Attempts to implement the professional development school (PDS) are frustrated by a lack of consensus about the meaning of the defining characteristics of these new schools. An explication of the common criteria is given that shows how each is an implication of the others and how the PDS is not a laboratory or demonstration school. Particular attention is given to the nature of inquiry in the PDS and its relationship to other forms of academic inquiry. Finally, the lessons from the 4-year effort to implement the PDS features in selected schools in Delaware is briefly described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abdul-Haqq, I.
(1992). Professional development schools: An annotated bibliography of selected ERIC sources. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 42-45.
2.
Brown, R.
(1991). Schools of thought: How the politics of literacy shape thinking in the class-room. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives
. (1992). Higher education Amendments of 1992 (pp. 102-447). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
Cox, M.
(1980). Are young children egocentric?New York: St. Martin.
5.
Famham-Diggory, S.
(1990). Schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Fosnot, C.
(1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
Hampel, R.
(1992). Re: Learning: The third year. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware.
8.
Holmes Group.
(1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.
9.
Holmes Group.
(1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
10.
Murray, F.
(1986a). Goals for the reform of teacher education: An executive summary of the Holmes Group report. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 28-32.
11.
Murray, F.
(1986b, September/October). Teacher education: Words of caution about popular reforms. Change Alagazine, pp. 18-21.
12.
Murray, F.
(1991). Questions a satisfying developmental theory would answer: The scope of a complete explanation of developmental phenomena. In H. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 39-47). New York: Academic Press.
13.
Murray, F.
(1992). Restructuring and constructivism: The development of American educational reform. In H. Beilin & P. Pufal (Eds.), Piaget's theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp. 287-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Nystrand, R.
(1991). Professional development schools: Toward a new relationship for schools and universities (Trends and Issues Paper No. 4). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.
15.
Rushcamp, S.
, & Roehler, L. (1992). Characteistics supporting change in a professional development school. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 19-27.
16.
Smith, D. (1989). The role of teacher knowledge in teaching conceptual change science lessons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
17.
Smith, D.
, & Neale, D. (1990). The construction of subject matter in primary science teaching. In J. Brophy (Eds.),Advances in research on teaching subject mater knowledge. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
18.
Winitzky, N.
, Stoddart, T., & O'Keefe, P. (1992). Great expectations: Emergent professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 3-18.
