This is the second part of a two-part study examining issues related to professional development in high-poverty schools. The findings from the initial study indicated that principals in high-poverty, high-performing schools perceived higher levels of implementation of quality professional development standards in their schools than did principals of high-poverty, low-performing schools. This study was conducted to determine whether these principals faced similar or dissimilar barriers in implementing high-quality professional development standards and whether they had similar factors in place to facilitate the use of such standards. While the barriers appeared to be quite similar, there were wide differences in the facilitative factors present in the two types of schools. Principals in high-performing schools appeared to be aware of and able to use facilitative factors to foster high-quality professional development practices, while principals in low-performing schools are not. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alabama Leadership Academy. (2009). Alabama torchbearer schools: Lighting the way to student achievement.Montgomery: Alabama Department of Education.
2.
ArnoldJ. M., NewmanJ., GaddyB., & DeanC. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting directions for future research.Journal of Research in Rural Education,20(6). Retrieved from www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/20-6.
3.
BlanksteinA. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high performing schools.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4.
CrowtherF., KaaganS. S., FergusonM., & HannL. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
5.
DesimoneL., SmithT. M., & PhillipsK. J. R. (2007). Does policy influence mathematics and science teachers’ participation in professional development?Teachers College Record,109(5), 1086–1122.
6.
FullanM. (2002). Leading in a culture of change.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
GuskeyT. (2000). Evaluating professional development.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
8.
GuskeyT., & SparksD. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in learning.Journal of Staff Development,17(4), 34–38.
9.
JamesC. R., DunningG., ConnollyM. T., & ElliottT. (2007). Collaborative practice: A model of successful working in schools.Journal of Educational Administration,45(5), 541–555.
10.
JoyceB., & ShowersB. (1998). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamental of school reform (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
11.
KannapelP. J., & ClementsS. K. (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing high-poverty schools.Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
12.
KillionJ. (1999). What works in the middle: Results-based staff development.Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
13.
KochanF., & ReedC. (Eds.). (2004). Multiple lenses of democratic leadership. In EnglishF. (Ed.), Handbook of educational leadership (pp. 1–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
LeithwoodK., PattenS., & JantziD. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning.Educational Administration Quarterly,46(5), 671–706.
15.
LindahlR. (2008). School climate differences between high-performing and low-performing schools that serve high-poverty populations. Retrieved from http://cnx.org
16.
MooreS., KochanF., KraskaM., & ReamesE. H. (2011). Professional development and student achievement in high poverty schools: Making the connection.International Studies in Educational Administration,39(2), 65–79.
17.
MurphyJ., & MeyersC. V. (2008). Turning around failing schools.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America's children.Washington, DC: Author.
19.
National Staff Development Council. (2003). Standards for staff development. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/standards
20.
National Staff Development Council. (2008). Standards for staff development. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/standards
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). (2002). Nine characteristics of high-performing schools. Retrieved from www.k12.wa.us/publications.
23.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
ScheurichJ. J., & SkriaL. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence: Creating high achievement classrooms, schools, and districts.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2003). National Staff Development Council Standards Assessment Inventory: Summary report of instrument development process and psychometric properties.Austin, TX: Author.
27.
State Educational Technology Directors Association. (2008). SETDA national trends report. Retrieved from http://www.setda.org
28.
TedlieC., StringfieldS., & ReynoldsD. (2000). Context issues within school effectiveness research. In TedlieC., & ReynoldsD. (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 160–186). London: Falmer.
29.
YlimakiR. (2007). Instructional leadership in challenging U.S. schools.International Studies in Educational Administration,35, 11–19.
