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

Targeting and Recruitment of Teachers

Section Findings

• Districts report that they target professional development activities more to teachers in low- achievement, high-poverty, and Title I schools than to other groups of teachers. High-poverty districts and large districts target these groups of teachers significantly more than other districts.

• Almost all teachers come to participate in Eisenhower-assisted activities through volunteering or principal selection.

• Nearly all districts publicize their professional development activities, and most also try to increase participation by tailoring the focus of activities to specific groups of teachers and creating incentives for participation.

So far, we have discussed differences in professional development opportunities among districts according to their emphasis on particular subject matter, their focus on traditional versus reform types of activities, and the structure and core experiences of these activities. Two other important factors that affect teachers? professional development opportunities are the extent to which districts target activities toward specific groups of teachers and their methods of recruiting teachers to participate in activities. In Chapter 3, we found that, despite the program?s formula that targets more funding to higher poverty districts, and the legislative emphasis on serving teachers of special populations of children, such teachers were only somewhat more likely to participate in Eisenhower-assisted professional development than would be expected from their numbers in the population as a whole.

The Eisenhower legislation, like other federal, state, and local efforts, aims to improve the educational outcomes of all students, including those who historically have not had access to high-quality educational opportunities, or who have had greater difficulty succeeding in school. Several Title II provisions emphasize that activities for teachers funded by the Eisenhower program should benefit students from diverse backgrounds. The law states as one of its purposes the goal of "meeting the educational needs of diverse student populations," including economically disadvantaged students (Section 2002(2)(D)).

In addition, the local plan for professional development, required in the legislation, must describe how local professional development activities meet the needs of these students. The law contains a number of provisions that share a particular emphasis on activities that meet the needs of teachers who work in school with high rates of poverty and low achievement, and with diverse student populations.

In particular, local applications for Title II funds must include a description of how Title II activities will be designed to address the needs of teachers who are working in schools that receive assistance from the federal government under Part A of Title I (Section 2208(d)(1)(B)).

The rationale for these provisions is that teachers of special populations of students are more likely than other teachers to have little teaching experience; be working at schools with fewer resources; have larger classes; have behavior, safety, and other non-academic issues to confront; and have students who are more challenging to teach than more advantaged students (Darling-Hammond, 1997a; U.S. Department of Education, 1999a). Teachers of disadvantaged students often do not feel prepared to meet the needs of their students (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a). Thus, these are often the teachers who most need professional development (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1997b). Although they may be more in need of professional development than others, teachers of students in schools with high rates of poverty, and low-achievement, or Title I schools, sometimes have less opportunity to participate in certain types of professional development than teachers of students in more advantaged schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a).

In this section of the chapter, we present data that demonstrate the extent to which districts address the legislative emphasis on targeting and recruiting specific groups of teachers to participate in Eisenhower-assisted professional development opportunities. First we show how districts choose different groups of teachers to target, then we present data about the different ways that teachers come to participate in Eisenhower professional development activities. Finally, we show how districts vary in the type and number of methods that they use to increase teacher participation in Eisenhower-assisted professional development opportunities.

Targeting Teachers of Special Populations of Students

The district can influence who participates in professional development activities in several ways. One way is by focusing professional development opportunities on a particular subject area. As we illustrated in the first section of this chapter, virtually all school districts target their Eisenhower-assisted activities on mathematics and science and, therefore, target teachers of these subjects.

Another way districts influence what type of teachers participate is by focusing district recruitment efforts on specific groups of teachers. To find out whether districts are targeting teachers of special needs and disadvantaged students as outlined in the legislation, we asked district Eisenhower coordinators to indicate whether they placed "no particular emphasis," "some emphasis," or a "strong emphasis" on recruiting the following types of teachers: 1) teachers from Title I schools, 2) special education teachers, 3) teachers of limited English proficiency students, 4) teachers from schools with low achievement levels, and 5) teachers from high-poverty schools (50 percent or more students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch).¹²

As Exhibit 4.14 illustrates, similar percentages of teachers are in districts that report placing some or a strong emphasis on recruiting teachers from Title I schools (58 percent ), schools with low achievement (66 percent), and high-poverty schools (58 percent). Sixty percent of teachers are in districts where the Eisenhower coordinator reports placing some or a strong emphasis on recruiting special education teachers, and 47 percent of teachers are in districts that place an emphasis on recruiting teachers of students with limited English proficiency. Thus, a majority of district coordinators say that they are targeting their professional development programs to the particular groups of teachers emphasized in the legislation.

EXHIBIT 4.14
Percent of Teachers in Districts That Report Placing No, Some, or a Strong Emphasis on Recruiting Teachers of Special Student Populations (n=363)

Further analysis of these data indicates that districts that emphasize recruiting teachers of one special population group (e.g., special education teachers) tend to emphasize recruiting teachers of other special populations as well. As Exhibit 4.15 illustrates, correlations of the emphasis given to recruiting different groups of teachers range from a moderate .53 to a high of .8. (A coefficient of one indicates perfect correlation.) In other words, some districts tend to emphasize recruiting multiple types of teachers; other districts do not tend to target at all.

We formed a scale to measure the extent of district targeting efforts by adding district responses to how much emphasis they placed on recruiting the different groups of teachers, where 1="no particular emphasis," 2="some emphasis," and 3="strong emphasis." As Exhibit 4.16 shows, the extent to which districts try to recruit various groups of teachers varies significantly by both district poverty and size. High-poverty districts are more likely to recruit teachers of special populations than either low- or medium-poverty districts. Similarly, large districts are more likely to recruit particular types of teachers than small- or medium-sized districts.

EXHIBIT 4.16
Extent of Recruitment of Teachers of Special Populations of Students, Overall and by District Poverty and District Size (n=363)

How Teachers Come to Participate in Eisenhower-assisted Professional Development Activities

Teachers can come to participate in Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities in a number of ways. For instance, they can volunteer to participate, they can be selected to attend by their principals, they can take turns participating, or they can be selected to participate by the professional development provider. An evaluation of NSF?s Statewide Systemic Initiatives noted that heavy reliance on teachers to volunteer for high-quality professional development activities is "at best only a part of a strategy for systemic reform of mathematics and science education" (Corcoran, Shields, & Zucker, 1998). One reason is that districts may not be able to shape the incentives and constraints that determine which teachers volunteer. Therefore districts that rely on other methods to increase teacher participation besides volunteering may be more likely to access teachers who otherwise would not participate. With this in mind, we asked district coordinators to indicate what percent of the teachers in Eisenhower-assisted activities come to participate in each of the following ways: 1) volunteering, 2) selection by their principal or other administrator, 3) selection by providers, 4) rotation, and 5) other ways.

Exhibit 4.17 illustrates that the vast majority of teachers participate in Eisenhower-assisted professional development either by volunteering (68 percent) or by being selected by the principal (24 percent). The exhibit also shows that districts vary tremendously in their use of these different methods of drawing teachers to participate in Eisenhower-assisted professional development opportunities. A good number of districts rely exclusively or nearly exclusively on volunteers. And though by and large districts do not rely heavily on rotation or selection by provider to attract teachers to participate, some districts use these methods extensively.

The heavy reliance by districts on volunteers may be one explanation of the fact that teachers of students with the greatest needs do not participate in Eisenhower-assisted activities in greater numbers, despite districts? reported emphasis on recruiting such teachers. Analyses (not shown) indicate that teachers in high-poverty schools are no more or less likely to volunteer for professional development than other teachers; thus, it may be more effective to use other strategies to increase the participation of teachers of high-need students. Designing activities for whole schools may be one way of addressing this problem, while also achieving the benefits of collective participation. However, a whole-school approach may not be effective in some cases; successful participation in professional development activities demands a certain level of commitment by teachers, and recruiting volunteers helps to ensure that teachers are willing to devote the time and effort required to benefit from the activity.

EXHIBIT 4.17
Percent of Participations in District Eisenhower-assisted Activities, By How Teachers Come to Participate (n=358¹³)

Source: Telephone Survey of District Eisenhower Coordinators, Spring 1998. How to read this exhibit: The first distribution shows that on average, districts report that 68 percent of teacher participations are volunteers. Each dot represents one district. As the number of districts at one data point (or value) increases, the dots form a horizontal line that increases in length. Each distribution represents the distribution of districts for that particular category. The number to the right of the distribution is the mean.

Methods of Increasing Teacher Participation

As part of targeting particular groups of teachers for participation in Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities, districts can take a number of steps to ensure that teachers have information about these activities. We asked district coordinators to indicate the ways in which they try to increase the participation of teachers, paraprofessionals, or other staff. District coordinators indicated whether they 1) publicize activities, 2) tailor the focus of professional development toward the needs of special populations, 3) use incentives, 4) use other strategies, or 5) use no special strategies. The question did not ask how often districts used these strategies, but only whether they used a particular strategy.

Exhibit 4.18 shows the percent of district Eisenhower coordinators who report undertaking different methods to increase participation in Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities.

EXHIBIT 4.18
Percent of Teachers in Districts That Use Various Strategies to Increase the Participation of Teachers in Eisenhower-assisted Activities (n=363)

Source: Telephone Survey of District Eisenhower Coordinators, Spring 1998. How to read this exhibit: The first bar shows that 96 percent of teachers are in districts that try to increase teacher participation by publicizing their professional development activities. Each bar and the number on top of it represent the percent of teachers in districts for each category.

Most districts use several methods to increase teacher participation, but some methods are used more than others. Most teachers (96 percent) are in districts that publicize their professional development activities, 80 percent of teachers are in districts that tailor the focus of the activities to special populations, and 72 percent are in districts that use incentives to increase participation in professional development activities. The finding that 80 percent of teachers work in districts that report tailoring the focus of professional development activities toward the needs of special populations goes hand-in-hand with the findings reported earlier that a majority of teachers are in districts that report placing either some or a strong emphasis on including teachers in low-achievement, high-poverty, and Title I schools, and, to a lesser extent, special education teachers and teachers of LEP students. Nevertheless, neither developing a tailored focus, nor the other strategies designed to increase the participation of teachers, appear to be effective in fostering the actual participation of teachers in high-poverty or high-minority schools, as reported in Chapter 3.

Summary: Targeting and Recruitment of Teachers

Our data show that most teachers are in districts that report making an effort to target teachers of students in schools with particular risk factors, such as high poverty or low achievement. Further, most teachers work in districts that use several strategies for informing teachers about professional development opportunities. Despite these efforts, and despite greater funding to districts that have large numbers of high-poverty students, teachers of students in high poverty are only slightly more likely than others to participate in Eisenhower-assisted activities. These findings question the actual implementation and effectiveness of recruitment strategies. Although in our national survey, district coordinators reported extensive targeting, in our six exploratory case sites (see Birman, Reeve, & Sattler, 1998), Eisenhower coordinators followed the approach of making Eisenhower-assisted activities available to all teachers, without making special efforts to target teachers of at-risk children. Our in-depth cases also did not find explicit strategies to recruiting teachers from high-poverty schools, or teachers of other at-risk students. These apparently mixed findings suggest that more in-depth questioning of Eisenhower coordinators may reveal less implementation of targeting and recruiting strategies than might be represented by our telephone survey results.

Even if districts do engage in targeting practices, the practices do not seem to be very effective. One reason that teachers of high-need students appear not to participate as extensively as district targeting strategies might suggest, could be the heavy emphasis that districts place on teachers? volunteering for professional development activities, since districts may be restricted in their ability to influence which teachers volunteer. These teachers in high-poverty schools may feel less comfortable taking time away from their students to attend professional development activities, given the academic challenges that their students face, as well as the behavior, safety, and non-academic problems that they may confront.

It would be helpful to have supplemental data that provide a measure of the quality of districts? targeting and recruiting efforts, as well as data about what might encourage teachers to volunteer for professional development. Even without this information, our findings suggest that policymakers and program administrators should increase efforts to target teachers of at-risk students, and develop effective methods of accomplishing this important goal.

---

¹² A teacher can work at a high-poverty school whether or not he or she is in a high-poverty district. A district is categorized as high-poverty based on the percent of low-income students in the district; within a district, schools vary in the number of low-income students who attend them, and low-income students are often concentrated in particular schools within a district.

¹³ Of our total sample of 363 district Eisenhower coordinators, five did not answer this survey question; therefore the sample size for this variable was 358.

-###-

---

[Structural and Core Features of District Eisenhower Portfolios]

[Differences in District Portfolios of Eisenhower-Assisted Activities by District Poverty and Size]