This study addresses recent changes in professional development policy, practice, and theory, in which professional development has increasingly become continual, collaborative, and school based. We consider both traditional notions of structure and content as well as context in developing a more complete understanding of professional development for today's teachers.
Purpose
We conducted this study to understand more fully the delivery of school-based professional development within a high-stakes accountability context. We build on the accountability, professional development, and school context literature and expand the explanatory framework to include teacher experience with, and use of, school-based professional development in instructional practices.
Research Design
We conducted case studies of professional development in three elementary schools with varying levels of pressure to make adequate yearly progress. Although these three school sites operated within the same federal, state, and district policy contexts, the school contexts varied considerably. We focused in particular on professional development around short constructed responses, a form of paragraph writing required for the state exam.
Conclusions
We argue that school leadership, culture, and resources, as well as the structure and content of professional development, filter policy initiatives before they ultimately shape teacher learning experiences. Although high-stakes accountability policies increased the quantity of professional development, the quality of teacher learning opportunities depended on the context in which it was delivered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoardmanA. G., & WoodruffA. L. (2004). Teacher change and “high-stakes” assessment: What happens to professional development?Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 545–557.
2.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
BransfordJ. D., BrownA. L., & CockingR. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
BrykA., & SchneiderB. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–44.
5.
CohenD. K., & HillH. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294–343.
6.
CraigC. (2004). The dragon in school backyards: The influence of mandated testing on school contexts and educators’ narrative knowing. Teachers College Record, 106, 1229–1257.
7.
DesimoneL., PorterA. C., BirmanB. F., GaretM. S., & YoonK. S. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of professional development that districts provide to teachers?Teachers College Record, 104, 1265–1312.
8.
DiamondJ. B., & SpillaneJ. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106, 1145–1176.
9.
DorganK. (2004). A year in the life of an elementary school: One school's experiences in meeting new mathematics standards. Teachers College Record, 106, 1203–1228.
10.
FirestoneW. A., ManginM., MartinezM. C., & PolovskyT. (2005). Leading coherent professional development: A comparison of three districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 413–448.
11.
FirestoneW. A., SchorrR. Y., & MonfilsL. F. (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment, and educational reform. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
FishmanB. J., MarxR. W., BestS., & TalR. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643–658.
13.
FrankK., ZhaoY., & BormanK. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovation within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77, 148–171.
14.
GamoranA., SecadaW., & MarrettC. (2000). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing the theoretical perspectives. In HallinanM. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 37–63). New York: Springer.
15.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL., BirmanB. F., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
16.
GerstenR., VaughnS., DeshlerS., & SchillerE. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476.
17.
GreenbaumT. L. (1993). The handbook for focus group research (Revised and expanded ed.). New York: Lexington Books.
18.
GrossmanP., & ThompsonC. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 281–301.
19.
HaladynaT., NolenS. B., & HaasN. S. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 2–7.
20.
HamiltonM. L., & RichardsonV. (1995). Effects of the culture in two schools on the process and outcomes of staff development. Elementary School Journal, 95, 367–385.
21.
HawleyW., & ValliL. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In Darling-HammondL. & SykesGary (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
HawleyW., & ValliL. (2007). Design principles for learner-centered professional development. In HawleyW. (Ed.), The keys to effective schools (2nd ed., pp. 117–137). Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.
23.
HightowerA. M., KnappM., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. W. (2002). The district role in instructional renewal: Making sense and taking action. In HightowerA. M., KnappM., MarshJ., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 193–201). New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
IngramD., LouisK. S., & SchroederR. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106, 1258–1287.
25.
JonesM. G., JonesB. D., HardinB., ChapmanL., YarbroughT., & DavisM. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199–203.
26.
KennedyM. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
27.
LiebermanA., & McLaughlinM. W. (2000). Professional development in the United States: Policies and practices. Prospects, 30, 255–236.
28.
LittleJ. W. (1989). District policy choices and teaches’ professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 165–179.
29.
MalenB., & RiceJ. K. (2004). Framework for assessing the impact of educational reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. Educational Policy, 18, 631–660.
30.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.
31.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 728–735.
33.
MilesM., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
MintropH. (2004). High-stakes accountability, state oversight, and educational equity. Teachers College Record, 106, 2128–2145.
35.
MooreW. P. (1994). The devaluation of standardized testing: One district's response to a mandates assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 74, 343–367.
36.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, §115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
37.
NewmannF., KingM. B., & YoungsP. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108, 259–299.
38.
NovickR. (1996). Actual schools, possible practices: New directions in professional development. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 4(14).
PenuelW. R., FishmanB. J., YamaguchiR., & GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921–958.
41.
ScribnerJ. P. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 238–266.
42.
SippleJ. W., & KilleenK. M. (2004). Context, capacity, and concern: A district-level analysis of the implementation of standards-based reform in New York State. Educational Policy, 18, 456–490.
43.
SmithM. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8–11.
44.
SmylieM. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In GuskeyT. R. & HubermanM. (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 92–113). New York: Teachers College Press.
45.
SpillaneJ. P. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record, 104, 377–420.
46.
SpillaneJ. P., & ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstruction conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185–203.
47.
ThompsonC. L., & ZeuliJ. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In Darling-HammondL. & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
ValliL., CroningerR., ChamblissM., GraeberA., & BueseD. (2008). Test driven: High-stakes accountability in elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press
49.
YoungsP., & KingM. B. (2002). Principle leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643–670.
