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 7

SAHE-Grantee Management and Operation of Eisenhower-Assisted Activities

SAHE grantees are subject to the same provisions for alignment, continuous improvement, and targeting that districts must follow. However, SAHE grantees also are subject to some additional requirements or guidelines. In particular, the 1994 reauthorization emphasizes the importance of coordination between SAHE grantees and districts in planning and providing professional development. Each SAHE grantee is required to enter into an agreement with one or more districts for the provision of professional development. Further, SAHE-grantee projects are shaped by the priorities and guidelines that the SAHE sets in structuring its competition for the Eisenhower awards.⁹

The Relationship of SAHE-grantee Management to Features of Professional Development

In Chapter 6, we report the results of our analyses of the relationship between intended program strategies, such as alignment, coordination, and continuous improvement, and the quality of the professional development that SAHE grantees provide. The path analysis is based on a national probability sample.

As reported in Chapter 6, Exhibit 6.26, coordination with districts (e.g., use of feedback mechanisms, support and extension of district activities, co-funding and district involvement in planning, implementing and monitoring) is positively associated with the quality of the professional development provided. For example, SAHE grantees that coordinate more extensively with districts provide professional development with a larger number of contact hours. Coordination also has a positive effect on the use of strategies for continuous improvement which, in turn, increases the active learning. In addition, coordination has an indirect effect upon targeting, through its effect upon continuous improvement. These results for coordination parallel those found for the district sample.

Variation Among SAHE Grantees in Management and Operations

We have discussed the legislative requirements for alignment, coordination, co-funding, continuous improvement, and targeting, and their role in shaping effective professional development in SAHE-grantee projects; we now discuss the extent to which SAHE-grantee projects are implementing these management strategies (Chapter 6).

Nearly all SAHE-grantee projects are aligned with state standards, and most are aligned with state assessments and district standards, but less than half are aligned with district assessments. SAHE grantees work closely with districts in several ways, such as communicating with district staff and using district needs assessments, but report low levels of other key components of coordination, such as co-funding and working with the Eisenhower coordinator. Also, SAHE-grantee projects tend to be much more affected by state than district indicators. However, SAHE grantees report moderately high levels of engagement in most other continuous improvement efforts, such as conducting needs assessments and evaluations. These findings suggest that, although the average quality of SAHE-grantee activities is relatively high, it could be further improved by strengthening the coordination between SAHE grantees and districts and giving more emphasis to the use of district indicators.

In addition, although most SAHE-grantee project directors report targeting teachers of low achieving, high-poverty students and teachers in Title I schools, these teachers are much less likely than others to participate in SAHE-grantee activities.

Differences in SAHE-grantee Management and Operation by Institution Type and Departmental Affiliation

In our analysis of SAHE grantees, we compared activities housed in education, mathematics/science, and other departments, and research/doctoral and other types of institutions of higher education. Our results indicate that, on average, projects housed in education departments are stronger in important ways than are projects in mathematics/science departments. Education departments sponsor professional development activities that last more than twice the number of contact hours and span a longer time period. They engage in more types of coordination with the districts from which they draw their teachers, and they place more emphasis on continuous improvement than do mathematics/science departments. Education department projects are especially strong when housed in research/doctoral universities, where they are more likely to put a high focus on content and provide numerous opportunities for active learning.

These findings of the superiority of professional development provided through education departments, in contrast with mathematics/science departments, may be due to the fact that education departments have greater expertise in student and teacher learning of subject matter, as well as experience in coordinating with practitioners. Faculty in these departments are the main contributors to the literature on effective professional development in mathematics and science. Projects in mathematics/science departments, on the other hand, have a strong content focus. Others have noted that, in the training of teachers, quality might be enhanced by better collaboration between educators and scientists. Apparently, the same can be said for continuing teacher education in the form of Eisenhower professional development. Each type of department brings unique strengths to designing and delivering professional development that could be complementary in meaningful collaboration.

[District Management and Operation of Eisenhower-Assisted Activities]

[Lessons for Professional Development]