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

Meeting the Needs of Teachers vs. Schools: The 80/20 Rule

As our survey and case data indicate, districts vary in their emphasis on planning at the district, cluster, and school levels, and in how they involve teachers in planning. This is a critical issue of implementation to understand, because the Eisenhower legislation?s "80/20" rule appears to focus on the importance of planning for Eisenhower-assisted activities by school-level staff. The "80/20" rule states that

Each local educational agency that receives funds under this part for any fiscal year shall use not less than 80 percent of such funds for professional development of teachers, and, where appropriate, administrators, and, where appropriate, pupil services personnel, parents, and other staff of individual schools in a manner that is determined by such teachers and staff; to the extent practicable, takes place at the individual school site; and is consistent with the local educational agency's application under section 2208, any school plan under part A of title I, and any other plan for professional development carried out with Federal, State, or local funds that emphasizes sustained, ongoing activities (Section 2210(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)).

Our exploratory case studies revealed that there is a lack of clarity about the meaning of this rule (Birman, Reeve, & Sattler, 1998). We found that Eisenhower coordinators are unsure of whether the rule refers to involvement of teachers from multiple schools in planning professional development at the district level, or to involvement of teachers in planning professional development with others in their own schools, or both. Teacher involvement at the district level can help to ensure that topics and learning activities in professional development programs address areas of knowledge and skills that are relevant to teachers district-wide. This can be particularly important for teachers who may be the only ones teaching a particular subject in their school (e.g., physics teachers in small high schools). At the same time, teacher participation in planning at the school level and professional development that takes place at the school allow for more coherent professional development that is closely tied to the needs of teachers in a particular school, and thus potentially more relevant to classroom practice. Some believe that effects on teaching practice are more likely when there is a critical mass of teachers in a school that are all trying to improve their practice in the same way. In Chapter 3, we reported the importance of collective participation to the perceived benefits of the professional development.

Our national survey of Eisenhower coordinators suggests that districts interpret the "80/20" rule in very different ways. Although many district coordinators report that they understand the requirement "very well" (42 percent) or "adequately" (36 percent), they do not all interpret it similarly (data not shown). In our survey, we asked Eisenhower coordinators to explain how they implement the 80/20 requirement in their district, and common responses include the following approaches:

It is clear from this list that districts interpret the 80-20 rule in a variety of ways. Some districts have devolved funding and all decisions about Eisenhower professional development to schools, while other districts have responded by continuing to plan professional development activities at the district level, with a variety of types of teacher input (e.g., through committees, needs assessments, etc.). In some districts, the provision that Eisenhower-assisted activities "be determined by school-level staff" means simply that teachers determine their own professional development activities by selecting activities from a district-determined menu. Finally, some districts apparently interpret the rule to apply to the location of professional development activities themselves. As different as these interpretations are, the Department of Education currently considers all three interpretations to be acceptable.7

Other approaches to the 80-20 rule, however, illustrate more confusion about its meaning. In some districts, the rule is interpreted as follows:

In addition, in several districts, coordinators simply say they do not know how to interpret the rule. Clearly, the current 80/20 provision does not provide clear direction to the nation?s school districts. Perhaps one reason that the interpretations of the 80/20 rule are so varied is that it mixes together very different elements?the level of planning for professional development, and the location of the professional development itself. Our case studies illustrate that teacher involvement in planning professional development can be independent from locating professional development at the school, or having staff from the school participate together in professional development activities.

In a number of our case districts, Eisenhower-assisted professional development is planned at the district level, but the district emphasizes approaches to professional development that occurred at the school level. In Commuteville, Virginia, a school-board-appointed committee conducts a needs assessment and makes recommendations for Eisenhower-assisted activities. The committee is composed of teachers, parents, students, administrators, and community representatives. While this planning occurs at the district level, Eisenhower funds support two types of professional development that take place in schools. First, a Colleague Teacher Program attempts to meet the needs of first-year teachers by pairing up new teachers with experienced teachers who offer the new teachers guidance, assistance, and support over the course of a the school year. Second, the district trains promising teachers as "lead teachers" in mathematics and science. These teachers serve as resources and mentors to other teachers in their schools. The district?s long-term goal is to have lead teachers for mathematics and science in each school.

In Boonetown, Kentucky, professional development occurs largely at the school, while planning the strategy for professional development is a shared activity of the district Eisenhower coordinator and all of the principals in the district. In Boonetown, resource teachers are assigned to schools, where they work with principals to identify school needs for professional development. The strategy grew out of a number of district-wide committees that recommended reliance on resource teachers. The Eisenhower coordinator brought this idea to a meeting of principals, who arranged to fund the resource teachers with school shares of professional development and instructional funds, in addition to Eisenhower funds. The district Eisenhower coordinator has primary responsibility for planning Eisenhower-assisted professional development, although she relies heavily on all of the district?s principals, as a group, in making the plans.

In contrast to Commuteville and Boonetown, other case districts rely heavily on individual schools to develop plans for professional development activities. In Richmond, New York, each school may apply to the district for a "mini-grant" of $2,000 of the district?s Eisenhower funds. But delegating planning to the school level does not necessarily result in professional development activities that are embedded in teachers? daily activities, or even in activities that occur at the school itself. The elementary schools in the district generally use their grants for one-day workshops led by outside consultants. The district?s high school, which receives the same amount of funding as the elementary schools, despite its larger enrollment, uses its mini-grant to allow teachers to judge science fairs, attend conferences, and attend "professional development activities of their choice," according to the district Eisenhower coordinator.

Both the literature and Eisenhower legislation support teacher participation in planning professional development activities, and professional development that involves all teachers in a school. The data from our teacher activity survey (reported in Chapter 3 of this report) support the value of teachers participating in professional development activities with others from their schools, departments, or grade. However, our case data illustrate that the level at which planning occurs, and teachers? involvement in it, are not necessarily related to the occurrence of professional development at the school itself, who participates, or the quality of the activities. In other words, planning for professional development at the school level, or occurrence of the professional development activity at the school site, does not necessarily mean that the professional development involves the collective participation of all teachers or groups of teachers at the school.

Summary: Involvement of School Level Staff in Planning for Professional Development

Clearly, the participation of school staff in planning professional development is an important emphasis of the Eisenhower legislation and the professional development literature. Participation in professional development that is embedded in the daily life of teachers at their schools also is emphasized in both the literature and the legislation. Our national data indicate that although teachers are virtually always involved in planning in some way at the district, school, and/or cluster level, teachers participate on a formal basis in committees at about two-thirds of the levels at which planning takes place. Furthermore, while teacher participation in planning professional development may be valuable in communicating what is important to teachers, it appears not to be related to the occurrence of professional development at the school itself.

The intent of the legislation?s 80-20 rule is to provide guidance about the involvement of teachers in planning professional development, and the location of professional development activities. However, the legislative language allows for a large variety of interpretations. In open-ended responses, districts demonstrate a large variance in how they interpret the 80-20 rule. On the one hand, this rule could be interpreted as reflecting the perception of both Congress and professional development experts that decisions about professional development are best made at the school level. On another hand, the rule could be interpreted as calling for school-level professional development at the school site.

Thus, while districts seem to be fulfilling the requirements of the legislation by involving teachers in planning and focusing some planning at the school level, the extent to which these actions are actually fulfilling Congress? intent is unclear. Most of the interpretations districts have made of the 80-20 rule seem to comply with the law, at least as interpreted by the Department of Education. However, Congress? intent in this provision has not been well understood by states or by districts. It is possible that in this provision, the Congress intended to ensure that the needs of teachers, as identified by teachers themselves, were being taken into account in the planning of professional development. If this was the Congress? intent, it seems largely to have been met, though at times without teachers? active participation in a planning process (through participation in formal planning committees).

It is also possible that, in addition to serving individual teachers? needs, the Congress intended that Eisenhower-assisted professional development serve school needs in the service of school-wide goals. If this was what the Congress intended, then our data suggest that districts could place more emphasis on school-level planning, and embedding professional development in the daily lives of teachers. Research on professional development suggests that meeting the needs of individual teachers and meeting school-wide needs are both important goals of professional development. The Department of Education and the Congress may want to consider how to make both of these goals clear in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

7 The Department of Education's Office of the General Counsel communicated its interpretation of the 80/20 rule during the preparation of the first report of this evaluation in September 1997, and again during the review of this report in September 1999.


-###-

[The Role of Teachers in Planning Professional Development]		 [Table of Contents] [Differences in Management and Operation of Eisenhower-Assisted Activities by District Poverty and Size]