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

A Tool is Only as Good as its Use (continued)

Effective Professional Development: the Teachers' View

The professional development activities and strategies of the states and districts in our study have been described elsewhere in this report (Chapters 3 and 4 of this volume and the case studies of volume 2). Our purpose here is to briefly present two central findings with respect to the impact of these professional development activities on the capacity of teachers and schools, as reported by respondents in this investigation. These findings mirror and lend additional support for the second lesson concerning assessments and capacity building, outlined above.

The first of these findings is that if monies going for professional development are to be effective in promoting teacher learning, the programs and activities they support must be well designed and well implemented. This is a straightforward, common sensical conclusion, but given the preponderance of the "training model" of staff development and of generally ineffective programs, it is a conclusion that bears repeating and further explication.¹³ Through this and other research, a set of design characteristics or principles begins to emerge.

Teachers in this study complained about professional development that was poorly planned, irrelevant to their instructional goals or their needs, unchallenging, or lacking in follow-up. Some activities were viewed simply as a waste of time. Yet most respondents had also had very positive experiences:

The inservices and replacement units, the Bay Area Writer's Project and many subsequent programs, turned my whole way of teaching around.... Now I have a whole different view of what writing is about. It's a process. You don't need to grade every piece of writing. You should discuss, learn from each other, use writing response groups...

Analysis of both the criticisms and the commendations suggest a model of effective professional development from the perspective of teachers--at least the reform-minded teachers investigated here. Although the format of these programs differed depending on the grade level and discipline, several design principles run through the variations. These principles or characteristics are consistent with the emerging paradigm of professional development in current literature (e.g., see Little, 1993, and McLaughlin and Oberman, forthcoming 1995). We outline these characteristics below, along with representative comments from teachers.

According to our respondents, effective professional development included the following features.

• The teachers were treated as professionals. Often the content was teacher determined. Participants conducted investigations and made presentations rather than relying solely on the staff development organizers. Participants were often encouraged to become involved in other professional activities and associations. Stipends and release time were also viewed as concrete indications that the activities were professional in nature and the participants time and involvement were valued.

They validate that you are a professional, give you respect. They pay a stipend. It's not much but you feel professionally validated. They're also very organized.

The people [organizers] are really intelligent--they don't waste your time. They have a way of looking at the kernel of your strengths and weaknesses.

• The professional development was engaging and intellectually challenging. There was particular enthusiasm for programs that engaged participants in doing science, doing math, reading literature, or writing compositions. The instruction was thus hands on and in some cases inquiry-based.

It's important that there be some kind of philosophy behind it. That is's not a gimmick, but for example a philosophy about why reading should be taught in this way.... It has to be authentic--something you can agree with and that is challenging, something where you have to think.

Not all staff development is best when it comes from the teacher. There should be ways for teachers to talk to real writers. We need to deal with kids as real writers if that is what you want them to be. You are the writer of your piece; consider what you have to say.

The focus was on giving time to explore and getting to the place where you want answers (for both adults and kids). It's the place where you can't go any further with the information you have. It's more than asking questions because you and they can already do that. It's getting to the point where you need an answer to proceed in your understanding. The teacher then gives you another question or direction to pursue or information to get beyond that.... The idea is you work with things to find an answer, to make sense of things. You work until you find an answer.

The summer [workshop] was frustrating for me because they really make you go through the process as a learner. But that suffering helped me in the classroom because it's difficult to give kids enough time to explore.

• The content and activities were relevant to the students in the teachers' own classrooms and schools, and they had the opportunity to work with teachers who had similar instructional situations.

It's important that they be taught by people who've been in the classroom--preferably by people who are currently in the classroom. And by people who've tried it and give hints about what worked and what didn't.... Also, the material should have been used with similarly situated children as those we have. Suburban kids respond to different stimuli. Kids here needs lots of hands-on activities, not just sitting still listening to a lecture. Many of our kids can't do that. It needs to be something they can involved in and that will be related to them.

They made math fun. I met with other teachers doing the same kinds of things with the same level of students. We had the same frustrations; it was a meeting of like minds. There was a lot of sharing with other teachers. The activities were validating, student-centered, and relatively easy to do. What I mean is that is was relatively easy to come back and try them in class. Sometimes you go to these things and come back with great ideas but it's really tough to get it all together to use in your class.

• The professional development was on-going. In many cases there were intensive workshops or institutes, followed by involvement in networks, on-going coaching at the school site, and so forth.

Before [2061] I had done two three-week teacher workshops with [the local science museum]. One was on light and color and the other was on sound. After the workshops we had an artist and a scientist who each came to the classroom five times for a total of ten visits.

• There were ample opportunities for collaboration with other teachers on specific projects or activities. Considered especially helpful were those cases in which the teachers collaborated in the design of curriculum or other projects, tried it out, and collectively reflected on the outcome.

Beyond these characteristics, some argued that the very best professional development was site-based. These comments, not surprisingly, came from teachers who were in schools that had on-going mechanisms for site-based professional development.

The very best are more site-based and classroom-based.... My sense is that we have to make programs more site-based. That was you know the people and work with them. [This doesn't have to be the case though.] The Bay Area Writing Project was a closed group, and we got to know each other by spending a lot of time talking specifically about things in the classroom.

This should not imply, however, that even these teachers believed professional development should be entirely site-based. Indeed, even in the most school-based reform efforts in this study, teachers became involved originally through individual professional development opportunities like the writing project, the networks, a summer workshop in science or math, etc. The impact on school improvement was then heightened as on-going opportunities for learning became focused at the school-site. But even then, teachers continued to pursue and saw advantages to cross-site activities as a way of expanding their knowledge and bringing new ideas into the school. Some combination of on-site and cross-site professional development thus seemed particularly useful.

They have so many good components--a person on site who works with individual teachers and groups of teachers, which was later translated into larger groups of people so we could learn from teachers at other sites, exchange, share, work on curriculum together. What other opportunity like this exists for intellectual exchange? We're basically speaking the same language and at the same level so we can get a lot done...

In the example above, the on-site and cross-site activities mentioned were organized by the inter-segmental group associated with the University of California. However, individual teachers in this school were engaged in a number of other professional development activities as well, both geared to their own individual learning and to improving instruction more broadly at the school.

Using Professional Development to Build Systemic Capacity

Our conclusion, based on interviews at all levels of the system, was that for the most part, the staff development sponsored by these states and districts remained on an "awareness level"--that is, the activities were short-term, often fairly broad-based efforts to increase teachers' awareness of the reforms, their ability to administer or score the assessments, or their basic familiarity with the new curricula. Examples of such awareness-level activities would include most of the district-organized "staff development days" and programs as well as such activities as the MEAP workshops in Michigan and even the portfolio workshops and networks in Vermont. The reported quality and effectiveness of these activities varied considerably, of course, with some criticized as "worthless" and others providing information or ideas that respondents found quite useful.

Our data suggest that the general reliance on such awareness-focused professional development may have varied sources. In some cases, it appeared to be an unplanned, almost "knee-jerk" response to a reform initiative or new curriculum framework, falling clearly into the "training model" of staff development. In other cases, it represented a more conscious tactical decision to concentrate limited resources on a particular focal point considered critical to the reform and also relevant and informative to teachers. Such would appear to be the case with the portfolio work in Vermont, for example. Taken together, professional development of this kind, when connected to the overall reform goals, seemed to serve as a mechanism for broad dissemination of new initiatives and for generating teacher enthusiasm and desire for further learning. In doing so, it was an important aspect of the reform initiatives in these states and districts.

Despite its usefulness, however, such broad but relatively superficial dissemination by itself is unlikely to produce the desired long-term changes in instruction. Absent a more comprehensive strategic approach to professional development, these awareness-level activities seemed to fall short of the needed capacity building in two respects. First, they were generally of insufficient duration and follow-up to develop the deep content and pedagogical knowledge necessary to meet the new instructional goals (see Little 1993). Second, they did not appear to be building an infrastructure to promote and sustain teacher learning and instructional improvement over the long term. The networks in Vermont leaned in this direction, of course, but their limited focus on portfolio scoring seems to have weakened their links to instruction and school improvement (see above). This situation may change as the reform matures.

Although much of the professional development discussed by our respondents reflected a rather unidimensional approach to professional development, we did see evidence in these sites of more multi-faceted and strategic approaches as well. The most extensive of these at a statewide level were the California Subject Matter Projects. Sponsored by the state and administered through the President's office of the University of California, these teacher led, independent efforts have become a core element of the reforms in that state. At the heart of the SMPs are the intensive, multi-week workshops in the summer focused on deepening teachers' content knowledge, developing pedagogical strategies linked to that content, and fostering professional habits of reflection.

From the state perspective, the goal is to develop a "critical mass" of teachers in the state to serve as professional leaders of the reform. Such leadership is further developed as participants are recruited into professional disciplinary associations and into on-going networks organized around particular projects or issues or around providing professional development during the academic year to districts and schools. For example, one site of the mathematics project had four on-going networks at the time of our data collection. One focused on issues of assessment, another on equity and access. A third took responsibility for organizing the monthly Saturday seminars on special topics, open to anyone on a walk-in, free-of-charge basis. And the fourth was responsible for responding to requests from districts for staff development. The staff development provided by the SMPs during the school year was a valuable resource to local districts. While of shorter duration than the summer institutes, these workshops were still intensive enough to foster content learning; moreover, they served both to broaden the influence of the subject area reforms and to develop leadership of those network members who organized them.

The fact that nearly all of the California respondents had had experience with the Subject Matter Projects, which several viewed as pivotal to their professional learning, attests to the power of this approach to professional development. Nevertheless, there are clear limitations to what the SMPs can or should be expected to accomplish vis a vis capacity of the system as a whole.

For one thing, the SMPs have limited resources (approximately $100,000 per site per year) and limited reach. One of our state respondents estimated that only 2 percent of California teachers had been through any of the subject matter projects.

In addition, however, the SMPs are professional groups focused primarily on the learning and long-term development of the individual teachers involved. Much of their strength stems from the fact that they are based outside the bureaucracy of the system. In the words of several respondents, the SMPs provide a "professional home" for teachers outside the schools--a place where teachers can think and talk and learn about the substance of their work. This strength brings with it certain limitations, however, as the linkage of the SMPs to organizational capacity building are somewhat tenuous. For example, our data indicate that relations with districts and schools are uneven and sometimes strained as project directors strive to protect their participants and alumni from what they fear will be abuse as employer districts try to over-exploit their expertise. In addition, because teachers generally participate as individuals, the link to school level improvement is also less powerful than it might be. One SMP director discussed the downside of this approach:

My worry about the Subject Matter Projects is if we're truly doing the job that we want to--creating teacher professionalism--but there is no place for that conversation, for reflection, and for continued growth to go on within the system, then we could be doing more disservice than service. [I say this] because teachers go back to their schools and get really frustrated. They say,I got out there, I tried to do this, I was making this happen; why isn't it changing what I see for me in schools? Why isn't my voice being heard to deal with what's going on?'

Some strategies were evident in our sites to strengthen the connection between professional development of teachers and organizational development and school change. For example, in California the grade level and other school networks in California, encouraged teachers to participate in the SMPs as part of the school change efforts. The California Alliance for Elementary Education even promoted a two-for-one campaign in which they would pay for a second teacher from a participating school to attend a SMP summer workshop along with a school-sponsored colleague. The idea was to foster a core of knowledgeable teachers who could support each other in improving practice and continued learning at the school site.

Michigan had a different approach to linking individual and organizational capacity building, the Professional Development Schools. The PDS strategy not only brings university professors and teachers at the school site together for on-going collaboration aimed at instructional improvement, it also looks to the future by forging inroads into preservice teacher preparation. This strategy, however, also confronts tensions between school-based improvement needs and university-based preservice teacher education needs. This tension, combined with other factors, such as the high cost of PDS programs and new leadership at the sponsoring agency, has placed the future of PDS schools in Michigan in jeopardy.

Each of the professional development strategies discussed above makes inroads toward addressing the long-term capacity needs of the system with respect to standards-based reform. The SMPs are examples of teacher professional development that builds leadership and deep content knowledge, both through summer workshops and networks and through school year staff development to districts and schools. The school networks in California and the PDS strategy in Michigan are examples of school-based efforts to link such staff development to improvement efforts at the school site and to preservice education.

There remains the question, however, of how the system can use these knowledgeable teacher professionals or these reform-minded schools to create an infrastructure that fosters long-term capacity building among its members and throughout its sub-units. One of the California districts provided an example of a district-wide strategy aimed toward that end.

Initiated by an insightful and energetic mathematics and science coordinator in the district's central office, the strategy began and is most developed in the area of elementary science. While science was not a focus of this study, the uniqueness and success of this strategy, coupled with the fact that it is being used as the model for district initiatives in mathematics and early literacy, suggest its relevance for this discussion. The strategy consists of a three-pronged approach based on the district's analyzed need for three types of professional development: awareness initiatives designed for broad dissemination as a catalyst for change; more intensive and on-going efforts focused on content and instructional strategies in curriculum, assessment, or special problem areas; and finally leadership development efforts to foster the capacity of individuals to play leading roles in the other two initiatives.

The science strategy is based on the coordination of four separate programs into one coherent initiative that includes all three types of professional development, linked together and supporting one another. At the core are 24 elementary school teacher leaders, who for the past four to five years have devoted several weeks in the summer and considerable time during the year to learn and do science and science education. The summer institutes focus on the content itself (e.g., geology); then during the year the emphasis shifts to content-based pedagogy. There are two aspects to the science leaders' work during the school year. The first is on-going site-based development. For this, the leadership group is divided into eight triads. Each triad collectively services the science education in each of the three teachers' schools, designing presentations or interactive classroom demonstrations, giving them, refining them, giving them again in a second school, and so forth in an on-going iterative process that is based on and responds to the conditions in each of the three schools. In addition, the whole group meets together five to ten times during the year to discuss the work and consolidate lessons across the sites. The science leaders are given other opportunities for leadership development as well, through the local science museum and the University of California as well as through mentor teacher activities and science curriculum development. The result is that these 24 teachers have formed the core for science education in the district.

On a broader level, over 100 teachers (at least one from each elementary school) have been involved in a program sponsored by the local UC campus which includes summer institutes and follow-up during the year. This group assists in designing and presenting the three professional development days during the year devoted to the new science framework and instructional materials and are point people in their schools for developing the science curriculum.

Then, on the very broadest level, all elementary teachers participate in the SIP day in-services focused on science. These in-services provide the awareness level professional development geared toward motivating broad based change. Thus, while awareness activities are important in this strategy, they are neither its totality nor its core. Rather, the other two initiatives, the science leadership and the UC-sponsored programs, provide the substantive foundation and longer term infra-structure for change.

A crucial element of this strategy is that the initiatives work together and incorporate a multi-faceted, though loosely weaved web of relationships and activities all moving in the same general direction with respect to science education. Considered as a whole, the strategy incorporates individual, site-based, and cross-site approaches to build individual and collective knowledge. Moreover, it fosters collaboration not only among educators but between teachers and practicing scientists. It extends resources by building on-going partnerships with science resources in the area. And it links in with other programs in the district, including the mentor teacher program and Project 2061. And finally, it responds to needs for capacity building at all levels of the system: the needs of the district for a core of knowledgeable practitioners in science who can assist in curriculum, materials, and staff development; the needs of individual schools and of the district for at least one person with deep content knowledge to help implement the science reforms in each school; and the needs of individual teachers for a range of on-going professional development activities that recognize the differing interests, foci, and levels of commitment of individual teachers to any particular reform area.

This district's strategy is of course only one of many possible approaches to linking teacher professional development and systemic capacity building. But it provides insights into the possibilities when capacity building is the goal and when there is leadership and capacity in the district to broker and facilitate learning opportunities.

[A Tool Is Only as Good as its Use]

[Continuing Challenges]