The Professional Development School (PDS) concept was developed by the Holmes Group (now known as the Holmes Partnership) in response to a national call for educational reform. More recent reform agendas question the effectiveness of the PDS model. This article examines the changes that are occurring in the Temple University PDS in Philadelphia, where the state had taken over public schools. Temple University is serving as the manager of six schools. The resulting effect on both the professional development of teachers and student learning is uncertain. However, the challenges and opportunities to enhance the current PDS structure are promising.
A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. (1983). Areport to the nation and the Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, by the National Commission on Excellence in Education.
2.
Bullough, R. V., Jr., Hobbs, H. F., Kauchak, D. P., Crow, N. A., & Stokes, D. (1997). Longterm PDS development in research universities and the clinicalization of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 85-95.
3.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
4.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.
5.
Duffy, G. G. (1994). Professional development schools and the disempowerment of teachers and professors. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 596-600.
6.
English, L. (1997). Children’s reasoning processes in classifying and solving computational word problems. In L. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images(pp. 191-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581-584.
8.
Hammrich, P., Richardson, G., & Livingston, B. (2000). Sisters in science: A teacher’s reflective dialogue on confronting the gender gap. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 38-52.
9.
Hobbs, S. F., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Kauchak, D. P., Crow, N. A.,& Stokes, D. (1998, September/ October). Professional development schools: Catalysts for collaboration and change. The Clearing House, pp. 47-50.
10.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
11.
Hunter, M. (1995). Discipline that develops self-discipline. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12.
Kochan, F. K., & Kunkel, R. C. (1998). The learning coalition: Professional development schools in partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 325-333.
13.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Schools Press.
14.
Kozol, J. (1995). Amazing grace: The lives of children and the conscience of a nation. New York: Crown Publishers.
15.
Leonard, J. (2002). Taking science dialogue by storm. Science and Children, 39(4), 31-35.
16.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practice schools. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 105-112.
17.
Murrell, P. C., Jr. (1998). Like stone soup: The role of the professional development schools in the renewal of urban schools. New York: AACTE Publication.
18.
Nelson, M. D. (1998, October). Professional development schools: An implementation model. NASSP Bulletin, pp. 93-100.
19.
Nevarez-La Torre, A. (1997). Influencing Latino education. Education and Urban Society, 30(1), 58-75.
20.
Nevarez-La Torre, A.,& Sanford-De Shields, J. (1999). Strides toward equity in an urban center: Temple University’s professional development school partnership. The Urban Review, 31, 243-263.
21.
No child left behind: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001. (2001). A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, President Bush Initiative.
22.
Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
Proctor, T. J., Wagstaff, M. E., & Ochoa, B. (1998). An urban professional development school. Teaching and Change, 6(1), 35-52.
24.
Sanford, J.,& Mahar, R. (1997). Retrospective of an urban-based teacher education program: Its conception, development and implementation for co-existence with a traditional model. Contemporary Education, 67(4), 213-218.
25.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning community. New York: Doubleday.
26.
Sewell, T., Shapiro, J., Du Cette, J., & Sanford, J. (1994). Professional development schools in the inner city: Policy implications for school-university collaboration. In H. Petrie (Ed.), Professionalization, partnership and power: Building professional development schools(pp. 179-197). New York: SUNY Press.
27.
Snyder, S. (2002a, April 23). Groups get an invite to aid district. Retrieved April 26, 2002, from www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2002/04/23/living/education/3120498.htm
28.
Snyder, S. (2002b, April 20). School panel: Lessons in politics. The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. C4-C4.
29.
Snyder, S.,& Woodall, M. (2002, April 11). Seventy-five schools targeted for possible overhaul. The Philadelphia Inquirer, pp. A1-A1, A12-A12.
30.
Sparks, D. (1998). The educator examined: An interview with Philip Schlechty. Journal of Staff Development, 19(3), 38-42.
31.
Stedman, L. (1993). The condition of education: Why school reformers are on the right track. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 215-216, 218-225.
