-
Professional Learning inthe Learning Profession:A Status Report
on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad
NATIONAL
STAFF
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND, RUTH CHUNG WEI,
ALETHEA ANDREE, NIKOLE RICHARDSON,
AND STELIOS ORPHANOS
School Redesign Network at Stanford University
-
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING IN THE LEARNING PROFESSION:A Status Report
on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad
Linda Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole
Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos; The School Redesign Network at
Stanford University
Published by the National Staff Development Council and The
School Redesign Network atStanford University as part of their
multi-year study, The Status of Professional
Development in the United States
© February 2009 National Staff Development Council. All rights
reserved.
No part of this may be reproduced in any form — except for brief
quotation (not to exceed1,000 words) in a review or professional
work — without prior written permission from
NSDC or the authors.
-
TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD: Standards-Based Reform 2.0 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
By Gov. James B. Hunt, Jr., former four-term governor of North
Carolina; founder, NationalBoard for Professional Teaching
Standards; and 10-year chairman, National Commission onTeaching and
America’s Future
PREFACE: Creating Effective Professional Learning Systems to
Bolster Teaching Quality and Student Achievement . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .3By Stephanie Hirsh, executive director, National Staff
Development Council
Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
CHAPTER 1: Effective Teacher Development: What Does the Research
Show? . . . .9
CHAPTER 2: Professional Development Abroad: Trends and
Strategies . . . . . . . . .15
CHAPTER 3: The Status of Professional Development in the United
States . . . . . .19
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Sponsor, Funders and Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
1Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
-
FOREWORDStandards-Based Reform 2.0BY GOV. JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
Decades of standards-based school reform have helped identify
whatstudents need to know and be able to do. In the words of former
IBM CEOLouis V. Gerstner, Jr., these efforts were meant to “drive
standards [andaccountability] through the schoolhouse door.” But
educators and policymakers arerecognizing that it is time for
Standards-Based Reform 2.0. We need to place agreater priority on
strengthening the capacity of educators and building
learningcommunities to deliver higher standards for every
child.
2 National Staff Development Council
Enabling educational systems to achieve on a widescale the kind
of teaching that has a substantialimpact on student learning
requires much moreintensive and effective professional learning
thanhas traditionally been available. If we want allyoung people to
possess the higher-order thinkingskills they need to succeed in the
21st century, weneed educators who possess higher-order
teachingskills and deep content knowledge.
There are many ways to improve the quality andperformance of the
nation’s education workforce,and many are being tested. States and
districts haverestructured the staffs at thousands of
failingschools. They are seeking to lure better talent
intoclassrooms by recruiting career changers andliberal-arts
graduates with rich content knowledgeand a willingness to teach.
They are revamping theirpersonnel departments, launching new
teacheracademies, and working to exert greater controlover who will
teach and in which schools. But theseefforts, essential as they
are, influence only a smallportion of educators. And no matter what
states anddistricts do to bolster the education workforce, theywill
need to do more and better with the talent theyhave. This will
require a more effective andsystematic approach to supporting,
developing, andmobilizing the more than three million educatorswho
will teach in and lead our schools.
Other fields, from medicine and management tothe military, do a
far better job of providingongoing learning opportunities and
support fortheir professionals. But as this report shows,
ineducation, professional learning in its currentstate is poorly
conceived and deeply flawed.Teachers lack time and opportunities to
vieweach other’s classrooms, learn from mentors,and work
collaboratively. The support andtraining they receive is episodic,
myopic, andoften meaningless. Meanwhile, states anddistricts are
spending millions of dollars onacademic courses disconnected from
the
realities of classrooms, but little on helpingeducators find
solutions to the day-to-daychallenges they face. It is time for our
educationworkforce to engage in learning the way otherprofessionals
do—continually, collaboratively,and on the job—to address common
problemsand crucial challenges where they work.
The United States is squandering a significant opportunity to
leverage improvements in teacherknowledge to improve school and
student perform-ance. Other nations, our competitors, have
madesupport for teachers and teacher learning a top priority with
significant results. In these countries,students learn and achieve
more. Teachers stay inthe field longer and are more satisfied with
theirwork. Educators take on even more responsibilityfor improving
what happens in their buildings.
This report identifies what research says worksand what states
and other nations have done todevelop that skilled workforce. It
tells us whatshould happen and can lead us to real-worldbenchmarks
against which we will measureprogress. Not least, this study is a
major first steptoward developing a comprehensive set ofpolicies
and practices that help better organizethe learning of adults in
schools to make thehard work of educators more productive.
As studies have shown, the steps we take toimprove teacher
skills and knowledge will payoff in better results for students.
But I believethat developing more systematic approaches
toprofessional learning will have added benefits. I know of no
better way to transform theoutmoded factory model of school
organizationand the egg-crate isolation of teachers than togive
teachers the tools and support they needand greater responsibility
over what happens intheir buildings to ensure that all
studentsachieve. This is an effort that will require—andis worthy
of—another decade of school reform.
No matter what statesand districts do to bolsterthe education
workforce,they will need to do moreand better with the talent
they have.
-
PREFACECreating Effective Professional Learning Systems to
Bolster Teaching Quality and Student AchievementBY STEPHANIE
HIRSH
For many years Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act hasrequired low-performing schools to set aside ten percent of
their allocations forschoolwide professional development. Title II
funding has resulted in the allocationof more than three billion
dollars to professional development. More than 40 stateshave
adopted standards calling for effective professional development
for alleducators accountable for results in student learning. And
several national studieson what distinguishes high-performing,
high-poverty schools from their lower-performing counterparts
consistently identify effective schoolwide
collaborativeprofessional learning as critical to the school’s
success. And yet as a nation we havefailed to leverage this support
and these examples to ensure that every educatorand every student
benefits from highly effective professional learning.
Improving professional learning for educators is acrucial step
in transforming schools and improvingacademic achievement. To meet
federalrequirements and public expectations for schooland student
performance, the nation needs tobolster teacher skills and
knowledge to ensure thatevery teacher is able to teach increasingly
diverselearners, knowledgeable about student learning,competent in
complex core academic content,and skillful at the craft of
teaching.
To accomplish this, schools—with the support ofschool systems
and state departments ofeducation—need to make sure that
professionallearning is planned and organized to engage allteachers
regularly and to benefit all students.This requires high-quality,
sustained professionallearning throughout the school year, at
everygrade level and in every subject.
In an effective professional learning system,school leaders
learn from experts, mentors, andtheir peers about how to become
trueinstructional leaders. They work with staffmembers to create
the culture, structures, anddispositions for continuous
professionallearning and create pressure and support tohelp
teachers continuously improve by betterunderstanding students’
learning needs, makingdata-driven decisions regarding content
andpedagogy, and assessing students’ learningwithin a framework of
high expectations.
Teachers meet on a regular schedule in learningteams organized
by grade-level or content-areaassignments and share responsibility
for their
students’ success. Learning teams follow a cycle ofcontinuous
improvement that begins withexamining student data to determine the
areas ofgreatest student need, pinpointing areas whereadditional
educator learning is necessary,identifying and creating learning
experiences toaddress these adult needs, developing powerfullessons
and assessments, applying new strategiesin the classroom, refining
new learning into morepowerful lessons and assessments, reflecting
onthe impact on student learning, and repeatingthe cycle with new
goals.
The system at the school level is supported by stateand federal
policies that encourage regularteacher collaboration and
professional learningclosely tied with school improvement
prioritiesand provides needed resources to give teacherstime and
opportunity to make this happen. Manystates, including Kansas,
Ohio, and Oregon mostrecently, have adopted standards to
demonstrateexpectations that all teachers engage in
effectiveprofessional development. These states are amongthe 40
that have adopted or adapted NSDC’sStandards for Staff Development
written inconjunction with 17 other professionalassociations. Some
states, such as Florida, Georgia,and Kansas have implemented
statewideassessment processes to determine the degree towhich
teachers experience effective professionaldevelopment and student
learning is impacted.Other states, notably Arkansas, Pennsylvania,
andNew Jersey, invest in capacity-building strategiesproviding
training and resources for principalsand teacher leaders. Ohio
enacted sweeping
3Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
-
4 National Staff Development Council
reforms of its professional development policy.Stand-out
high-poverty school systems like LongBeach (Calif.), Hamilton
County (Tenn.), andCarmen-Ainsworth (Mich.)have madecollaborative
learning a priority to ensure thatevery educator and every student
learns every day.
As this report shows, such an approach toprofessional learning
has become the norm inmany countries that are our competitors, but
isthe exception here. The report reveals thatmuch of the
professional development availabletoday focuses on educators’
academic contentknowledge, and pays growing attention tomentoring
support, particularly for newteachers. But, overall, the kind of
high-intensity,job-embedded collaborative learning that ismost
effective is not a common feature ofprofessional development across
most states,districts, and schools in the United States.
The purpose of this report is to providepolicymakers,
researchers, and school leaderswith a teacher-development research
base thatcan lead to powerful professional learning,instructional
improvement, and studentlearning. By examining information about
thenature of professional developmentopportunities currently
available to teachersacross the United States and in a variety
ofcontexts, education leaders and policymakerscan begin both to
evaluate the needs of thesystems in which teachers learn and do
theirwork and to consider how teachers’ learningopportunities can
be further supported.
This volume—prepared by Linda Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung Wei,
Alethea Andree,Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos ofStanford
University—summarizes a more in-depthresearch report, the complete
version of which canbe found at
www.nsdc.org/stateproflearning.cfmand at http://www.srnleads.org.
The report is partof a larger study, The Status of
ProfessionalDevelopment in the United States, a multi-year
researchinitiative. Data and findings drawn from this studywill be
used to establish benchmarks for assessingprogress in professional
development over time.
Future reports will:
� Address the degree to which educatorsexperience professional
development linkedto improved professional practice and
studentlearning, along with state-by-state comparisondata, and
� Examine policies and contexts that supportimplementation of
more effective professionallearning tied to student learning in
states andschool systems.
Taken as a whole, this work will provide the mostcomprehensive
picture and far-reaching analysisof professional learning that has
ever beenconducted in the United States. The overallresearch effort
has been supported by the Billand Melinda Gates Foundation,
MetLifeFoundation, NSDC, and the Wallace Foundation.
We would like to thank Vicki Phillips, SandraLicon, and Lynn
Olson from the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation; Sybil Jacobson and
A. Richard-son Love, Jr., from the MetLife Foundation; andRichard
Laine, Jessica Schwartz, and FrederickBrown from the Wallace
Foundation for their gen-erous support. We also wish to
acknowledgeJoellen Killion, NSDC deputy executive director,for
managing the research effort; our advisors—Richard Elmore, Michael
Garet, Thomas Guskey,and Kwang Suk Yoon for reviewing and
comment-ing on the research report; Shep Ranbom andRafael Heller
for their editorial guidance on thisdocument; and the staff at
CommunicationWorks,LLC, for leading the communications effort.
Wethank the Board of Trustees of the National StaffDevelopment
Council for its vision and advocacyfor this study; NSDC’s National
Advisors for theirguidance and encouragement through the build-ing
stages; and NSDC consultants Hayes Mizelland M. René Islas for
their perspectives and sup-port. NSDC has sponsored this initial
report tosynthesize what we know as a baseline to measurestate and
district performance. We hope that eachreport in the series will
answer key questionsabout professional learning that will
contribute toimproved outcomes in teaching and learning inthe
United States.
Overall, the kind of high-intensity, job-embeddedcollaborative
learningthat is most effective is
not a common feature ofprofessional development
across most states,districts, and schools in
the United States.
-
KEY FINDINGS
This report examines what research has revealed about
professional learningthat improves teachers’ practice and student
learning. It describes therelative availability of such
opportunities in the United States as well as in high-achieving
nations around the world, which have been making substantial
andsustained investments in professional learning for teachers over
the last twodecades. Among the findings:
� Sustained and intensive professionaldevelopment for teachers
is related to studentachievement gains. While this insight is
hopeful,it derives from a limited pool of rigorous studieson
specific kinds of professional development.
� Collaborative approaches to professionallearning can promote
school change thatextends beyond individual classrooms. Whenall
teachers in a school learn together, allstudents in the school
benefit.
� Effective professional development is intensive,ongoing, and
connected to practice; focuses onthe teaching and learning of
specific academiccontent; is connected to other school
initiatives;and builds strong working relationships amongteachers.
However, most teachers in the UnitedStates do not have access to
professional devel-opment that uniformly meets all these
criteria.
� Public schools in the United States have begunto recognize and
respond to the need to providesupport for new teachers. Nationally,
in 2003-04, more than two-thirds (68 percent) of publicschool
teachers with fewer than five years ofexperience reported
participating in a teacherinduction program during the first year
ofteaching, and 71 percent reported beingassigned some kind of
mentor teacher. This is anoticeable increase from a decade earlier,
whenonly 56 percent of teachers had experiencedteacher induction in
their first year of teaching.
� More than 9 out of 10 U.S. teachers haveparticipated in
professional learning consistingprimarily of short-term conferences
orworkshops. Fewer teachers participated in otherforms of
traditional professional development,including university courses
related to teaching(36 percent) and observational visits to
otherschools (22 percent). The percentage ofteachers who visited
classrooms in other schoolsdropped from 34 percent to 22 percent
from2000 to 2004, the most recent year for whichnational data are
available.
� While teachers typically need substantialprofessional
development in a given area (close to 50 hours) to improve their
skills andtheir students’ learning, most professionaldevelopment
opportunities in the U.S. aremuch shorter. On the 2003-04
nationalSchools and Staffing Survey (SASS), amajority of teachers
(57 percent) said theyhad received no more than 16 hours (two
daysor less) of professional development duringthe previous 12
months on the content of thesubject(s) they taught. This was the
mostfrequent area in which teachers identifiedhaving had
professional developmentopportunities. Fewer than one-quarter
ofteachers (23 percent) reported that they hadreceived at least 33
hours (more than 4 days)of professional development on the content
ofthe subject(s) they taught.
� Significant variation in both support andopportunity for
professional learning existsamong schools and states. A lower
percentageof secondary school teachers reportedparticipating in
district-planned professionaldevelopment than did elementary
schoolteachers. Among states, Arkansas, Connecticut,New Hampshire,
and Vermont had significantlyhigher proportions of teachers
participating inprofessional learning than the national
average.
� U.S. teachers report little professionalcollaboration in
designing curriculum andsharing practices, and the collaboration
thatoccurs tends to be weak and not focused onstrengthening
teaching and learning.
� American teachers say that much of theprofessional development
available to them isnot useful. Teachers give relatively high marks
tocontent-related learning opportunities, with 6 of10 teachers (59
percent) saying this training wasuseful or very useful. But fewer
than half foundthe professional development they received inother
areas to be of much value.
5Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
-
6 National Staff Development Council
� Teachers say that their top priorities for furtherprofessional
development are learning moreabout the content they teach (23
percent),classroom management (18 percent), teachingstudents with
special needs (15 percent), andusing technology in the classroom
(14 percent).
� Teachers are not getting adequate training inteaching special
education or limited Englishproficiency students. More than
two-thirds ofteachers nationally had not had even one dayof
training in supporting the learning ofspecial education or LEP
students during theprevious three years, and only one-third
agreedthat they had been given the support theyneeded to teach
students with special needs.
� U.S. teachers, unlike many of their colleaguesaround the
world, bear much of the cost of theirprofessional development.
While most teacherswere given some time off during the work day
topursue professional learning opportunities,fewer than half
received reimbursement fortravel, workshop fees, or college
expenses.
� U.S. teachers participate in workshops andshort-term
professional development events atsimilar levels as teachers in
other nations. Butthe United States is far behind in
providingpublic school teachers with opportunities toparticipate in
extended learning opportunitiesand productive collaborative
communities.Those are the opportunities that allow teachersto work
together on issues of instructionalplanning, learn from one another
throughmentoring or peer coaching, conduct researchon the outcomes
of classroom practices, andcollectively guide curriculum,
assessment, andprofessional learning decisions.
� Other nations that outperform the UnitedStates on
international assessments investheavily in professional learning
and build timefor ongoing, sustained teacher developmentand
collaboration into teachers’ work hours.
� American teachers spend much more timeteaching students and
have significantly less timeto plan and learn together, and to
develop highquality curriculum and instruction than teachersin
other nations. U.S. teachers spend about 80percent of their total
working time engaged inclassroom instruction, as compared to about
60percent for these other nations’ teachers.
� U.S. teachers have limited influence in crucialareas of school
decision-making. In manyhigh-achieving nations where
teachercollaboration is the norm, teachers havesubstantial
influence on school-baseddecisions, especially in the development
ofcurriculum and assessment, and in the designof their own
professional learning. In theUnited States, however, fewer than
one-fourthof teachers feel they have great influence over school
decisions and policies in sevendifferent areas noted in the SASS
surveys.While a scant majority of teachers across thenation feel
that they have some influence over curriculum and setting
performancestandards for students, fewer than halfperceived that
they had some influence overthe content of their in-service
professionaldevelopment. And very few felt they hadinfluence over
school policies and decisionsaffecting either teacher hiring and
evaluationor the allocation of the school budget.
-
INTRODUCTION
Every year, virtually all of the nation’s three million teachers
participate insome form of professional learning: These activities
can include workshops,study groups, mentoring experiences,
opportunities to view other teachers’classrooms, and numerous other
formal and informal learning experiences.
Professional learning can have a powerful effecton teacher
skills and knowledge and on studentlearning if it is sustained over
time, focused onimportant content, and embedded in the work
ofprofessional learning communities that supportongoing
improvements in teachers’ practice.When well-designed, these
opportunities helpteachers master content, hone teaching
skills,evaluate their own and their students’performance, and
address changes needed inteaching and learning in their
schools.
Educators and policymakers increasinglyrecognize the importance
of providing high-quality learning opportunities to help
transformteaching. As students are expected to learn morecomplex
analytical skills in preparation forfurther education and work in
the 21st century,teachers must learn to teach in ways that
develophigher-order thinking and performance.Ensuring student
success requires a new kind ofteaching, conducted by teachers who
understandlearning and pedagogy, who can respond to theneeds of
their students and the demands of theirdisciplines, and who can
develop strongconnections between students’ experiences andthe
goals of the curriculum. Efforts to improvestudent achievement can
succeed only bybuilding the capacity of teachers to improve
theirinstructional practice and the capacity of schoolsystems to
promote teacher learning.
The following pages provide a comprehensivesurvey of the
existing research on effectiveprofessional learning, followed by
snapshots ofthe various ways in which professional learningis being
redesigned in the rest of theindustrialized world, strategies that
we mightconsider adopting or expanding in this country.
Using nationally representative data from theNational Center for
Education Statistics’ 2003-04Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)—the
mostrecent available—the report also examines the
status of opportunities and supports forprofessional development
available to teachersnationally and across states. We sought
todetermine whether current policies and practicesare aligned with
what research shows to beeffective professional development
practices. Wealso explored differences in opportunities andsupports
for professional development acrossschool contexts (e.g., grade
level, location, andstudent subgroup). In addition, we
examineddifferences in teachers’ access to professionaldevelopment
opportunities and supports indifferent types of school
communities.
The SASS data set is a nationally representativesample of more
than 130,000 public and privateschool teachers across all 50 states
and theDistrict of Columbia. The data allowedresearchers to
evaluate the content of andsupport for professional
development,conditions fostering teacher collaboration andlearning,
and induction practices nationwide. Wealso examined the NSDC
Standards AssessmentInventory (SAI)(2007-08), which
measuresteachers’ perceptions regarding theirprofessional
development as compared withNSDC’s standards for effective
professionaldevelopment. It has been administered to morethan
150,000 teachers in more than 5,400schools across 11 states and one
Canadianprovince. For the purpose of this study,researchers closely
examined data from the fourstates (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and
Missouri)that had administered the survey statewide. Thereport also
includes data from other surveys,such as the MetLife Survey of the
American Teacherand the National Education Association’s Surveyof
America’s Teachers and Support Professionalson Technology, which
allowed researchers tocompare findings with the SASS data set. For
acomplete copy of the report, please
seewww.nsdc.org/stateproflearning.cfm
7Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
When well-designed,professional learninghelps teachers
mastercontent, hone teachingskills, evaluate their ownand their
students’performance, andaddress changes neededin teaching
andlearning in their schools.
-
EFFECTIVE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT:WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH SHOW?
Rigorous research suggests that sustained and intensive
professional learning for teachers is related to
student-achievement gains. An analysis of well-designed
experimental studies found that a set of programs which
offeredsubstantial contact hours of professional development
(ranging from 30 to 100hours in total) spread over six to 12 months
showed a positive and significanteffect on student achievement
gains. According to the research, these intensiveprofessional
development efforts that offered an average of 49 hours in a
yearboosted student achievement by approximately 21 percentile
points. Other effortsthat involved a limited amount of professional
development (ranging from 5 to 14hours in total) showed no
statistically significant effect on student learning.1
While these findings are striking, they comefrom a limited pool
of rigorous quantitativestudies. For example, the studies
describedabove came from a meta-analysis of 1,300research studies
and evaluation reports, fromwhich researchers identified just
nineexperimental or quasi-experimental studiesusing control groups
with pre- and post-testdesigns that could evaluate impacts
ofprofessional development on studentachievement.2 Other reviews of
research onprofessional development in literacy3 andmathematics4
also found few studies designed tosupport causal inferences.
Nonetheless, the methodologically strongstudies that we do have
suggest that well-designed professional development caninfluence
teacher practice and studentperformance. The research base also
illustratesthe shortcomings of the occasional, one-shotworkshops
that many school systems tend toprovide, which generations of
teachers havederided.5 More importantly, this researchsuggests some
general guidelines for the designof effective professional
development programs.
While we stress that causal relationships are notfully
established, the literature does point tosome basic principles for
designing professionallearning that school and district leaders
andpolicymakers would be well advised to consider:
1. Professional development should be intensive, ongoing, and
connectedto practice.
Today, as in previous decades, most professionaldevelopment for
teachers comes in the form ofoccasional workshops, typically
lasting less than a
day, each one focusing on discrete topics (suchas classroom
management, computer-basedinstruction, student motivation,
assessment, theteaching of phonics, and so on), with
theirconnection to the classroom left to teachers’imaginations.
However, such episodic workshops disconnectedfrom practice do
not allow teachers the time forserious, cumulative study of the
given subjectmatter or for trying out ideas in the classroomand
reflecting on the results. Research that findschanges in teacher
practice and, in some cases,student learning, supports the
conclusion that:
Intensive professional development, especially when it includes
applications of knowledge to teachers’planning and instruction, has
a greater chance ofinfluencing teaching practices and, in turn,
leading to gains in student learning.6
Indeed, the duration of professionaldevelopment appears to be
associated withstronger impact on teachers and studentlearning—in
part, perhaps, because suchsustained efforts typically include
applications topractice, often supported by study groupsand/or
coaching. As noted earlier, the nineexisting experimental research
studies of in-service programs found that programs of
greaterintensity and duration were positively associatedwith
student learning. In addition, two separateevaluations of a
year-long program designed topromote inquiry-based science
instructionfound that teachers who received 80 or morehours of
professional development weresignificantly more likely to put the
giventeaching strategies into practice than wereteachers who had
received many fewer hours.Further, the more intense, long-term
9Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
1C H A P T E R
Rigorous researchillustrates theshortcomings of theoccasional,
one-shotworkshops that manyschool systems tend toprovide,
whichgenerations of teachershave derided.
-
professional development teachers have, thegreater the
achievement gains posted by theirstudents during the following
year.7
These findings match up well with teachers’ self-reported
beliefs about the value of intensive andongoing professional
development. Accordingto results from a national survey, teachers
viewin-service activities as most effective when theyare sustained
over time.8
2. Professional development shouldfocus on student learning
andaddress the teaching of specificcurriculum content.
Research suggests that professional developmentis most effective
when it addresses the concrete,everyday challenges involved in
teaching andlearning specific academic subject matter, ratherthan
focusing on abstract educational principlesor teaching methods
taken out of context.
For example, researchers have found thatteachers are more likely
to try classroompractices that have been modeled for them
inprofessional development settings.9 Likewise,teachers themselves
judge professionaldevelopment to be most valuable when itprovides
opportunities to do “hands-on” workthat builds their knowledge of
academiccontent and how to teach it to their students,and when it
takes into account the localcontext (including the specifics of
local schoolresources, curriculum guidelines,accountability
systems, and so on).10
Equally important, professional developmentthat leads teachers
to define precisely whichconcepts and skills they want students to
learn,and to identify the content that is most likely togive
students trouble, has been found toimprove teacher practice and
studentoutcomes.11 To this end, it is often useful forteachers to
be put in the position of studying thevery material that they
intend to teach to theirown students. For example, one
well-knownstudy focused on elementary science teacherswho
participated in a 100-hour summerinstitute, during which they
actively engaged in astandard “learning cycle” that
involvedexploring a phenomenon, coming up with atheory that
explained what had occurred, andapplying it to new contexts. After
going throughthis process, teachers went on to develop theirown
units and teach them to one another beforereturning to their
classrooms. Later, theresearchers tested the reasoning ability
ofrandomly selected students in those classroomsand found they
scored 44 percent higher on
average than did a control group of studentstaught by teachers
who had not participated inthe summer institute.12
It can be useful also for groups of teachers toanalyze and
discuss student-performance dataand samples of students’ course
work (scienceprojects, essays, math tests, and so on), in orderto
identify students’ most common errors andmisunderstandings, reach
common understand-ing of what it means for students to master
agiven concept or skill, and find out which in-structional
strategies are or are not working,and for whom.13 Notably, one
study of threehigh-achieving schools found that high levels
ofstudent performance seemed to be associatedin part with teachers’
regular practice of consulting multiple sources of data on
studentperformance and using those data to informdiscussions about
ways to improve instruction.14
3. Professional development shouldalign with school
improvementpriorities and goals.
Research suggests that professional developmenttends to be more
effective when it is an integralpart of a larger school reform
effort, rather thanwhen activities are isolated, having little to
dowith other initiatives or changes underway at theschool.15 If
teachers sense a disconnect betweenwhat they are urged to do in a
professionaldevelopment activity and what they are requiredto do
according to local curriculum guidelines,texts, assessment
practices, and so on—that is, ifthey cannot easily implement the
strategies theylearn, and the new practices are not supportedor
reinforced—then the professionaldevelopment tends to have little
impact.
One prominent model of carefully integratedprofessional
development is the NationalScience Foundation’s Discovery
programimplemented in Ohio beginning in 1992, whichoffered
sustained support for teachers as part ofa larger statewide effort
to improve studentachievement in science. Following intensive
six-week institutes focusing on science content andinstruction that
matched those outlined in thestate standards, teachers were given
release timeto attend a series of six seminars coveringcurriculum
and assessment. In addition, theywere provided on-demand support
and site visitsfrom regional staff developers, and contact
withpeers through newsletters and annualconferences. According to
an independentevaluation, this combination of support led to
asignificant increase in and continued use ofinquiry-based
instructional practices.16
10 National Staff Development Council
Professionaldevelopment is most
effective when itaddresses the concrete,
everyday challengesinvolved in teachingand learning specific
academic subject matter.
-
4. Professional development shouldbuild strong working
relationshipsamong teachers.
As researchers have shown many times over thepast three
decades,17 the nation’s teachersexhibit a strongly individualistic
ethos, owinglargely to the built-in privacy and isolation oftheir
daily work as it has been organized in mostU.S. schools. Given the
prevalence of an “egg-crate model” of instruction—whereby
eachteacher spends most of the day in a single room,separated from
other adults—the Americanteaching profession has not yet developed
astrong tradition of professional collaboration.Historically,
schools have been structured so thatteachers work alone, rarely
given time togetherto plan lessons, share instructional
practices,assess students, design curriculum, or help
makeadministrative or managerial decisions.
Such cultural norms are not easily changed,particularly if
school structures and workingconditions continue to favor privacy
andisolation. However, research shows that whenschools are
strategic in creating time andproductive working relationships
withinacademic departments or grade levels, acrossthem, or among
teachers schoolwide, thebenefits can include greater consistency
ininstruction, more willingness to share practicesand try new ways
of teaching, and more successin solving problems of practice.18
For example, a comprehensive five-year study of1,500 schools
undergoing major reforms foundthat in schools where teachers formed
activeprofessional learning communities, studentabsenteeism and
dropout rates were reducedand achievement increased significantly
in math,science, history, and reading. Further, particularaspects
of teachers’ professional communities—a shared sense of
intellectual purpose and asense of collective responsibility for
studentlearning—were associated with a narrowing ofachievement gaps
in math and science amonglow- and middle-income students.19 A
number oflarge-scale studies have identified specific waysin which
professional community-building candeepen teachers’ knowledge,
build their skills,and improve instruction.20
Perhaps the simplest way to break downprofessional isolation—but
one which rarelyoccurs in most schools—is for teachers to
observeeach other’s teaching and to provide constructivefeedback.
In an evaluation of 12 schoolsimplementing Critical Friends
Groups—a peer-observation system developed by the National
School Reform Faculty employing a set ofprotocols that teachers
use to guide theirobservations and responses—researchers foundthat
teachers’ instruction became more student-centered, with a focus on
ensuring that studentsgained mastery of the subject as opposed
tomerely covering the material. In survey responses,teachers in
these schools also reported havingmore opportunities to learn and a
greater desireto continuously develop more effective practicesthan
teachers who did not participate.21
Teachers can also use videotapes of teachingto make aspects of
their practice public andopen to peer critique, learn new practices
andpedagogical strategies, and analyze aspects ofteaching practice
that may be difficult tocapture otherwise. Recent research
onteachers undertaking certification by theNational Board for
Professional TeachingStandards—which involves them in producingand
analyzing their own classroom videotapesin relation to professional
standards, andoften discussing them with colleagues—hasfound that
the experience can lead teachers to change how they teach, increase
theirknowledge of various approaches, and enablethem to engage in
more effective teachingpractices in the classroom.22
While efforts to strengthen teachers’ professionalrelationships
can take many forms, a number ofresearchers have identified
specific conditionsnecessary for their success. For example, in
astudy of 900 teachers in 24 elementary andsecondary schools across
the country, researchersfound that teachers formed more stable
andproductive professional communities in smallerschools, schools
with little staffing complexity(i.e., where more staff members are
classroomteachers and fewer are assigned to specialist
andadministrative jobs), schools where teachers wererelatively more
involved in educational decision-making, and, especially, schools
that scheduledregular blocks of time for teachers to meet andplan
courses and assignments together.23
ADDITIONAL PROMISING STRATEGIESIn recent years, many schools and
districtsacross the country have invested in school-basedcoaching
programs, one of the fastest growingforms of professional
development today.Typically in such models, administrators
identifywell-regarded veteran educators and assignthem to provide
ongoing guidance, advice, andmentoring to a group or groups of
teachers tohelp them improve their instruction.
11Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
When schools arestrategic in creatingtime and productiveworking
relationshipswithin academicdepartments or gradelevels, across
them, oramong teachersschoolwide, the benefitscan include
betterinstruction and moresuccess in solvingproblems of
practice.
-
12 National Staff Development Council
Closely related to school-based coaching is theincreasingly
common practice of providingmentoring and other forms of formal
inductionto beginning teachers. Often serving as theprimary source
of professional development forteachers in the first few years of
their careers,various forms of new teacher induction are
nowrequired in more than 30 states.
While both of these strategies can be justified oncommon-sense
grounds, their results are not yetconfirmed by a solid body of
evidence, and thejury remains out as to their effectiveness or
theconditions under which they are most likely to beeffective.
Thus, policymakers would be well-advised to keep in mind the
following two points.
School-based coaching may enhanceprofessional learning.Several
comparison-group studies have found thatteachers who receive
coaching are more likely toenact the desired teaching practices and
applythem more appropriately than are teachers receiv-ing more
traditional professional development.24
However, a study conducted in the Netherlandsfound that while
teachers who had beencoached felt more confident in their
teaching,they were not rated as more effective thanteachers who had
not been coached.25 Anothersmall-scale study found that teachers
who hadreceived coaching on particular strategies didnot
necessarily know when it was appropriate toselect one instructional
strategy over another.26
These studies suggest that coaching may need tobe embedded in
broader efforts to buildprofessional knowledge if it is to be most
useful.
Several evaluations have suggested that coachingmodels of
professional development havecontributed to positive reforms in
literacyinstruction. For example, one study cites theimpressive
achievement gains of students whoseschool participated in the
Alabama ReadingInitiative, which utilized a school-based
coachingmodel (following an intensive two-week summerinstitute) to
provide ongoing support to teachersimplementing the new literacy
approach.27
Another recent evaluation found that as a result ofa
differentiated literacy program and otherinterventions that
utilized a coaching model, thepercentage of students meeting
benchmarkstandards in an Illinois district increasedmarkedly.28 In
a study by the Foundation forCalifornia Early Literacy Learning,
teachersreported that the coaching they received had apositive
effect on student achievement.29 Likewise,some researchers have
linked achievement gains inreading and writing to literacy
coaching.30
None of these studies, however, employedcomparison-group methods
with sufficientcontrols and on a large enough scale to establish
astrong association or causal link between coachingand student
achievement, and more rigorousresearch is required to confirm these
relationships.
Further, a major literature review conducted aspart of an
Institute for Education Sciencesevaluation of the Reading First
program reportedmixed findings on the impact of coaching
oninstructional practice. As the authors explained,those findings
should be read as neither anendorsement nor a criticism of the
professionaldevelopment model, since they may reflectvariability in
the expertise and practices of thoseassigned as coaches. In other
words, the findingsmay have as much to do with the content or
theuneven implementation of the specific coachingreceived as with
the coaching model itself.31
As in any professional development enterprise, itis also
critically important that the instructionalpractices promoted
through coaching arethemselves more effective for the goals
andcircumstances in which they are being used thanthe practices
teachers are otherwise using. The content of professional learning
matters asmuch as the process by which it is transmitted.
Mentoring and Induction programs for new teachers may support
teachereffectiveness.In one large-scale literature review,
researchersfound that induction programs tend to beeffective in
reducing attrition among beginningteachers. The strongest retention
rates wereassociated with the assignment of a teachermentor working
in the same subject area and/orgrade level, common planning time
withteachers in the same subject, regularlyscheduled collaboration
with other teachers,and participation in a network of
teachers.32
One analysis found that when beginningteachers received a
combination of suchinduction supports, attrition declined by
half.33
Some studies suggest also that when teachermentors receive
formal training, along withrelease time to provide one-to-one
mentoring,the retention and classroom performance ofbeginning
teachers improves.34 Further, a recentliterature review noted that
a number of case-based research studies give strong support
toinduction programs that are “collegial” and “job-embedded” (as
when mentors observebeginning teachers in the classroom),
whilefinding that workshops for new teachers tend tobe
ineffective.35 However, these same reviewers
While coaching,mentoring, and
induction can bejustified on common-
sense grounds, the juryremains out as to their
effectiveness or theconditions under which
they are most likely tobe effective.
-
also note that the research to date has tended torely on
teachers’ self-reported gains in theirknowledge and skills. Few
studies of mentoringand induction have documented observablechanges
in instructional practice or reportedmeasurable impacts on student
achievement.
An ongoing large-scale research project iscurrently underway
that aims to measure suchimpacts (including effects on
classroompractices, student achievement, and teachermobility) by
using a randomized control-groupmodel to study a teacher-induction
program.The program offers mentoring, teacherobservations,
formative assessments, andworkshops across 17 districts, with the
districts’regular induction programs providing a basis
forcomparison. The first-year report, released in
October 2008, reported no statisticallysignificant differences
in teacher practices,student test scores, or teacher retention
betweenthe two groups of teachers.36 However, it isdifficult to
generalize about induction fromthese results, since the level and
intensity ofteachers’ participation varied so much that theycannot
be accurately described as havingreceived the same “treatment,” or
even as havingreceived a distinctively different treatment fromthe
comparison group.
The initial results of this study highlight theneed for more
rigorous research into the impactof induction supports on
instruction, teacherretention, and student achievement. As yet,
suchinterventions remain promising but not proven.
13Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
-
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ABROAD:TRENDS AND STRATEGIES
Effective professional learning is commonly available in many
other industrializednations, including those that have been
recognized as high achieving on importantinternational measures
such as the Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA)
and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS).
In comparison to the United States, industrialnations that are
members of the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and
Development(OECD) provide teachers significantly moreprofessional
learning. While the results ofsurveys using somewhat different
methods andquestions do not allow for direct comparisons,the
evidence is clear that teachers in othernations are significantly
more likely to visitclassrooms of teachers in other
schools,collaborate frequently on issues of instruction,and
participate in collaborative research.
The practices described in this section areamong the many
factors contributing to thedifferences across countries, and it
would beimpossible to prove that these practices deservesingular
credit for high levels of studentachievement in these nations.
However, givenhow closely they resemble the professionaldevelopment
that research shows to be effectivein this country, it would be
reasonable to assumethat they have made a significant
contribution.
Specifically, our review of the research literatureand data on
professional development in highachieving countries reveals that
teachers in thosenations tend to enjoy at least four advantagesover
their counterparts in the United States:
1. Ample time for professional learningis structured into
teachers’ work lives.
One of the key structural supports for teachersengaging in
professional learning is theallocation of time in the work day and
week toparticipate in such activities. In most Europeanand Asian
countries, instruction takes up lessthan half of a teacher’s
working time.37 Therest—generally about 15 to 20 hours per week—is
spent on tasks related to teaching, such aspreparing lessons,
marking papers, meeting withstudents and parents, and working
withcolleagues. Most planning is done in collegialsettings (such as
large faculty rooms whereteachers’ desks are located to facilitate
collectivework)38 and during meetings of subject-matterdepartments
and grade-level teams.
Schools in European nations—includingDenmark, Finland, Hungary,
Italy, Norway, andSwitzerland—dedicate time for
regularcollaboration among teachers on issues ofinstruction.39 For
example, teachers in Finnishschools meet one afternoon each week to
jointlyplan and develop curriculum; and schools withinthe same
municipality are encouraged to worktogether and share materials. A
majority ofschools in high-achieving nations provide timefor
teachers’ professional development bybuilding it into teachers’
work day and/or byproviding class coverage by other teachers.Among
OECD nations, more than 85 percent ofschools in Belgium, Denmark,
Finland, Hungary,Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerlandprovide
time for professional development aspart of teachers’ average work
day or week.40
When time for professional development is builtinto teachers’
schedules, their learning activitiescan be ongoing and sustained
and can focus on aparticular issue or problem over time.
Similar practices are common in Japan,Singapore, and other Asian
nations, as well. InSouth Korea, for example, only about 35
percentof teachers’ working time is spent on classroominstruction.
There and in other nearbycountries, teachers devote non-classroom
timeto collaborative planning, lesson study, peerobservations, and
action research.
By contrast, U.S. teachers generally have from 3 to5 hours a
week for lesson planning, usuallyscheduled independently rather
than jointly withcolleagues.41 U.S. teachers also average far
morenet teaching time in direct contact with students(1,080 hours
per year) than any other OECDnation. By comparison, the OECD
average is only803 hours per year for primary schools and 664hours
per year for upper secondary schools.42 U.S.teachers spend about 80
percent of their totalworking time engaged in classroom
instruction, ascompared to about 60 percent for these othernations’
teachers, who thus have much more timeto plan and learn together,
and to develop high-quality curriculum and instruction.
15Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
2C H A P T E RIn most countries, about15 to 20 hours per weekis
spent on tasks relatedto teaching, such aspreparing lessons,marking
papers, meetingwith students andparents, and workingwith
colleagues. Bycontrast, U.S. teachersgenerally have from 3 to5
hours a week for lessonplanning, which is doneindependently.
-
16 National Staff Development Council
2. Beginning teachers receive extensivementoring and induction
supports.
Induction programs are mandatory in manycountries and they tend
to emphasize thebuilding of strong professional relationshipsamong
beginning and veteran teachers, as well asthe development of
teaching practice. In China,for example, both new and experienced
teachersparticipate in extensive peer observation,
lessonpreparation, and teaching research groups. InFrance,
beginning teachers participate in teacherinstitutes at the local
university and are inductedinto a community of same-subject
teachers. InSwitzerland, beginning teachers work in practicegroups
of about six teachers from acrossdifferent schools and together
they participate inpeer observation, observation of moreexperienced
colleagues, and self/peer evaluationwithin the practice
group.46
In a model like that found in a number of Asiannations, the New
Zealand Ministry of Educationfunds 20 percent release time for new
teachers and10 percent release time for second-year teachers,and
requires schools to have a locally developedprogram to develop new
teachers’ abilities.47 Mostof the release time is used to give
veterans time forcoaching and to give new teachers time to meetwith
the mentors who observe them and to engagein professional
development; it also supports extratime to develop lesson
plans.48
Mentor teachers and coaches play a key part inlaunching new
teachers into the profession, andsome countries (including England,
France,Israel, Norway, and Switzerland) require formaltraining for
mentor teachers.49 In Singapore,master teachers are appointed to
lead the
coaching and development of the teachers ineach school.50
Norwegian principals assign anexperienced, highly qualified mentor
to each newteacher and the teacher-education institutionthen trains
the mentor and takes part in in-schoolguidance.51 In some Swiss
states, the new teachersin each district meet in reflective
practice groupstwice a month with an experienced teacher who
istrained to facilitate their discussions of commonproblems for new
teachers.52
3. Teachers are widely encouraged toparticipate in school
decision-making.
In most of the countries studied, teachers areactively involved
in curriculum and assessmentdevelopment, often in response to
national orstate standards, and they guide much of theprofessional
development they experience. InWestern Europe, nations such as
Finland,Sweden, and Switzerland have decentralizedmost classroom
decision-making to professionallywell-informed schools and
teachers. Highlydetailed curriculum documents and externaltests
were replaced in the 1970s and ‘80s bymuch leaner standards
outlining broad goalstatements designed to guide
teachers’development of curriculum and instruction.Teachers in
these and many other nations areresponsible for developing syllabi,
selectingtextbooks, developing curriculum andassessments, deciding
on course offerings andbudget issues, planning and
schedulingprofessional development, and more.53 Theytypically
design key school-based assessments toevaluate student learning as
part of the overallassessment system. In place of
professionaldevelopment dictated by national boards of
In Japan, kenkyuu jugyou (research lessons) are a key part of
thelearning culture. Every teacher periodically prepares a best
possiblelesson that demonstrates strategies to achieve a specific
goal (e.g.,students becoming active problem-solvers or learning
more from eachother) in collaboration with colleagues. A group of
teachers observewhile the lesson is taught and usually record the
lesson in a number ofways, including videotapes, audiotapes, and
narrative and/or checklistobservations that focus on areas of
interest to the instructing teacher(e.g., how many students
volunteered their own ideas). Afterwards, thegroup of teachers, and
sometimes outside educators, discuss thelesson’s strengths and
weaknesses, ask questions, and makesuggestions to improve the
lesson. In some cases, the revised lesson isgiven by another
teacher only a few days later and observed anddiscussed
again.43
Teachers themselves decide the theme and frequency of
researchlessons. Large study groups often break up into subgroups
of 4 to 6
teachers. The subgroups plan their own lessons but work toward
thesame goal, and teachers from all subgroups share and comment
onlessons and try to attend the lesson and follow-up discussion.
For atypical lesson study, the 10-15 hours of group meetings are
spread over3-4 weeks. While schools let out between 2:40 and 3:45
pm, teachers’work days don’t end until 5:00 pm, which provides
additional time forcollegial work and planning. Most lesson study
meetings occur during thehours after school lets out. The research
lessons allow teachers to refineindividual lessons, consult with
other teachers and receive feedbackbased on colleagues’
observations of their classroom practice, reflect ontheir own
practice, learn new content and approaches, and build a culturethat
emphasizes continuous improvement and collaboration.44
Some teachers also provide public research lessons, which
expedites thespread of best practices across schools; allows
principals, districtpersonnel, and policymakers to see how teachers
are grappling with newsubject matter and goals; and gives
recognition to excellent teachers.45
JAPAN’S LESSON STUDY APPROACH TO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
In most of the countriesstudied, teachers areactively involved
in
curriculum andassessment development,
often in response tonational or state
standards, and theyguide much of the
professional developmentthey experience.
-
education, the content of professional learning isdetermined
according to local needs and is oftenembedded in the work of
“teacher teams” or“teacher units” at particular schools, which
areempowered to make decisions aroundcurriculum and
evaluation.54
In Sweden, the decentralization of curriculumplanning and
in-service training led to a shift inthe focus of the development
work at eachschool—from prescribed teacher-trainingmodels defined
by the central educationministry, to teacher-designed projects
focusedon solving problems in teachers’ ownclassrooms.55 Teachers
are now required toparticipate in teacher teams, which meet
duringregular working hours to discuss and makedecisions on common
matters in their work,including the planning of lessons, the
welfare ofpupils, and curriculum development andevaluation.56 Such
action research to solvepedagogical problems and guide
curriculumdecisions is also encouraged in Australia, HongKong, New
Zealand, and Singapore.
4. Governments provide significantlevels of support for
additionalprofessional development.
Beyond the structure of the work day that accommodates daily
professional collaboration,many high-achieving nations dedicate
significant resources to professional development, often drawing on
expertise beyond the school. Somecountries have established
national requirementsfor professional development. For example,
the
Netherlands, Singapore, and Sweden require atleast 100 hours of
professional development per year, in addition to regularly
scheduled timefor common planning and other teacher
collaborations.60 This emphasis on professional development
opportunities requires significant investment on the part of
ministries of education.In Sweden, for instance, 104 hours or 15
days ayear (approximately 6 percent of teachers’ totalworking time)
are allocated for teachers’ in-servicetraining.61 And in 2007, the
national governmentappropriated a large grant to establish a
teachers’in-service training program called “lifting theteachers,”
which pays the tuition for one universitycourse for all compulsory
school and preschoolteachers. Further, the grant supports 80
percent ofteachers’ salaries if they agree to work a 20
percentschedule in their schools while enrolled full timein a
post-graduate program.62
After their fourth year of teaching, South Koreanteachers must
take 90 hours of professionaldevelopment courses every 3 years.
Also, after 3years on the job, teachers are eligible to enroll ina
government-approved 5-week (180-hour)professional development
program to obtain anadvanced certificate, which provides an
increasein salary and eligibility for promotion.63
In Singapore, the government pays for 100hours of professional
development each year forall teachers. That is in addition to the
20 hours aweek they have to work with other teachers andvisit each
others’ classrooms to study teaching.Further, and with government
funding, teacherscan take courses at the National Institute of
17Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
Among its many investments in teacher professional learning is
theTeacher’s Network, established in 1998 by the Singapore Ministry
ofEducation as part of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s new vision,
“ThinkingSchools, Learning Nation.” This vision aims to produce
life-long learners bymaking schools a learning environment for
everyone from teachers topolicymakers and having knowledge spiral
up and down the system. Thenetwork’s mission serves as a catalyst
and support for teacher-initiateddevelopment through sharing,
collaboration, and reflection. It has six maininterrelated
components: (1) learning circles, (2) teacher-led workshops,
(3)conferences, (4) well-being program, (5) a Web site, and (6)
publications.57
In a Teacher’s Network learning circle, 4 to 10 teachers and a
facilitatorcollaboratively identify and solve common problems
chosen by theparticipating teachers using discussions and action
research. Thelearning circles generally meet for eight two-hour
sessions over a periodof 4 to 12 months. Supported by the national
university, Teacher’sNetwork professional development officers run
an initial whole-schooltraining program on the key processes of
reflection, dialogue, andaction research—and a more extended
program to train teachers aslearning circle facilitators and mentor
facilitators in the field. A major
part of the facilitator’s role is to encourage the teachers to
act as co-learners and critical friends so that they feel safe to
take the risks ofsharing their assumptions and personal theories,
experimenting withnew ideas and practices, and sharing their
successes and problems.Discussing problems and possible solutions
in learning circles fosters asense of collegiality among teachers
and encourages them to bereflective practitioners. Learning circles
allow teachers to feel that theyare producing knowledge, not just
disseminating received knowledge.58
Teacher-led workshops provide teachers an opportunity to present
theirideas and work with their colleagues in a collegial atmosphere
whereeveryone, including the presenter, is a co-learner and
critical friend. Eachworkshop is jointly planned with a Teacher’s
Network professionaldevelopment officer to ensure collaboration.
The presenters first preparean outline of their workshop, then the
professional development officerhelps the presenters articulate
their tacit knowledge and assumptionsand trains them in
facilitation. They do not present as experts with allthe answers,
but share and discuss the challenges they face in theclassroom. The
process is time consuming, but almost all teacherpresenters find
that it leads to professional growth.59
SINGAPORE’S INVESTMENT IN TEACHER PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
The Netherlands,Singapore, and Swedenrequire at least 100hours
of professionaldevelopment per year, inaddition to
regularlyscheduled time forcommon planning and other forms
ofteacher collaboration.
-
18 National Staff Development Council
Education toward a master’s degree aimed atadvancement to
curriculum specialist, mentorfor other teachers, or school
principal.
Some countries have established national trainingprograms. In
England, for example, governmen-tal offices devoted to literacy and
numeracy spon-sor a countrywide teacher-to-teacher trainingeffort,
focusing on proven instructional practicesin those subjects. Many
observers credit that workwith a subsequent rise in the percentage
of stu-dents meeting national literacy standards from 63percent to
75 percent in just three years.64 Thetraining program is one of
England’s national lit-eracy and numeracy initiatives. It provides
re-sources—such as high-quality teaching materials,resource
documents, and videos depicting goodpractice—to support
implementation of the na-tional curriculum frameworks. The national
ini-tiatives train and mobilize school heads,coordinators, lead
math teachers, and expert lit-eracy teachers to, in turn, train
teachers to learnand use productive practices.65 Over time,
expert-ise is increasingly located at the local level,
withconsultants and leading mathematics and literacyteachers in
support roles.66
And, since 2000, the Australian government hassponsored the
Quality Teacher Programme, a
large-scale initiative that provides funding to up-date and
improve teachers’ skills and knowledgein priority areas and to
enhance the status ofteaching in both government and
non-govern-ment schools. The program develops nationalteaching
standards, conducts research and com-municates research findings,
and funds profes-sional learning activities for teachers and
schoolleaders under agreements with state and terri-tory education
authorities. National efforts ad-dress national needs, identify and
promote bestpractice, support the development and dissemi-nation of
professional learning resources in pri-ority areas, and develop
professional networksfor teachers and school leaders. State and
terri-tory initiatives are tailored to address local needsand
include school-based action research andlearning, conferences,
workshops, on-line or dig-ital media, and the training of trainers
as well asschool project and team leaders.67
These experiences underscore the importanceof on-the-job
learning with colleagues as well assustained learning from experts
in content andpedagogy. The diversity of approaches indicatesthat
schools can shape professional learning tobest fit their
circumstances and teacher andstudent learning needs.
In England, as a resultof two national literacyinitiatives,
expertise isincreasingly located at
the local level, withconsultants and leading
mathematics andliteracy teachers in
support roles.
-
THE STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNINGIN THE UNITED STATES
To what extent do America’s public school teachers receive the
kinds of professionallearning that the research recommends or that
other nations embrace? In order to assess the current status of
professionallearning in U.S. schools, as well as trends over
time,we examined teacher- and school-questionnairedata from the
federal Schools and Staffing Surveysof 1999-2000 and 2003-04
(National Center for Education Statistics).68 We analyzed the data
interms of opportunities for professional learning reported by
teachers at the national and state levelsand by school types (e.g.,
grade level, type of com-munity, and student population
served).
On the positive side, we found signs that some ed-ucation
systems are developing more sophisticatedunderstandings of what
constitutes high-qualityprofessional learning, and we found
evidence thatincreasing numbers of schools and districts
areproviding high-quality supports for their teachers.
Unfortunately, we also found that such well-designed
professional development is still relativelyrare, and few of the
nation’s teachers have accessto regular opportunities for intensive
learning.69
Specifically, the survey data reveal that:
1. Most U.S. teachers participate insome form of
professionaldevelopment every year.
In 2003-04, almost all U.S. teachers (92 percent)reported
participating in workshops, conferences,
or other training sessions over the previous 12months, a slight
decline from the levels of partici-pation in 1999-2000 (95
percent). Fewer teachersparticipated in other forms of traditional
profes-sional development, including university coursesrelated to
teaching (36 percent) and observa-tional visits to other schools
(22 percent). Twenty-five percent of teachers had served as a
presenterat a workshop, conference, or training session.Among these
types of professional development,there was a sharp drop from 2000
to 2004 in theproportion of teachers who had the opportunityto
observe classes in other schools—from 34 per-cent to 22
percent—while other forms of learn-ing remained relatively
stable.
There appears to be wide variation in the types ofprofessional
learning that teachers experienceacross states. Aside from
workshops and confer-ences, in which nearly all teachers
participate, thepercentage of teachers who took university
coursesrelated to teaching ranged from 15 percent inTexas to 79
percent in Idaho. The percentage ofteachers who were presenters at
workshops ortraining sessions ranged from 18 percent in Iowato 37
percent in the District of Columbia. And thepercentage of teachers
who participated in obser-vational visits to other schools ranged
from 14 percent in West Virginia to 39 percent in Utah.
19Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
3C H A P T E R
TABLE 1 - Participation in Traditional Professional
Development
(Percentage of teachers reporting participation in traditional
professional development during the previous 12 months, 1999-2000
and 2003-04)
Types of traditional professional development Percentage of
teachers 1999-2000 Percentage of teachers 2003-04
1) University courses for recertification or 31.6 advanced
certification a
University courses in the main assignment field a 23.4
University courses related to teaching b 35.5
2) Observational visits to other schools 34.4 22.4
3) Workshops, conferences, or training sessions 94.8 91.5(not a
presenter)
4) Presenter at workshops, conferences, or 22.3 25.1training
sessions
a These questions were asked in the 1999-2000 SASS Teacher
Questionnaire but not in the 2003-04 version.
b This question was asked in the 2003-04 SASS Teacher
Questionnaire but not in the 1999-2000 version.
We found that well-designed professionaldevelopment is
stillrelatively rare, and fewof the nation’s teachershave access to
regularopportunities forintensive learning.
-
20 National Staff Development Council
2. Much professional developmentfocuses on academic subject
matter,but not with much depth.
Nationally, about 83 percent of teachers engagedin learning
opportunities focused on the academiccontent that they taught,
ranging from 75 percentin Wisconsin to 94 percent in New
Hampshire.
However, this learning was not intensive. Mostteachers (57
percent) received fewer than twodays (16 hours) of professional
development onthe content of the subject(s) they taught duringthe
previous 12 months. Only 23 percent ofteachers reported that they
had received 33 hoursor more (more than 4 days) of
professionaldevelopment on the content of the subject(s)they
taught, a slight increase from 18 percentfour years earlier. For
example, one analysis ofnational survey results found that
mathematicsteachers averaged 8 hours of professionaldevelopment on
how to teach mathematics and 5hours on the “in-depth study” of
topics in thesubject area during 2003-04. Fewer than 10percent
experienced more than 24 hours ofprofessional development on
mathematicscontent or pedagogy during the year.
The federally supported Eisenhower professionaldevelopment
grants for mathematics and scienceteachers offered more intensive
professionaldevelopment, but that generally lasted less than aweek
and included, on average, only 25 contacthours.70 Most activities
did not feature a majoremphasis on collegial work among
teachers,which has been found to be related both tocoherence and
active learning opportunities,which are in turn related to
improvements inteacher knowledge and skill and to changes
inteachers’ instructional practice.71
The amount of time spent on professional learn-ing was even
smaller for other important topics.For example, while 60 percent of
teachers re-ceived some professional development on read-ing
instruction, and slightly more (64 percent)on using computers for
instruction, the vast ma-jority of the teachers (80 percent) worked
onthese issues for two days or less. The percentageof teachers
participating in professional develop-ment on the use of computers
in instructionranged from 40 percent in Hawaii to 93 percentin
Arizona. However, even in Arizona, only 18percent of teachers had
as much as two days ofprofessional development in this area.
Teachers were also asked to report whether theyhad participated
in at least 8 hours of trainingduring the last 3 years on teaching
specialeducation students and limited Englishproficiency (LEP)
students. While 8 hoursrepresents a modest level of attention to
theseissues, more than two-thirds of teachers nationallyhad not had
even a day of such training.
The intensity and duration of professionaldevelopment offered to
U.S. teachers is not at thelevel that research suggests is
necessary to havenoticeable impacts on instruction and
studentlearning. While many teachers get a day or two
ofprofessional development on various topics eachyear, very few
have the chance to study any aspectof teaching for more than two
days. Most of theirprofessional learning does not meet the
thresholdneeded to produce strong effects on practice orstudent
learning. As this report notes earlier,research suggests that
professional development of14 hours or less has no effect on
student learning,while longer-duration programs show positive
andsignificant effects on student achievement.
TABLE 2 - Participation in Traditional Professional Development
on Four Topics
(Percentage of teachers reporting participation in professional
development during the past 12 months)
Percentage of teachers Percentage with Percentage who rated
Topic of Professional Development 2003-04 >16 hours on topic
training on this topic
2003-04 “useful” or “very useful”
1) The content of the subject(s) they teach 83.4 43.3 59.3
2) Uses of computers for instruction 64.9 13.4 42.7
3) Reading instruction 60.0 19 42.5
4) Student discipline and management in the classroom
43.5 5 27.4
The intensity andduration of professional
development offered toU.S. teachers is not atthe level that
research
suggests is necessary tohave noticeable impacts
on instruction andstudent learning.
-
3. Nearly half of all U.S. teachers aredissatisfied with their
opportunitiesfor professional development.
Perhaps because of its brevity, its lack of fit totheir needs,
or its low quality, most teachers werenot enthusiastic about the
usefulness of theprofessional development they had received.Only 59
percent found content-related learningopportunities useful or very
useful, and fewerthan half found the professional developmentthey
received in other areas useful, includingareas where they would
like more opportunitiesto learn.72 These ratings of usefulness
variedlittle across states and school contexts.
Teachers in elementary schools rated their content-focused
professional development significantlymore highly than teachers in
secondary schools,and tended to rate professional development
expe-riences on other topics more highly as well. Simi-larly,
teachers in schools with the highestenrollment of limited English
proficient (LEP) stu-dents gave significantly higher ratings to
their con-tent-focused professional development thanteachers in
schools with lower LEP enrollment. Rat-ings of professional
development on reading in-struction were highest for teachers in
elementaryschools and in schools with the highest enrollmentsof
minority, low-income, and/or LEP students.
4. U.S. teachers tend to receive littlefunding or other support
that mightallow them to participate inadditional professional
development.
The 2003-04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire askedteachers whether
they were provided with severalschool or district supports for
participating inprofessional development. The supports couldhave
been release time, scheduled time in the
contract year, a stipend when engaging inprofessional
development outside of work hours,full or partial reimbursement of
tuition forcollege courses, reimbursement for conferenceor workshop
fees, and reimbursement for traveland/or daily expenses.
More than three-quarters of the respondents re-ported having
scheduled time in the contract yearfor professional development.
However, the dura-tion or frequency of that scheduled time is
unclear.As this report notes, very few teachers report hav-ing had
the opportunity to engage in more thantwo days of professional
development on any singleaspect of their teaching, and few report
more thantwo different kinds of professional development ina year.
Thus, it does not appear that scheduledtime in the contract year
for professional develop-ment is of long duration.
A little over half of teachers across statesreported having
release time to participate inprofessional development, and about
40 percentwere reimbursed for workshop or conferencefees. Less
commonly reported supports werestipends, reimbursement of college
tuition, andreimbursement for travel or other expensesrelated to
professional development.
In comparing the results for 2003-04 with theprior SASS dataset
(1999-2000), we found very slight changes in school supports
forprofessional development reported by teachers.There was a slight
increase in the percentage ofteachers who reported scheduled time
in thecontract year for professional development andslight
decreases in the percentage of teachersreporting reimbursement for
conference orworkshop fees and for travel or expenses relatedto
participation in professional development.
21Professional Learning in the Learning Profession
TABLE 3 - School Supports for Professional Development
(Percentage of public school teachers reporting that they had
received various types of support forprofessional development over
the past 12 months)
Type of School Support 1999-2000 Percentage 2003-04
Percentage
1) Release time from teaching (i.e., your regular teaching 54.3
54.0responsibilities were temporarily assigned to someone else)
2) Scheduled time in the contract year for professional
development 73.6 77.9
3) Stipend for professional development activities that took
place outside regular work hours 41.6 38.3
4) Full or partial reimbursement of college tuition 14.4
14.4
5) Reimbursement for conference or workshop fees 48.5 40.5
6) Reimbursement for travel and/or daily expenses 34.1 28.3
U.S. teachers inelementary schools ratedtheir
content-focusedprofessional developmentsignificantly more
highlythan teachers insecondary schools, andtended to rate
professionaldevelopment experienceson other topics morehighly as
well.
-
22 National Staff Development Council
States varied widely in the types of schoolsupport provided to
teachers. Some states weremore likely to provide release time than
others(e.g., 70 percent in Indiana and Wyoming) orscheduled time in
the contract year (e.g., 93percent in Connecticut, 91 percent in
Arkansas).Other states focused on providing stipends
forprofessional development outside of regularwork hours (64
percent in Kentucky, 62 percentin North Carolina), while others
focused onproviding reimbursements for college tuition(63 percent
in Utah, 47 percent in Louisiana),for conference or workshop fees
(77 percent inUtah, 68 percent in Nevada), or for
travel/dailyexpenses (62 percent in Wyoming, 58 percent
inArkansas). Some states had higher than averagepercentages of
teachers reporting at least four ofthe six supports, including
Arkansas, Indiana,Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, NorthDakota,
South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Some states stand out in providing opportunitiesfor formal, more
traditional forms ofprofessional development. Because no stateswere
consistently outstanding across alltraditional professional
development items, welooked at the levels of participation
inworkshops, conferences, or other trainingsessions (the most
common types of traditionalprofessional development across states),
and thereported levels of support provided by schools toparticipate
in professional development (e.g.,scheduled time in the contract
year, releasetime, and reimbursement for expenses).
Among the states that excelled in these areaswere Arkansas,
Connecticut, New Hampshire,Vermont, and Wyoming, where
significantlyhigher proportions of teachers than the national
average participated in professionaldevelopment and reported
various supports fortheir participation. In Arkansas, 96 percent
ofteachers reported participating in workshops,conferences, or
other trainings, with an averageof 6.6 sessions per teacher (as
compared to 2.3nationally), and 91 percent reported havingscheduled
time in the contract year forprofessional development. Sixty-three
percentreported having release time for professionaldevelopment as
well. Similarly, 95 percent ofConnecticut teachers participated in
traditionalprofessional development activities such asworkshops,
conferences, and trainings, with anaverage of 5.6 sessions per
teacher during thelast 12 months, and 93 percent also
reportedhaving scheduled time in the contract year forprofessional
development.
5. Support for and participation inprofessional development
varieswidely among schools.
A lower percentage of secondary school teachersreported
participating in more traditionalprofessional development than did
elementaryschool teachers. Also, a smaller percentage ofsecondary
school teachers reported that they hadschool supports for
participating in traditionalprofessional development such as
release time,scheduled time in the contract year, and a stipendwhen
the professional development took placeoutside regular work hours.
However asignificantly higher percentage of secondaryschool
teachers reported receiving reimbursementfor conference or workshop
fees and for travel ordaily expenses than did elementary
schoolteachers. These results suggest that it was morecommon for
elementary teachers to participate inprofessional development that
was job-embeddedand a regular part of their work
responsibilitiesthan secondary teachers, who were more likely togo
off site for their professional learning.
Interestingly, teachers in many of the highest-needschools
received the most professional develop-ment in most areas, except
the use of computersfor instruction. Teachers in schools with the
great-est proportions of minority, low-income, and lim-ited English
proficient students had significantlyhigher rates of participation
in traditional profes-sional development (such as university
courses re-lated to teaching, observational visits to otherschools,
workshops, conferences, or other trainingsessions). This was true
in many areas, includingthe content of the subject(s) they taught,
readinginstruction, student discipline and classroom man-agement,
and teaching LEP students, though asmaller percentage received
professional develop-ment on the use of computers for instruction
thandid teachers in suburban schools.
While teachers in urban schools seem to have hadhigher overall
participation rates in formalprofessional development, a smaller
percentagereported receiving school supports for thisdevelopment,
such as release time orreimbursements for tuition, conference fees,
andtravel. Still, teachers in schools with the highestlevels of
minority enrollment were most likely toreport school supports for
professionaldevelopment, such as release time or stipends,when the
professional development took placeoutside regular school time.
However, the highestpercentage of teachers reporting scheduled
timein the contract year for professionaldevelopment—81 percent—was
found in schoolswith the lowest minority enrollments.
A lower percentage ofsecondary school teachersreported
participating in
more traditionalprofessional development
than did elementaryschool teachers.
-
These findings are somewhat surprising, given thatschools in
urban areas, with the highest levels ofethnic and linguistic
minorities, as well as the high-est levels of poverty, typically
have fewer resourcesfor professional development than schools
inwealthier suburbs with less diverse student popula-tions.
However, in 2003, the first year of No ChildLeft Behind
implementation, the amount of fed-eral funding available for
professional develop-ment in high-need schools was increased, so
statesand districts made greater investments in schoolswith lower
achievement to boost scores.
6. Relatively few U.S. teachers engage inintensive professional
collaborationaround curriculum planning.
While fine-grained national data on teacher collab-oration are
not available, the SASS Teacher Ques-tionnaires asked teachers
whether in the last 12months they had engaged in individual or
collabo-rative research on a topic of professional
interest,participated in regularly scheduled collaborationwith
other teachers on issues of instruction (ex-cluding administrative
meetings), participated inpeer observations, or participated in a
mentor/coaching program either as a mentor/coach or asa recipient
of mentoring/coaching.
In 2003-04, about 70 percent of teachers reportedparticipating
in “regularly scheduled collabora-tion with other teachers on
issues of instruction,”a slight decline from 74 percent in
1999-2000.Unfortunately, the survey does not specify what“regularly
scheduled” means in terms of fre-quency or duration, so it is
unclear whetherteachers were meeting for a couple of hours amonth
or as much as 10 hours a week. Other re-sponses suggest a low
intensity of teacher collabo-ration in most schools. Nationally,
only 17percent of teachers reported a great deal of coop-erative
effort among staff members, and only 14percent agreed that they had
made conscious ef-forts to coordinate the content of courses.
Evi-dently, whatever the collaboration amongteachers, it is not
spent in common curriculum
planning or in building the kinds of strong pro-fessional
relationships described earlier.
The SASS data also show a drop in theproportion of teachers
engaged in individual orcollaborative research, from 47 percent in
2000to about 40 percent in 2004. More, however,were involved in
mentoring and coaching (46percent) or peer observations (63
percent).
A few states appear to have particularly highlevels of teacher
collaboration and coaching. InCalifornia, for example, 79 percent
of teachersreported participating in regularly
scheduledcollaboration; 74 percent, participating in
peerobservation; and 51 percent, participating in amentoring
program; the figures from Kentuckyand Washington were similar.
However, even inthose states, teachers reported that the
intensityof that professional collaboration and coursecoordination
was as low as the national average.
Fifty-nine percent reported having at leastmoderate influence
over curriculum decisions,and a small majority (55 percent) said
the sameabout setting performance standards forstudents, while only
48 percent felt they had evenmoderate influence on determining the
contentof professional development. Even smallerpercentages of
teachers felt they had influenceon policies or decisions regarding
teacher hiring(23 percent), the school budge