Institute for Education Policy Studies
Graduate School of Education and Human Development

Linking Education Reform and Teachers' Professional Development:
The Efforts of Nine School Districts

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Tables

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

MARY HATWOOD FUTRELL is the Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development (GSEHD) at The George Washington University (GWU). She is also the Director of the Institute of Curriculum, Standards, and Technology (ICST) and an Associate Professor at GWU. In addition, Dr. Futrell serves as the President of Education International which represents 22,000,000 educators worldwide. She is the immediate past president of the National Education Association.

DENNIS H. HOLMES is a Professor of Research with the GSEHD at GWU. He teaches course work in research methods, measurement evaluation, and policy studies. He also consults with school districts, states and the federal government. Before joining the university, Dr. Holmes was Director of Research and Evaluation, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense, where he directed research and evaluation programs for the Overseas Dependent Schools.

J. LISA CHRISTIE is a Graduate Assistant for the ICST in the GSEHD. She recently completed her Masters Degree in Educational Leadership at GWU and is currently co-coordinating ICTS field component efforts toward promoting and supporting teachers seeking National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification

ELEANOR J. CUSHMAN is a Research Associate for the ICST in the GSEHD. She is currently completing her doctoral studies in Higher Education Administration at GWU. She is co-coordinating ICTS field activities related to the NBPTS certification and functions as liaison with Norfolk State University School of Education faculty in a joint project funded by the Pew Foundation toward promoting and supporting teachers seeking NBPTS certification.

The authors can be reached at the Institute of Curriculum, Standards, and Technology in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 2134 G St. N.W., Room 220, Washington, D.C. 20024. PH: 202-994-2304, Internet: holmes or mfutrell or christie or cushman @gwis2.circ.gwu.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the considerable help of many individuals. We are extremely grateful for the support of The Center for Washington Area Studies (CWAS). Their financial support allowed this study to begin and the intellectual support of its director, Jeffrey Henig, was invaluable to our efforts. We also thank The Center for Policy Studies' Director, Ray Rist, for agreeing to share in the cost of printing our report.

We would especially like to thank members of the advisory group for this project. These individuals include Dr. Jeffrey Henig, Professor of Political Science at The George Washington University and Director of the Center for Washington Area Studies; Dr. Marsha Levine, Independent Consultant; Dr. Donald Linkowski, Professor of Counseling and Department Chair of Counseling/Human and Organizational Studies at GWU, GSEHD; and, Dr. Ray Rist, Director of The Center for Policy Studies, GWU, GSEHD.

We would like to express our appreciation to Amy Hall and Shinyu Xiang, Graduate Assistants from GSEHD, who conducted some of the telephone interviews with school principals.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The study reported in this paper was conducted by researchers from the Institute for Curriculum, Standards, and Technology at The George Washington University. The purpose of the study was to examine the link between school reform initiatives and professional development of educators in nine school districts. Funded by the Center for Washington Area Studies at The George Washington University, the study surveyed superintendents, district-level staff, principals, teachers and other school-based educators in nine school districts in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. A total of 1,350 educators, 43 school-based administrators, and 16 district-level personnel from nine districts, participated in the study.

Topic area questions guiding the study included: What reforms were being implemented? What types of professional development were being offered? Was there a link between the two? Data were also sought about existing policies and practices that support reform-related professional development and the resources available to support both professional development and reform initiatives.

The superintendents, principals, and teachers agreed that multiple major reform and restructuring initiatives are under way in the nine districts. District-wide reforms have centered on:

1. changing student-assessment practices;
2. increasing the use of technology in the classroom;
3. implementing curricular changes in subject areas such as mathematics, language arts, and science;
4. mainstreaming and efforts toward greater inclusion of populations with special needs, including multicultural endeavors;
5. improving parental and community involvement;
6. infusing higher-order thinking and cognitive skills into curricula; and
7. management issues, including the manipulation of time through creative scheduling.

The types of professional development reported by respondents also varied widely, in terms of their links to reform initiatives, the scope and source of professional development activities, and how the respondents assessed the value of these activities. Despite these variations, some themes emerged:

• The reform initiatives under way in the districts match the focus of professional development.
• Principals play a key role in making sure development programs are linked to reforms.
• Professional development is most satisfactory to the individuals involved when it is based on the needs of the professionals in the school and when it is delivered in the school.
• Serious school reform appears difficult to achieve through "one-shot" workshops. Teachers have indicated a need for follow-up support in the classroom and throughout the school if lasting changes are to occur in their teaching. More than a third of the teachers named peers when asked who conducted the professional development activities.

Recommendations based on the interview data and survey results include:

Part I: Recommendations to School District Administrators

• School districts should have clearly articulated strategic plans that define their education reform and restructuring needs and how they will be addressed.
• Strategic plans at the district and school levels should include professional development opportunities for all faculty and staff. For education reform and school restructuring efforts to succeed, teachers must be involved in extensive professional development activities before and during the implementation of reform initiatives.
• Information should be provided to parents on an ongoing basis regarding education reform and restructuring efforts in school districts so as to (a) keep them informed about efforts to improve the system as well as their individual school, (b) keep them informed of the roles and activities undertaken by the principal and teachers of their school to enhance school reform, and (c) to encourage their support of efforts to improve the quality of their childrens' education.

Part II: Recommendations to College and University Schools of Education

• University and college schools of education should join in partnership with school districts and schools to support efforts to reform the education system.
• University and college schools of education should restructure their teacher preparation and related programs to better prepare teachers, counselors, administrators, and other school staff to work in restructured school environments.
• Schools of education need to provide professional development opportunities to their faculty to enhance their ability to prepare teachers and other school-related staff for restructured school environments.
• Schools of education should share information and resources with districts about successful education reform initiatives and professional development programs designed to implement the reforms.

Part III: Recommendations to Communities, School Districts, Schools, and College and University Schools of Education

• Ensure that all teachers and postsecondary faculty have the necessary resources to engage in professional development activities that will support their efforts to implement reform and to prepare others who will also be expected to implement reform.
• Schools of education and local schools and school districts should cooperate to enable additional school-based research related to the use of professional development in instituting education reform.

CENTER for POLICY STUDIES:
Graduate School of Education and Human Development

Linking Education Reform and Teachers' Professional Development:
The Efforts of Nine School Districts

Mary Hatwood Futrell
Dennis H. Holmes
J. Lisa Christie
Eleanor J. Cushman

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Few would dispute the notion that one crucial ingredient in successful reform is the ongoing development of the knowledge and skills of those immediately responsible for its implementation. There is, however, a constant temptation to say more than we know about school reform initiatives and how professional development activities are, or are not, linked to reforms. This paper reports results of an empirical study of the link between reform and professional development from the perspectives of superintendents, principals, and educators in nine school districts in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Northern Virginia. Collectively, these districts include a continuum of efforts, ranging from schools that have been involved only peripherally with reform to schools with several substantial reform initiatives already well integrated into the curriculum.

Communities throughout the United States are engaged in efforts to reform and restructure the public schools. These reforms appear to fall into six broad categories:

1. implementing newly defined and more rigorous curriculum standards;
2. upgrading the pedagogical skills of classroom teachers;
3. expanding the use of more authentic performance assessments to measure student achievement;
4. training teachers to use technology effectively;
5. changing school-governance structures and control of the schools; and
6. professionalizing teaching by changing teacher certification, licensure, and induction practices (Little, 1993; Wehlage, Smith, & Lipman, 1992).

Recently, concerns have been raised across the United States about the slow pace at which reforms are being implemented (Barth, 1991; Fullan & Miles, 1993; Wehlage et al., 1992; Weissglass, 1991). Much of this concern has to do with whether teachers are adequately prepared to work in restructured school environments, and whether traditional staff development methods can overcome factors such as resistance to change, a highly bureaucratized school culture, and educators' isolation from one another and exclusion from the decision-making process.

Several researchers (Darling-Hammond, 1992; Fullan & Miles, 1993, Futrell, 1993; Little, 1993; Lord, 1991) have suggested that for reforms to take hold, significant resources must be invested in professional development programs for teachers. In addition, the focus of professional development needs to shift from the state and district to the local school. Alternative models of delivery are being explored, including collaborative relationships, teacher networks, and other opportunities for teachers to reflect upon -- and engage in dialogue about -- practice.

"Despite the centrality of professional development to the transformation of teaching, little is known about the nature and effectiveness of current staff development programs or about the costs and configurations" (Miller, Lord, & Dorney, 1994, p. 3). Only two studies have been reported that examine the relationship between professional development and reform efforts. In one, Little, Geritz, Stem, Guthrie, Krist, and Marsh (1987) investigated professional development in California. They conducted interviews and distributed surveys to 3,400 administrators and specialists in 30 school districts in an effort to discover the types of professional development activities offered to teachers. The study focused on formal professional development, but did not assess the impact of professional development on classrooms. Little et al. (1987) noted that reform efforts and professional development programs needed to be linked. They stated, however, that further studies were needed to analyze the significance of the linkage between reform initiatives and professional development activities related to particular reforms.

Expanding on their study, Miller and colleagues (1994) used the question posed by Little et al. regarding the link between professional development activities and school-based reform to study four districts in different regions of the country. Specifically, they attempted to determine the role staff development plays in efforts to improve both student learning and the schools themselves. A more extensive review of the related literature can be found in Appendix A.

The present study, conducted by researchers from the Institute for Curriculum, Standards, and Technology (ICST) at The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development (GSEHD), examined the link between school reform initiatives and professional development, as reported by nine public school districts. In addition to the ICST staff, one member of the GSEHD research faculty worked on the study. The study adds to the knowledge base regarding the link between professional development and education reform by providing a comprehensive view of one particular region in the United States. Investigators conducted interviews with superintendents, district staff, and principals in the nine districts. In addition, an eight-page questionnaire was distributed to every teacher and professional staff member in each of the participating schools. A total of 1,350 educators, 43 school based administrators, and 16 district administrators participated in this study.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Given the current concerns, criticisms, and issues associated with the education reform movement and concern for professional development design and delivery, the George Washington University (GWU) researchers explored this issue in nine school districts in the mid-Atlantic region. Although the specific questions used during interviews and on the survey were tailored to the respondent groups, the following questions guided our inquiry.

• What reforms are being implemented in the classrooms, schools, and districts?
• What types of professional development activities are offered and what are the foci of these activities?
• How do educators assess the professional development programs in which they are engaged?
• What link, if any, exists between professional development and reform efforts?
• What policies and practices are in place in each district to support reform-related professional development?
• What resources are available for school reform and professional development activities?

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Funded by the Center for Washington Area Studies (CWAS) at The George Washington University, the researchers surveyed superintendents, district level staff, principals, teachers, and other school based educators in nine school districts in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. A total of 1,350 educators, 43 school-based administrators, and 16 district level personnel from nine districts, participated in the study (Table 1).

The nine school districts in the Washington metropolitan area included in this study represent the District of Columbia's large urban public school district, with more than 175 schools; five suburban districts, three of which are among the largest suburban districts in the United States; and three smaller suburban/rural school districts, one in Maryland and two in Virginia (Table 2).

All of the districts are engaged in implementing state and board-mandated restructuring and reform initiatives. These initiatives include changes in governance and organization, curricula, instruction, and student assessment. Two of the districts have differentiated staffing roles in place. One district has implemented a new teacher-evaluation system coupled with a merit pay incentive system. Several are implementing national reforms such as National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. A more detailed description of the study methodology can be found in Appendix B.

FINDINGS

This section represents a synthesis of the responses from all three sources of data -- superintendent interviews, principal interviews, and teacher surveys. The presentation is organized around the research questions listed above. (Note: Portions of this discussion appeared in an American Education Research Association paper School Restructuring: Meeting Teachers' Professional Development Needs (Holmes, Futrell, Christie, & Cushman, 1995).

Characteristics of Respondents

Interviewees at the district level included four superintendents and 12 representatives of central administration offices. All but two of the 43 principals interviewed were incumbents; the two exceptions were assistant principals.

As shown in Table 3, the principals interviewed for this study managed schools ranging in size from 80 to 1,800 students. The number of professional staff ranged from 18 to 165. Eight (80%) of the 10 high school principals were male; five (56%) of the nine middle school principals were male; 4 (19%) of the 21 elementary school principals were male. Eight (89%) of the nine superintendents in the districts surveyed were male. The one female superintendent was serving in an acting capacity.

Table 4 presents the characteristics of the teachers and other school-based professionals who responded to the questionnaire. The respondent group was evenly divided across experience levels. They were well educated, with about two-thirds holding at least a master's degree. High schools, middle schools, and elementary schools were almost equally represented.

What School Reform and Restructuring Initiatives
Have Been Implemented in the Nine School Districts?

The superintendents, principals, and educators agreed that multiple reform and restructuring initiatives are under way in the nine districts. The focus of these initiatives varied considerably across and within districts. District wide reforms have centered on:

• changing student assessment practices;
• increasing the use of technology in the classroom;
• implementing curricular changes in subject areas such as mathematics, language arts, and science;
• mainstreaming and greater inclusion of populations with special needs, including multicultural endeavors;
• improving parental and community involvement;
• infusing higher-order thinking and cognitive skills into curricula; and
• management issues, including the manipulation of time through creative scheduling.

When asked to indicate what reforms were occurring in their schools, the teachers' top two responses were cooperative learning (87%) and use of computers in classrooms (83%). These were followed by social-service initiatives (77%), team teaching (77%), standardized testing (76%), multicultural education (76%), peer tutoring (74%), parental involvement (70%), and performance-based assessment (67%).

Between 31% and 49% of the respondents who indicated that these reforms took place in their school also gave evidence that they were involved in their planning and implementation (see Appendix E).

The two reform initiatives reported by teachers as most prevalent in their classrooms were cooperative learning (72%) and use of computers (59% ). These were followed by multicultural education (57%) and performance based assessment (53%). Eighty-three percent of the respondents indicated that utilization of computers for learning occurred in their school, in contrast to the 59% of these same respondents who reported computer use for learning in their classroom. Forty-eight percent of the teachers implementing reforms in their classroom, indicated that they were involved in both the planning and the implementation of these reforms.

Twelve principals and five of the nine superintendents mentioned specific student assessment initiatives in their schools and districts. Comments by principals focused on "authentic assessment" activities. "There's more focus in the school on test preparation, incentives for learning, and ways to assess students," said one. Another reported, "The school is trying to look at national standards, current testing measures, and [the district's] new outcomes-based assessment and trying to align these three." One superintendent observed: "First thing we did in the 1989-90 academic year was a curriculum audit; then we set about making changes in the system from this. We rewrote objectives and curriculum action plans. We are now in the process of rewriting our assessments. We'll continue to use traditional forms as well. State -- Iowas, SATs, Literacy Passport Examination. But we're developing our own performance based assessments to replace our criterion reference plans which were based on old curriculum action plans."

Assessment initiatives are linked to state mandates. Both the Maryland and Virginia state departments of education have projects in place that encourage districts to train teachers to use alternative assessment practices in their classrooms and to make more effective use of the results of standardized (criterion and norm-referenced) tests. Teacher recertification in Maryland and Virginia requires training in student assessment, and both states have emphasized "student assessment" in developing curriculum standards. All three jurisdictions have offered statewide training institutes and workshops focusing on assessment practices (e.g., portfolios, performance assessment). Assessment, however, appears to be primarily a school-based initiative, in that the teachers and principals are more likely to discuss assessment as one of their reform initiatives than were the superintendents.

All of the districts have district-wide initiatives under way to increase the use of technology in teaching and learning. Three of the suburban districts have emphasized technology development by committing significant resources to staff hiring, equipment acquisition, and teacher training. The school boards in these districts have designated "technology" as a priority. Multiple and diverse projects are under way in these districts, all designed to infuse technology into the curriculum at both the elementary and secondary levels. Federal, state, and local funds are being used to support these initiatives, augmented by foundation funds and partnerships with local corporations. The impetus for these projects has come mainly at the district level, although some schools have received grants to support programs initiated by teachers.

The other six districts have approached technology development a little more slowly, committing fewer district resources. Still, over 80% of the educators responding to the survey indicated they were working in schools where technology initiatives were being implemented. However, as noted previously, only 59% of the educators reported using computers for learning in their classrooms.

During the interviews, 23 of the principals, 14 of whom were elementary school principals, and five of the superintendents, cited examples of how they were implementing technology in their schools and districts. One of the superintendents said, "Technology is one of our biggies; we are tackling it in a way I don't think any other school system in the country is. Instead of just taking one school, we are starting with prototype schools. We are making sure we have learning research hubs going forward for people. The plan is that in six years we will be a really strong technology district. [We are] integrating technology into the curriculum. [It is] not just that you have a computer, but that [technology] is integrated throughout." Comments were consistently linked to the use of school development funds to "bring staff basically up to speed in terms of the current educational technologies and the use of them in the classroom." A high school principal observed, "We put money into technology so it would stay and some of the money into staff development that would develop skills." Another issue associated with technology integration was noted by one principal, "We have had to make terrible trade-offs for these changes. We do not have computers in all the classrooms. We were planning to spend $60,000 on computers, but we used the funds to pay for extra staff time so the teachers would have more time for planning instead." In another district, a superintendent noted that the "technology push comes from the community. The cry for this has come from the community and some from the high school teachers. [This is] strange as it is usually the elementary  school teachers who are most willing to change."

Mainstreaming and preparing teachers for greater inclusion of populations with special needs in regular education classes has become a reform objective for two reasons. One is the sharp increase in the number of children with special needs enrolled in the nine districts, including an influx of a large number of children with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). The second is that in each of the jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia) policy on how special education services should be delivered has shifted during the past five years. Districts have been under increasing pressure to mainstream students with special needs whenever possible, and to otherwise place students in the least restrictive environment. Viewed broadly, these reform initiatives have focused on preparing teachers for new roles that require understanding of the requirements of children with special needs and greater collaboration between classroom teachers and resource specialists (e.g., special education, bilingual/ESL, and Chapter I specialists). Both federal and state grants have been used by the districts to fund projects in this area. One superintendent observed:

Inclusion of severely and profoundly mentally retarded kids is occurring in our district schools. For years, these kids were placed in other settings. Several years ago, the decision was made to serve them in our community schools. [Gifted students are also included in regular classrooms.] The issue now is how to differentiate instruction for this range of students. [There's] no grouping by ability at the elementary level other than math for grades 3 through 6. [Our district has] kind of stopped this now in light of inclusion. [We're] really looking at increasing skills of teachers in order to differentiate methods.

At the district level, curricular reforms have focused on mathematics, science, and English/language arts. These district wide reform initiatives have been stimulated by joint projects between the districts and national curriculum organizations or universities. In other cases, they have grown out of state efforts to create curriculum frameworks and standards.

All principals offered information related to curriculum development reform activities in a variety of subject areas. However, 20 reported curriculum reforms related to mathematics. Nine schools are participating in instructional improvement projects with national organizations (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD]) or universities. One principal observed, "We are implementing new math education, which is a district wide effort. This process is in line with curriculum and instruction methodology advocated by NCTM to try to upgrade and update the way we develop mathematics literacy with children." In all cases, the goals of these curriculum projects are to upgrade teachers' content knowledge and increase their pedagogical skills.

At the school level, reforms have concentrated on instruction and school improvement. In Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, schools are required by the state education agency (SEA) to develop school improvement plans. These policies have nurtured a variety of projects ranging from the adoption of school models (e.g., Comer Schools, Coalition of Essential Schools, Carnegie Schools) to other, less ambitious projects such as restructuring primary and middle school programs.

Although more than half the educators reported engaging in multicultural education reform activities in their work, only 10 principals mentioned anything specifically related to this as part of their reform initiatives, and only three superintendents referred to activities associated with this concern.

Twenty of the principals commented on their increased emphasis on parental and community involvement; 11 of these comments came from elementary school principals. Parental involvement initiatives were mentioned as important by all three sources. Seventy percent of the educators indicated that parental involvement initiatives were occurring in their schools. Throughout their interviews, superintendents reiterated that community and parental support and involvement were essential to effective reform. Four of the superintendents spoke of specific efforts toward community outreach. One district superintendent noted, "Our technology push comes from the community. They decided it was important, so we are aggressive in this area now." Community involvement also brings difficulties. One of the superintendents reported that the district was "lying low" on the issue of change because of conflicts within the community over previous changes. In particular, protests had focused on outcome-based education and its social implications.

Regardless of district or school level, the principals were in agreement with each other and with the superintendents on the importance of the school-based nature of reform initiatives. In one district, a center that was developed to facilitate change serves as both a catalyst for change and an in-house consultant to the schools. One superintendent said, "[We] provide a broad-brush framework of where to go. Local schools decide how to get there." In another district, the national curriculum framework (e.g., NCTM), is being used, but is being adapted to local needs. In a third district, "[The national movements for curriculum reform] influence our thinking; we just haven't latched on to any one thing," a superintendent said. In another district, curriculum is being designed by the district, but a superintendent reported, "how curriculum is being delivered is being left up to the schools."

Some of the reforms occurring in schools resulted from directions and guidance or actual programs initiated at the district or state level. Some interviewees discussed the use of national movements, such as Howard Gardner's advocacy of theories of multiple intelligences, NCTM, and school-based management (SBM). But even these programs were reinterpreted locally to meet needs within interviewees' own schools. Most of the reforms discussed by the principals originated within their own schools. As a result, distinct themes emerged by type of school. For example, block scheduling was a frequently cited change at the high school level (six of the high schools had implemented block scheduling in the last two years), but was only reported once by an elementary school principal and twice by middle school principals. School-based management was most often cited as a reform initiative by middle school principals (five times), and by six of the elementary school principals. None of the high school principals reported using a school based management system, however. One middle school principal noted that his school chose not to engage in school based management: "SBM ... we are not doing [it] -- I just had enough to do and didn't need another committee. I do use a leadership model and shared decision making, but we are not part of the SBM model." Other remarks from the principals on the local nature of reform included:

• The school system has been trying to come up with the best program for bringing educational services to the students. Principals have more autonomy and are able to handle more things on site. This enables them to get services to students faster than before. There are lead principals who are responsible for clusters of schools and principals can get services for students from the lead principals without having to go through the central office.
• We know about many of the state and national reforms... but we tend to implement reforms related to the specific needs of our students and the community.
• [We] began a special spelling program because our teachers realized more needed to be done.
• [The] program began as a result of a system wide study of K-12 practices led by the superintendent. This study was followed by the opportunity for each school to design its own program.
• We are responsive to teacher concerns and grassroots movements.

Two principals differed with the last remark, expressing their belief that, in their experience, changes emanated from the district level. One said, "Right now, most of the decisions are made by the board. We can conduct small reforms. We are not yet moving toward school-based initiatives." The other principal stated, "We are involved more in district reforms, such as fast math, not our own." Another high school principal noted, "There is a struggle in [the county] over who controls the schools. The school board or the community? The school board loosened the reins through SBM, but there is still a struggle over who is in charge."

One means of promoting local reform was formal mechanisms for teacher input. Most superintendents spoke of using teachers as important members of district committees and for consistent feedback, and of regular meetings between district level and school-based staffs. District personnel in one Virginia district spoke of assigning a member of the central office staff to each school as a link between the schools and district offices. Virtually all principals noted that some form of teacher input was included in decisions about reform activities.

Types of Professional Development

Principals agreed that effective teachers are those who are well trained and qualified in both their subject areas and grade-level pedagogy and are motivated to improve their teaching. Professional development was mentioned as the means to ensure that teachers worked effectively. One principal described an effective development process as one in which "teachers become effective by training, practice, intuition, conversations with their colleagues ... by being open enough to say they are having trouble with something, and by asking how they can change."

Educators in the nine districts discussed a variety of professional development activities. The most commonly cited activity was the traditional inservice program sponsored by the district or school (Table 5). Ninety-four percent of the respondents indicated they had participated in an inservice program in the past three years. Sixty-nine percent of those reported that this activity was mandatory. Similarly, a large proportion (more than two-thirds) of the respondents indicated they had participated in school- and district-sponsored courses, institutes, workshops, or seminars, most of which were not mandatory.

Contrary to the criticism in the literature of the ubiquitous workshop or inservice day, the respondents' feelings toward these more traditional forms of professional development were positive. Of all the choices, inservice days were described as the least likely to be voluntary. However, over 70% of the respondents felt that inservice days, courses, seminars, and workshops were "likely" or "very likely" to promote sustained education reform. This in many respects makes sense, given that many workshops are planned at the local-school level and seemingly would evoke feelings of ownership in teachers. The principals, for example, reported offering workshops and inservice programs focused on topics identified by teachers and other school-professionals. Participants in workshops and inservice programs also received recertification credit or stipends, important incentives for teachers.

The questionnaire data revealed that a high percentage of educators reported participation in professional development activities involving collaboration with peers both during and after school (Table 6). Eighty-six percent of the respondents indicated that they had participated in collaborative relationships with peers during school, and 72% had done so after school. Similarly, a large percentage of educators reported participation in joint planning time with peers during (70%) and after (57%) school.

Educators placed a high value on these collaborative relationships with their peers as mechanisms for professional development. Over 75% of the educators who reported participating in a collaborative activity indicated that they considered the activity "likely" or "very likely" to sustain education reform. Similarly, 71% of the respondents indicated that having time built into the school day to work cooperatively with peers was an effective strategy for professional development of school staff.

Analysis of the interviews with principals also revealed that many stressed the importance of their educators developing collaborative skills. Reform initiatives, such as integrating curricula (e.g., language arts and social studies), adopting the inclusion model, multi-age classrooms, block scheduling, and school based management all require a much greater interaction among school faculty than in traditional schooling. As one elementary school principal noted, such initiatives require overcoming years of isolation and practice outside the scrutiny of others:

That seemingly simple technique of turning a school into a team of teachers who are operating on behalf of youngsters really wasn't that simple because teaching is the loneliest profession in the world. Teachers historically go into the classroom in the morning, they shut the door, and they don't see another adult until perhaps lunchtime. Teachers are not historically accustomed to working and talking about their practice with another teacher. So just to get teachers to begin to talk about their practice and to reflect on their practice was the first step in the staff development process that got us where we are today.

One middle school principal discussed at length the need for training his staff and teachers prior to successful implementation of school-based management: "Because the concept is so new to most of us, we had to go through some serious training. The team had to look at issues of team building, collaborative efforts, team decision making, and communication. As time has passed, we have increased the involvement of the team as the team has matured in its abilities." A third principal observed, "One of the most effective types of staff development is from peers. Another teacher might actually work in the classroom, giving a demonstration lesson, or work with the teacher one on one."

What Is the Emphasis of Professional Development?

Instruction, curriculum, and use of technology were the foci of most of the professional development initiatives in the nine districts (Table 7). More than half of the questionnaire respondents reported that "instructional methods," or pedagogy, was the area of the professional development that had been emphasized most during the past four years in their particular district. Over 60 % of the respondents reported that they had been involved in planning and implementing pedagogy-based initiatives in their schools. These included peer tutoring, cooperative learning, team teaching, and interdisciplinary teaching.

Forty-seven percent of the survey respondents named "curriculum" as an area receiving major professional development emphasis. This included a significant number of respondents who indicated that their schools were involved in state and national curriculum reform projects. Also, more than three-quarters of the respondents reported that their schools were implementing multicultural education curricula. This latter curriculum initiative was not clearly identified during the interviews with superintendents and principals.

Technology appeared in several places in the questionnaire data as a area that had received much emphasis in the nine districts. About 35% of the respondents listed technology as an area that had received emphasis. On a related question, 70% of the educators indicated that they had participated in professional development activities focusing on technology. In addition, 83% of the respondents reported that they were working in schools where computer technology initiatives were being implemented. Principals who indicated that they were engaged in technology initiatives also frequently reported having at least one staff member (full- or part-time) functioning as a resource person for teachers and staff and/or using substantial development funds to prepare teachers for the use of new technology. Principals at all levels commented on the importance of staff development as a means of making teachers more proficient at integrating technology into the classroom:

• The lion's share of staff development this past summer was on how to use the technology.
• Right now technology is really the thing around here. The range of my faculty is [from] some who are really expert [to] others who barely know how to turn a computer on. We have to do a lot of staff development for these teachers.
• We are on the cutting edge of technology. We need to get training for it. For professional development, we need to devote some serious time for training. It is crucial.
• We have a major change with technology, so all of our staff development for this year has a computer technology component.

Two other topics that received emphasis were "special needs populations" and "classroom management." Full inclusion, mainstreaming, and ESL/bilingual initiatives may account for the proportion of respondents (32%) listing "special needs populations" as a professional development area receiving emphasis in their district. The Maryland counties are under a state mandate to provide inservice to classroom teachers on the inclusion of students with special needs, including children with limited English proficiency (LEP). One of the larger districts also had begun a mandatory staff-training program on issues related to multicultural teaching and learning. In the interviews, some principals suggested that the specific focus of many of the staff development programs was closely linked to team building and collaborative practice related to inclusion and LEP student assistants. Many schools are now teaming both special education and ESL teachers with regular classroom teachers. To meet the needs of this new instructional approach, inservice and workshops have been provided to the teachers.

Performance assessment (e.g., portfolio use, alternative assessment strategies) and standardized testing were mentioned by both district administrators and principals as foci of professional development in their districts. Both Maryland and Virginia have mandated statewide reform of student assessment practices, which may account for the emphasis on this area.

Who Conducts Professional Development?

The nine districts are moving toward decentralizing the professional development component of reform by placing more responsibility and resources at the school level for the provision of inservice to school staffs. The interviews with principals show that school-based management initiatives and district policies have moved the focus of professional development from the central office to the schools. Although all districts still conduct district-wide workshops and training programs, schools have primary responsibility for delivering professional development. Several of these districts are known for their strong district-level professional development departments. In the past, these departments were given responsibility for the professional development component of change initiatives. Moving the focus to the schools represents a significant shift in policy for these districts. Notably, school districts in the region are experiencing financial exigencies resulting from cutbacks in state and local education funds. Several principals indicated that the shift in the focus of professional development may be related as much to decreased funding in these districts as to a genuine move toward school-based management and decision making.

The questionnaire data (Table 8) suggest that much of the professional development is being conducted at the school level by peers and school administrators, and only occasionally by an outside expert. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents indicated "peers" when asked who, for the most part, conducts the development activities in which they participate. Only 18% of the respondents listed district administrators as responsible for conducting professional development programs; even fewer mentioned universities (15%) or professional organizations (12%). This again reflects the local nature of professional development, as the central office does not appear to be the primary source of expertise for professional development activities. It also may reflect the perceptions of several central administrators that schools and colleges of education are not preparing teachers to work in restructured school environments or to teach to the new curriculum standards.

The interviews with superintendents and principals also confirm the findings that teachers in the nine districts are increasingly turning to peer collaboration and interactions with peers as avenues of professional development. The interviews with principals and the questionnaire data suggest that administrators are actively encouraging collaboration among teachers and staff by providing "in school" time for teachers to meet, using inservice days and other resources to support collaboration (e.g., peer observation and networking activities) and building opportunities for teachers and school staff to participate in the decision-making process.

How Do Educators Assess Their Professional Development Programs?

As discussed earlier, the educators in this study gave high marks to the professional development activities in which they had participated. This is particularly the case for activities that involved interaction with peers and opportunities to learn about the use of technology in the classroom. Most of the 1,350 questionnaire respondents rated all of the school-based and district activities as "likely" or "very likely" to promote sustained education reform. Only 19% indicated that professional development was unrelated to change in their schools.

The educators were also asked to evaluate the relationship between professional development in their school or district and education reform. The data reported in Table 9 depicts the relatively positive opinions educators hold about the link between professional development and the changes proposed or being implemented in their schools. They are slightly less certain about whether the professional development activities have prepared them to implement reform in their own classrooms. They are even less sure yet about whether the professional development has adequately informed them about changes planned and under way in the district. These data also contribute to evidence that increased emphasis on school-based professional development accompanies a decrease in district-wide inservice programs.

Link Between Professional Development and Reform

All the superintendents spoke at length about the importance of connecting professional development to reform efforts. Each spoke specifically about the fact that for every district-wide reform effort or mandate, professional development is offered in conjunction with the changes being requested. Some statements from the superintendents included:

•  We decided to emphasize technology and the use of technology in the classroom throughout the district, so we created at the district level a course for the needs related to technology.
• You can't do this [reform initiative] without staff development. You can't prepare teachers for change unless you provide staff development.
• Professional development provides the support, the skill, the knowledge, and the know-how to allow someone to change.
• There is no reform without staff development.

The principals reiterated this connection:

• Major change is in technology, so all of our staff development this year has a technology component. We are also moving toward inclusion, so money for special education courses is available.
• This is the third year of a portfolio assessment. All grade levels K-5 were systematically introduced to this with strong staff development.
• With writing and reading initiatives, every teacher has received staff development.

Overall, districts are trying to change the professional development paradigm and how they look at the teaching profession. Superintendents stated that what was needed in the schools was a climate in which teachers could undergo the same type of learning experiences desired for the students. As one superintendent noted, "Our staff development is the same thing we are trying to promote for our students -- well versed in collegial learning, teamwork, promoting a greater society, reflective practice."

Of the 1,276 educators who responded to the question: "Professional development has helped me implement most of the changes we are being asked to make in my school" 69% either agreed or strongly agreed (50% and 19% respectively). Forty-five percent of the respondents did not agree that current professional development provided adequate preparation to implement the educational changes proposed. Furthermore, 20% of the respondents said they believed that the professional development activities they engaged in were unrelated to the changes they were making in their school.

Despite acknowledgment of the essential link between professional development and reform, principals acknowledged that staff development's contribution to the reform initiative at the school often amounts to nothing more than exposure of educators to the change effort, not implementation of reform itself. Concern was also expressed about whether the current structure was helpful. One principal's comment underscores the issue: "I have real concern with the use of staff development. I feel we do a disservice to teachers, that we add on and add on and make recommendations and never give them enough time to be trained. There are a lot of things going on that are changing the way instruction should be, and we haven't given teachers enough support to use them. We have all these expectations, but we never put our money where our mouth is, so to speak." Another principal noted that "staff development plays a limited role in school reform, because it has been an isolated and scattered activity." One elementary school principal also expressed concern about the current linkage that exists: "Staff development is critical to the reform. Unfortunately, in the loop of our initiative of reform, we don't dedicate time and money to staff development. That is why the reform has not been so successful." Another concern expressed by one principal related to allowing teachers to make their own decisions about which professional development activities they would attend: "I believe that if we were really focused we would make change immediately. Current staff development allows teachers individual professional growth in their own area but does not give the school as strong a focus [linking reform and professional development]."

What Factors Are Essential to Successful Reform and Professional Development?

Superintendents, principals, and educators all mentioned community support as essential to effective reform efforts. Community support was considered necessary, from the students' parents and from school board members. School board support was cited as key, both formally through district policies and informally through support of principals in their implementation of particular school level initiatives. One principal observed that "ultimately, all ideas must be approved by the district and school board, even if not in a formal manner."

Support from the district carries over into financial areas. Principals' comments on the subject of financial resources available for professional development ranged from "Money is not a problem, we have as much as we need for the teachers" to "Money is a big issue; we receive $200 each year from the county. No one worthwhile could be hired for this amount."

Several principals, at least one from each of the nine districts, mentioned having grant money for the implementation of specific reform efforts and the associated staff development activities. Grants came primarily from the districts. However, a few principals indicated that they had received private foundation or state grants. In Virginia, the state provided one school an early childhood program demonstration grant. Maryland has made some funds available for state-mandated assessment programs and for technology initiatives. All principals who reported receiving a grant also said they were satisfied with the funding available to meet their professional development needs. One principal noted the double-edged aspect of large grants, however: "In all honesty, getting the grant was a mixed blessing; the amount of time spent on grant activity has been unbelievable. Personally, one-fourth to one-third of my time has been spent on the grant." Another principal commented that he felt guilty about the money the county had given him: "I am afraid it is being taken from someone else who might need it even more."

School-based management initiatives appear to offer many schools the opportunity to determine how all their budget monies, including professional development funds, are spent. Even those schools that do not take a school-based management approach acknowledged that money for professional development comes from their school's operating budget. The greatest number of principals, however, reported that their staff development resources were inadequate to satisfy the need to assist teachers in covering conference registration costs, travel expenses, consultant fees, and pay for substitutes -- all considered necessary for the full range of professional development activities needed to prepare for reform initiatives. Fifty-nine percent of the educators queried indicated that they spent personal funds on professional development activities. Most principals who acknowledged that teachers at their schools use their own funds on professional development indicated that teachers are most likely to use their own money to pay for recertification courses. Six principals did not know if their teachers paid for their own professional development, and 10 indicated that very few or none of the teachers in their school used their own money for professional development. One principal commented that "[professional development] is also 'paid' for by the goodwill of the teachers. Many teachers give of their time, both within the school day and before and after school." Indeed, most of the principals indicated that their primary source of professional development training was their in-house "expert" teachers.

Time was another important challenge to meeting the professional development needs of teachers. Expressing a nearly unanimous view, one principal said, "Teachers would be prepared by having adequate time to read, study, converse, discuss with colleagues. That's the one thing we don't have in this profession. And school boards and the politicians see release time and extra time for people to plan as goofing off. [They believe] they are paying teachers to teach and that they should be teaching, not sitting around chatting." Other comments from principals underscore their concern about not having enough time to offer effective development opportunities, such as:

• [Lack of] time is the biggest problem we face in professional development activities.
• The weakness of professional development is that there isn't enough time for follow-up.
• Staff development is important, but it's hard to have enough time to do it right.
• Teachers need time to gain exposure and think about new ideas.
• The model of "training the trainer" as a solution to monetary and release time is a real sore spot. Only the person attending the training really learns, and they don't have anyone to talk to about it when they get back.
• The two half days of staff development per year are just not sufficient.
• Staff development is not considered a part of the their [teachers] workloads. They have to use their own time to attend conferences and workshops.
• At present we continue to see a time competition between teaching and staff development.

A common solution offered by principals to address the competing demands of teaching and staff development was to extend the school year, thus allowing more time for teachers to work without the students. Principals indicated that it was important for school boards and districts to exhibit leadership in treating time as a valuable and manipulable commodity. As one principal observed, "School boards should allot more time and money for professional development."

Teachers also expressed their dissatisfaction with the time when most staff development opportunities were offered. Asked when they preferred to participate in professional development activities, 55% said during school hours, while only 19% selected after school hours. When asked when they did participate in professional development, 77% said after school. The responses to questions regarding effective strategies for professional development reflected the importance of time during the school day for professional activities and the value of peer relationships. The teachers were consistent in their emphasis on the importance of time during the school day to work on issues and ideas; 63% felt that allocating time during the day to work with peers was one of the most effective strategies for professional development.

CENTER for POLICY STUDIES:
Graduate School of Education and Human Development

Linking Education Reform and Teachers' Professional Development:
The Efforts of Nine School Districts

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

During the interviews both superintendents and principals identified several factors or conditions that appear to influence the linkage between reform and professional development were identified. All sources agreed that truly effective reforms result from local identification of needs and local solutions. Whether the particular reform bubbles up from the teachers and other school-based teachers or through national movements, such as curriculum standards or other coalition based projects, a commitment to the reform at the school level reform was noted as essential to its success.

Although the trend toward local delivery of professional development is one most experts would commend, concerns are expressed if the schools become the primary deliverers of staff development because of cuts in districts' professional development funds (Little et al., 1987). Professional development funds are among the first to be excised or reduced when budgets get tight. Personnel in each district said their professional development funds had been restricted. According to district level personnel in at least three of the districts, staff development personnel have been cut from the district administration each year for the past several years. Many of the schools in these districts undertook their own development activities because they recognized teachers' professional development as critical to sustained school reform. This change to school-based endeavors in reaction to budgetary restrictions, rather than as part of comprehensive planning, may have implications for both professional development and school reform.

Another crucial factor is leadership. Leadership from the district level was apparent, as superintendents in all nine districts clearly stated the critical role professional development plays in bringing about change and reform in the schools. Not only do superintendents say this, but the plans for district-wide reforms reflect this view. The planning for these reforms included explicit requirements for professional development. However, as noted above, superintendents admitted that professional development funds were among the first to be cut during times of fiscal restraint. As illustrated by the interviews with principals, while the importance of establishing a link between professional development and reform initiatives was expressed, for a variety of reasons the principals' statements did not always reflect that this link had become a reality at the classroom level in their schools.

Leadership is particularly crucial in districts where multiple reforms are underway. In seven of the nine districts, more than four major reform initiatives were being implemented at the same time. For example, one school system was implementing district wide projects in curriculum, technology, assessment, and multicultural education. The superintendent has played a key leadership role in communicating a single, clear vision of how these reforms are connected. Principals in this district have had to do the same to avoid dilution of efforts resulting from simultaneous implementation of many reforms.

Long-range planning appears to be one of the activities most likely to promote reform initiatives. The superintendents were especially supportive of this activity, citing lack of stability and consistency as a major reason why reform initiatives fail. In some cases, long-range planning began as a result of state mandates. "We take the state-mandated biennial plan very seriously as an important change agent," one superintendent said. Others have taken this state mandate and created planning mandates for their schools. One district superintendent commented, "We have a strategic plan for every school."

The superintendents also emphasized that the reform efforts under way in their districts were long-term in nature. They underscored the fact that their latest efforts at change were the fact that their latest efforts at change were not going to fade as perhaps past efforts had done. They stated that the commitment was not to "the reform of the hour" but to far reaching changes in their schools. For example, one superintendent stated, "Our emphasis on math is long-term. It will not go away." The superintendents acknowledged the time it takes to overcome the difficulties associated with change. One superintendent defined the relationship between reform and the time required to change as follows: "We need a year of discussion about the philosophy [of the change], a year of discussion about the practical implications, a year of piloting change, and a year to begin implementing change. As long as we are willing to do this, [reform] has been effective."

Principals also expressed concern about the lasting nature of individual reform initiatives. Several noted that district programs seemed to shift and change each year. Four of the large suburban districts had multiyear professional development programs in place, linked to the reforms the district was supporting. One of the other large districts was gearing up to implement a new center that would provide multiyear programs for teachers and administrators. Whether mandated or voluntary, many of the principals mentioned the importance of long-term planning to the success of reform efforts and professional development. Long-range planning has consistently proved to be instrumental in the creation of a better program. Several principals' comments on long-range planning follow:

• [The superintendent] made it clear that when the school personnel conducts staff development, they must have a purpose for it and not just do staff development to offer a lot of courses.
• [We] implement [programs] slowly. We often do it grade level by grade level. For example, the district's math initiative was in first and second grade this year -- next year third grade as well.
• It took awhile, two years and two attempts for staff to accept block scheduling. It took shadowing other teachers [and] other schools to say yes.
• [Staff development] would make more sense [if it were] to focus on a couple of things. Rather than try to improve everything, focus on really improving something. Staff development tends to be transient, focusing on whatever is new. The central offices need to figure out how to support the local level. Rather than try to come out with what the school should be doing, they need to listen to the schools and figure out how they can provide the ongoing support that the school needs to have real change.

One urban district has for the first time organized training and development into one department within the central administration. A second has integrated a professional development component throughout its strategic plan. A third has a five-year plan with a strong commitment to professional development. These districts view professional development as a means of dealing with the impact of change on teachers:

• There is a concern about teacher overload as well. One of the means mentioned to assist in the transition was professional development. However, this too brings concerns about time. When can [professional development] happen?"
• We have been restructuring the day for kids [as part of our reforms]. Maybe we need to restructure the day for teachers too.

Seven of the nine districts have school-based management (SBM) initiatives underway. However, the level of authority and control provided with the SBM initiative varies considerably from district to district. Some school principals reported having total responsibility for all decisions related to their schools, while others said they were supposed to have SBM but in reality the district administration retained much of the control over the school's operation. Regardless of the range of responses, generally the superintendents and principals said that SBM policies have played an important role in stimulating local school improvement planning and teacher involvement in school reform. They also cited SBM as a major factor behind the development of grassroots capacity for change and reform. Teachers have developed skills and sense of empowerment through implementing SBM. These teachers are now leading curriculum and instructional reform efforts. SBM teams in the schools have played leading roles in identifying teachers' professional development needs and in encouraging teachers to participate in professional development activities.

In a background paper for the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, Darling-Hammond (1994) describes failed previous reform efforts as "killed by an underinvestment in teacher knowledge and school capacity." Educators in this study were aware of the importance of investing in teachers and were attempting to address this issue to enhance teachers' capacity to critique, implement, and evaluate reform efforts. The superintendents and principals were particularly expressive about teachers' importance to the success of the reform initiatives.

Although the reform initiatives discussed by schools in this study offer great promise, they also pose significant challenges to the teachers in the schools as they attempt to transform their teaching and collectively transform their schools. The best means to achieve this new vision of teaching and learning is through professional development (Darling-Hammond, 1992; Darling-Hammond, Lieberman, & McLaughlin, 1992; Futrell, 1994; Little, 1993; Miller et al., 1994). In order to succeed, "teachers will need professional development that is every bit as rich and authentic as the education we wish for our children and as the changes we desire for our schools (Miller et al., 1994, p. 7)."

Rather than as an isolated event or program, professional development must provide a continuum of the development experiences for individual teachers that addresses their needs in preparation programs to their needs in advanced practice. The best professional development involves collegial work settings, team teaching environments, school improvement networks, and school/university collaborative, such as professional development schools (Darling-Hammond, 1992).

According to Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin (1995), questions to consider when designing effective professional development include: Does the professional development allow for adult learning? Does it allow for the teachers to construct their own meaning? Does it support the school as a community of lifelong learners? The schools in this study were attempting to address these questions in the design of their professional development programs.

The peer component of professional development was considered crucial by the educators who responded to the survey. Several schools reported that one method for assuring some degree of collaborative peer interaction was to restructure the school day so that teachers had time to meet with one another. Although providing peer collaborative development opportunities is important, teachers should remain aware that the inservice mode of professional development is highly useful for certain types of information exchanges. In addition, teacher networks can serve as an important mode of development that addresses the need for interaction with peers. Very few of the educators in this study spoke of their efforts and experiences in this area.

Finally, one of the important subthemes growing out of the interviews with principals was the need to think differently about providing time for teachers' professional development and the types of professional development provided. Although satisfaction was expressed by educators with many of the current professional development opportunities, the study revealed the need for a stronger link between reform efforts and professional development. Furthermore, despite the apparent satisfaction expressed by educators with the traditional "inservice day" or occasional release time, most principals criticized current offerings as inadequate. Many principals reported that they were exploring ways to find time during the school day for teachers to become involved more routinely in some form of development or collaboration with other professionals. School culture and bureaucracy were cited as the major stumbling blocks to meeting these goals.

If professional development occurs during the school day, teachers are taken away from their classrooms. If activities are offered after school, teachers complain of fatigue and conflicts with family obligations. Summer programs cut into teachers' vacations, second jobs, and study opportunities. Principals reported trying several approaches to the issue of time management. A number of principals reported seeking grants and other sources of financial support to pay for substitutes or stipends for teachers. Some principals have experimented with scheduling classes to provide time for teachers to work in teams and to participate in development programs. Those schools (primarily high schools) that have moved to "block scheduling" are finding that more time exists for staff development opportunities, including chances for significant peer collaboration. One school has hired a permanent group of about a half dozen substitute teachers so that the teachers at each grade level can get together each day. An elementary school asked parents to work with the children during designated periods in order to free teachers regularly for team planning and team development. One high school has hired aides to cover nonclassroom duties such as cafeteria and hall monitoring so that teachers can eat together and converse. Principals noted that these creative endeavors to provide professional development during the school day work because of long-term planning and strong support from the school board and superintendent's office.

SUMMARY

The following study findings are drawn from interviews with superintendents, central office administrators, and principals in nine school districts and 43 schools. The findings also include the results of a survey completed by 1,350 educators in these districts.

1. A wide range of reforms and school improvement initiatives are being implemented in the nine districts. State-mandated and district-wide initiatives most often focus on student assessment, technology, curriculum, and meeting the requirements of students with special needs. School level reforms focus on instruction and school improvement.
   
2. The reform initiatives under way in the districts and the focus of professional development match. Instruction and assessment, curriculum, and technology were the topics receiving the most emphasis in the past four years. Educators expressed the belief that these programs have prepared them to implement reforms and understand the changes under way in their school.
   
3. Linkages between reforms and professional development appear to be fostered by the leadership of the superintendent, school board support, explicit requirements for professional development in reform plans, long-range planning, and decentralization of professional development. Principals play a key role in ensuring that development programs are linked to reforms.
   
4. The leaders of the school districts (primarily superintendents and principals, but also, increasingly, teachers) view professional development as a critical component of reform. These leaders strongly support focusing resources on site-based professional development.
   
5. Professional development is most satisfactory to the individuals involved when it is based on the needs of the professionals in the school and when it is delivered in the school.
   
6. Serious school reform appears difficult to achieved through "one-shot" workshops. Teachers have indicated a need for follow-up support in the classroom and throughout the school to make lasting changes in their teaching.
   
7. Inservice programs and workshops are the most common forms of professional development. Teachers, however, increasingly report participation in collaborative activities with peers as a major form of professional development. More than a third of the teachers named peers when asked who conducted the professional development programs in which they participated.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the kinds of transformations necessary to change America's schools, teachers need to tackle many difficult issues simultaneously. As the interviewees repeatedly observed, professional development for educators needs to incorporate the same view of learning being adopted for student development. One needs to create an environment where collegial relationships and reflective practice are valued. Practitioners are not merely influenced by the systems in which they work, but themselves exert influence on the system in which they work. Professional development must be viewed as an interactive and iterative process. Reflective teaching strategies must be embedded in the daily lives of teachers, while a long-term investment is made in linking reform efforts and professional development. Teachers are not yet viewed as leaders in reform and restructuring efforts. Many still remain in the position of implementors of reform handed down from above. However, the data suggest that many principals and teachers, through the creation of SBM or school improvement plans, are beginning to assume this decision-making role.

Many teachers are attempting to change the cultures of their schools to ones that encourage an enthusiasm for learning among students, student teachers, teachers, and administrators. Schools and districts are accomplishing this by permitting greater experimentation and risk-taking by practitioners.

Policies that demonstrate the necessity of creating a community of learners do not yet appear evident in most schools and their respective districts. The belief that when financial exigencies occur, staff development resources can be cut to mitigate the budget crisis, remains pervasive. Yet most principals and superintendents stated their abhorrence of such a practice.

For professional development and reform initiatives to be effective, policies need to be in place that support effective leadership, the local generation of reform, and long-range planning. Teachers' input must be solicited and developed into an essential component of school reform. Most important, their continuing involvement and development as teachers in new classroom settings configured by reforms must be ensured through appropriate, effective, and well-funded professional development throughout their careers.

The following recommendations, based on the interview data and survey results, include proposals specific to local school administrators, plus others applicable to college and university schools of education. Recommendations related to resources cut across both areas and are presented in a third section.

Part 1: Recommendations to School District Administrators

1. School districts should have clearly articulated strategic plans that define their education reform and restructuring needs and how they will be addressed. Individual schools should also develop plans to achieve reforms that are consistent with the district's plans and that reflect specific reforms related to the school's needs. Any reform initiative should be preceded by a well-thought-out plan, in writing, that has been agreed to by those who will be affected by the reform. The study findings indicate that those school districts and schools with such strategic plans, which included consideration of the long-term nature of reform initiatives, reported the most satisfaction with their efforts to improve the quality of education for all students. Furthermore, in these instances, the reforms being implemented were more coherent and cohesive throughout the school and the district.
   
2. Strategic plans at the district and school levels should include professional development opportunities for all faculty and staff. For education reform and school restructuring efforts to succeed, teachers must be involved in extensive professional development activities before and during the implementation of reform initiatives. Education reform initiatives involve changing the current practices; attitudes; and behavior of teachers, schools, and at times, districts as a whole. Because of this, opportunities for professional development for teachers and other school- based personnel are crucial. Strategic plans that consistently included professional development opportunities were cited as the most successfully implemented and most broadly supported by teachers and other school-based personnel. Furthermore, professional development programs were most effective when teachers and other school-based staff were involved in the design and implementation of these same programs. This appears to have had a positive effect on the receptivity and willingness of teachers to engage in plans to reform their school and school system.
   
3. Information should be provided to parents on an ongoing basis regarding education reform and restructuring efforts in school districts so as to (a) keep them informed about efforts to improve the system as well as their individual school, (b) keep them informed of the roles and activities undertaken by the principal and teachers of their school to enhance school reform, and (c) to encourage their support of efforts to improve the quality of their children's education. Professional development may seem an extraneous activity to many parents, taking time away from instruction of their children. Clear and consistent messages need to be shared with parents on the vital role that teachers are playing in school-based reform efforts. The emphasis needs to be on the benefits that will accrue to the children from thoughtful and well- implemented education reforms. The need to reconcile diverse expectations of parents and other community members was noted by both superintendents and principals and underscored the importance of garnering parent and community support for professional development activities for teachers.

Part 11: Recommendations to College and University Schools of Education

1. College and university schools of education should join in partnership with school districts and schools to support efforts to reform the education system. The results of the study suggest that college and university schools of education are not sufficiently involved in reform efforts. Many of the principals and superintendents have the impression that schools of education are aloof from the realities of K-12 education. It is our view that schools of education have much to contribute and that they can be vital forces in assisting local school districts, as well as individual schools, in their reform efforts. Bridges of communication and trust should be built between the two, so that each can learn from and share with the other.
   
2. Colleges and university schools of education should restructure their teacher preparation and related programs to better prepare teachers, counselors, administrators, and other school staff to work in restructured school environments. This includes making sure the graduate can teach to new curriculum framework standards, teach increasingly diverse student populations, and work in school environments where the governance structure involves teacher participation in decision making. In their preservice and inservice programs, schools of education need to model instructional strategies that support and enhance efforts to ensure that every student is taught by highly-qualified teachers who are well prepared to teach and learn in a restructured school environment.
   
3. Schools of education need to provide professional development opportunities for their faculty to enhance their ability to prepare teachers and other school-related staff for restructured school environments. For school of education faculty to model and partner with primary school and secondary school teachers, both during preservice teacher preparation and when providing professional development opportunities to those already in the practice setting, faculty must have the opportunity to develop and practice these skills themselves. Creating support resources (i.e., administrative encouragement, time, and money) and providing reward structures for those faculty committed to this process should promote the needed change in teacher preparation and professional development.
   
4. Schools of education should share information and resources with districts about successful education reform initiatives and professional development programs designed to implement the reforms. The local college and university schools of education can function as resources and as conduits of information for regional school districts. School of education faculty are involved with many schools as they contract for preservice training for their students. Information on the reform efforts being implemented, as well as on their concomitant development opportunities, should be distributed to other schools and districts. Schools of education thus become a natural resource for promoting these connections.

Part III: Recommendations to Communities, School Districts, Schools, and
College and University Schools of Education

1. Ensure that all teachers and postsecondary faculty have the necessary resources to engage in professional development activities that will support their efforts to implement reform and to prepare others who will also be expected to implement reform. For professional development to be linked to reform initiatives, adequate financial support for professional development must be included in the reform initiative planning and implementation phases. These financial resources allow schools to proactively encourage teachers to attend professional development activities. Resources should also be provided to ensure sustained professional development opportunities rather than short-lived, one-time efforts. Schools of education must "build in" reward structures that support faculty involvement in professional development.
   
2. Schools of education and local schools and school districts should cooperate to enable additional school based research related to the use of professional development in instituting education reform. School-based research is particularly relevant to the effort to gain further understanding of the types of professional development required to prepare teachers to implement reform initiatives. Furthermore, such research can facilitate an understanding of how higher education can respond to the needs of the K-12 community.

Center for Policy Studies:
Graduate School of Education and Human Development

Linking Education Reform and Teachers' Professional Development:
The Efforts of Nine School Districts

REFERENCES

Barth, R. (I 991, October). Restructuring schools: Some questions for teachers and principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (2), 123-28.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986, May). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cohen, D. (1990). The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 233-241.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming, again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19 (1), 3-13.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 233-241.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Reframing the school reform agenda: New paradigms must restore discourse with local educators. The School Administrator, 22-27.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). The Current Status of Teaching and Teacher Development in the United States. Background paper commissioned for the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 229)

Darling-Hammond, L., Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. (1992). Professional development and restructuring. New York: Columbia University, National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995, April). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 597-604.

Dilworth, M., & Imig, D. (1995). Professional teacher development. Professional Development ,3 (3), 5-11.

Fullan, M.,& Miles, M. (I 992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan 73, (10), 743-756.

Futrell, M. H. (1992). Analysis of national leaders' perceptions of major educational reform policies: Centralizing effects on public education. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Futrell, M. H. (1993). National educational reforms: Is America moving toward a national curriculum? National Forum, 73 (4), 30-34..

Futrell, M. H. (1994). Professional development: Empowering teachers as learners and leaders. In D. R. Walling (Ed.). Teachers as leaders (pp. 119-135). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Education Foundation.

Holmes, D., Futrell, M., Christie, L., & Cushman, E. (1995, April). School restructuring: Meeting teachers' professional development needs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group

Howey, K. (1995, April). The NBPTS core propositions: Implications for laboratory and clinical preparation of preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco.

Levine, M. (1992). Visions of teaching in education reform. Washington, DC: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Levine, M., Futrell, M., & Cushman, E. (1994). Learning across boundaries: The George Washington University/Fairfax County Public Schools National Board Certification Project. Washington, DC: NBPTS and AACTE.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 29-151.

Little, J. W., Geritz, W., Stern, D., Guthrie, J., Krist, M., & Marsh, D. (1987). Staff development in California: Public and personal investments, program patterns, and policy choices. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.

Lord, B. (1991, April). Subject-area collaborative, teacher professionalism, and staff development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Miller, B., Lord, B., & Dorney, J. (1994, April). Staff development for teachers: A study of configurations and costs in four districts [EDC report]. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

Miller, E. (I 995). The old model of staff development survives in a world where everything else has changed. Harvard Education Letter, 11 (1), 1-3.

National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative of educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Sparks, D. (1995). A paradigm shift in staff development. Professional Development, 3 (3), 1-4.

Wehlage, G., Smith, G., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring urban schools: The new futures experience. American Education Research Journal, 29 (1), 51-93.

Weissglass, J. (1991). Teachers have feeling: What can we do about it? Journal of Staff Development, 12 (1), 28-33.