![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
A list of some of the topics addressed during one school's weekly half-day of professional development time gives one a sense of the variety of issues facing teachers today, particularly at the elementary school level: planning for a common unit incorporating the seven intelligences, cross-grade collaborations on a writing activity, sharing cooperative learning strategies, implementing the district's new mathematics and reading series and math/science kits, coordinating the implementation of student progress reports and TQM, and organizing journal writing and ecology projects.
In California and Michigan, few teachers reported taking formal course work at universities, beyond what was required to complete a degree requirement. College courses were more frequently mentioned in Vermont, however. Teachers faced limited time (family demands), limited resources (districts would not reimburse them the cost of tuition), and limited access (distance to the nearest university) to this source of capacity-building. Distance also presented some problems in Vermont, but the districts there did offer to reimburse teachers for college tuition.
To supplement these reports from our interviews, we asked survey questions about participation in inservice activities of various types that were related to the teaching of mathematics and reading/writing. One item asks what types of support for professional development were available. (See Table 19 and Table 20.) A separate question was asked about whether teachers had participated in specific types of inservice activity. Activities ranged from school-system sponsored workshops to committee work to college course taking as well as professional activities sponsored by professional associations. (See Table 21 and Table 22.) It should be noted that the survey reflects traditional inservice categories and does not attempt to capture qualitative differences in support for professional development.
Because similar questions were included in the NELS Follow Up, we have some basis for comparing teachers in these reform districts with national average participation. The comparison must be made with caution, however, because the NELS respondents were typically teaching 10th grade. In general, secondary school teachers tend to be more oriented toward their fields of subject specialization than teachers at the lower grades. Some consequent shift in the pattern of opportunities for capacity building seems likely. In our tables, we include the NELS comparison only for the middle school teachers, where the difference in level is often only two grades (i.e., between 8th and 10th).
As with previous sections, we start with a sketch of the range of professional development opportunities teachers have in each of our sample states and districts.
The state also supports teachers' professional development mainly through networks in mathematics and writing. These networks are located in each of the state's 15 regions, and teachers are released from teaching three to four times a year for half a day to participate. Network goals include disseminating information to teachers about the content of the state's portfolio assessment, helping teachers score assessments, and sharing resources about, for example, mathematics problems teachers can use with students. The state also supports professional development for helping teachers work with at-risk students (Act 230).
This level of participation in professional development seems high, as we would expect for a reform district. On a survey question, Vermont middle school teachers report participation far above the NELS average in the proportion who received released time from their teaching for work with writing. (See Table 19.) The participation of elementary teachers also seems high. Though we have no national average to compare to at this level, we note that the participation percentages for elementary are almost as high as those for middle school teachers. Professional development for elementary teachers is higher in mathematics than in writing, which reflects many comments that the curriculum suggested in writing was much like what many teachers were already doing.
Next, we look at teachers' participation in different types of professional development activities. (See Table 21 and Table 22.) The activities in which all teachers were most involved were school-system workshops and work on curriculum committees. For middle-school teachers, there was also high participation in activities sponsored by the professional associations. Once again, elementary teachers did more in mathematics than in writing. Many of these teachers also took college coursework, with elementary school teachers taking classes in education and middle school teachers taking classes in other fields, presumably often in mathematics or in English. This pattern of continuing coursework fits with the district policy of offering tuition credits as a part of its support for staff development.
We can look at the results from the national NELS survey of 10th grade teachers as a basis for comparison. The national sample had a similar pattern of highest participation in school-system workshops, committee work, and professional associations. The striking difference comes in the higher levels of participation, especially in college coursework, for middle school mathematics teachers. As with sources of support, the elementary teachers reported more participation in mathematics than in writing. This intensive work in mathematics confirms the many interview comments that Vermont teachers see their current practice in mathematics as requiring more of a change than their practice in teaching writing.
Sample districts' level of participation in the California initiatives varies. In the one district, professional development is extensive. Teachers have access to a number of university-based initiatives, including the Subject Matter Projects. Furthermore, the district has in place a coordinated effort to offer teachers a range of professional development opportunities, especially in mathematics and science. For example, the district has supported the development of teacher leaders in science. Over a four-year period, 24 elementary teachers have attended summer institutes to learn more about specific science content and science teaching with intensive and highly coordinated follow-up during the school year. Also, a science museum provides workshops for district teachers. In the other district, professional development mainly takes the form of workshops on designated, state-supported professional development days. Teachers in this district also have access to subject matter projects at two local universities and participate in grade level networks.
Turning to the types of support California teachers say they received, a high proportion of teachers report getting released time for their work in mathematics. Among sample elementary teachers, the proportion is far above the NELS average. (See Table 20.) Middle school mathematics teachers are also above the NELS average in all other categories of support. (See Table 19.) Writing teachers at the middle school levels report support for released time, stipends, professional growth credits.
With the specific types of inservice activity, there is a much higher rate of participation in summer workshops among elementary mathematics and reading teachers in our sample. This may reflect teachers' participation in summer institutes connected with the California Subject Matter Projects as well as district-sponsored summer institutes. Elementary mathematics teachers also had high rates of participation on curriculum committees and other committee work.
What is striking in California is that few teachers took any college courses. Perhaps the availability of other opportunities left teachers with little time for formal college work, or perhaps they did not find coursework that seemed suited to their needs.
The state plays a modest role in supporting teachers' professional development. It recently increased its professional development funding from two million to ten million dollars per year. (This increase came after we conducted our site visits, and we do not know how our districts' professional development was influenced.) The state also offers an extended school year grant which provides $200 per pupil to local school districts for up to three years to extend their school year to 200 days. One district in our study received a $1.1 million extended school year grant which also required teachers to complete 20 hours of professional development during the school year. Also, the Michigan state department of education co-sponsors 17-workshops on elementary and middle mathematics instruction. The Michigan Reading Association and the Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics have also played a major role in capacity building. Both organizations assisted with revisions to the state's Essential Goals and Objectives in reading and mathematics and are involved in developing the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments. Also, teachers in one of our sites were involved with a university-based project sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the Middle Grades Math Project.
Given the range of activities available in the sample districts, it is surprising that so many Michigan elementary teachers indicated on the survey that they received no support for professional development over the past year. (See Table 20.) This may reflect the lack of time these teachers are afforded to participate in professional development activities rather than their availability, or their participation in activities focused on other instructional issues. In contrast, however, middle school mathematics and reading teachers report receiving support far above the NELS average.
In the types of professional activities teachers report participating in, most striking is elementary teachers' high rate of participation on mathematics curriculum committees. This perhaps reflects districts' use of curriculum committees to introduce teachers to new practices. If so, it does not hold for reading where elementary teachers report little participation. Among both elementary and middle school reading teachers, Michigan teachers' rates of professional development participation are low in comparison to the reform districts in our other two states. One possible explanation is that the state has not changed its reading objectives since the mid-1980s, so teachers are focusing on more recent curriculum changes, like mathematics and science.
As in California, participation in formal college courses is a small part of the professional development these teachers undertake.
The fact that participation was higher for mathematics than for language arts is due at least in part to teachers' sense that they were being asked to make bigger changes in that subject area, changes requiring considerable new learning for them.
Teachers generally reported going to colleagues for assistance, but teachers in the Vermont districts providing support for college tuition did take advantage of that opportunity. That may suggest that, despite some comments that colleges do not provide content of most use to teachers, it is the cost of participation that represents a major barrier.
-###-
[Conclusion]