Providing effective professional development: Lessons from the eisenhower program

Science Educator, Spring 2003 by Porter, Andrew C, Garet, Michael S, Desimone, Laura M, Birman, Beatrice F

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.1 We also collected data from a mail survey of a national probability sample of 1,027 teachers who participated in 657 Eisenhower-assisted activities.2,3 To complement these findings from our national, cross-section sample of teachers, we surveyed 287 mathematics and science teachers in 30 schools, at three points in time-the fall of 1997, the spring of 1998, and the spring of 1999.4

The multiple sources of data are designed to provide an accurate description of program-funded activities, analyses of the features of these activities, and their effects on teacher practice. Our national and longitudinal data have a number of strengths. First, our descriptions of the nature and quality of professional development provided through the Eisenhower program are based on national probability samples, which increases the representativeness and generalizability of the findings; and each sample had an excellent response rate.5 Second, our longitudinal data provide direct estimates of changes in teaching practice over time. We use the more rigorous longitudinal data to test whether the results identifying the characteristics of effective professional development based on cross-sectional data can be replicated. Finally, we have taken a number of steps to maximize the validity and reliability of the national survey data. For example, although the telephone interview and teacher survey data are based on self-report, most of the data represent an accounting of behaviors, not direct judgments of quality that might be more likely to be biased in a positive direction. And the measures we use are composites, which have been shown to have greater reliability and validity than single indicators (Mayer, 1999). In addition, the substantial variation in responses teachers and district administrators provided to these behavioral items, as well as the consistency in teacher and district administrator responses, tends to bolster our confidence in the validity of the data.