ElizaBeth McCay, Editor

Professional Development: Training in Services

Ask most educators to define professional development and you will hear mention of in-services, workshops, courses and conferences — events external to the daily work lives of teachers. However, research on professional development does not support such practices with regard to impact on actually changing teaching practices, let alone student learning.

Professional development is an essential element of school reform, especially as we encounter contemporary and future challenges of a high-stakes standards movement, rapid developments in technology, and a highly globally linked society. Unfortunately, traditional models and mindsets of professional development have provided teachers with one-day (or shorter) in-service workshops, often on topics not linked to an overall plan for improving student learning. Efforts often have been focused through a deficit lens — looking for areas of weakness and targeting spot training to remedy the problem. Another approach has been to provide training in new programs or methodologies, often adopted without a comprehensive view of the needs of students and staff. This generally results in “tinkering,” making minor changes to instruction through implementing new programs, methods, or content. Research on professional development has identified as a prevalent theme the haphazard and independent manner in which educators typically pursue professional development. The result of either of these perspectives has generally been to create a Band-Aid approach to professional development for educators.

Successful professional development has been identified by many researchers in the field as that which provides outcomes for “secondary beneficiaries” (Grotelueschen, 1985). In schools, this would mean professional development that results in benefits to students. One current definition, for example, states: “Professional development is the process of improving staff skills and competencies needed to produce outstanding educational results for students” (NCREL). Another definition describes the process of professional development as a “lifelong collaborative learning process that nourishes the growth of educators both as individuals and as team members to improve their skills and abilities” (Speck & Knipe, 2001). The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) expands traditional notions of the workshop approach, stating: “staff development not only includes high-quality training programs with intensive follow-up and support, but also other growth-promoting processes such as study groups, action research, and peer coaching, to name a few.”

In recent years the emphasis in the professional literature and research has been to provide more integrated, ongoing, comprehensive, and carefully planned professional development both in content and process. Recognizing the needs of adult, professional learners is key in this philosophy. In addition, viewing professional development as a critical, integrated component of any school reform effort is essential to this approach. On the job, ongoing professional development is a generally accepted concept. Its implementation, however, is often assumed and may fall drastically short of intended benefits.

As discussed in the first brief in this series, in a recent longitudinal study, roughly 40% of new teachers in Virginia left teaching in the state within their first three years. Not only must school divisions fill initial positions, but they must also increase efforts to retain teachers and administrators in the job. Providing meaningful professional development and support for teachers is one key in this effort. Creating with teachers a professional environment that supports their ongoing learning is essential if they are to continue to develop skills and improve teaching.

In a major report on the quality of education across the nation, Education Week (2000) rated Virginia with a grade of C+ in the area of Improving Teacher Quality. While funds for local professional development efforts are available to some degree, this grade was given in part because state policy does not advocate that schools and districts set aside time for ongoing professional development for teachers or administrators.

Implementation of new standards and high-stakes testing significantly impacts educators, and, for many, increases frustration, reduces teacher autonomy, and has an effect on teacher retention or even initial interest in the teaching profession. Further, educators have been trained in theories of child development and learning, not adult learning; even administrative training often has not emphasized theories of adult development. A primary focus has been on understanding methods to facilitate the learning of students, excluding the learning needs of adults.

Finally, educational reform itself has historically been characterized by short term, single program tinkering rather than a more extensive overhaul of the structure and function of education. Reform efforts typically address individual programs and curricula, generally as separate pieces disconnected from each other. In addition, administrative turnover and changing agendas further exacerbate the problem of creating conditions for effective professional development. When change in leadership occurs, so too does a school or district’s focus. Teachers become accustomed to reacting to change.

These factors jointly have contributed to our tendency to reduce professional development to short-term training. Developing capacity in schools to provide professional development as an integral component of school reform warrants serious attention and is examined in this brief.

In examining practices of professional development, several areas of debate surface. These issues include:

Emphasis on individuals and day-to-day change or more systemic approaches to professional development.

Professional development initiated and carried out by teachers and school based personnel or programs that are generated beyond the walls of the school.

Professional development that brings change in a gradual and incremental manner or a more immediate, major change.

The emphasis on individuals is directly linked to a process in which individual teachers determine which activities and learning opportunities will promote the greatest learning for themselves. Although this method can have many forms, overall it is a developmental model in which the teacher designs her learning. Individual professional development may include activities such as reading a journal article of interest or may involve obtaining grant funding for research, curriculum development or numerous other learning opportunities.

A broader view of professional development involves a systemic approach. Such approaches provide professional development to a school or system, recognizing that change in one part of a system effects change in another. Proponents of systemic staff development suggest that focusing on the individual teacher rather than the entire organization is detrimental to progress. Only by building learning capacity into a school culture can comprehensive change occur, many argue.

In contrast to this either/or perspective, however, others suggest that both individual and whole staff development are needed. Integrating the individual needs of teachers within the framework of total school reform provides a both/and approach to professional development.

A second divergence of opinion includes staff development carried out by teachers and school personnel versus external programs brought into the school system. Professional development carried out by teachers is usually developed with the intent to adapt curriculum design programs or engage in an overall school improvement process. Following this model not only promotes learning as a result of implementation but during the process of development as well. Underlying this model are the beliefs that adults learn more when there is a problem to solve, individuals working closest to the problem understand their needs, and master teachers’ techniques are worthy of replication. Methods of professional development may include, for example, school improvement teams, curriculum review and revision, curriculum development, and peer coaching.

Others suggest that outside experts bring expertise, prior training, and experience to professional development programs. Presenters of such programs usually conduct one-day workshops with a concrete set of objectives and learner outcomes. Professional development in this format emphasizes uniformity in school or district level decision making regarding professional development. Teachers often have little or no input in determining what training is brought into the school, and one training event may bear no connection to prior or subsequent events.

Finally, timelines for expected change vary. Proponents of immediate change guide their beliefs with the notion that professional development is an initial task to be completed. In other words, initial training should lead to immediate change in practice. A sense of urgency and the immediacy of change needed leads to the quick-fix approach. The short supply of time and resources has tended to shape staff development in the short-term, one-shot training approach common to many schools. Professional development offered over a period of time tends to reinforce change in practice and offers opportunities for exploration, experience, and feedback. Understanding the difficult nature of change and viewing professional development as a long-term component in the change process guides those supporting gradual, incremental change.

With regard to the link between professional development and school reform noted increasingly in the literature, Speck and Knipe (2001) argue that “the lack of professional development, as well as its misuse by educators, explains the chronic failure of school reform.” This view suggests that in order to improve student learning, our ultimate goal of school reform, we must also improve learning processes and opportunities for educational professionals. The current literature on professional development is consistent in its emphasis on integration into the work lives of schools, involvement of teachers, understanding of adult learning needs, and basic restructuring of time and resources surrounding professional development.

Although reform efforts extend and vary across the United States, many are seeking a universal umbrella over professional development that provides guidelines for quality programs and strategies. The US Department of Education (1995) provided the following guidelines. Professional development:

Focuses on teachers as central to student learning, yet includes all members of the school community;

Focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement;

Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and others in the school community;

Reflects the best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership;

Enables teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and other essential elements of teaching to high standards;

Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of schools;

Is planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate that development;

Requires substantial time and resources;

Is driven by a coherent long-term plan;

Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its effects on teacher instruction and student learning, and uses this assessment to guide subsequent professional development efforts.

Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) suggested that policies regarding professional development be examined for alignment with overall reform efforts. These writers propose that policymakers investigate the extent to which policies support reform by asking the following questions.

Does the policy:

• Reduce isolation of teachers or perpetuate experience of working alone?

• Encourage teachers to assume role of learner, or reward traditional approaches to teacher/student relations?

• Provide a rich, diverse menu of opportunities for teachers to learn or focus on episodic, narrow training activities?

• Link professional development opportunities to meaningful content and change efforts or construct generic inservice occasions?

• Establish an environment of trust and encourage problem solving or does it exacerbate the risks involved in serious reflection and change and thus encourage problem hiding?

• Make possible the restructuring of time, space and scale within schools or expect new forms of teaching and learning to emerge within conventional structures?

• Focus on learner-centered outcomes that give priority to learning “how and why” or does it emphasize memorization of facts and acquisition of rote skills?

In a Research Bulletin produced by Phi Delta Kappa International, Hawley and Valli (2000) outlined nine design principles for learner-centered professional development. These include:

• The content of professional development focuses on what students are to learn and how to address the different problems students may have in learning that material.

• Professional development should be driven by analyses of the differences between (a) goals and standards for student learning and (b) student performance.

• Professional development should involve teachers in the identification of what they need to learn and, when possible, in the development of the learning opportunity and/or the process to be used.

• Professional development should be primarily school based and integral to school operations.

• Professional development should provide learning opportunities that relate to individual needs but are, for the most part, organized around collaborative problem solving.

• Professional development should be continuous and ongoing, involving follow-up and support for further learning, including support from sources external to the school that can provide necessary resources and outside perspectives.

• Professional development should incorporate evaluation of multiple sources of information on outcomes for students and processes that are involved in implementing the lessons learned through professional development.

• Professional development should provide opportunities to engage in developing a theoretical understanding of the knowledge and skills to be learned.

• Professional development should be integrated with a comprehensive change process that addresses impediments to and facilitators of student learning.

These frameworks provide similar useful lenses through which to evaluate current policy and practice and to begin to restructure professional development.

A growing area of research indicates improving teacher knowledge and teaching skills is essential to improving student performance. One study in Texas (Ferguson) concluded that teacher expertise, measured by education, licensing, examination scores, and experience, accounts for 40% of student achievement differences in math and reading. After controlling for SES, Ferguson also suggested that the achievement gap between white and African American students is explained through teacher quality.

Research of student achievement indicates gains are reflective of teaching expertise as a result of professional development enhancements. Teachers also agree their performance is reflective of successful professional development opportunities. 85% of teachers in a study conducted by Cohen & Hill (1998) state professional development provided new information and 65% indicate it resulted in a change in teaching style. In addition 62% were encouraged by their participation in staff development to seek further information and training (NCES, July 1998).

Research indicates that typical school districts allocate only 1% (or less) of their budget to improving its staff. In addition fewer than 50% of teachers in one study indicated receiving release time to attend professional development programs and another 23% said they were not given any support time or credit for the professional development programs (NCES, 1998).

A report on The Condition of Education 1996 examined, among other issues, teachers’ participation in formal professional development offerings (e.g., seminars and courses). Among data from the school year 1993-94, 41% of public school teachers received scheduled time for professional development; 48% received release time to attend activities; 22% received neither scheduled nor release time. Similarly, only 23% received reimbursement of travel or meal expenses; the same percent received reimbursement of tuition/fees. Approximately one-third of teachers received professional growth credit for their participation.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the U.S. Department of Education regularly conducts the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Revisions were made in the design of this instrument (1998), including to the area of Teacher Professional Development. Revisions included covering two key components of professional development—1) teacher participation, and 2) school/district processes and support systems. In the first of these components, important points for consideration were emphasis on informal aspects of professional development (e.g., peer coaching; teacher-initiated research, planning, and problem solving; new teacher mentoring). With regard to formal learning opportunities, it was noted that prior knowledge and skills of teachers is key in making decisions regarding training needs and assessing benefits derived. In the second area, consideration of incentives, time provisions in the schedule, and mentoring and induction programs were each noted as support and process strategies. In future studies using this revised survey, data will be available in these important areas.

Research in adult learning identifies a multitude of perspectives through which to examine how adults develop (for example, Merriam & Caffarella, 1991; Merriam & Brockett, 1997; Merriam, 1993; and others). Cranton (1996) emphasized a key point, explaining that development is a much deeper and more complicated process than mere acquisition of knowledge and skills. In true development, values and beliefs are challenged and often changed as well. This implies the need for a richer experience with adult learning than would occur with a short-term workshop, for example. In general, theories of adult development identify critical factors such as learning from experience, the importance of reflection on practice, individual and group learning, and support for learning (McCay, 1998).

One study of teacher change (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991), for example, pointed out that change in beliefs and practices were interwoven, and occurred over time. Reflection on practice was essential in the teachers’ change process. The need for time for reflection is echoed throughout the literature on professional development.

Joyce and Showers (1995) have been engaged in researching teacher development for two over decades. A critical element of effective professional development is coaching. Training alone does not impact on classroom teaching behaviors. Only when peer coaching follows training, providing support through observation and feedback in the classroom, does real change in teaching occur. This element is rarely provided in traditional staff development.

A study of effective principals (Blase & Blase, 2001) identified these six characteristics among principals supporting and fostering professional growth in teachers. Effective principals: 1) Emphasize the study of teaching and learning; 2) Support collaboration among educators; 3) Develop coaching relationships; 4) Encourage and support program redesign; 5) Apply principles of adult learning, growth, and development to staff development; 6) Implement action research to inform instructional decision making.

These snapshots of research provide examples of the current knowledge base regarding the positive impact of effective professional development on student learning; low funding of staff development; the needs of adult learners; the significance of time, reflection and collaboration built into the daily work of teachers; and the importance of school leaders’ support to facilitate the development of a learning culture in the school.

The ultimate goal of professional development is to impact positively on student learning. Incorporating ongoing professional learning into the culture of schools is essential in this effort. Various programs and policy options that support this are evident in practice.

Peer assistance/Mentoring and peer review: Professional development is designed to raise overall teacher quality. The means of completing such a task vary. AFT and NEA suggest two programs. The first, peer assistance, is a mentoring program in which teachers help other teachers improve their knowledge and skills. The second, peer review, requires formal evaluations by consulting teachers regarding tenure and other employment conditions. Both programs train qualified teachers in the role of consultant, mentor and evaluator. The focus is to provide joint decision making to teachers and administrators while providing assistance to new and veteran teachers.

Teacher roles: One program offered to schools in Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah, by the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, promotes professional development as a means of change both inside and outside the school. The program includes teacher-researcher groups, teacher networks, organizational partnerships and other national, state and local curriculum reform activities. Opportunities in the school include teacher leaders who both formally and informally interject new programs in the school; peer advisors who provide feedback on implementation of new programs or instructional strategies; and teacher researchers who view their classrooms as learning labs. Research, training, evaluation and technical assistance are all provided to promote teacher professional development. Cases about real classroom experiences are used for teachers to reflect on and discuss ideas. Continuous improvement and learning is the expected behavior of such a culture.

Link to classrooms: In Virginia, Superintendent Mark Edwards of Henrico County introduced what he calls a “turbo-charged” learning program for teachers. His belief in professional development rests with the simple notion that for children to learn adults, too, must be provided with and receptive to learning opportunities. Professional growth plans are established based on the needs of individual teachers. The direct link to the classroom allows for professional development to be driven by personal accountability, self-evaluation, and a commitment to continuous improvement. In other states, California is monitoring current professional development practices with regard to increasing student achievement. Texas and Illinois are developing license renewal plans that provide incentives for teachers participating in professional development linked to student learning.

Time: “Time to Think” is another concept introduced in rethinking professional development. Hay (2000) suggests that teachers need time to discuss and debate issues about their teaching and how children learn. Such a concept would expand upon traditional staff development, allowing teachers to focus on their own learning and as a result become more successful in teaching students. Sparks (1994) supports Hay in proposing that teachers need more time for learning and planning. He equates the success in Asian schools to the time first spent thinking, learning, planning and only then teaching. Although Asian teachers spend considerably less time teaching, he argues, it is through greater preparation and research of proven successful methods that greater learning has occurred.

Rethinking traditional structures: Using time traditionally set aside for faculty meetings that provide a one-way flow of information, some schools are utilizing this time for action research and collaboration among teachers to examine the connection between teaching practices and student learning. At Jackson Elementary School in Greeley, CO, for example, all staff members participate in Whole-Faculty Study Groups that meet weekly in small groups to address issues identified by the faculty after reviewing student data. Study groups follow a series of guidelines developed by Murphy (1999) to organize and focus the work in these groups.

Spotlight programs: The U.S. Department of Education recognized four schools and three districts in its National Awards Program for Model Professional Development (2000). Some of the outstanding sites included:

Pebble Hills Elementary School, El Paso, Texas – This large urban school’s professional development includes “behind the glass” model lessons, allowing teachers to observe colleagues in action in the classroom. Weekly instructional meetings provide a discussion forum for teachers, held in the school’s Professional Development Center, which also includes resources for teachers.

Concord Road Elementary School, Ardsley, New York – A four-phase process is in place for exploration of new ideas and changes in practice. This includes awareness, orientation, guided implementation, and evaluation. In addition, time is provided for weekly discussion and problem solving surrounding curricular issues by grade level and cross-grade level “interest teams.” Teams have regular opportunities to meet with experts as well.

Wichita (Kansas) Public Schools – As part of a strategic plan developed in the early ‘90s, professional development is focused on four district goals, including increased student achievement, reduction in achievement gaps among student groups, increased rates of graduation, and prepared graduates. Schools provide “support teachers” who coach colleagues; and individual professional development plans are in place for all employees (not just teachers) focusing on district objectives.

Jacob Hiatt Magnet School, Worcester, Massachusetts – Professional development has been instrumental in the development and success of this inner-city magnet school. Teachers are the primary leaders in this school, and have built in common planning time, and collaborative data analysis and curriculum revision. One teacher has been designated as a full time faculty member responsible for professional development at the school.

As with most educational issues, professional development is far from a stand-alone area of policy and practice. Among the many issues, some of which are addressed in other CEPI policy briefs, are:

• Supply and demand
• Technology
• Teacher evaluation and supervision
• School reform
• Standards and accountability
• Funding
• Partnerships
• Administrative training and development
  

In education we have long relied on brief, disconnected, formal delivery of training. For teachers, “professional development” is generally considered synonymous with “inservice,” because that is by far what has been emphasized and provided. In addition, “inservice” carries a negative connotation among many teachers, even those eager to continually enhance their teaching. Inservices generally are packaged in one-day or even one-afternoon sessions, often referred to as “sit-and-gets,” “one-day wonders,” or “dog-and-pony shows.” The general format includes an outside “expert” who introduces a concept, methodology, or program. Rarely included are hands-on practice or follow up after the session. Additionally, topics for such inservices are often determined by administrators or staff development specialists with minimal or no input by teachers in determining their needs. It is assumed that teachers will apply the concepts or skills in their classrooms, but they generally are not assisted is doing so. A fundamental change from a deficit model of professional development (i.e., providing training in areas of perceived teacher weakness) to a proactive, ongoing model of adult, professional learning is essential to successfully link professional development and ongoing school improvement. Broadening policy perspectives on these issues is an important area of consideration for policy makers.

Quality professional development will not occur simply as a result of policy or mandates, however. The process by which professional development is established as an integral part of ongoing school improvement is critical. Models of effective professional development include not only formal and informal channels for adult learning, but also clearly defined processes for professional learning and exploration embedded in the school culture. Quality professional development is a vital component of ongoing school improvement efforts. Examples of outstanding professional development practices noted in this brief all include an integrated process for professional development aligned with overall school improvement efforts.

While policy alone cannot drive professional development in schools, policies that support a climate for adult learning are essential. Significant resources of personnel, time, and funding are key. First, personnel needs include identifying and or/developing trained professionals with expertise in subject matter and methodology, including formal staff developers but especially lead or mentor teachers. Release time for educators is key in providing for ongoing learning. Identifying master teachers who are released from teaching duties on a rotating basis (e.g., for one year or more) can contribute significantly to the development of many more teachers through in-class observation and coaching, for example. Most important, role modeling by school leaders who understand and can foster a climate supporting meaningful professional development is paramount. While the most prominent role description of a principal is “instructional leader,” actual implementation of this role is less understood. Principals must be able to create and nurture a culture of collaboration and shared focus on student learning. Understanding the needs of adult learning is inherent in this focus. This means that a principal must be a public learner and create structures within the school that facilitate and support individual and shared adult inquiry, research, discussion, and reflection on teaching practices and their impact on student learning. This is no small order for principals, particularly given the current demanding and complex nature of their diverse role responsibilities, as well as the lack of experience facilitating adult learning. District level leadership must recognize and support instructional leadership as the primary role and responsibility of school principals, and provide staffing and resources to support this critical work.

Second, policy makers may want to consider providing time for learning within the context of the professional work day of teachers and administrators, rather than relegating it to after hours and outside the school calendar. Time is needed for informal learning opportunities (e.g., learning circles, faculty discussions, independent or team action research, peer observations, etc.), as well as the traditional formal staff development offerings (e.g., courses, workshops, seminars, conferences). While provisions of time may often be available for formal learning opportunities, it is much less common to build in time for the wealth of learning that may occur through informal development experiences, where professionals (novice and experienced) have opportunities to explore issues together. Policy support of this issue would be key in its provision. Policy makers may want to consider provisions for building professional development into the daily school schedule, in addition to stand-alone days provided for such activities. Providing release time for teachers to observe in the classrooms of colleagues (and in other schools) would be one step toward increasing avenues for professional learning. At the school and district level, scheduling a common research and planning time for teams of teachers is another beneficial, proactive measure to consider. Follow up is an essential attribute of ongoing professional learning. Policy makers may want to address the needs of teachers at varying levels of expertise, providing for coaching by experienced, trained teachers in the classroom, along with follow-up sessions where teams or partners share and assess implementation of new skills. At the local level, imbedding professional learning into current structures such as faculty and team meetings is an important avenue for consideration.

Third, funding is essential to support substitute teachers to release teachers from classrooms, to purchase materials, and to support attendance at formal professional development offerings, and for travel to other schools. In addition, funding for stipends to recognize additional time and responsibilities of lead teachers and others involved in designing and participating in staff development and research projects is needed. In many cases teachers are expected to fund their own professional development and related travel costs and expenses, in sharp contrast with the standard of practice in other professions. This contradicts the generally accepted expectation that teachers participate in extensive, ongoing professional training and development to improve their teaching practices and knowledge. This issue warrants particular consideration during the current era of accountability and reform, where teachers and administrators are directed to overhaul and align instruction and assessment. Policy makers may want to consider this mixed message that places value on professional development with expectations but not necessarily with sufficient funding, time, and other resource support. Significantly increased (and more appropriately targeted) funding may be needed to provide to teachers and administrators the necessary resources of time, personnel, and materials for learning.

As noted in the first brief in this series, the corps of experienced teachers currently employed in Virginia’s schools deserves particular consideration. Policy attention to these teachers and their ongoing needs for further development may go a long way in retaining talented professionals, as well as improving student learning. Providing funding, time, and support for ongoing professional development, involving those teachers in the process of designing meaningful learning experiences embedded in the culture of schools, and rewarding those efforts financially and with appropriate status are worthy of significant attention by policy makers.

Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “Professional Development: Training in Service.”

Building Bridges: The Mission and Principles of Professional Development

Goals 2000. Available: www.ed.gov/G2k/bridge.html

DuFour, R.P. (1997). The school as a learning organization: Recommendations for school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 81.

Edwards, M.A. (1998). Turbo-Charging Professional Development:

Investing employee growth yields significant results for a Virginia school system.

The School Administrator, 34-36.

Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. (2000). Learner-centered professional development. Research Bulletin. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International: Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research.

Hay, L.E. (August, 2000). Time to Think: The Missing Link in Professional Development. Education Update Newsletter.

High-Quality Professional Development Supports Education Reform (May, 1996). Improving America’s Schools: Newsletter on Issues in School Reform.

Available online: www.ed.gov/pubs/IASA/newsletters/profdev/hqprodev

Hixson, J. & Tinzmann, M.B. (1990). What Changes are Generating New Needs for Professional Development? Available online: www.ncrel.org

Joyce, B.R., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Licklider, B. (1997). Breaking ranks: Changing the inservice institution. NASSP Bulletin, 9.

McCay, E. (1998). Principals’ Experiences with Professional Change. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

National Staff Development Council. www.nsdc.org

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). Professional Development: Learning from the Best. Available online: www.ncrel.org/pd

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. NCREL’s Policy Briefs, Report 4. Available: www.ncrl.org/sdrs.pbriefs/94/94-4sprk.htm

Olson, L. (November 1, 2000). Principals try new styles as instructional leaders.

Education Week.

Pierce, D. & Hunsaker, T.W. (1996). Professional development for the teacher, of the teacher, by the teacher. Education, 101.

Sparks, D. (1994). Professional Development: Changing Times.

Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. A National Plan for Improving Professional Development. Available: http://www.nsdc.org/library/NSDCPlan.html

Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (May 24, 2000). Strengthening Professional Development. Education Week.

U.S. Department of Education. (May, 1996). Rethinking Professional Development. Improving America’s Schools: Newsletter on Issues in School Reform. Available: www.ed.gov/pubs/IASA/newsletters/profdev/pt1.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Mission and principles of professional development. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/G2K/bridge.html

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Teachers: Perceived Impact of Professional Development.

Available online: http://www.nces.ed.gov

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). The redesign of the Schools and Staffing Survey for 1999-2000: A position paper. Working Paper No. 98-08, by M. Rollefson. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). The Condition of Education 2000. NCES 2000-062. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Available online: http://www.nces.ed.gov

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Toward better teaching: Professional development in 1993-94, NCES 98-230, by S.P. Choy & X.Chen. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Press Release. (2000, Sept. 18). Schools and school districts recognized for outstanding professional development.

Wagner, T. (1998). Change as collaborative inquiry: A ‘constructivist’ methodology for reinventing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 512.

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.