Based on a review of research, this article examines the extent to which recent reforms related to professional development addressed different aspects of school capacity. The reforms include teacher networks in California, the use of consultants and intervisitation in New York City's District 2, student assessments in Kentucky and Maryland, and school improvement plans in South Carolina. The article finds that these reforms generally strengthened teachers' knowledge, skills, and dispositions but had uneven effects on other aspects of school capacity. The final section discusses four implications of the findings and suggests some guidelines for district and state policy regarding professional development. The guidelines include the need for districts and states to promote within-school collaboration and for districts to negotiate the tension between promoting internal school coherence while providing some autonomy to individual schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appalachian Educational Laboratory
. (1994). Instruction and assessment in accountable and nonaccountable grades. Notes From the Field: Education Reform in Rural Kentucky, 4(1), 1-12.
2.
California Subject Matter Projects
. (n.d.). The California Subject Matter Projects: Statement of CSMP mission, history, and principles. Oakland, CA: Author.
3.
Clifford, L. S. (1995). The impact of state-mandated student performance assessment on instructional practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, KY.
4.
Corcoran, T.
, & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance schools. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 27-31.
5.
Corcoran, T. B.
(1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
6.
Darling-Hammond, L.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 202-218). New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
Elmore, R. F
, & Burney, D. (1997a). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
8.
Elmore, R. F.
, & Burney, D. (1997b). School variation and systemic instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
9.
Firestone, W. A.
, Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
10.
Firestone, W. A.
, & Pennell, J. R. (1997). Designing state-sponsored teacher networks: A comparison of two cases. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 237-266.
11.
Guskey, T. R.
, & Oldham, B. R. (1997). Despite the best intentions: Inconsistencies among components in Kentucky's systemic reform. Educational Policy, 11, 426-442.
12.
Jennings, N. E.
, & Spillane, J. P. (1996). State reform and local capacity: Encouraging ambitious instruction for all and local decision making. Journal of Educational Policy, 11, 465-482.
13.
Keane, E. A. (1995). The implementation and impact of a statewide performance and assessment policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY.
14.
Koretz, D. M.
, Barron, S., Mitchell, K. J., & Stecher, B. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
15.
Koretz, D. M.
, Mitchell, K. J., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
16.
Lee, V. E.
, & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104, 103-147.
17.
Little, J. W.
(1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
18.
Louis, K. S.
, Kruse, S. D., & Associates. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
19.
Louis, K. S.
, Kruse, S. D., & Marks, H. M. (1996). Schoolwide professional community. In F. M. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 179-203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Louis, K. S.
, & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.
21.
McDiarmid, G. W.
, & Kelly, P. P. (1997, March). Teachers planning professional development in a reform context: The case of Kentucky. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
22.
Medina, K.
, & St. John, M. (1997). The nature of teacher leadership: Lessons learned from the California Subject Matter Projects. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.
23.
Newmann, F. M.
, King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 41-74.
24.
Newmann, F. M.
, King, M. B., & Youngs, P. (2000, April). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
25.
Newmann, F. M.
, & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
26.
O'Day, J.
, Goertz, M. E., & Floden, R. E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform (CPRE Policy Brief RB-18). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
27.
Pennell, J. R.
, & Firestone, W. A. (1996). Changing classroom practices through teacher net- works: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances. Teachers College Record, 98,46-76.
28.
Ramage, K.
, & St. John, M. (1997). The influence of professional development on classroom practice: The California Reading and Literature Project. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.
29.
Spillane, J.
, & Thompson, C. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185-203.
30.
St. John, M.
, Dickey, K., Heenan, B., Hirabayashi, J., Medina, K., & Ramage, K. (1995). Evaluating a statewide professional development system. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.
31.
Stein, M. K.
, & D'Amico, L. (1998). Content-driven instructional reform in Community School District #2. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
32.
Stein, M. K.
, D'Amico, L., & Israel, N. (1998). Observations, conversations, and negotiations: Administrator support of literacy practices. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
33.
Stokes, L.
, Hirabayashi, J., & St. John, M. (1998). Contributions of the California Subject Matter Projects to teachers' classroom practice and leadership: Results of a survey of CSMP teacher leaders. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.
34.
Talbert, J. E.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123-153.
