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

The Policy Context

In response to public concerns about education, state and local governments have taken steps to increase children?s achievement in school. Many states and school districts have adopted rigorous content standards, as well as student performance standards, which describe the breadth and depth at which students should master content.^[1] The federal government, too, has moved to support states in their development of content and student performance standards.

National, state, and local efforts to improve education are intended to create a fundamental shift in what students learn and how they are taught. The success of such ambitious education reform initiatives hinges, in large part, on the qualifications of teachers. However, while teachers generally support high standards for teaching and learning, many teachers are not prepared to implement teaching practices based on high standards.^[2] Many teachers learned to teach using a model of teaching and learning that focuses heavily on memorizing facts, without also emphasizing deeper understanding of subject matter.^[3]

As a result, teacher professional development is a major focus of systemic reform initiatives.^[4] The need for high-quality professional development that focuses on subject-matter content and how students learn that content is all the more pressing in light of the many teachers who teach outside of their areas of specialization.^[5] In 1998, 12 percent of science teachers of students in grades 7-12, and 18 percent of mathematics teachers in these grades, had neither a major nor a minor in their main teaching assignment.^[6] This situation is especially true of teachers who teach at-risk students and those who teach in high-poverty schools. In 1998, teachers lacking a major in their primary assignment taught almost a quarter of the classes in high-poverty schools, compared to 14 percent of classes in low-poverty schools.^[7]

The Eisenhower Professional Development Program, established in 1984 and reauthorized in 1988 and 1994, aims to support high-quality professional development to help teachers meet the demands of teaching to high standards. Yet, the 1988-89 evaluation of Eisenhower indicated that district-supported activities, which account for the vast majority of program funds, tended to be one-time in-service training events, averaging six hours in length.^[8] The 1994 reauthorization intended to shift program-funded activities away from short-term professional development toward longer, more intensive activities.

[Introduction]

[The Eisenhower Program]