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 4

District Portfolios' Emphasis on Mathematics and Science

Section Findings

• Nearly all teachers are in districts that use Eisenhower funds for professional development activities in mathematics and science. Although a substantial number of districts use Eisenhower funds for activities outside of mathematics and science, particularly language arts and social studies, teacher participation is still mainly focused on mathematics and science activities.

Like its predecessor, the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program, the reauthorized Eisenhower Professional Development Program focuses primarily on supporting professional development in mathematics and science. But the 1994 reauthorization changed the law to allow districts to use some portion of their Eisenhower funds to support professional development in subject areas outside of mathematics and science. Although the main focus of program-funded activities was to remain mathematics and science, appropriated funds in excess of $250 million could be targeted to other subject areas (Section 2206). During the 1997-98 school year, 22.7 percent of a district?s Eisenhower funds could go to support professional development in other subject areas besides mathematics and science. Furthermore, states and districts could apply for waivers from the federal government to allow them to devote larger percentages of their Eisenhower grants to professional development in other subject areas. Ten states and two districts have been granted such waivers. In addition, states may apply to the Department of Education for "ED Flex" status, which if granted, allows states to grant waivers to LEAs that request them. These waivers may apply to Title II or to other federal programs. As of January 1998, twelve states had been granted Ed Flex status by ED: Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont. Two of our case districts are located in ED Flex states—Ohio and Texas.

As with other parts of the ESEA, the intent of these provisions was to allow school districts flexibility in using Eisenhower funds; to allow professional development to be responsive to the National Education Goals that call for students to demonstrate competence in all major subject areas; and for professional development to prepare teachers to instruct students in these subject areas. Expanding the Eisenhower program to other subject areas besides mathematics and science was also designed, according to ED officials, to allow districts to keep pace with the standards-based reform movement, which has fostered the development of standards in all major subject areas.

Our national survey of district Eisenhower coordinators indicates that although the primary content focus of Eisenhower-assisted activities continues to be on mathematics and science, some districts have begun to fund professional development in other subject areas as well. We asked district coordinators in which subject areas they support professional development using Eisenhower funds. Exhibit 4.1 illustrates the percent of teachers who are in districts that fund activities in mathematics, science, language arts, and several other subject areas, from July 1 through December 1997. As the Exhibit shows, nearly all teachers are in districts that fund professional development activities in mathematics (99 percent) and science (99 percent). Of the other subject areas, 44 percent of teachers are in districts that use Eisenhower funds for language arts, and 26 and 24 percent of teachers are in districts that use Eisenhower funds for professional development in social studies and technology, respectively. In fewer cases, teachers are in districts that use Eisenhower funds to provide professional development in the arts (five percent), special education (four percent), health and physical education (two percent), and other areas (12 percent) (i.e., vocational education, home economics, foreign language, and activities that are appropriate for multiple subject areas such as pedagogy and early childhood programs).

EXHIBIT 4.1
Percent of Teachers in Districts Using Eisenhower Funds to Support Professional Development Activities, by Subject Area (n=353⁴)

As part of our data collection, we asked Eisenhower coordinators to provide us with lists of the Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities that they offered from July 1 through December 1997, and the number of teachers and other staff who participated in each activity. An analysis of these activity lists confirms the findings from the district coordinator surveys, shown in Exhibit 4.1, that districts support Eisenhower activities in subject areas outside of mathematics and science.

Although our survey data and information from the activity lists indicates that districts offer Eisenhower-assisted professional development across a range of subject areas, both sources of information also indicate that teachers participate mostly in mathematics and science-related activities. Results from our survey of Eisenhower coordinators, shown in Exhibit 4.2, illustrate how, for each district, the percent of teacher participations in Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities is distributed across subject areas; the mean percent of participations is listed to the right of each distribution. It is evident from these data that teacher participation is concentrated on professional development focused in mathematics and science. On average, districts report that the highest percent of participations is in mathematics (44 percent) and the second highest is in science (30 percent); 15 percent of participations are in technology alone, or technology in combination with mathematics and science. On average, only 11 percent of Eisenhower-assisted professional development participations are completely outside the areas of mathematics, science and technology.⁵ None of these patterns differ significantly according to district poverty level or district size.

EXHIBIT 4.2
Percent of Participations in Eisenhower-assisted Professional Development Activities, by Subject Area (n=312)

Our case-study data also indicate that the presence of Eisenhower funding in subject areas other than mathematics and science remains quite modest. Furthermore, our district survey and case-study data both suggest that Eisenhower funding is essential for some districts? support of professional development in mathematics and science. All surveyed districts report that Eisenhower funds are important to their ability to provide professional development in mathematics and science, and 45 percent report that "most" or "all" professional development in mathematics and science in their districts is supported with Eisenhower funds (data not shown).⁶ Furthermore, administrators in some case-study districts report that professional development in mathematics and science would be neglected without Eisenhower funds.

For example, in Northtown, Connecticut, all Eisenhower funds go to professional development in mathematics and science, because the Eisenhower coordinator feels that principals are predisposed to spend all unspecified professional development funds on reading. The coordinator suggests that it is important to set aside some funds to ensure the availability of professional development in mathematics and science. Similarly, in Maple City, Ohio, about 80 percent of the professional development activities conducted by the districts? mathematics and science supervisors is Eisenhower-assisted. The supervisors say that if it were not for Eisenhower funds, their professional development activities in mathematics and science would be "in a dismal state."

In general, case districts use their Eisenhower funds for professional development activities in both mathematics and science. However, some case districts choose to emphasize either mathematics or science rather than divide their Eisenhower funds equally between the two subjects. In Texas, for example, the state?s testing program places much greater emphasis on mathematics than on science. Over the course of their school careers, students are tested five times in mathematics, but only once in science. The district coordinator said that the state?s emphasis on mathematics through its assessment system led district administrators to focus Eisenhower funds in the area of mathematics, rather than science. Administrators in Rhinestone, Texas, state that the majority of Eisenhower funds are spent on professional development in mathematics, because the district wishes to improve scores on statewide assessments in mathematics. Thus, perhaps because statewide assessments generally are less common in science than in mathematics, some districts may be more inclined to use Eisenhower funds for professional development in mathematics rather than in science.

In some case districts, however, Eisenhower coordinators report that, without Eisenhower funds, professional development in science would not exist. For example, Eisenhower funds are primarily spent on science activities in East City, New York, where they play a critical role in supporting professional development in science. In East City, the twin goals of literacy and mathematics dominate every school effort. Schools spend an hour every school day on sustained reading, known as the "golden hour." The hour is golden because it is sacrosanct, and cannot be skipped or interrupted. Mathematics receives similar attention; schools spend an hour every school day on mathematics instruction, known as the "silver hour." Locally funded professional development efforts focus on literacy and mathematics as well.

Science, in contrast, is viewed as a luxury in East City, according to district officials. Although districts have science coordinators who organize and conduct professional development activities for the district, local budget cuts have been aimed at these positions. According to district officials, professional development in mathematics receives support from many sources; science now receives reliable support from only one?Eisenhower program funds. Therefore, the district has decided that 90 percent of Eisenhower dollars would fund professional development in science.

Similarly, in Riverside, Washington, Eisenhower funds have been instrumental in a 10-year effort to overhaul the elementary science curriculum, according to interviews with district officials. After a period of planning, the overhaul of the Riverside science curriculum began in earnest in 1990, when many of the district?s teachers attended 30-hour classes at a local university. The classes were intended to help teachers understand concepts in the life, earth, and physical sciences. Then, in response to teachers? reported enthusiasm for the courses, some teachers took advanced classes in these concepts over the next few years. By 1993, a core group of about 30-50 teachers was trained and ready to begin creating kits??curriculum units that include instructions and materials to help teach them. Currently, there are three or four kits at each grade level; teachers build some of the kits, and others are purchased from outside sources. Now, professional development in Riverside involves a "train the trainer" model, in which teachers observe classes taught by those teachers who have expertise in the kits. According to the district Eisenhower coordinator, Eisenhower funds have been instrumental in developing the kit-based science curriculum in the district, and in fostering a strategy for professional development in science that is more coherent than the district?s approach to professional development in other subjects.

Some of our case districts do use Eisenhower funds outside of mathematics and science. Data from these districts suggest that there may be three general strategies that districts take to using Eisenhower funds in other subject areas. One strategy is to hand over Eisenhower resources to the district-level staff responsible for the particular subject area other than mathematics or science. For example, in Commuteville, Virginia, the district?s language arts and social studies specialists received less than five percent of the district?s Eisenhower funds to provide professional development in those subjects. The district had plans to substantially increase Eisenhower support for social studies during the following school year, to over 20 percent of the district?s Eisenhower budget. District officials say that this would begin to provide a better balance in professional development opportunities, because social studies teachers had less access to professional development than did science teachers.

A second strategy for using Eisenhower funds in other subjects is to provide professional development activities that span multiple subject areas. In Rhinestone, Texas, Eisenhower funds support an activity that focuses on both mathematics and language arts. For the activity, a committee of teachers developed "Starstruck Vocabulary," a set of vocabulary words pertaining to mathematics to be used by teachers at each grade level.

A third strategy is to allow schools, in districts that have delegated responsibility for professional development to schools, to elect to use Eisenhower funds in other subject areas. In Richmond, New York, schools apply for Eisenhower funds from the district, and some schools request funds to support professional development in subject areas other than mathematics or science.

Summary: District Portfolios? Emphasis on Mathematics and Science

This section has demonstrated that while some districts use Eisenhower funds to support professional development in areas other than mathematics and science, the professional development activities that teachers participate in the most are focused on mathematics and science. In 1997-98, almost 23 percent of Eisenhower funds could be used for subjects outside of mathematics and science, and in our sample, approximately 11 percent of teachers are in districts that use Eisenhower funds for non-mathematics or science activities. Our results may indicate fewer non-mathematics or science activities than are truly being implemented because we did not collect information on every non-mathematics/science activity that a district offered. However, if expanding the use of Eisenhower funds to support professional development in subjects other than mathematics and science is intended to help provide more flexibility for school districts, our data suggest that school districts may not be taking advantage of that flexibility. In our previous report on a series of exploratory case studies (Birman, Reeve, & Sattler, 1998) we discussed a number of reasons why this might be the case. One reason is that mathematics and science are the program?s traditional focus. A second reason is that the amount of program funding for other subjects, in the absence of a waiver, is insufficient to warrant the shift in focus. Data from our case studies suggest a third reason—that in the perspective of some district administrators, there would be little professional development in mathematics, and even less in science, without Eisenhower funds.

This continuing use of Eisenhower funds to focus on mathematics and science can be considered a positive feature of the program, based on its role in fostering content-focused professional development opportunities. In the last chapter we highlighted the importance of a focus on content in professional development in changing teacher practice, and highlighted literature indicating that professional development that focuses on content knowledge appears to promote student achievement more than "generic" professional development that is not embedded in content. Having a critical mass of funding available in a particular content area over a substantial period of time helps to foster professional development that focuses on content knowledge. The reliability of Eisenhower funding supports districts? ability to engage in long-term planning, and to leverage other funds for professional development (Birman, Reeve, & Sattler, 1998). Thus, the continuity and focus provided by Eisenhower funds appears to have enabled some districts to build the capacity for designing content-specific professional development strategies.

To build on these findings about the subject-matter focus of Eisenhower supported activities, we now turn to a description of district portfolios of Eisenhower-assisted activities.

⁶ The Eisenhower legislation includes a local cost-sharing requirement. At least 33 percent of the cost of district Eisenhower activities must be borne by the LEA from non-Title II sources. These sources may include cash or in-kind contributions, and may come from a variety of sources, including: (1) private, non-federal cash contributions, and (2) release time for teachers, and (3) federal funds. The stipulations on the use of federal funds are (1) that they are used consistently with Title II and the statute under which the funds were appropriated, and (2) that they are used to benefit students and teachers who otherwise would have been served by these funds. Furthermore, the SEA may waive this requirement if the LEA is unable to meet the requirement due to economic hardship, and that the requirement would preclude the LEA's participation in the program (Section 2209). Therefore, the Eisenhower legislation appears to allow Eisenhower funds, combined with other federal funds, to support most or all mathematics or science professional development activities in a district. The legislation also appears to allow Eisenhower funds alone to support most or all mathematics and science professional development activities, if the LEA has obtained a waiver from the cost-sharing requirement. Also, the 1994 legislation no longer includes a requirement that Eisenhower funds must "supplement, not supplant" other funding sources.

-###-

[Chapter 4 - District "Portfolios" of Eisenhower-Assisted Professional Development Activities]

[Structural and Core Features of District Eisenhower Portfolios]