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

Differences in Management and Operation of Eisenhower-Assisted Activities by District Poverty and Size

Throughout this chapter we report differences in district management and operation according to the district?s poverty level and the number of teachers in the district. A synthesis of these results indicates that there is more variation by district size than by poverty level. In general, however, large districts and high-poverty districts perform better on these measures than small districts and low- poverty districts.

Specifically, we find that, compared to low-poverty districts, high-poverty districts:

• co-fund more with NSF and ED programs, and

• employ more continuous improvement efforts.

We find that, compared to small districts, large districts:

• are more aligned with state and district standards and assessments,

• co-fund more with NSF and ED programs, and

• employ more continuous improvement efforts.

Consortia also co-fund and use continuous improvement efforts significantly more than smaller districts do. We also find that both large and small districts have significantly more school-level planning than consortia. Teacher participation in planning is the only element of implementation that does not vary significantly by either district poverty or district size.

These findings, taken together, suggest several conclusions. First, large districts may be more aligned, and, along with consortia, may co-fund more, and use more continuous improvement methods because they have a greater need to integrate professional development with other reforms. Large districts and consortia may have an increased need for organization and integration since they are more likely to have a large number of initiatives and reforms and more money from other federal programs, and because of the larger number of teachers that they serve. This, in turn, would also create the need for more systematic monitoring and evaluation of their professional development (and other reform) efforts. Another reason that they outperform smaller districts on these dimensions may be that larger districts and consortia are likely to have a better infrastructure for coordination among district-level staff who serve in professional development roles.

Similarly, high-poverty districts may co-fund more because they are more likely to have multiple programs operating that share a focus on targeting teachers of special populations of students. Similarly, districts with more students in poverty may conduct more continuous improvement efforts because they are likely to be receiving funds from federal programs that have requirements similar to Eisenhower?s for the use of indicators, needs assessments, evaluation, and guidance.

The finding that school-level planning is less common in consortia than in either districts or schools may be because the main purpose of consortia is to foster across-district planning, rather than planning across schools or within individual schools. Single districts that do not have the added issue of across-district coordination may have more latitude to focus planning at the individual school level.

These results show that alignment, co-funding, continuous improvement, and teacher involvement in planning vary across districts. The next section informs our understanding of how these four factors affect the quality of professional development.

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

[The Relationship of District Management to Features of Professional Development]