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 5

Building a Vision for Professional Development: Alignment with Standards and Assessments, and Coordination with Other Programs

Section Findings

• Most of the nation's teachers are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report substantial alignment of Eisenhower-assisted activities with state and district standards, and to a lesser extent, with state and district assessments.

• Many of the nation's teachers are in districts where coordinators report that other district staff, in addition to the Eisenhower coordinator, are involved in planning Eisenhower-assisted activities, and that district Eisenhower coordinators work together with other district-level program administrators, especially mathematics and science curriculum specialists.

• There is more coordination of the Eisenhower program with other mathematics and science-oriented initiatives, in comparison with initiatives that do not focus on these subjects. In districts where other federal programs operate, most teachers are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report working with administrators of other federal education programs, especially those funded by NSF. Eisenhower coordinators to a lesser extent report working with administrators of ED-funded programs, such as Title I, Part A.

• Across all programs, districts are substantially less likely to report co-funding activities than working with other staff; co-funding of activities is more common with NSF-funded activities than with those funded by ED programs. However, we have no national data regarding the actual proportion of Eisenhower-assisted activities or participations that are co-funded with other programs.

• There is more coordination in larger and, to some extent, higher-poverty districts, than in other districts.

The Eisenhower program predates recent moves toward systemic education reform, and it operates as just one of a number of funding streams for professional development in the nation's school districts. In some, generally small districts, Eisenhower funds may exist alongside a few other education programs, such as Title I, Part A; in other, usually large districts, it is one of a panoply of federal, state, and local programs, reform efforts, and professional development initiatives. The provisions of the Eisenhower legislation give prominence to the district's role in integrating Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities into other state and district education reform efforts through alignment with challenging education standards, and coordination with other education programs.

The Title II legislation reflects the importance of aligning professional development with challenging state and local standards. Specifically, the legislation stipulates that the LEA's plan shall "be aligned with the State's challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards" (Section 2208 (d)(1)(C)) and "describe a strategy, tied to challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards, consistent with the needs assessment under subsection (b)" (Section 2208 (d)(1)(D)). Title I of ESEA requires that by the 1997-98 school year, each state was to have adopted challenging content standards, in at least reading and mathematics, and challenging performance standards that describe students' mastery of the content standards. Forty-eight states, plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have met federal requirements for developing challenging statewide content standards. Twenty-one states, plus Puerto Rico, have met the requirement for developing student performance standards (U.S. Department of Education, 1999b).

Aligning professional development with standards and assessments can be one way that districts work to send a common message to teachers about appropriate instruction (Webb, 1998). Lessons from systemic reform indicate that fragmentation within the system decreases motivation for working on reform (Fullan, 1993, 1996), and that success is in part contingent upon establishing long-term goals and being able to articulate a new vision (Cohen & Spillane, 1992). When policies and reforms are unaligned, teachers notice the inconsistency (Grant, Peterson, & Shojgreen-Downer, 1996); alternatively, when policies and reforms are aligned, this can work to encourage changes in instruction (Spillane & Jennings, 1997).

In the literature, there is little evidence that districts generally provide a common vision that would guide the use of professional development funds from a variety of sources, or link professional development to other education reform efforts. In addition, research indicates that districts generally are unaccustomed to planning portfolios of professional development activities strategically to achieve instructional goals or other types of goals and objectives (Elmore, 1993). Furthermore, professional development generally does not appear to be embedded in the daily activities of schools and teachers. Rather, "most school systems see professional development as a discrete activity? or service that is provided to schools as one of a number of centrally organized administrative functions" (Elmore & Burney, 1996, p. 23).

The consequence typically is a menu of discrete professional development activities, usually focused on specific content areas or pressing issues in the daily conduct of schooling, such as school discipline. As a result, activities are often organized and delivered centrally so that school personnel participate in training that is designed and conducted in isolation from their work setting (Elmore & Burney, 1996).

In their seminal case study of professional development in New York City's Community School District 2, Elmore and Burney (1996) emphasize the critical importance of establishing a focus for guiding professional development activities in the district. They describe a district that systematically identified instructional goals and objectives and designed a strategy for professional development to address directly these goals and objectives. The district's emphasis on instructional improvement focused its professional development activities. They view this district as an "existence proof" that districts can "be agents of serious instructional improvement," and that districts can use professional development as a tool for the reform of schools. Other researchers also have emphasized the importance of establishing a district vision for professional development (Spillane, 1996) and the important role of standards and assessments in shaping professional development activities (Cohen & Hill, 1998).

Besides alignment, another way for districts to focus professional development activities is by coordinating multiple sources of funding for professional development activities. The ESEA supports the idea of coordinating funding streams. The legislation indicates that Eisenhower funds should not be spent in isolation from other program funds, but instead Eisenhower-assisted activities should be planned and coordinated with other sources of funding for professional development. In addition, the law requires that state and local plans describe how Eisenhower-assisted activities are coordinated with other Education Department (ED) programs (such as Title I, Part A of ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)), as well as with professional development efforts supported with funds they receive from other federal agencies (such as the National Science Foundation ) (Section 2205(c) and Section 2208(d)(1)(H)).

Districts often must balance many sources of funding for professional development. When districts have established a focus for their professional development, they may deploy these multiple sources of funding toward the same ends. Leveraging resources can have a role in affecting the quality of professional development (Corcoran, 1995). For example, Elmore and Burney (1996) describe the "multi-pocket budgeting" that occurred in District 2, where the district administration used funding from multiple sources to fund its coherent professional development strategy.

In this section of the chapter, we use our district coordinator survey data to examine the extent to which districts integrate Eisenhower-assisted activities with other education reform efforts, which we measure by the districts' reported degree of alignment and coordination. We first describe the extent to which the district coordinators report linking professional development activities to state and district standards and assessments. We then examine the level of coordination between Eisenhower-funded activities and other programs. Coordination is measured by the extent of collaboration with others in professional development roles and with other federal programs, and by the extent to which districts use funding streams in a strategic way by combining funding sources. Taken together, these aspects of alignment and coordination can be thought of as an indication of the extent to which the district is providing a coherent vision for professional development.

Alignment of Eisenhower-assisted Activities with State and District Standards and Assessments

"Alignment" is a difficult concept to define and measure. Ideally, all aspects of an educational system are aligned with each other to support student learning to high standards. This might mean that textbooks, other materials, and instructional approaches that teachers use match state and local standards and assessments, that the professional development teachers receive helps them to use those materials and approaches appropriately, and that only what is valued is included in the curriculum or in assessments.

Evidence of alignment can be sought in many places. Webb (1998) notes that one could look for alignment in the consistency of content focus between professional development activities and standards and assessments; the extent to which professional development activities and standards and assessments are rooted in a common view of how students learn; and the extent to which professional development and standards and assessments reflect the view that all students must learn to high standards, which indicates attention to the learning needs of diverse students.

To measure how well districts are doing in meeting the legislative requirements in this area, we asked district Eisenhower coordinators participating in our national survey about the existence of state and local standards and assessments in mathematics and science, and the extent to which Eisenhower-assisted activities are intended to support those standards and assessments. Specifically, we asked district Eisenhower coordinators whether statewide or district-wide standards or curriculum frameworks, or assessments, in mathematics or science, have been adopted. We then asked them to what extent the Eisenhower-assisted activities in their district were designed to help teachers adapt their teaching to meet the particular standards or assessments. Response categories were: 1) the activities are not at all designed to help teachers adapt their teaching to these standards or assessments, 2) the activities are designed to some extent to do this, or 3) the activities are designed to a large extent to do this.

As Exhibit 5.1a shows, Eisenhower coordinators indicate that their states typically have standards and assessments in mathematics and science. Ninety-one percent of teachers are in states with mathematics standards, and 85 percent of teachers are in states with science standards, according to district Eisenhower coordinators.

EXHIBIT 5.1a
Percent of Teachers in Districts Where State and District Mathematics and Science Standards and Assessments Exist (n= 363)

In addition, Exhibit 5.1a shows that most Eisenhower coordinators also report the existence of state assessments, though slightly less frequently for science; 91 percent of teachers are in districts that report having state-level mathematics assessments, while only 72 percent of teachers are in districts that say they have statewide science assessments. Districts have their own mathematics and science standards somewhat less frequently than states in which they are located. Eighty-five percent of teachers are in districts that report that they have district standards in mathematics, and 78 percent are in districts that have district science standards. Further, districts are considerably less likely to have local-level assessments, particularly in science; 69 percent of teachers are in districts that have district assessments in mathematics, and 42 percent of teachers are in districts that have district assessments in science.

Exhibit 5.1b shows that, of the districts that report that they have state and/or district standards, 83 to 86 percent of teachers are in districts that say that Eisenhower-assisted activities in mathematics and science are designed to support these standards "to a large extent." Fewer coordinators report such support for assessments; only 67 to 72 percent of teachers are in districts where Eisenhower activities in mathematics and science support state and local assessments "to a large extent." However, the vast majority of teachers (94 percent or more) are in districts where Eisenhower-assisted activities support state and local assessments either "to some extent" or "to a large extent" (data not shown).

EXHIBIT 5.1b
Percent of Teachers in Districts Where Eisenhower-assisted Activities Are Aligned "to a Large Extent" with State and/or District Standards and/or Assessments (Where Such Standards and Assessments Exist) (n varies)

There are a number of reasons that Eisenhower activities may be less aligned with assessments than with standards. First, the assessments themselves may not yet be appropriately aligned to the standards. This may be true, in part, because the ESEA requirement for assessments to be aligned with standards had not yet gone into effect at the time that we collected our data.⁴ Furthermore, developing assessments, especially those that are aligned with high standards, has proven to be harder than developing the standards themselves.

Our data also show that where district standards exist, Eisenhower activities are as likely to be aligned with than as with state standards; similarly, where district assessments exist, Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities are equally likely to be aligned with state and district assessments. This is probably because states generally have more responsibility than districts for establishing and implementing standards; in addition, district standards often mirror state standards.

To determine whether the degree of alignment between Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities and standards and assessments differs according to district poverty or district size,⁵ we developed a composite measure of alignment. It is a standardized scale, for which five indicates that district coordinators report professional development activities to be aligned "to a large extent" with both state and district standards and assessments, and zero indicates that district coordinators report not being aligned with standards or assessments at either level. The value of the scale for each district is based on the degree to which the district reports being aligned with whatever state and district standards and assessments exist in the district. As Exhibit 5.1c indicates, Eisenhower-assisted activities in large districts are significantly more likely to be aligned with state and district standards and assessments than Eisenhower-assisted activities in small districts. This may be because large districts have a more developed and sophisticated method for integrating state and district reforms with professional development activities. Previous research has shown that administrators often believe that they need more information on how to link professional development with standards (Celebuski & Farris, 1998), and this lack of information may be more prevalent in small than large districts. It also may be that districts with more teachers have more of a need to create an organized strategy for the design of their professional development activities, and thus are more likely than smaller districts to use state and district standards and assessments for this purpose. Poverty-level differences in alignment are not significant.

Case studies help to explain just how important state and local standards and assessments can be in shaping Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities. For example, in our two case districts in Texas, Eisenhower coordinators and other district administrators frequently referred to the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), the statewide assessment, as a critical determinant of the content of professional development. Indeed, in one of the two districts, administrators told us that everything they do is guided by TAAS. They report that professional development activities are geared to areas of the TAAS on which the district has identified a need for improvement. To a lesser extent, district administrators indicate that the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the state?s new content standards, also are an important determinant of professional development. Texas illustrates that while, on average, standards are more influential than assessments, this is not always the case. In Texas, state assessment results are used for important accountability purposes, and this probably explains their greater-than-average influence.

EXHIBIT 5.1c
Degree of Alignment Between Eisenhower-assisted Activities and Standards and Assessments, Overall and by District Poverty and District Size (n=363)

Our two case districts in Kentucky place a similar emphasis on providing professional development aligned with the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), the state student assessment program used in their school accountability program. In both districts, this alignment takes the form of the district or schools selecting professional development activities designed to address areas of low performance on KIRIS. District administrators in both the Texas and the Kentucky districts repeatedly refer to their statewide assessments systems as important factors in all decisions made about professional development.

Despite the central role that state assessments often play in the design of professional development, this type of alignment does not necessarily contribute to a consistent approach to professional development. For example, one Kentucky district selects professional development activities in response to areas of weak performance by students on the previous year's state assessments. Thus, plans for professional development could change on an annual basis. During our site visit, we were told that all professional development activities would shift from mathematics to science, in response to that year's test scores. To the extent that areas of weakness in student achievement change from year to year, which is not unusual according to district officials, this approach may not support the kind of sustained professional development efforts envisioned by the Eisenhower legislation.

Both our quantitative and qualitative data illustrate the emphasis that many districts place on aligning professional development activities with state and district standards and assessments. However, neither the survey nor the case study data allow us to evaluate all of the facets of alignment discussed by Webb (1998). For example, we did not observe professional development activities. Direct observation which would have enabled us to determine whether the content of these activities reflects the depth of content knowledge demanded by high standards for student performance.

One way that some districts align their professional development with state standards is to make the process of achieving such alignment a professional development activity. Several districts that we visited use Eisenhower funds to support a review of district curricula to ensure that they are aligned with state standards. At least three case-study districts, one each in Washington, Texas, and New York, use Eisenhower funds in this way. In these districts, groups of teachers, typically volunteers, meet over an extended period of time to review state standards and current district curricula to identify areas of alignment and areas in which alignment should be improved. In all three districts, this process is ongoing. Clearly, this type of professional development activity is aligned to state standards in the sense that it requires teachers to be well informed about what the state standards are and how they might translate into local curricula.

Coordination with Other Programs

Alignment is one measure of how Eisenhower professional development activities fit into districts' reform efforts. The extent to which districts work with and co-fund activities with other programs is another important measure of the integration of reform efforts in the district. Eisenhower funds support professional development activities, but so do funds from other sources—local, state, and federal. Eisenhower-assisted activities can be integrated with professional development activities funded by other sources, they can operate in isolation from these other sources, or they can operate independently but be part of a larger professional development plan. Coordination between Eisenhower coordinators and coordinators of other federal and district programs, and co-funding activities with those of other programs, can signal district attempts to build a coherent vision of professional development, or to establish a focus for potentially disparate professional development activities.

Because the relationship between Eisenhower-assisted activities and professional development activities funded through other sources conceivably can take many different forms, working relationships between the staff of the different programs may govern the relationships between programs. Thus, this section examines the extent to which Eisenhower coordinators work with others in their districts, and the extent to which Eisenhower-assisted activities are co-funded with activities funded by other federal programs.

Eisenhower Coordinators' Relationships with Others within the District Office

We asked district Eisenhower coordinators to answer questions regarding the structure of their district office, specifically to identify the positions present in their district, to identify which roles they play in their districts, and to indicate whether they work with people in other positions in making decisions about the Eisenhower program. As Exhibit 5.2 illustrates, district Eisenhower coordinators report that they do not work in isolation. Rather, they report working with other district administrators and with coordinators of other federal programs to make decisions about Eisenhower-assisted activities.

EXHIBIT 5.2
Percent of Teachers in Districts According to Eisenhower Coordinator?s
Roles within the District Office (n=363)

Exhibit 5.2 reflects several findings related to the nature of coordination. First, it shows that Eisenhower coordinators often serve in multiple roles. Among teachers in districts that have a curriculum coordinator, mathematics coordinator, or science coordinator position, close to half are in districts in which the Eisenhower coordinator fills these positions (48, 46, and 47 percent of teachers in districts, respectively). And among teachers in districts with a Federal Program Coordinator, 43 percent are in districts in which the Eisenhower coordinator fills the position. On average, Eisenhower coordinators report spending 23 percent of their time administering the Eisenhower program, and, though some work full-time on Eisenhower, three-quarters spend 27 percent or less of their time on Eisenhower (results not shown). The fact that Eisenhower coordinators serve in multiple roles suggests a certain amount of integration between Eisenhower-assisted efforts and other district efforts.

Second, Exhibit 5.2 suggests that when Eisenhower coordinators do not fill multiple roles, they report working closely with other district-level administrators in making decisions about how to use Eisenhower funds. Almost all teachers are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report working closely with mathematics and science curriculum specialists (96 and 97 percent of teachers in districts, respectively). More than 80 percent of teachers are in districts whose Eisenhower coordinator reports working with the general curriculum/instruction coordinator (90 percent), the federal programs coordinator (83 percent), and the professional development coordinator (81 percent). Seventy-eight percent of teachers are in districts whose Eisenhower coordinator says they work with the Title I coordinator. Teachers are least likely to be in districts where the Eisenhower coordinator reports working with special education coordinators (62 percent).

Coordination of Eisenhower-assisted Activities with Those of Other Federal Programs

As Exhibit 5.3a shows, where particular federal programs support professional development in their district, the Eisenhower coordinators report working closely with staff of the other federal programs. Although a relatively small proportion of teachers are in districts that receive funds from NSF programs, Eisenhower coordinators in these districts almost always report that they work closely with the administrators responsible for these programs. Ninety-one percent of teachers are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report working with staff of the Local Systemic Change (LSC) initiative, 86 percent of teachers are in districts that report working with the staff of the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI), and 85 percent of teachers are in districts that report working with the staff of the Rural Systemic Initiative (RSI), in districts where these NSF programs operate. In states with NSF State Systemic Initiatives (SSI), 59 percent of teachers are in districts in which Eisenhower coordinators report working closely with SSI staff.

EXHIBIT 5.3a
Percent of Teachers in Districts in which Eisenhower Activities Coordinate
(Co-fund and/or Work Closely) with Other Programs (n varies)

In addition, Exhibit 5.3a shows that large proportions of teachers also are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report working closely with coordinators of several federal programs funded by the Education Department. Notably, of teachers in districts with Title I, Part A programs (representing almost all teachers), 82 percent are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report working closely with Title I coordinators. A similar proportion of teachers—78 percent—are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report working closely with the coordinators of Title VI-funded activities. Of the nation's teachers in districts where other ED programs operate, between 60 and 70 percent are in districts that work closely with staff of these ED programs, with the exception of the Title III (73 percent) and Title IX (42 percent) programs.

In fact, Eisenhower coordinators report working with multiple federal education programs, where these programs exist in their districts. Our analyses of these data show that Eisenhower coordinators report that they work closely with coordinators of 65 percent of the other federal programs that operate in their districts (data not shown). In other words, in a typical district with six federal programs other than Eisenhower, the Eisenhower coordinator could be expected to work closely with the individual(s) responsible for coordinating about four of those programs.⁶

Co-funding with Other Programs

Co-funding—the contribution of funds from two programs to support the same professional development activity—is another, perhaps stronger indicator of coordination between Eisenhower-assisted activities and other federal programs. In addition to providing information about the other district personnel with whom the Eisenhower coordinator works, Exhibit 5.3a shows the percent of teachers in districts in which Eisenhower activities are co-funded with NSF and ED programs; the exhibit demonstrates that, in districts with a specific program, a substantial proportion of teachers are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report that they co-fund professional development activities with that program.

With only a few exceptions, Eisenhower coordinators are less likely to report co-funding activities with other federal programs than they are to report working closely with those programs. This is clear from Exhibit 5.3a. Exhibit 5.3a also indicates that the Eisenhower program is more likely to co-fund with NSF-funded programs than ED-funded programs. For example, between 66 and 86 percent of teachers are in districts in which Eisenhower coordinators co-fund with three of the four NSF initiatives, whereas the maximum proportion of teachers in districts that co-fund with ED-sponsored programs is 50 percent (for Title I, Part A). One explanation of this pattern is NSF's exclusive focus on mathematics and science; since this also is the predominant focus of Eisenhower-assisted activities, there may be more opportunity for co-funding with NSF activities. Also, NSF has co-funding requirements for many of its programs, which may in part account for the higher levels of co-funding with Eisenhower. Overall, teachers are in districts that report that they co-fund professional development activities with about one-third—34 percent—of the other federal programs that support professional development in their district (results not shown).

Adding the total number of federal programs that co-fund with Eisenhower, of a possible 10, allows us to form a composite measure of co-funding to test poverty and size effects. The results, shown in Exhibit 5.3b, indicate that on average districts co-fund with two programs, and that district size and poverty interactions significantly affect co-funding. Exhibit 5.3c shows the interactions between district poverty and size for co-funding. Generally, co-funding increases as district size and poverty level increases. The exception is that for consortia, medium-poverty districts co-fund less than low-poverty districts.

EXHIBIT 5.3b
Extent of Co-Funding of Eisenhower-assisted Activities with Those of Other Federal Programs, Overall and by District Poverty and District Size (n=363)

Source: Telephone Survey of District Eisenhower Coordinators, Spring 1998. How to read this exhibit: The first distribution shows that on average, teachers are in districts that co-fund with two federal programs. Each dot represents one district. As the number of districts at one data point (or value) increases, the dots form a horizontal line increases in length. Each distribution represents the distribution for that particular category. The number to the right of the distribution is the mean.

These results might be explained by the fact that high-poverty districts receive more funding that may be used for professional development from federal and some state sources whose formulas target districts with greater needs. The existence of multiple sources of funding with similar programmatic goals may create greater opportunities for coordination. Similarly, large districts and consortia may have funds from multiple sources which increase opportunities for coordination and co-funding. Large districts and consortia are also more likely to have more individuals in professional-development related roles, which may foster collaboration that results in funding activities with a combination of sources.

EXHIBIT 5.3c
Extent of Co-funding of Eisenhower-assisted Activities with Those of Other Federal Programs, Interaction of District Poverty and District Size (n=363)

Illustrations of Coordination in Case-Study Districts

Although our survey data provide information about the existence of coordination and co-funding, they do not allow us to judge the frequency or quality of the relationships between Eisenhower coordinators and other district administrators. Case data, however, provide information on the nature and depth of coordination and co-funding between Eisenhower coordinators and coordinators of other federally funded programs.

Our case districts provide examples of the close coordination that can occur between Eisenhower-assisted activities and those funded by NSF initiatives. In several of our case districts, Urban Systemic Initiative grants, funded by NSF, greatly expand the funding available for professional development in mathematics and science, according to district administrators. Middle City, Wisconsin, for example, has a particularly varied array of professional development activities in mathematics and science, funded from a variety of sources. Thus, the district uses all of its funding sources together to support the large variety of professional development activities. These activities rely heavily on mathematics and science resource teachers, who serve as mentors for the other teachers in their schools. Professional development funds also support semester-long workshops for teachers, opportunities for teachers to immerse themselves in mathematics or science-related industry over the summer, mini-grants to teachers to follow up on what they learned in district workshops, and school-based staff development activities. While Eisenhower funds contributed about $900,000 in 1996-97 to such activities, the district's USI contributed close to $3 million in that year and was considered an umbrella for all professional development in mathematics and science in the district.

In Middle City, the relationships between the USI and Eisenhower-assisted activities is more than just financial, because a number of the staff of the USI have been associated with Eisenhower-assisted activities for years prior to the district winning the USI. The USI's leadership includes a former Eisenhower coordinator and an Eisenhower-assisted mentor teacher. In addition, many of the USI's mentor teachers have formerly been mentor teachers funded by the Eisenhower program. It appears that, at least in this district, the Eisenhower funds have over the years developed leadership and capacity in mathematics and science that provided a foundation for the USI.

In contrast to Middle City, the relationship between Eisenhower-assisted activities and those of NSF-funded programs is not close in some other districts. Through the state's SSI, Richmond, New York's math and science teachers have access to extensive professional development opportunities, in particular summer institutes and ongoing teacher study groups. At the district level, however, coordination between the Eisenhower program and the SSI is virtually nonexistent. The district distributes the bulk of its Eisenhower funds directly to schools where school staff determine how they should be used. In the views of district administrators and teachers, professional development related to the SSI is separate from the Eisenhower funds that schools receive, and neither administrators nor teachers seem to see the district's Eisenhower funds as an opportunity to build on or expand opportunities available through the SSI.

In another district, South City, Florida, coordination between Eisenhower and USI activities damaged professional development activities in the short term, at least from the perspective of the Eisenhower coordinator and some teachers. According to the first report from this evaluation, South City, Eisenhower program activities were "subsumed by" the USI (Birman, Reeve, & Sattler, 1998, p. 31). Activities supported by Eisenhower funds tended to be shorter in duration and involve less follow-up than they had prior to their collaboration with the USI. The Eisenhower coordinator attributes this to the fact that the USI director and staff are relatively inexperienced in planning, organizing, and providing professional development. While the USI director recognizes the shortcomings of the new approach, and the Eisenhower coordinator looks forward to resolving differences in their approaches, the working relationship between the two was at least initially problematic.

Our survey data clearly indicate that coordination and co-funding are common between Eisenhower-assisted and NSF?funded activities, as we would expect since both programs focus on mathematics and science initiatives. The case of Middle City illustrates such collaboration and co-funding at its best. There, the USI and Eisenhower staff work collaboratively, and the USI benefits from the expertise and capacity built up through the years of Eisenhower funding. However, the other case study examples indicate that, while NSF funds can provide excellent opportunities for collaboration and pooling of resources with Eisenhower-assisted activities, districts do not always effectively capitalize on these opportunities.

Consistent with our survey data, we find fewer examples in our case studies of coordination with professional development funded by ED programs. One example of good coordination with an ED program is in Weller, Kentucky. There, Eisenhower and Goals 2000 funds are combined for an annual professional development project. The project always involves a teacher demonstration on a particular topic in mathematics or science. In 1997-98 the topic was finance, with primary grade teachers concentrating on money units and related mathematics skills and secondary school teachers looking at designing and marketing products. Outside providers train master teachers; in 1997-98 the training was provided by the Kentucky Math Council. Master teachers then develop two-week demonstration units. Other teachers come into a master teacher's classroom in the morning to help plan, observe the lessons, and then take the unit back to their own schools to experiment with it and to demonstrate it for their colleagues. A total of approximately 40 teachers, selected by their principals, participated in this activity. Goals 2000 provided the majority of funds for the activity, and Eisenhower funds helped pay for the training of the master teachers.

Rhinestone, Texas, also has strong coordination in several areas. The Eisenhower coordinator and the Title I coordinator in Rhinestone are both subject-area specialists, the former in math and science and the latter in language arts; two other subject-area specialists also work in the district. The four individuals discuss needs of specific schools and, on occasion, ways of encouraging curriculum integration. Each week they meet to discuss the use of Eisenhower funds in supporting Title I goals, and the Title I coordinator co-chairs the committee that decides how Eisenhower funds will be used each year.

In some other case districts, there is little or no coordination between district-level Eisenhower and Title I staff. More than one Eisenhower coordinator was surprised that we asked to interview Title I coordinators, telling us that Title I staff knew nothing about the Eisenhower program. One reason for this is the focus of Title I activities. In a number of districts, Title I focused exclusively on reading and language arts. In one district where Title I focuses on mathematics, its focus is elementary mathematics, while Eisenhower funds are viewed as mainly for secondary school teachers.

In several case-study districts, the provision of Title I funds directly to schools while maintaining Eisenhower funds at the district level is another reason for limited coordination between the two funding streams. In Lone Star, Texas, the 1997-98 school year was the first year under a new organizational system, and was a challenging one for teachers and administrators. Because district administrators were reorganized into subdistricts and most people had vastly altered responsibilities, little professional development, Eisenhower-assisted or otherwise, took place. However, other factors still point to a lack of coordination between the Eisenhower program and Title I. In Lone Star, all Title I funds are used in school wide projects, with funds devolving directly to the school level. Eisenhower funds, however, are maintained at the district level. Therefore, decisions about the two programs are not made by the same people, or even by people in the same location. This is the case in other districts as well, where there are school-wide Title I projects but district control over Title II funds.

Summary: Alignment and Coordination

Our results indicate that most teachers are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators report meeting their legislative responsibilities to align Eisenhower professional development with state and district standards and assessments, and to coordinate with others in funding and operating Eisenhower professional development activities. Aligning professional development with standards and assessments could contribute to a coherent professional development program that is focused on goals and objectives that are important for student learning, and that support high standards for learning (Smith & O?Day, 1991; Cohen & Hill, 1998). There is, however, more alignment with standards than with assessments. This may reflect the fact that the ESEA requirement of aligned assessments had not yet gone into effect at the time of our data collection, and in some places, assessments may not have been well-aligned to the standards; also, assessments have proven more difficult to develop than standards. Further, state standards and assessments have as strong a relationship to Eisenhower-assisted activities as do the more immediate district standards and assessments. One possible explanation for this is that district policy tools tend to reflect state policy tools, and so they are seen as interchangeable. It may also reflect greater stakes associated with state standards and assessments.

The high level of co-funding and collaboration with other Federal programs reported by our sample of districts suggests that Eisenhower coordinators are attempting to integrate the needs and requirements of their federal program in the design of professional development activities. This increases the district?s ability to use funds efficiently and effectively. Clearly here, however, the mathematics and science focus of Eisenhower is a major explanatory factor. Coordination and co-funding is nearly twice as prevalent with NSF mathematics and science initiatives than with ED initiatives that do not share the mathematics/science focus. Furthermore, our case-study data indicate that some of the coordination between Eisenhower coordinators and those of other ED programs may be fairly superficial. Eisenhower coordinators report that coordination often consists of occasional conversations with other program administrators. Further, these conversations do not necessarily include discussion of strategies for making multiple-funding streams support each other or integrating professional development across programs.

Districts with a higher proportion of students in poverty are somewhat more likely to co-fund with other federal programs and others in professional development related roles. This might be due to the fact that high-poverty districts tend to receive money from multiple federal programs whose formulas are often designed to favor districts with larger numbers of children from low-income families. The existence of more sources of funding creates the need for more collaborative efforts in employing program funds to aid in the education of students with special needs. Thus, having multiple sources of funding and a common purpose—addressing the needs of students in poverty—may facilitate coordination in higher-poverty districts.

A more pronounced finding relates to district size. Large districts are more likely than other districts to report aligning their professional development with standards and assessments, and both large districts and consortia co-fund with other programs more than smaller districts do. Large districts and consortia may be able to incorporate effective collaborative practices because of economies of scale (e.g., investment in collaborative efforts is less expensive as the number of participants and programs increases), and also because they have larger, better infrastructures for planning and delivering professional development. Also, large districts are more likely to have subject-area specialists that are integrated into the mathematics/science community. By contrast, smaller districts may have fewer programs and personnel with which to collaborate, partly because in smaller districts the Eisenhower coordinator tends to assume several roles. Smaller districts also may not have the capacity or incentive to work across programs in the way that often becomes necessary in larger districts. If this is the case, perhaps federal technical assistance providers should consider giving smaller districts more guidance to help them organize and combine their funding streams, and collaborate with other professional development providers in their district.

The fact that most of the districts in our national profile of Eisenhower coordinators report engaging in alignment, collaboration, and co-funding indicates that they are attempting to meet the requirements of the legislation in these areas, and also are engaging in practices that have been linked to providing high-quality professional development. The coordination and alignment, however, appears to be greatly enhanced when there is a shared subject-matter focus, and in larger districts and districts with more students in poverty.

⁶ It is important to note that these are not necessarily four individuals, one coordinating each program, but may be only one or two individuals, each of whom coordinates more than one other program. Similarly, the Eisenhower coordinator him/herself may be responsible for overseeing other Federal programs.

-###-

[Chapter 5 - District Management of Eisenhower-Assisted Professional Development Activities]

[Implementing the Vision: District Procedures for the Continuous Improvement of Professional Development Activities]