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

Structural and Core Features of District Eisenhower Portfolios

Section Findings

• Nationwide, Eisenhower district coordinators report that almost all school districts use Eisenhower funds to support traditional types of professional development (i.e., in-district workshops and institutes, and out-of-district workshops and conferences). While many districts support reform types of professional development (i.e., study groups, teacher networks, mentoring, committees, internships, individual research projects), teacher participation in these reform activities is generally low.

• Some districts rely more heavily on traditional approaches such as workshops, than on other approaches, but districts vary substantially in the characteristics of the workshops that they support. Some districts support workshops of relatively long duration that emphasize collective participation and foster opportunities for active learning. Similarly, reform types of professional development vary in their duration; many districts offer reform types of activities that span less than one month.

• Large districts are more likely than others to have a higher percentage of participations in reform activities, and to have activities that span a longer period of time, offer more active learning strategies, and more collective participation.

• Almost all districts that offer traditional types of activities use Eisenhower funds to support at least some of them; however, many districts that offer reform types of activities do not use Eisenhower funds to support them.

The Title II legislation stipulates that Eisenhower-assisted activities should be "sustained and intensive," "ongoing," and of "high quality," but it does not provide detailed guidance regarding the characteristics of activities that districts should fund.

In the last chapter, we examined teacher reports of Eisenhower-assisted activities along a number of dimensions. We examined the structural features of professional development activities—traditional vs. reform types, duration and collective participation—and core features—content emphasis, opportunities for active learning, and coherence. We found that all of these dimensions were associated, either directly or indirectly, with enhanced teachers? knowledge and skills and changes in teaching practice. We continue to use this framework in this chapter, but here we focus on how district portfolios of activities offer opportunities for professional development that have the features we found to be associated with teachers? learning and change in teaching practice.

As discussed in Chapter 3, research on teachers? professional development suggests that high-quality professional development is characterized by activities that allow teachers to focus in depth on the content that they are trying to master and on how children learn that content (Cohen & Hill, 1998; Fennema et al., 1996; Hiebert, 1999; Kennedy, 1998; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). High quality also is associated with activities that are long in duration, allow teachers an opportunity to practice and reflect upon their teaching, and are embedded in the ongoing work of the school. Some traditional types of professional development, such as workshops and conferences, are thought to be less likely to have these characteristics (Little, 1993). One reason is that traditional approaches often are isolated from teaching practice and characterized by "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).

Although teachers sometimes value such workshops or conferences because they increase their awareness or rejuvenate their interest (Knapp, Zucker, Adelman, & St. John, 1991), reform types of professional development such as study groups, teacher networks, mentoring, committees or task forces, internships, and individual research projects appear to have the potential for a stronger impact on teaching practice (Darling-Hammond, 1995, 1997b; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Little, 1993; Richardson, 1994; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989; Stiles, Loucks-Horsley, & Hewson, 1996). This is because reform types of professional development seem more likely than traditional types to offer opportunity for reflection, in-depth study, and prolonged focus, and thus are more likely to be associated with changes in teacher practice and improvements in student achievement (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989).

In Chapter 3, we found that these reform activities offer more opportunities for active learning and other core features that reflect high-quality professional development than traditional types of activities do. Our findings in Chapter 3 also indicated that reform types of professional development are more likely to be of substantial duration and allow collective participation, which in turn are related to high-quality core features such as active learning opportunities and a focus on content knowledge. However, according to the teachers in our National Profile, to some extent traditional types of professional development also offer some of these high-quality core characteristics, depending upon their duration and other structural features.

Consequently, in this chapter, we not only describe the district provision and participation rates for traditional and reform types of professional development, but we provide information about the average number of contact hours and span (i.e., in days, weeks, months, or years) of the activities that districts support, and the different types of learning methods used in the activities. In examining the quality of professional development activities in this section, there is one aspect of these activities that we do not focus on directly—their content. We were not able to collect detailed information about activity content from district coordinators because of the wide range of professional development activities that districts provided. Therefore, we focus our discussion on the structural aspects of professional development activities that appear to be related to desirable core features and positive teacher outcomes—whether they are traditional or reform, their average duration and whether they offer opportunities for collective participation. We also present information for one core feature for which we do have district-level information: opportunities for active learning.

The first set of analyses in this section focuses on the districts? use of traditional types of professional development. We then discuss district provision of reform approaches, followed by an analysis of the district?s overall strategy of professional development, which compares Eisenhower-assisted activities in the context of the district?s complete portfolio of professional development activities.

Traditional Types of Professional Development

During our telephone interviews with district Eisenhower coordinators, we asked whether their district supported in-district workshops or institutes from July 1 through December 1997. We then asked whether any of the workshops or institutes were supported, at least in part, with Eisenhower funds. We asked the same questions about out-of-district workshops and conferences. We also asked about a third traditional type of professional development??college courses. But we do not report on this type because the percent of teacher participations in courses supported with Eisenhower funds is negligible. Essentially, Eisenhower funds are very rarely used to support attendance at college courses, according to district coordinators. As we would expect, our findings from our survey of project directors at Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) indicate that IHEs often use Eisenhower funds to support college courses; consequently, this type of professional development is discussed in Chapter 6, where we present an analysis of our data from IHEs.

On our survey, district Eisenhower coordinators indicated how many participants attended Eisenhower-assisted workshops, institutes, or conferences, counting participants more than once if they attended multiple activities. Exhibit 4.3 demonstrates that, by adding the percent of participations in in-district workshops and institutes and out-of-district workshops and conferences, on average, over three-quarters of total participations in Eisenhower-assisted activities (77 percent) are in these two types of traditional activities, with substantially more participations in in-district workshops and institutes than out-of-district workshops and conferences (56 percent compared to 21 percent, respectively).

EXHIBIT 4.3
Percent of Participations in Traditional Types of Eisenhower-assisted Activities (n=353)

Duration.Data from our national survey of district Eisenhower coordinators suggest, however, that in-district workshops are not always "one-shot" events⁷. We asked district coordinators to report on the percentages of in-district workshops and institutes that lasted varying numbers of hours, including follow-up events. As shown in Exhibit 4.4a, coordinators indicated what percent of Eisenhower-assisted workshops or institutes lasted less than four hours, between four and eight hours, between nine and 40 hours, and more than 40 hours.

EXHIBIT 4.4a
Percent of Eisenhower-assisted In-district Workshops and Institutes,
by Contact Hours (n=314⁸)

The range observed across districts on these measures suggests that districts vary greatly in terms of the number of hours of their workshops or institutes. For all four categories of total hours, the minimum reported was zero percent and the maximum reported was 100 percent. In other words, there are districts in which all in-district workshops and institutes last less than four hours, and there are districts in which no workshops or institutes last less than four hours; and this pattern applies to the other three time categories as well.

Given this range of findings, it is clear that some districts support workshops that seem to meet the high-quality professional development criterion of "sustained and intensive." It is also clear that most districts do not.

In addition to asking about the number of contact hours of in-district workshops and institutes, we asked Eisenhower coordinators to report the percent of their Eisenhower-assisted workshops or institutes, including follow-up activities, that were spread across different time periods. The options were one day, two to seven days, eight days to one month, one month to a year, and more than a year.

Exhibit 4.4b shows that district coordinators report that many in-district workshops and institutes span a relatively short period of time. Some districts, however, support workshops and institutes that span a relatively long period of time. These findings demonstrate that, as with the number of hours, span across time in days, weeks and months varies considerably from district to district. As Exhibit 4.4b shows, districts that support in-district workshops and institutes report that more than three-quarters of their workshops extend over less than one month.

EXHIBIT 4.4b
Percent of Eisenhower-assisted In-district Workshops and Institutes, by Time Span (n=314)

Although we do not have information about the quality of the learning that takes place in these activities, they would seem to lack the "sustained" characteristic associated with high-quality professional development. At the same time, almost a quarter of Eisenhower in-district workshops and institutes span over a month or more. Given the common perception of workshops as very short learning opportunities, this is perhaps a surprising finding. It should be noted that in the early 1990s, districts were providing Eisenhower-assisted activities of shorter duration than they are presently—a median of six hours compared to the current median of 15 hours (Knapp et al., 1991). Thus, since the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA and its emphasis on "sustained and intensive" activities, districts have increased the duration of the professional development activities that they provide.

Collective participation. In addition to being too short, both in number of contact hours and time span, traditional professional development also has been criticized as being geared too little toward developing approaches that allow teachers to work together over time and exchange information to enhance their teaching of a subject area (Little, 1993). While high-quality professional development should meet the learning needs of individual teachers, systemic reform emphasizes that teachers in the same school or who teach the same subject ought to have consistent knowledge bases and approaches to teaching and learning (O?Day & Smith, 1993). Collective participation by whole schools, a critical mass of teachers, or particular groups of teachers in a school allows teachers to share effective practices and reinforces new ideas and methods (Newmann et al., 1996); it also provides opportunities for teachers to discuss issues, and offers them a basis for comparing and choosing alternative practices (Ball, 1996). Our study of teachers, reported in Chapter 3, suggests that collective participation in professional development, which offers the opportunity to foster a common body of knowledge among teachers, is associated with teachers? self-reported enhanced knowledge and skills. Further, the authorizing legislation acknowledges its importance by specifying that districts can use Eisenhower funds to support professional development geared not just toward individual teachers? needs but also toward the needs of groups of teachers (Section 2210(b)(3)(A)).

To measure this idea of collective participation, or the extent to which districts provide opportunities for in-district workshops designed for groups of teachers or all teachers in a school, we asked Eisenhower coordinators for whom they designed their workshops. Coordinators indicated whether workshops and institutes were specifically designed for: 1) all teachers in department or grade-level groupings and/or 2) all teachers in a school or set of schools, as opposed to being designed for teachers as individuals or teachers as representatives of their departments, grade level, or school.

Exhibit 4.5a shows that almost three-quarters (74 percent) of teachers are in districts that design in-district workshops and institutes for all teachers in a department or grade, while 58 percent of teachers are in districts that design workshops for all teachers in a school or set of schools. However, while most districts report that they use Eisenhower funds to support workshops and institutes that provide opportunities for collective participation, we do not have data about how frequently districts support workshops and institutes that offer such opportunities.

EXHIBIT 4.5a
Percent of Teachers in Districts in Which Eisenhower-assisted In-district Workshops and Institutes Include Collective Participation (n=314)

We combined and averaged responses to these two questions to create an index of the extent to which districts provide opportunities for collective participation in professional development activities that go beyond the needs of individual teachers; the scale is from zero to one, where zero indicates no opportunities for collective participation, .5 indicates one opportunity for collective participation, and one indicates opportunities for both types of collective participation. Exhibit 4.5b illustrates that while collective participation opportunities do not vary by the poverty level of the district, large and medium districts are significantly more likely to design in-district workshops to offer collective participation than are small districts. Smaller districts may not have enough teachers across grade levels or departments to justify designing activities for them. Also, compared to small districts, large districts may have more funding sources for professional development and therefore have more resources to serve whole schools or large groups of teachers.

EXHIBIT 4.5b
Collective Participation in Eisenhower-assisted In-district Workshops and Institutes, Overall and by District Poverty and District Size (n=314)

Opportunities for active learning. Workshops vary not only in their duration and opportunities for collective participation, but also in the types of opportunities they provide for teachers to practice what they have learned. Active learning is an important dimension of the quality of professional development, as we demonstrated in Chapter 3. While the term "workshop" may evoke the image of a relatively traditional learning format, workshops can vary along this dimension. "At their best, [workshops] provide adult learners with important and relevant new knowledge and opportunities to try new ideas, practice new behaviors, and interact with others as they learn" (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998, p. 88). For any type of activity, active learning opportunities are critical to allow teachers to reflect, discuss, and practice new ideas and methods (Carey & Frechtling, 1997; Carpenter et al., 1989; Darling-Hammond, 1997b; Lieberman, 1996; Schifter, 1996). Although the extent of in-depth, reflective learning depends to a large extent on the content of the curricula, the use of active learning strategies provides one measure of the opportunity for such conceptual learning.

To find out about the opportunities for active learning that in-district workshops and institutes offer to participants, we asked district Eisenhower coordinators which of the following strategies were used regularly in Eisenhower-assisted workshops or institutes to help teachers implement new skills:

• observe professional development providers demonstrating or modeling skills,

• observe other teachers teaching,

• practice under simulated conditions with feedback,

• meet in groups to discuss problems in implementation, and

• be observed teaching in his or her own classroom.

Exhibit 4.6 shows the relative frequency with which districts report using each of these strategies in their in-district workshops and institutes. As the exhibit illustrates, virtually all districts report that they use Eisenhower funds to support workshops in which teachers have to meet in groups to discuss problems with the implementation of new practices and to observe professional development providers demonstrating skills.

EXHIBIT 4.6
Percent of Teachers in Districts That Provide Each of Five Types of Opportunities for Active Learning in Eisenhower-assisted In-district Workshops and Institutes (n=314)

As Exhibit 4.6 shows, fewer districts use Eisenhower funds to provide the other three types of active learning opportunities. Almost three-quarters (74 percent) of teachers are in districts in which district coordinators report that in-district workshops and institutes allow participants to observe others, and almost 70 percent are in districts that report that the workshops and institutes provide opportunities to simulate practice. However, only about half of teachers are in districts (49 percent) that support workshops and institutes that include opportunities to have teachers observed teaching in their own classrooms, perhaps the strategy most likely to relate to change in teacher practice. Since this part of the survey specifically asked coordinators to indicate which activities were conducted "regularly" in workshops, these data provide an approximate measure of the frequency and/or prevalence of these opportunities for active learning in the workshops, from the perspective of district Eisenhower coordinators.

To examine how varied a district?s workshop learning methods are, we developed a scale that represents each district?s provision of active learning opportunities for teachers in Eisenhower-assisted in-district workshops and institutes. The scale is a composite that combines the five strategies for active learning (i.e., observe leaders demonstrate, observe other teachers, simulate practice, discuss problems with the implementation of new techniques, and have their own practice observed).⁹

Exhibit 4.7 shows on average how many of these five relative types of opportunities for active learning districts report using during in-district workshops and institutes. By and large, district coordinators report that Eisenhower-assisted workshops and institutes provide teachers with four of the five types of learning opportunities.

However, Exhibit 4.7 also indicates that the larger the district, the more likely the district is to provide Eisenhower-assisted activities that are characterized by multiple opportunities for active learning. Small districts provide significantly fewer opportunities for active learning than medium or large districts or consortia, and medium districts provide fewer active learning opportunities than large districts. Here consortia outperform small districts, and, as with collective participation, large districts outperform small districts.

Case-study Examples of District Support for Traditional Types of Professional Development

Consistent with our data from teachers reported in Chapter 3, the data from district coordinators presented so far indicate that most school districts continue to rely heavily on traditional types of professional development. For the most part, these activities last less than eight hours and extend over a span no greater than a week. These results appear to indicate that most districts have a way to go in order to meet the intent of the 1994 reauthorization to provide "sustained, intensive" professional development. However, we do not know the proportion of Eisenhower funds that districts spend on traditional types of activities; since reform approaches to professional development may be more expensive per participant than traditional approaches, a district may have more participations in traditional activities, but spend a higher proportion of funds on reform activities.

Further, while most teacher participations are in traditional types of professional development with short durations, the data from district Eisenhower coordinators also indicate that some districts are able to use their Eisenhower funds for traditional professional development activities that have features of high quality.

Our case-study data illustrate how traditional types of professional development can have characteristics of high quality. In Rainforest, Washington, a small, rural district, all Eisenhower funding goes to support one major professional development activity each year: a science institute. The institute employs a fairly traditional format—five days of classes during the summer. However, it extends over the subsequent school year through in-class observations, modeling, and coaching of teachers by the district?s science coordinator, a well-respected leader in her field. The institute also is characterized by collective participation, since all science teachers in the district—that is, all elementary teachers as well as high school science teachers—are expected to participate. Thus all teachers who teach science in the district?s schools will have shared the same learning experience. This is an example of how one district is able to use Eisenhower funds for professional development that has a traditional format, but has features of high-quality professional development.

East City, New York, is another example of a district that invests Eisenhower funds in professional development activities that have a traditional format, but with features of high quality. The primary activities supported by Eisenhower funds in this large, urban district are grounded in the district?s "partnerships" with cultural and science-related institutions. Institutions such as the local botanical gardens and the local zoo have relationships with the district to support science education, and the associated professional development, for teachers in selected schools. The teachers in the schools participate in these activities only if the school itself has demonstrated sufficient administrative support for the partnership, illustrating how the activities are linked to collective participation.

The partnership with the local zoo is characteristic of the district?s approach. The zoo provides multi-session summer workshops lasting 21 to 36 hours, a traditional type of professional development that extends over a much longer-than-average time period. This workshop introduces teachers in selected schools to a full curriculum related to the zoo?s exhibits and activities; thus, the workshops focus on particular schools and emphasize collective participation. Furthermore, the summer workshop is followed up throughout the school year by visits from zoo staff, and access to teaching materials and programs for students.

The examples of Rainforest and East City illustrate how two districts, one a small rural community, and the other a large urban area, have used substantial proportions of their Eisenhower funds to support traditional types of professional development—workshops and institutes—that have features of high-quality professional development. In particular, the activities extend over a longer-than-typical time period, are geared toward collective participation, and, in Rainforest, build in opportunities for observation of teaching practice and coaching. While our survey data indicate that districts that use most of their funding for these types of activities are not the norm, these cases also illustrate that such uses of Eisenhower funds can occur.

Reform Types of Professional Development

We now turn from traditional types of professional development to discuss districts? use of Eisenhower funds to support reform types of professional development. As discussed earlier in this report, some types of professional development have features that make them particularly compatible with systemic reform, because they appear to afford teachers the opportunity to learn content knowledge in greater depth than more traditional types of professional development and give teachers more of an opportunity to reflect on what they have learned. These types of professional development also may afford teachers the opportunity to work together and learn from one another so that they have common understandings about content, and teaching and learning (O?Day & Smith, 1993). Finally, these reform types of professional development also might be more embedded in ongoing activities, so they are more integrated into the daily life of schools than more traditional types of professional development (Elmore, 1996; Little, 1993).

In this part of the chapter we examine how districts differ in their use of Eisenhower funds to support the following reform types of professional development, as defined in Chapter 3: teacher study groups, teacher collaboratives or networks, mentoring, committees or task forces, internships, and individual research projects. We asked about an additional type of professional development—teacher resource rooms. But this reform type of professional development is not discussed in the analyses in this chapter because the percent of teachers who participate in such resource rooms is very small (i.e., .04 percent). Our data show that teacher resource rooms are the least likely professional development activity to be offered to teachers as part of a district?s Eisenhower-assisted professional development portfolio. Therefore, we focus on the other six types of reform activities.

Exhibit 4.8a shows that, according to our national sample of district Eisenhower coordinators, only a minority of teachers are in districts that offer each of the reform types of professional development, and districts vary substantially in which types of reform professional development they support with Eisenhower funds. During our telephone interviews, we asked Eisenhower coordinators whether their district supported participation in each type of reform activity, from July 1 through December 1997, and then asked whether each activity, at least in part, was supported with Eisenhower funds. As Exhibit 4.8a illustrates, over one-third of teachers (37 percent) are in districts that use Eisenhower funds to support teacher networks, mentoring or coaching, and committees or task forces. A smaller percent of teachers are in districts that support study groups (21 percent), internships (four percent) and individual research projects (seven percent). Thirty-five percent of teachers are in districts that do not support any type of reform activity (results not shown).

EXHIBIT 4.8a
Percent of Teachers in Districts That Support Reform Types of
Professional Development Activities with Eisenhower Funds (n=353)

Although nearly two-thirds of teachers are in districts that are trying reform activities (data not shown), relatively few teachers participate in them. We asked coordinators to tell us the number of teachers that Eisenhower funds supported to participate in each type of reform activity, from July 1 through December 1997. As Exhibit 4.8b shows, according to district Eisenhower coordinators nationwide, none of the six reform types of professional development activities accounts for an average of more than five percent of all participations in all Eisenhower-assisted activities. Although an average of four percent and seven percent of teachers are in districts that offer internships and individual research projects, respectively (as illustrated in Exhibit 4.8a), Exhibit 4.8b shows that average teacher participations in these activities is less than one-half of one percent. As we suggested earlier, however, the number of participations in reform approaches may not reflect the proportion of funds devoted to these reform types of activities.

Exhibit 4.8b also illustrates that some districts rely much more heavily than others on these reform types of activities. Some districts report that the majority of teachers who participate in Eisenhower-funded activities participate in reform types of professional development. For example, some districts report as many as 60 to 70 percent of Eisenhower-assisted participations on teacher committees or in study groups. However, many districts have participations well below the average, including districts that have no participations in any reform activities.

EXHIBIT 4.8b
Percent of Participations in Reform Types of Eisenhower-assisted Professional Development Activities (n=353)

Adding the total number of participations in all six of the reform types of professional development provides a measure of the proportion of Eisenhower-assisted participations in reform versus traditional approaches to professional development. Exhibit 4.9a shows that the district average for teacher participations in reform types of professional development is 16 percent. There is substantial variation on this measure, however; a few districts have close to half of total participations in reform approaches, while many others have no participations in reform approaches. Further, the interaction effect between poverty and size is significant.

The main message illustrated by the interactions in Exhibit 4.9b seems to be that while high-and medium-poverty districts have more participations in reform activities as the size of the district increases, low-poverty districts have the same relatively low percent of participations in reform activities regardless of the size of the district. Reform participations in consortia mirror the pattern in large districts, except in high-poverty districts, where consortia have fewer participations in reform activities than do large districts.

EXHIBIT 4.9a
Percent of Participations in Reform Types of Eisenhower-assisted Professional Development Activities, Overall and by District Poverty and District Size (n=353)

EXHIBIT 4.9b
Percent of Teacher Participations in Reform Types of Professional Development Activities, Interaction of District Poverty and District Size (n=353)

This may reflect the fact that large districts are more likely to have teachers available who have the time to participate in reform activities, which sometimes span a longer period of time than traditional activities; that is, large districts are more likely to have department leaders and/or curriculum specialists or other positions that do not require 100 percent classroom time, whereas districts with smaller numbers of teachers may be less likely to have these positions. The findings also may reflect the fact that reform activities typically cost more per teacher than traditional activities. Large districts may have more resources available per teacher, in addition to benefiting from economies of scale, both of which might enable them to offer more reform activities, compared to smaller districts. Low-poverty districts generally do not provide many opportunities for participation in reform activities, possibly because, on average, their students perform better than in other districts. As a result, low-poverty districts may not feel the need to offer reform approaches to professional development.

The total number of types of activities that a district funds is another measure of a district?s portfolio of professional development activities. This measure reflects a district?s emphasis on reform types of professional development and allows us to compare how districts vary in their support of these types of professional development. Since almost all districts support the two traditional types of professional development activities (i.e., in-district workshops and institutes, and out-of-district workshops and conferences), the larger the number of types of activities that the district supports, the more likely it is that they are supporting reform types of professional development activities. Exhibit 4.10 shows the percent of teachers in districts reporting that they use Eisenhower funds to support different numbers of types of activities. We created this measure by adding the number of types of activities that district coordinators said that they supported, at least in part, with Eisenhower funds, from July 1 through December 31, 1997. Of a possible ten types of activities (the two traditional and six reform that we address in this chapter, plus courses and teacher resource centers), districts support an average of 3.4 types of activities with Eisenhower funds. Three percent of teachers are in districts that support only one type of activity (data not shown).

Consistent with our previous findings on across-district variation, some districts use Eisenhower funds to support very few types of activities during the time period in question, while some support as many as eight of the different types. Further, low-poverty districts have significantly fewer types of activities than medium- or high-poverty districts. In addition, as one would expect, small districts support fewer types of activities than either medium or large districts or consortia, and medium-sized districts support fewer activities than large districts. Perhaps the higher the poverty, the greater the perceived need to experiment with multiple and new forms of professional development; and the larger the district, the greater capacity to do so.

EXHIBIT 4.10
Number of Types of Eisenhower-assisted Activities, Overall and by District Poverty and District Size (n=353)

Span. We did not ask coordinators the number of hours that teachers spent in reform activities, since for most of the activities a measure of hours did not seem easy for coordinators to know; for example, the literature suggests that participation in teacher networks often is ongoing. We did ask Eisenhower coordinators to report the time period over which each type of reform activity was typically spread; the choices were 1) one month or less, 2) more than one month but less than six months, 3) between six months and one year, or 4) more than one year. For the analysis, we combined the two middle categories. Exhibit 4.11a shows the percentage of districts reporting "typical" Eisenhower-assisted reform activities that lasted less than one month, one month to a year, and more than a year.

While reform activities typically extend over a relatively long period, this is not always the case. Exhibit 4.11a shows that Eisenhower coordinators report that nearly half (44 percent) of all teachers are in school districts where "typical" study groups last less than one month, and one quarter (25 percent) of teachers are in school districts where typical collaboratives or networks last less than one month. Such activities are generally described in the literature as ongoing, often regularly scheduled opportunities for teachers to meet to discuss students? learning and teacher practice (Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992; Little, 1993). Therefore, it seems surprising that such a relatively high percentage of teachers are in districts that report that typical Eisenhower-assisted activities of these types last for less than a month. However, a majority of teachers are in districts that support reform activities that typically last for more than a month, with the exception of internships. In the case of teacher networks, over a quarter of teachers (29 percent) are in districts that typically offer this activity for longer than a year.

EXHIBIT 4.11a
Percent of Teachers in Districts by Span of Eisenhower-assisted Reform Activities
(n varies by type)

We created a composite variable of the span of all activities, both traditional and reform, where 1=less than one month, 2=one to 12 months, and 3=more than one year. As Exhibit 4.11b shows, professional development activities in large districts extend for a significantly longer span of time than activities in small districts. There are no statistically significant differences for district poverty level. These results support the notion that the greater capacity of larger districts may enable them to design and offer activities that span a greater length of time.

So far we have been focusing on district portfolios of Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities. But Eisenhower-assisted professional development is only one part of a district?s professional development program. Title II provides only a portion of a district?s budget and incentives for professional development. Each district has its larger portfolio of professional development that includes both Eisenhower-assisted activities and non-Eisenhower funded activities. Most school districts offer teachers opportunities for professional development that they fund from state, local, or other federal sources. Our survey data allow us to further examine the whole pattern of district professional development activities, both those funded by Eisenhower and those funded by other sources.¹⁰

We asked district coordinators whether their districts offer each type of professional development activity, and if so, if they support the activity with funds from the Eisenhower program. As Exhibit 4.12 illustrates, over 80 percent of teachers work in districts that support in- and out-of-district workshops and use Eisenhower funds to do so. Less than 10 percent of teachers are in districts that support these workshops but do not use Eisenhower funds for them.

As illustrated in Exhibit 4.13, many districts offer reform types of professional development activities but do not use the Eisenhower funds to support them. For example, of those teachers in districts that support mentoring and committee or task force membership, about half are in districts that use Eisenhower funds to do so. That is, 30 percent of teachers are in districts that use Eisenhower resources to fund mentoring, and 31 percent of teachers are in districts that support mentoring, but not with Eisenhower funds. Similarly, 35 percent of teachers are in districts that fund committees or task forces with Eisenhower resources, and 35 percent of teachers are in districts that offer these activities, but do not use Eisenhower funds for them.

EXHIBIT 4.12
Percent of Teachers in Districts That Fund Workshops with Eisenhower Funds, Other Sources, or Not at All (n=353)

EXHIBIT 4.13
Percent of Teachers in Districts That Fund Reform Types of Activities with Eisenhower Funds, Other Sources, or Not at All (n=353)

Given the goals of the Eisenhower program to support professional development that is sustained, intensive, and of high quality, and given our finding in Chapter 3 that reform types of professional development are associated with other structural and core features of high-quality, these findings may be cause for concern. They may indicate that many districts do not view Eisenhower funds as a resource for precisely the types of activities that the legislation is intended to support.¹¹

It is unclear why districts may choose to use Eisenhower funds disproportionately for workshops rather than for other types of activities. Districts may choose to spend Eisenhower money on workshops for the same reason that workshops are popular generally—because this method allows districts to reach more teachers for less money than would be possible with most of the reform types of activities. Another possibility is that several of the reform activities, such as mentoring and internship/immersion activities, require resources that are greater than those available through the Eisenhower program. In such cases, districts may use other sources of funding for these extended, more expensive activities, and use Eisenhower funds for add-on programs and activities, such as workshops and institutes, which are less typically less expensive. Further, systems may already be in place that channel Eisenhower funds to these traditional professional development activities before any other type of activities, and these systems may be difficult to alter.

Finally, districts may be unaware that they can use Eisenhower funds for some reform types of professional development. In response to questions about whether they used Eisenhower funds for reform types of professional development activities, some district coordinators in our national sample appeared surprised that they could use Eisenhower funds for these purposes.

Summary: Structural and Core Features of Traditional and Reform Activities

Findings from our National Profile of Eisenhower coordinators and from our case-study districts clearly indicate that districts differ substantially in the patterns of activities that they support with Eisenhower funds. Data from district Eisenhower coordinators indicate that most school districts use Eisenhower funds to support traditional types of professional development?that is, in-district workshops and institutes, and out-of-district workshops and conferences. According to district Eisenhower coordinators, these activities generally are eight hours or less, and span over less than a week. In most districts, the great majority of participations are in such traditional types of professional development activities. Further, district coordinators also report that the opportunity for active learning that they are least likely to offer is teachers being observed in their own classrooms, which may be one of the most important methods for changing teacher practice.

However, data from district coordinators indicate that districts vary tremendously in their reliance on traditional types of professional development activities and in the quality of these activities. While most districts have large proportions of participations in such activities, other districts do not. Some districts support workshops that have high-quality structural and core features—by involving greater amounts of learning time, more collective participation, and opportunities for active learning, for example—while workshops in other districts are less likely to have these features.

Similarly, while many districts use Eisenhower funds to support teachers? participation in reform types of professional development activities, teacher participation in these reform types is typically very low. This is even more true in small and low-poverty districts.

This pattern may be partially explained by the fact that several of these reform activities do not lend themselves to large numbers of participants, but rather are designed specifically for small numbers of participants, such as teacher committees. Districts also may not be able to afford support for some of the reform types of professional development for large numbers of their teachers. By their nature, some reform types of professional development may be more costly than traditional types of professional development, or may take more time than teachers have to commit. For example, if districts were to pay teachers for the time involved in formal mentoring relationships that extend over long periods of time, or for ongoing study groups, or for substitutes so that teachers could participate in such activities, they would certainly be more costly than traditional workshop arrangements.

District coordinators? reports about patterns of support for reform activities mirror the data from our teacher survey, reported in Chapter 3. While a notable number of school districts use Eisenhower funds for reform types of professional development activities, most districts tend to support such activities for only a small proportion of their teachers.

These findings appear to indicate that there is room for districts to improve in meeting the intent of the 1994 reauthorization. However, in the absence of information about the use of Eisenhower funds for reform types of professional development activities prior to the 1994 reauthorization, we do not know for sure whether districts are moving in the direction of using Eisenhower funds for reform activities. The previous evaluation of the Eisenhower program did not ask a national sample of districts about their support of reform types of activities (Knapp et al. 1991). If such activities were supported very rarely in the past, then the proportions that we report could represent an increase in districts? reliance on reform types of professional development activities supported by Eisenhower funds.

Further, we found that not all of the traditional activities have characteristics of low-quality professional development, nor are all reform types of high quality. The literature on professional development suggests that traditional types of professional development generally provide less opportunity for reflection, practice, and discussion than do reform types of professional development (Little, 1993; Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989). This means that, in general, traditional types of activities would be less likely than reform activities to foster the types of reflection, in-depth treatment of content, and opportunities for active learning that were envisioned in the 1994 reauthorization. While this may generally be true, as we demonstrated in Chapter 3, our data from district Eisenhower coordinators indicate that the duration of both types of activities varies substantially across districts. In some districts, traditional types of professional development meet for many hours, extend over a long period of time, include multiple learning strategies, and have opportunities for collective participation. And in some districts, reform types of professional development, such as networks or study groups, last only a few weeks. The range across districts in the duration of reform types of activities, and the fact that a substantial proportion of these activities are spread over less than one month, are surprising findings. They lead us to conclude that both traditional and reform types of professional development can have characteristics of high-quality professional development, and that reform types of professional development are not automatically of higher quality than professional development activities with a traditional format.

Our results indicate that although some districts provide "sustained and intensive" professional development, whether structured as a traditional or reform activity, most districts do not. Thus it seems that the legislative intent of the1994 reauthorization has not yet been realized, except in a minority of sites. Districts do not adequately use their Eisenhower funds to support professional development activities that have the features of high quality as identified in the literature on professional development and in the findings from our study of teachers in Chapter 3. Although districts provide activities of longer duration than in the early 1990s (see Knapp et al., 1991), our findings suggest that there is still a great deal of room for improvement. This leads us to the conclusion that federal efforts must continue to encourage districts to support sustained, intensive, and high-quality professional development activities with Eisenhower funds.

¹¹ Our data do not provide information on the proportion of within district funds spent on traditional vs. reform activities.
-###-

[District Portfolios? Emphasis on Mathematics and Science]

[Targeting and Recruitment of Teachers]