David Blount, Editor

Professional Development: Training in Services

As noted in the Professional Development policy briefing, the pursuit of teacher professional development has been haphazard. While responsibility for such activities traditionally falls to local school divisions in Virginia, there has been some sporadic state involvement and funding in recent years.

Perhaps the most significant legislative action taken the past several years in this area occurred in 1998. Growing out of the work of the HJR 196 Commission on the Future of Public Education (established in 1996) and significant revisions to the Standards of Accreditation (SOA) approved in October, 1997, legislative and budgetary action regarding implementation of the 1995 Standards of Learning (SOL) was approved. Specifically, the legislature included $27.3 million in the 1998-2000 budget for implementing teacher training programs at the local level in the four “core” areas (English, math, science and history) of the SOL. Funds also were earmarked for the Department of Education (DOE) to develop teacher, principal and superintendent training and materials, for mentor teacher programs and for teacher training in technology through institutions of higher education. Along with this funding, HB 432, recommended by the HJR 196 Commission, established a two-year educational leadership and professional development program. Specifically, the legislation called for leadership training for school superintendents and principals designed to assist with SOL and SOA implementation, as well as instructional training for teachers to also support and facilitate SOL implementation (with particular emphasis on teacher leader trainers and lead-teacher programs.) Another Commission recommendation approved that year was HB 653, which established the Educational Excellence Incentive Reward Program and Fund to award incentive grants to schools meeting certain performance criteria, with awards to be used, in part, for professional development.

Prior to that, the General Assembly had approved HB 1848 in 1997 to require school boards to provide professional development in educational technology. This followed initiatives undertaken by the General Assembly in the mid-1990s to begin appropriating tens of millions of dollars annually for educational technology. Localities have been required to provide a 20% match for the state funds, with at least 25% of the local match to be used for teacher training in the use of educational technology.

In 1999, the General Assembly approved HB 2710 and SB 1145, the Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act of 1999. These measures addressed teacher preparation programs by requiring training for administrative and supervisory personnel in performance evaluation and documentation. The legislation also called for the Board of Education to issue guidelines for mentor teacher programs (the bills required mentor teachers for probationary teachers) that included criteria for qualifications and training of mentor teachers. The legislature subsequently approved funding of nearly $3 million for clinical faculty and mentor teacher programs. School boards also were directed to have employment policies that include incentives for supporting teachers attending professional development seminars. In addition, HJR 691 directed the Commission on Educational Accountability (created in 1999 and which continues) to examine current training requirements and professional development opportunities for Virginia teachers.

In 2001, the legislature approved HB 2514 and SB 1304 which require teachers to have training in instructional strategies and techniques for intervention for or remediation of students who fail or are at risk of failing SOL tests, as a condition of achieving continuing contract status.

Future bills or study regarding professional development could be recommended by the Commission on Educational Accountability, which will meet throughout 2001 and is expected to conclude its work by year’s end.

1994 – HB 791 (grants for training in reading skills)

1995 – HJ 629 (mentor teachers/plan)

1996 – HJ 196 (Commission on the Future of Public Education), HJ 165 (study of incentives/rewards)

1997 – HB 1848, HB 2481 (technology training and assistance)

1998 – HB 432, HB 653, HB 1249 (administrator professional development), SB 166 (leadership standards and training), HJ 117 (study of one-year internship requirement), HJ 239 (study of professional development programs)

1999 – HB 1726 (excellence in teaching), HB 2671 (educational technology training), HB 2710, SB 1145

2000 – HB 1041 (professional development not required if nationally certified), HJ 203 (study of teacher peer review process)

2001 – HB 2514, SB 1304, HJ 764 (study of technology training and leadership of principals)

Kentucky has established a fund to assist and support teachers with tuition reimbursements, college course stipends and professional development activities, with priority for middle school and math teachers. By 2003, Delaware will fund five additional professional development days. Maryland has increased funding for teacher development and mentoring, while Alabama increased money for teacher training in reading last year. Beginning this year, North Carolina’s Board of Education must file annual reports on professional development.

Florida now requires school principals to develop individual professional development plans for teachers based on their students’ performance (the Florida governor also has proposed $11 million in new funding for professional development). In West Virginia, a task force was created to address teacher quality, including professional development. In Delaware a new Professional Standards Board is charged with proposing regulations to the Board of Education on among other things, professional development.

Several measures have been introduced in the 107th Congress that address teacher professional development, which is a key component of administration efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). S. 373, called the Professional Development Reform Act, proposes an incentive grant program and fund with a goal to “transform, strengthen, and improve professional development from a fragmented, one-shot approach to sustained, high quality, and intensive activities,” with emphasis placed on the use of mentor teachers. S. 203 would allow teachers to take a tax deduction for qualifying professional development expenses.

Specifically, in addressing teacher quality issues, the President has proposed combining the funding of nearly 90 federal education programs, including the Class Size Reduction program and the Eisenhower Professional Development program, into performance-based grants to states and localities. The proposal allows flexible use of the funds to strengthen knowledge and skills of teachers and administrators in return for certification that the funds “promote the use of scientific, research-based and effective practice in the classroom.” Nearly $3 billion would be earmarked for professional development activities.

http://www.sreb.org/main/LegAction/legactionindex.asp

http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/part5.html

http://www.edreform.com/teachers.htm

http://www.nsba.org/sbn/

Click here for a policy issue briefing on “Professional Development: Training in Service.”

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.