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

Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter, we described how districts manage and operate Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities. We examined how districts build a vision for professional development through alignment and coordination, and how they implement that vision, through continuous improvement efforts and through planning at different levels with different types of teacher involvement. We also examined how these management practices and operations differ in districts of different poverty levels and sizes, and we present a model of how these practices shape the quality of Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities. Several of the findings of these analyses have important implications for the Eisenhower Professional Development Program.

First, districts are much more likely to have their professional development aligned with standards than with assessments. This suggests that many districts may not yet have their assessments aligned with district and/or state standards. If one major goal of the Eisenhower legislation is to fit professional development into the framework of other reforms in the district, it may be that districts have considerable work to do to establish connections and alignment across standards and assessments before this is possible.

Second, we find that co-funding plays an important role in the implementation, management, structure, and core features of Eisenhower-assisted professional development. Our data show that co-funding most often occurs with other programs focused on mathematics and science, and that other types of coordination can be less substantive and meaningful in shaping professional development. This highlights the importance of having subject-area focus in common in order to promote co-funding. Also, gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics involved in combining funding streams with other programs would help us focus on how this process results in districts being better able to provide professional development that meets the high standards of quality outlined in the provisions of the Eisenhower legislation.

Third, continuous improvement efforts are related to certain portfolio features, such as greater opportunities for active learning and targeting, but these efforts are relatively rare. Eisenhower coordinators are least likely to report using data-driven continuous improvement methods, such as applying indicators to professional development or linking teacher practices with student achievement to evaluate professional development activities. Perhaps more emphasis on these important and more rigorous methods of continuous improvement would increase the quality of these efforts, and as a result, improve the quality of the professional development activities that districts provide.

Lastly, our analyses of differences according to district poverty level and district size suggest that there are certain advantages that large districts have over small districts, and that high-poverty districts have over low-poverty districts, in shaping, planning, and implementing Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities. It is likely that the presence of more federal dollars, more staff (and thus more need to coordinate), and better infrastructure for communication and coordination all contribute to these differences. Learning more about the conditions that facilitate better implementation and planning in certain types of districts would help to identify possible added supports that some districts need; it may also suggest particular conditions or processes that could be established or required by the Eisenhower legislation in order to develop capacity in other districts.

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

[Chapter 6 - State Agency for Higher Education Grantees]