Providing Effective Professional Development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program.

Abstract

Results are presented that show specific management and implementation strategies, such as aligning standards and assessments with professional development activities, continuous improvement efforts, and coordination with other funding sources, lead to higher quality professional development, as characterized by six identified features of professional development. Our country's current education reforms seek to foster high standards for teaching and learning for all children. Such standards are intended to create a fundamental shift in what students learn and how they are taught (National Educational Goals Panel, 1995; Porter, Archibald, & Tyree, 1991; Porter, Smithson, & Osthoff, 1994). The success of such ambitious education reforms hinges, in large part, on the qualifications of teachers. Student learning will be transformed only if high standards are reflected in teachers' classroom practice (Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996). Not surprisingly, teachers' professional development has been the single largest investment of most reform initiatives. Unfortunately, much of this investment supports ineffective practices (Cohen, 1990; Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1993; Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthy, 1996; Little, 1993; Richardson, 1994; Stiles, Loucks-Horsley, & Hewson, 1996). The work described here identifies specific characteristics that make in-service professional development effective, and the strategies school districts can use to provide such effective professional development. Findings are based on national probability samples of teachers and professional development providers, and a purposeful longitudinal sample of teachers. Results come from a coordinated set of studies designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the federal government's Eisenhower Professional Development Program (Birman et al., 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon & Birman, in press; Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon, in press). The Eisenhower Professional Development Program, established in 1984 and reauthorized in 1988 and 1994 as Title II of the Elementary and secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal government's largest investment solely focused on developing the knowledge and skills of classroom teachers. The Eisenhower program aims to support high-quality professional development primarily in mathematics and science. Part B of the Elsenhower program, with a 1999 appropriation of about $335 million, provides funds through state education agencies (SEAs) to school districts, and through state agencies for higher education (SAHEs) to institutions of higher education (IHEs) and nonprofit organizations. The study of Eisenhower professional development reported here contributes to our general knowledge about effective professional development activities and policies for promoting them for several reasons. First, our sample is generalizable to 93% of U.S. school districts, since at the time of the study, only 7% of districts did not receive Eisenhower funding. Second, the Eisenhower program is a source of funding for professional development activities, not a specific approach to professional development. The program funds a wide range of activities, including workshops and conferences, study groups, professional networks and collaboratives, task forces, and peer coaching. Third, activities supported by Eisenhower are often co-funded with other sources-Eisenhower-assisted activities also may receive funding from states, school districts, and other federal programs. Therefore the information in this study about the quality and effects of Eisenhower-assisted activities also applies to professional development funded through other sources, at least in mathematics and science. Data During the 1997-98 school year, we conducted telephone interviews with a national probability sample of Eisenhower coordinators in 363 school districts. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 195 citations exist upstream.