (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a).

Although there is a large literature on professional development, little high-quality research has been conducted on the relationship between characteristics of professional development and change in teachers? classroom teaching practice, and still less has been conducted on the relationship between characteristics of professional development and gains in student achievement. The limited evidence available suggests that the most important aspect of high-quality professional development activities is the degree to which they focus on the content that teachers must teach. Two recent studies of professional development a research synthesis of professional development in mathematics and science commissioned for this evaluation, as well as a study of professional development and student mathematics achievement in California came to the same conclusion. These reviews found that professional development focusing on subject matter content and how children learn that content is effective in boosting student achievement. Kennedy (1998) found that professional development for teachers that focuses on how their students learn a particular mathematical or scientific idea was more effective in boosting these students? achievement than professional development that focused on general principles that apply to teaching all mathematics or science. Cohen and Hill (1998) found that mathematics teachers who participated in ongoing curriculum-centered professional development were more likely to report reform-oriented teaching practices in mathematics than teachers who did not participate in such professional development, and that such practices were associated with larger schoolwide gains in students? mathematics performance.

The need for high-quality professional development that focuses on content and how students learn content is all the more pressing in light of the large number of teachers who teach outside of their areas of specialization (National Commission on Teaching and America?s Future, 1996). In 1998, 12 percent of science teachers of students in grades 7-12, and 18 percent of mathematics teachers in these grades, had neither a major nor a minor in their main teaching assignment (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a). The severity of this problem varies by state, with some states having very high percentages of teachers teaching outside their areas of specialization (Ingersoll, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 1999a).⁶ This situation is especially true of teachers who teach at-risk students and those who teach in high-poverty schools. In 1998, teachers lacking a major in their primary assignment taught almost a third of the mathematics classes in high-poverty schools, compared to 14 percent of classes in low-poverty schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a). Teachers who have not specialized in the subjects that they teach must often teach unfamiliar content. Common sense and research make clear that this is a recipe for disaster.

The Eisenhower Professional Development Program was designed to help address all of these issues. The program?s emphasis is to support professional development designed to help teachers meet the new demands of teaching to high standards. Yet, prior to the 1994 reauthorization, program-funded activities were not generally designed to provide the types of ongoing, in-depth learning opportunities likely to deepen teachers? knowledge and skills, or change classroom practice. The last evaluation of the Eisenhower program, conducted in 1988-89, described it as a "modest investment" that maximizes breadth of coverage across a large number of teachers rather than depth of professional development (Knapp, Zucker, Adelman, & St. John, 1991). That evaluation indicated that district-supported activities, which account for the vast majority of program funds, tended to be one-time in-service training events, averaging six hours in length. In fact, in one quarter of the nation?s districts, typical activities lasted less than four hours. Not surprisingly, therefore, the evaluation found few instances of professional development that focused on teachers? content knowledge during nearly 40 site visits to school districts in 1988-89. The pattern of using district Eisenhower funds for short-term professional development activities was recently confirmed by an analysis of program performance reports; in 1994-95, 54 percent of Eisenhower-assisted district activities provided six hours or less of professional development per participant (Donly & Gutmann, 1997). By contrast, Eisenhower activities sponsored by SAHE grantees in 1988-89 typically were more intensive, averaging about 60 hours per participating teacher. These SAHE-sponsored activities also were more likely to focus on mathematics and science content (Knapp et al., 1991). The 1994 reauthorization of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program represents a strong effort to move all program-funded activities toward sustained, intensive, high-quality professional development that supports high academic standards, with a special emphasis on teachers of students in high-poverty schools.

⁶ While teaching out-of-field is clearly an important issue, most statistics on out-of-field teaching do not consider the proportion of time spent teaching out-of-field, and this may overstate the problem.

-###-

[Chapter 1 - Overview of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program and the Design of the National Evaluation]

[The Eisenhower Program and the Goals of the 1994 Reauthorization]