A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

District Management of Eisenhower-assisted Activities

We now turn from describing teachers' experiences in Eisenhower-assisted activities to a description of the ways that districts manage and operate their Eisenhower programs. Each district receiving Eisenhower funds generally uses the funds to support a collection of professional development activities. The collection of professional development activities that a district supports with Eisenhower funds can be viewed in its entirety as its "portfolio" of Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities. In our analysis, we examine the factors that influence the quality of the portfolios of professional development activities that districts offer and the extent to which districts engage in efforts to target teachers of high-need students.

The measures we use to characterize the quality of a district's portfolio of Eisenhower-assisted activities are: (1) the percent of the districts' participations in reform types of activities, (2) the average span of time of activities (i.e., number of days, weeks, or months), (3) the number of opportunities for active learning in in-district workshops and institutes, and (4) the degree of collective participation in in-district workshops and institutes.^[23]

In assessing district management and operations, we focus on the role of several provisions emphasized in the legislation: (1) the coordination (co-funding) of Eisenhower-assisted activities with other sources of funding for professional development; (2) the alignment of Eisenhower-assisted activities with state and district standards and assessments; (3) the participation of teachers and school-level staff in planning Eisenhower-assisted activities; and (4) the use of a process of continuous improvement, including monitoring progress against measurable objectives and performance indicators. (See National Evaluation of the Eisenhower Program for more detail on these provisions.)

• Districts' use of co-funding, alignment, continuous improvement, and teacher involvement in planning leads to higher quality professional development. Thus, the requirements of the legislation concerning these provisions appear to be appropriate.
• Districts that engage in more co-funding of Eisenhower activities with other programs tend to support a greater proportion of reform types of activities than districts that engage in less co-funding, and they tend to provide more opportunities for collective participation.
• In addition, districts that engage in more co-funding tend to engage in more extensive continuous improvement efforts and they tend to involve teachers more widely in planning, both of which are related to increased opportunities for active learning.
• Districts that align professional development with standards and assessments are more likely to offer reform types of activities.
• In addition, the districts that align professional development with standards and assessments are more likely than others to engage in continuous improvement, which is related to increased opportunities for active learning.

These results lead us to conclude that the intentions of the program concerning strategies such as co-funding, alignment, continuous improvement, and teacher involvement in planning are appropriate, in the sense that they lead to higher quality professional development.

• Among districts where federal programs operate and support professional development, districts are more likely to co-fund with programs that have a mathematics and science focus than with other federal programs.
• For example, as Exhibit ES.4 shows, 44 percent of teachers are in districts with an NSF-funded State Systemic Initiative (SSI); of those, 67 percent are in districts where the SSI supports professional development; and of those, 66 percent are in districts where the Eisenhower project co-funds with the SSI. Among teachers in districts in which Title I, Part A operates and funds professional development, 50 percent are in districts where the Eisenhower project co-funds with Title I; proportions are smaller for other Department of Education programs.^[24]

Exhibit ES.4
Percent of Teachers in Districts in Which Other Federal Programs Operate, Support Professional Development, and Co-fund with Eisenhower-assisted Activities
(n=363)

Source: Telephone Survey of District Eisenhower Coordinators, Spring 1998. How to read this exhibit: Forty-four percent of teachers are in districts where coordinators report that a Statewide Systemic Initiative operated in their state in 1997. Of those, 67 percent funded professional development during 1997, and of those, 66 percent co-funded professional development with Eisenhower.

• Most districts report that their Eisenhower-assisted professional development activities are aligned with standards and assessments.
• Alignment is more likely to be reported for state standards and assessments than it is for district standards and assessments, and more likely to be reported for mathematics than for science.
• Alignment is more likely for standards than for assessments. For example, according to district coordinators, 85 percent of teachers are in districts where the Eisenhower professional development activities are aligned with district mathematics standards. In contrast, 69 percent of teachers are in districts where the Eisenhower professional development activities are aligned with district mathematics assessments.

The greater alignment for standards than for assessments may reflect the fact that the ESEA requirement of aligned assessments had not yet gone into effect at the time we collected our data.

• Almost all teachers are in districts that report involving teachers in planning professional development.
• Ninety-nine percent of teachers are in districts that involve teachers in district-level planning of Eisenhower-assisted activities, and sixty-two percent are in districts in which teachers are involved in a formal school-level committee to plan professional development.

These findings lead us to conclude that the provision of the law that supports teacher participation in planning is relatively well implemented. Still, our case study data reveal that the Eisenhower legislation's 80/20 rule, which calls for at least 80 percent of funds to be used "in a manner that is determined by?teachers and staff" and "to the extent practicable, takes place at the individual school site," is not well understood and is sometimes not even known to exist. In particular, it is not clear if the provision means that planning should involve teachers and occur at the school site, or whether it is designed to encourage teacher involvement in district-level planning.

• The use of performance indicators to guide the continuous improvement process is not yet widespread in districts that receive Eisenhower funds.
• Fewer than one in five teachers are in districts that collect data on performance indicators established to guide district professional development efforts.
• Only one third of the teachers are in districts that have developed such indicators.
• The majority of teachers are in districts whose Eisenhower coordinators are not aware that their state has performance indicators.

Clearly, the development of state and district performance indicators is a goal of the program that is not generally being implemented, at least not yet. There are other ways in which districts show some commitment to continuous improvement. Needs assessments through teacher surveys and informal conversations are common. Nearly every district reports evaluating its professional development activities. These evaluations, however, are frequently based on teacher satisfaction surveys or participation counts. It is less common to use observations of teachers' subsequent classroom practice to evaluate the effectiveness of Eisenhower professional development.

• District efforts to target teachers of special populations of students have met with very limited success.
• Districts report a strong emphasis on recruiting teachers from high-poverty, low-achieving schools and slightly less emphasis on recruiting teachers from Title I schools.
• Despite these reported efforts at targeting, and even though districts with larger numbers of high-poverty students receive more funding, teachers from high-poverty schools are only slightly more likely than others to participate in Eisenhower-funded activities.

Although districts have met the Department of Education's standard for targeting (see page 10), current targeting strategies apparently have limited effectiveness. Perhaps these results are explained, in part, by the fact that most participants in Eisenhower-assisted activities are volunteers. It is possible that districts do not have adequate strategies to shape the incentives and constraints that determine which teachers volunteer.

• Generally, larger districts are more likely to manage their portfolios better and to provide higher quality professional development than are smaller districts.
• Larger districts are more likely to align their professional development with standards and assessments, to co-fund their projects, and to have a greater commitment to continuous improvement; they also provide activities of longer duration, with more opportunities for collective participation and active learning.^[25]

Perhaps large districts have a better infrastructure and more capacity than small districts, which may enable them to provide higher quality professional development. Large districts also may have a greater variety of funding sources in addition to Eisenhower, increasing opportunities for co-funding, and perhaps creating a complexity that demands a commitment to continuous improvement.

[Features of Professional Development That Promote Improvements in Teaching]

[SAHE-grantee Management of Eisenhower-assisted Activities]