This study empirically examines the management and implementation strategies that contribute to high-quality in-service teacher professional developent provided by postsecondary institutions. The analysis is part of a national evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. Findings are based on a national probability sample of Eisenhower project directors at postsecondary institutions. The authors found empirical support that management/implementation strategies—aligning standards and assessments to professional development, continuous-improvement efforts, and coordination between post-secondary institutions and school districts—were related to higher quality professional development, defined in terms of content focus, active learning opportunities, coherence, duration, collective participation, and type of activity. Thus, in the context of an evaluation of the nation's largest investment in teachers' professional development, this study provides support, from a national probability sample of postsecondary institution Eisenhower project directors, for the link between federal policies and strategies of support, implementation, and the quality of teachers' professional development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abdul-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy (Project 2061). New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bohrnstedt, G., & Knoke, D. (1982). Statistics for social data analysis (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
4.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
5.
Bullough, V., Jr., Birrell, J. R., Young, J., Clark, D. C., Erickson, L., Earle, R. S., et al. (1999). Paradise unrealized: Teacher educators and the costs and benefits of school/university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(5), 381-401.
6.
Campoy, R. W. (1996). Teacher education goes to school. The American School Board Journal, 183(3), 32-34.
7.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared. Teachers for the 21stcentury: The report of the task force on teaching as a profession. Washington, DC: Author.
Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17, 31.
10.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
11.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997a). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.
14.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997b). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Desimone, L., Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., & Yoon, K. (2002a). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.
16.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002b). Does professional development change teachers' instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
17.
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263-291). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
18.
Erskine-Cullen, E. (1995). School-university partnerships as change agents: One success story. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(3), 192-204.
19.
Feiman-Nemser, S., Schwille, S., Carver, C., & Yusko, B. (1999). A conceptual review of literature on new teacher induction. Draft copy prepared for the National Partnerships on Excellence and Accountability in Education.
20.
Fuhrman, S., Clune, W., & Elmore, R. (1988). Research on educational reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2), 237-257.
21.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 12-17.
22.
Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., Desimone, L., & Herman, R. (with K. Suk Yoon). (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
23.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(3), 915-945.
24.
Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 502-541.
25.
Greene, W. (1993). Econometric analysis. New York: Macmillan.
26.
Guskey, T. R. (1997). Research needs to link professional development and student learning. Journal of Staff Development. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/jsdgusk.html.
27.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (1992). Understanding teacher development. London: Cassell.
28.
Higgins, K., & Merickel, M. (1997). The promise and the promises: Partnerships from a university perspective. Teacher Educator, 32(3), 165-184.
29.
Hirsch, E., Koppich, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to improve the quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends (Working paper prepared in collaboration with the National Conference of State Legislatures). Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
30.
Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.
31.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools. Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
32.
Howey, K. R. (2000). A review of challenges and innovations in the preparation of teachers for urban contexts. Washington, DC: National Partnerships for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.
33.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
34.
Knight, S. L., & Wiseman, D. (2000, April). Examining the sustainability of three school-university partnerships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
35.
Li, C. C. (1975). Path analysis: A primer. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood.
36.
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 185-201). New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
38.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
39.
Marsh, J. A. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature on the relationships of districts with states, school, and communities (Working paper). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
40.
Maxson, S., & Schwartz, D. (2001). School-university collaboration for reform in California: The DELTA Project. The Clearing House, 74(5), 251-270.
41.
Mayer, D. P. (1999). “Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45.
42.
Mullens, J. (1998, October). Validating teacher responses on instructional practice self-report surveys: Findings from a recent field-test. Paper prepared for the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Conference, New York.
43.
Mullens, J., & Gayler, K. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction (NCES Working Paper 1999-08). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
44.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Digest of education statistics, 2001. Washing-ton, DC: Author.
45.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
46.
Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
47.
Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: A model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 73-88.
48.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1994). Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.
49.
Ruskus, J., & Luczak, J. (1995). Best practice in action: A descriptive analysis of exemplary teacher enhancement institutes in science and technology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
50.
Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
51.
Sparks, D. (1995). Focusing staff development on improving student learning. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (pp. 163-169). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
52.
Spillane, J. P. (1996). School district matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
53.
Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
54.
Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449-481.
55.
Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conception of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.
56.
Teitel, L. (1994). Can school-university partnerships lead to the simultaneous renewal of schools and teacher education? Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 245-252.
57.
Timpane, M. (1998). Higher education and the schools. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
58.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Toward better teaching: Professional development in 1993-94 (NCES 98-320). Washington, DC: Author.
59.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: Author.
60.
Watson, N. H., & Fullan, M. G. (1991). Beyond school-university partnerships. In M. G. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change. Lewes, DE: Falmer.
61.
Webb, N. L. (1998, April). Criteria for alignment of expectations and professional development in mathematics and science education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
62.
Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 26-37.
63.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
