Do Professional Development Schools (PDSs) Make a Difference? A Comparative Study of PDS and Non-PDS Teacher Candidates

Abstract

This study assesses the impact of professional development schools (PDSs) on preservice teachers, comparing PDS and non-PDS candidates at the point of licensure. Data sources include student teaching evaluations and portfolio presentations. Statistical analyses reveal PDS candidates scored significantly higher than non-PDS candidates on aspects of planning, instruction, management, and assessment. Qualitative analysis of portfolio presentations reveals PDS candidates showed greater ownership of their school and classroom and more sophistication in applying and integrating Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium standards. Five differences are discussed: how and why versus what, standards connected versus standards isolated, assessment as driving instruction versus assessment as tools, reflection connected to practice versus reflection not connected to practice, and student focus versus self-focus. Contextual and programmatic differences are used to explain the differences. The case is made that PDS graduates may affect student learning sooner than traditionally trained beginning teachers.

Keywords

professional development schools preservice teacher education assessment reflection

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bogdan, R. C. , & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Book, C. (1996). Professional development schools. In J. Sikula , T. J. Buttery , & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education(pp. 194-210). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.

Castle, S. , Fox, R. K. , & Reynolds, A. (2005). Value added: Using PDS standards to provide context for research. In M. Levine (Ed.), Implementing PDS standards: Stories from the field(pp. 35-58). Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Education Commission of the States . (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver, CO: Author. Available from http://www.ecs.org/tpreport

Holmes Group . (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Levine, M. (1992). A conceptual framework for professional practice schools. In M. Levine (Ed.), Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school reform(pp. 8-24). New York: Teachers College Press.

Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education . (2001a). Standards for professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

10.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education . (2001b). Handbook for the assessment of professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

11.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

12.

Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS 10.0 guide to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Reynolds, A. (2003). Professional development school selfassessment cross-site report(Technical report submitted to George Mason University, Fairfax, VA).

15.

Rivlin, S. G. , Hanushek, E. A. , & Kain, J. F. (2002). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Retrieved fromhttp://edpro.stanford.edu/eah/papers/basic.july2002

16.

Teitel, L. (1998). Professional development schools: Aliterature review. In M. Levine (Ed.), Designing standards that work for professional development schools(pp. 33-80). Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

17.

Valli, L. , Cooper, D. , & Frankes, L. (1997). Professional development schools and equity: A critical analysis of rhetoric and research. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education(Vol. 22, pp. 251-304). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.