Drawing on data collected during an evaluation of Indiana schools receiving Title I 1003(g) School Improvement Fund grants in the 2008–2009 school year, this article explores how professional development can be used to support school improvement efforts. This article upholds the conclusion that when activities support the development of a collaborative community of educators and the effective use of data, professional development can be a vital element of school improvement efforts. By engaging teachers as leaders and learners, professional development can help to ensure that school improvement efforts are embraced by all staff and to prevent teachers from feeling isolated during the school improvement process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abdal-HaqqI. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development (Digest No. 95–4). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-2/time.htm
AndersonS., & KumariR. (2009). Continuous improvement in schools: Understanding the practice. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 281–292.
4.
BallD. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What do we think we know and what do we need to learn?Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 500–508.
5.
BruningR. H., SpiegelA. N., & WiseV. L. (1999). Using teacher reflective practice to evaluate professional development in mathematics and science. Journal of Teacher Education, 42.
6.
Darling-HammondL., & McLaughlinM. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597–604.
7.
Downing MurleyL., KeedyJ. L., & WelshJ. F. (2008). Examining school improvement through the lens of principal and teacher flow of influence in high-achieving, high-poverty schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7, 380–400.
EllisJ. D. (1996). Fostering change in science education. In Innovating and evaluating science education: NSF evaluation forums, 1992–94 (pp. 47–66). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1995/nsf95162/nsf_ef.pdf
10.
FullanM. (2007). Educational reform as continuous improvement. In HawleyW. D., & RollieD. L. (Eds.), The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement (pp. 1–12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
CaretM. 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.
12.
GoddardY. L., GoddardR. D., & Tschannen-MoranM. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109, 877–896.
13.
GoertzM. E. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the states. Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 73–89.
HarrisA. (2002). School improvement: What's in it for schools?London: RoutledgeFalmer.
16.
KerrK. A., MarshJ. A., Schuyler IkemotoG., DarilekH., & BarneyH. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496–520.
17.
KraglerS., MartinL., & KroegerD. C. (2008). Money down the drain: Mandated professional development. Journal of School Leadership, 18, 528–550.
18.
KruegerR. A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups.Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
19.
KuijpersJ. M., HoutveenA. A. M., & WubbelsT. (2010). An integrated professional development model for effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1687–1694.
20.
LachatM. A., & SmithS. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 333–349.
21.
LiebermanA. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. In Innovating and evaluating science education: NSF evaluation forums, 1992–94 (pp. 67–78). Retrieved from http://128.150.4.107/pubs/1995/nsf95162/nsf_ef.pdf#page=58
22.
Loucks-HorsleyS. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23.
MilesK. H. (2009). Rethinking school resources.Arlington, VA: New American Schools.
24.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PadillaC., SkolnikH., Lopez-TorkosA., WoodworthK., LashA., ShieldsP. (2006). Title 1 accountability and school improvement from 2001 to 2004.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/evaPdisadv/tassie3/tassie3.pdf
28.
PattonM. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods.Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
RuddyA. M., PrusinskiE., LongH., QianM., & ZhouZ. (2009). Evaluation of the Title I 1003(g) Statewide School Improvement Fund Program.Bloomington, IN: CEEP.
30.
ShieldsP. M., EschC., LashA., PadillaC., WoodworthK., LaguardaK. G. (2004). Evaluation of Title 1 accountability systems and school improvement efforts: First-year findings (Report No. 2004–01). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/tassie1/tassie-short.pdf
31.
SugarW. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional development program on teachers’ technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 547–577.
32.
SupovitzJ., MayerD. P., & KahleJ. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14, 331–356.
33.
SutherlandS. (2004). Creating a culture of data use for continuous improvement: A case study of an Edison Project school. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 277–293.
34.
U.S. Department of Education [USDOE]. (2007). School Improvement Fund State application: Section 1003 (g) fiscal year 2007 (Publication No. 1810–0682). Washington, DC: Author.
35.
WaymanJ., & StringfieldS. (2006). Data use for school improvement: School practices and research perspectives. American Journal of Education, 112, 463–468.
36.
WeiR. C., Darling-HammondL., AndreeA., RichardsonN., & OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad.Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
37.
WohlstetterP., DatnowA., & ParkV. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 239–259.
YoungsP., & KingM. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643–670.
