Aprofessional development model was designed for and is being tested in approximately fifty U.S. middle schools in five large urban districts, with half in each district randomly assigned to receive the two-year treatment. Each school forms a mathematics/science leadership team of five to seven members, including at least one administrator. Teams receive professional development in district-level workshops, then work with all math and science teachers in their school. The core idea is to provide teachers with data on their instructional practices and student achievement, then teach them how to use that data to improve their effectiveness. This article documents the successes and failures of treatment implementation and the collection of baseline and outcome data. The focus is on learning about doing place-based randomized trials to test the efficacy of education programs. At the time of this writing, treatment is not yet complete and study results are not available.
Berman, Paul , and MilbreyW. McLaughlin. 1975. Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 4. The findings in review. R-1589/4-HEW. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
2.
Boruch, R. F.1997. Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: Apractical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Boruch, Robert , Dorothy De Moya, and Brooke Snyder. 2002. The importance of randomized field trials in education and related areas. In Randomized trials in education research, ed. Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
4.
Campbell, David T. , and J. C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research teaching. In Handbook of research on teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, 171-246. Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
Cohen, David K. , and Heather C. Hill. 2001. Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
Cook, Thomas D.2002. Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis24 (3): 175-199.
7.
Council of Chief State School Officers . 2002. Experimental design to measure effects of assisting teachers in using data on enacted curriculum to improve effectiveness of instruction in mathematics and science education. DEC Project: Year 2 Report to the National Science Foundation on GrantRECno. 0087562. September. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
8.
Creighton, Theodore B.2001. Data analysis in administrators' hands: An oxymoron?The School Administrator4 (58): 6-11.
9.
Desimone, Laura , Andrew C. Porter, Michael Garet, Kwang Suk Yoon, and BeaBirman. 2002. Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis24 (2): 81-112.
10.
Fullan, Michael . 2002. The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan81 (8): 581-584.
11.
Gamoran, Adam , Andrew C. Porter, John L. Smithson, and Paula A. White. 1997. Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19 (4): 325-338.
12.
Garet, Michael S. , Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Bea F. Birman, and Kwang Suk Yoon. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal38 (4): 915-945.
13.
Loucks-Horsley, Susan , Peter W. Hewson, Nancy Love, and Katherine E. Stiles. 1998. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
14.
Love, Nancy . 2002. Using data/getting results: A practical guide for school improvement inmathematics and science. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
15.
Martin, Michael O. , Ina V. S. Mullis, Eugenio J. Gonzalez, Kathleen M. O’Connor, Steven J. Chrostowski, Kelvin D. Gregory, T. A. Smith, and R. A. Garden. 2001. Science benchmarking report TIMSS 1999— Eighth grade: Achievement for U.S. states and districts in an international context. Boston: Boston College, Lynch School of Education.
16.
Mullis, Ina V. S. , Michael O. Martin, Eugenio J. Gonzalez, Kathleen M. O’Connor, Steven J. Chrostowski, Kelvin D. Gregory, R. A. Garden, and T. A. Smith. 2001. Mathematics benchmarking report TIMSS 1999—Eighth grade: Achievement for U.S. states and districts in an international context. Boston: Boston College, Lynch School of Education.
17.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. 2002. http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf (accessed April 29, 2003).
18.
Porter, Andrew C.1997. Comparative experiments in education. In Complementary methods for research in education, 2nd ed., ed. Richard M. Jaeger, 523-585. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
19.
Porter, Andrew C.2002. Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher31 (7): 3-14.
20.
Porter, Andrew C. , Michael S. Garet, Laura M. Desimone, and Bea F. Birman. 2003. Providing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Science Educator12 (1): 23-40.
21.
Porter, Andrew C. , Michael W. Kirst, Eric J. Osthoff, John L. Smithson, and Steven A. Schneider. 1993. Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Final Report to the National Science Foundation on Grant no. SAP-8953446 to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
22.
Pressman, Jeffrey L. , and AaronWildavsky. 1984. Implementation. 3rd ed.Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
Schmocker, Michael . 2002. Up and away. Journal of Staff Development Council23 (2): 10-13.
24.
Smith, Christopher L. , and Rachel L. Freeman. 2002. Using continuous system level assessment to build school capacity. American Journal of Evaluation23 (3): 307-319.
25.
Stebbins, Linda B. , Robert G. St. Pierre, Elizabeth C. Proper, Richard B. Anderson, and Thomas R. Cerva. 1976. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Vol. III, U.S. Office of Education Contract no. 300-75-0134. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
26.
Streifer, Phillip A.2001. The “drill down” process. The School Administrator4 (58): 16-19.
27.
Stringfield, Samuel , Linda F. Winfield, Mary Ann Millsap, M. Puma, B. Gamse, and B. Randall. 1994. Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: First year report. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . 2000. NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance. NCES 2000-2469. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . 2002. The condition of education 2002. NCES 2002-2025. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30.
Wellman, Bruce M. , and Robert J. Garmston. 1999. The adaptive school: Developing and facilitating collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
31.
Yeagley, Raymond . 2001. Data in your hands. The School Administrator4 (58): 12-15.
