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 Eisenhower Program and the Goals of the 1994 Reauthorization

The Eisenhower Professional Development Program was established in 1984, and was reauthorized in 1988 and again in 1994 as Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Improving America?s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994. The Eisenhower Professional Development Program allocates funds through states to school districts and to institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations. In fiscal year 1999, $335 million was appropriated for Part B of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, State and Local Activities. Eisenhower funds are distributed to states according to a formula that weights equally the number of children in the state between the ages of 5 and 17 and the state?s allocation under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.⁷ Eighty-four percent of allocated Title II, Part B funds are distributed to SEAs, with the remaining 16 percent allocated to SAHEs. At least 90 percent of SEA allocations then flow through to local education agencies (LEAs), based on the same formula (equal weights to the school-aged population and the LEA?s Title I, Part A allocation)⁸. LEAs that receive Eisenhower grants under $10,000 are required to form consortia with other such LEAs, unless the SEA waives the requirement (Section 2204(b)). SAHEs distribute at least 95 percent of their Eisenhower allocations by competitive grants or contracts to institutions of higher education (IHEs) or nonprofit organizations (NPOs) that provide professional development to teachers or prospective teachers. Each SAHE develops priorities and guidelines for the awards based on the state plan for improvement in teaching and learning, which it develops collaboratively with the SEA (Section 2205(a)(2)(A)).

Like its predecessor, the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program, the reauthorized Eisenhower Professional Development Program focuses on the professional development of mathematics and science teachers. The reauthorized legislation, however, expands the program by allowing states and districts to use funds in excess of $250 million to provide professional development to teachers in other core academic subject areas (Section 2206). ⁹

In its 1994 reauthorization of the program, Congress made it explicit that Eisenhower-assisted activities should be designed to improve teacher practice and, ultimately, student performance. The law also places particular emphasis on serving teachers in schools with high poverty rates. Furthermore, the reauthorized Eisenhower program embodies policymakers? intention that the program support systemic education reform and deeper learning among teachers. The law incorporates a number of strategies to achieve these goals.

First, and most important, the Eisenhower program is intended to support high-quality professional development activities. Before the 1994 reauthorization, Congress provided limited direction about what characterized high-quality professional development; currently, both the Eisenhower Professional Development Program legislation and the program guidance published by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) emphasize that the Eisenhower program should fund professional development that is sustained, intensive, ongoing, and of high quality. Such professional development should reflect recent research on teaching and learning and should provide teachers and other school staff with the knowledge and skills necessary to provide all students with the opportunity to meet challenging standards (Section 2002(2)). Further, these provisions are reflected in ED?s performance indicators for the Eisenhower program, which fulfill one of ED?s responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). ¹⁰

Second, the Eisenhower program is intended to ensure that professional development activities supported with Eisenhower funds include and target teachers of at-risk students. Reflecting the strong emphasis on education reform efforts and on federal programs to increase access to a high-quality education for all students, the 1994 legislation requires that state applications and local plans must take into account the educational needs of students from historically underrepresented populations.¹¹ The Eisenhower legislation also places special emphasis on addressing the needs of teachers in schools receiving Title I, Part A funds; generally these are schools that have higher rates of poverty than other schools in their districts. Teachers in schools that receive Title I support must be involved in the assessment of local needs for professional development, which is required under Title II (Section 2208(b)(2)). Furthermore, in planning for professional development, SEAs and LEAs must take into account how Title II-funded activities address the needs of teachers in schools that receive Title I support (Section 2205(b)(2)(E) and Section 2208(d)(1)(B)). The Title I statute requires similar coordination with the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. See Section 1119(b)(11)(C).

Third, the Eisenhower program is intended to integrate Eisenhower-assisted activities with other reform efforts. Recent efforts to improve education have focused on ensuring that all aspects of the education system-including curricula, assessments, teacher education-be consistent with one another and be geared toward the same goals. Reflecting this focus, the law requires the alignment of Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities with challenging state and local standards and coordination of supported activities with education reform and professional development efforts funded by federal, state, and local governments and other public, private, and nonprofit organizations and associations. Such integration of Eisenhower-assisted activities with other reform efforts would presumably strengthen the quality of those activities by gearing them to challenging standards and by allowing several funding sources to be combined to design higher quality activities. The law?s requirements for district planning of professional development activities, for co-funding those activities with funds from other programs, and for IHE/NPOs working with schools, school districts, or consortia of districts, all promote linkages between Eisenhower-assisted activities and those funded from other sources. (See Sections 2205(c), 2208(d)(1)(H), 2209 (a), and 2211(a).)

Finally, the reauthorized Eisenhower program contains provisions intended to foster purposeful planning and ongoing tracking of progress by states and localities, supported by state and district performance indicators. A number of the law?s requirements encourage SEAs and LEAs to engage in a continuous improvement process, grounded in careful goal-setting and in monitoring progress. The 1994 law establishes detailed requirements for state and local planning under the Title II program. States and localities receiving Title II funds must develop plans to improve teaching and learning. These plans must be based on needs assessments, must be developed through a participatory process, and must describe how the strategy for professional development will meet identified needs (Sections 2205(b)(2), 2208(c)(2), and 2208(d)(1)). ¹²

An important aspect of local planning is the participation of teachers in decisions about the use of Eisenhower Professional Development Program funds. The reauthorization legislation specifically states that LEAs

shall use not less than 80 percent of such [Eisenhower Professional Development Program] funds for professional development of teachers, and, where appropriate, administrators, and, where appropriate, pupil services personnel, parents, and other staff of individual schools in a manner that (A) is determined by such teachers and staff; [and] (B) to the extent practicable, takes place at the individual school site (Section 2210(a)(1)).

This provision reflects the Congress? conclusion that decisions about professional development are best made by its participants. At the same time, the law also states that this professional development should be consistent with the LEA?s overall plan for professional development (Section 2210(a)(1)(C)).

Some of the key goals of the Eisenhower program are summarized in a set of performance indicators prepared by ED, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA requires ED to establish annual, quantifiable performance goals and indicators for ED programs as part of a strategic planning process. The current indicators for Part B of the Eisenhower program reflect the intent of the 1994 legislation (U.S. Department of Education, 1999c):

Objective 1	Classroom instruction is improved through effective professional development.
	Indicator 1.1 Teachers' skills and classroom instruction. By 1998, over 50 percent of a sample of teachers will show evidence that participation in Eisenhower- assisted professional development has resulted in an improvement in their knowledge and skills, and by 2000, over 60 percent will show such evidence. By 1999, over 50 percent of a sample of teachers in selected sites will show evidence that participation in Eisenhower-assisted professional development has resulted in an improvement in classroom instruction.
Objective 2	High-quality professional development and state policy are aligned with high state content and student performance standards.
	Indicator 2.1 District-level professional development. By 1998, over 50 percent of teachers participating in district-level or higher education Eisenhower-assisted professional development will participate in activities that are aligned with high standards. By 2000, over 75 percent will.
Objective 3	Professional development is sustained, intensive, and high quality and has a lasting impact on classroom instruction.
	Indicator 3.1 High quality. By 1998, over 50 percent of teachers participating in district-level, Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities will participate in activities reflecting best practices, including a focus on continuous improvement. By 2000, over 75 percent will.
	Indicator 3.2 Sustained professional development. By 1998, 35 percent of teachers participating in district-level, Eisenhower-assisted activities will participate in activities that are a component of professional development that extends over the school year. By 2000, over 50 percent will.
Objective 4	High-quality professional development is provided to teachers who work with disadvantaged populations.
	Indicator 4.1 High-poverty schools. The proportion of teachers participating in Eisenhower-assisted activities who teach in high-poverty schools will exceed the proportion of the national teacher pool who teach in high-poverty schools.
	Indicator 4.2 Context (not limited to any single program): Teachers. Teachers in high-poverty schools will participate in intensive, sustained, high-quality professional development at rates comparable to or higher than the rates for teachers in other schools.
Objective 5	Effective management of the Eisenhower Program at the federal, state, and local levels supports systemic reform.
	Indicator 5.1 Federal guidance and assistance. The number of Eisenhower state coordinators who report that ED guidance and assistance are timely and helpful will increase.
Objective 6	Measurement of integrated planning and collaboration.
	Indicator 6.1 By 1998, 50 percent of all states will have developed performance indicators for integrated professional development across programs (including Eisenhower) in order to support systemic reform and will have data-collection systems in place. By 2000, 75 percent will have these indicators.
	Indicator 6.2 By 2000, over 80 percent of states will report that they coordinate and collaborate with Title I State coordinators when they develop their plans for professional development.

This evaluation of the Eisenhower program addresses Objectives 1 through 4. This report is designed to assist policymakers in determining whether and how program-funded activities contribute to the nation?s efforts to improve schools, and to lay the foundation for deliberations about the Eisenhower program during the current reauthorization of ESEA. The next section describes the types of information collected in the evaluation in order to provide a comprehensive and accurate picture of the Eisenhower program.

¹² When applying for the Title II funds, states may elect either to submit a program-specific application to ED or to include Title II in an ESEA "consolidated application". If the state submits a Title II-specific application, it must include statutorily required information about the needs assessment it has conducted and its plan to improve teaching and learning. (See, generally, section 14302.) If the state submits a consolidated application, it need not include this information on the application. Similarly, states can require LEAs to submit either a Title II specific or consolidated application. If the state requires a Title II-specific application, it must include statutorily required information about its plan for professional development and its needs assessment. If the state requires a consolidated application, it need not include this information in that application unless the state requires it to do so. Regardless of the content of state- or LEA-consolidated applications, ED has made it clear to states and districts that, if they include the Eisenhower Professional Development Program in consolidated applications, they still must implement all planning requirements that apply to the program. However, information about planning and needs assessments need not be included in the consolidated application itself ot otherwise prepared in the formal planning document.

-###-

[The Policy Context for the Reauthorized Eisenhower Program]

[Approach to Evaluation of the Eisenhower Program ]