University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

by

Veronica Elias

_______________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Veronica Elias

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It has always been my educational goal to one day earn a doctorate degree and I am
overcome with joy to have finally accomplished it. This achievement was not a solitary one, as it
took the support of many people. My husband, you are my rock. I owe you this, and it is just as
much yours as it is mine, for none of it would have been accomplished without your belief that it
was possible. I am forever grateful for your fundamental role in allowing me to reach my dream.
My daughters, thank you for giving me the inspiration to persevere, especially during those
tough times when I wasn’t always able to be present and guilt consumed me. It is my hope that
through this journey I have further instilled in you my passion for education and that you will
continue to love learning and know that you can achieve anything with hard work and
dedication. My family and friends, thank you for giving me the unconditional time to focus and
work, for understanding my availability limitations, and for your enthusiastic reassurance in
those overwhelming moments.
I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Patricia Burch, for her guidance and flexibility in
encouraging me to conduct a study that was important to me. My committee members, Dr.
Artineh Samkian and Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, your input, feedback, and experiences helped
shape a document that I am proud of, thank you. You are all outstanding professionals and I am
honored to have had the opportunity to work with you.
Finally, I would like to thank my USC cohort and professors, at some point in this three-
year journey, you each played a role in me reaching the finish line. We will always be bound by
this incredible experience, thank you…and Fight On!

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 1
List of Tables 4
Abstract 5
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 6
Introduction 6
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 13
Definition of Terms 13
Significance of the Study 14
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 16
Components of Effective Professional Development 21
Implementation Strategies and Challenges in Professional Development 26
Policy, Effective School Leadership and Professional Development 33
Chapter 3: Methodology 43
Introduction 43
Research Questions 44
Research Design 45
Participants and Setting 47
Data Collection 48
Data Analysis 49
Limitations and Trustworthiness 51
Chapter 4: Results 52
School District and School Site Information 53
Participants 57
Results to Research Question One 59
Results to Research Question Two 64
Results to Research Question Three 72
Summary 75

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

3
Chapter 5: Conclusions 77
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 77
Summary of Findings 79
Limitations 81
Implications for Practice 83
Future Research 88
Conclusions 92
References 96
Appendices 102
Appendix A: Teacher Interview Questions 102
Appendix B: Principal Interview Questions 103

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Teacher Information 59
Table 2. Principal Information 59

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

5
ABSTRACT
Professional development (PD) are activities that teachers participate in to increase their content
knowledge and skills, improve their pedagogy and afford the chance to collaborate with
colleagues and peers allowing for personal and professional growth. School districts and school
sites provide professional development opportunities based on established school wide goals, and
identified teacher and student needs. Additionally, professional development programs reflect
the support teachers need in order to implement current state standards. The Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) are an aligned set of standards and assessments that describe what students
should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade. Subjects included in the Common
Core State Standards are English Language Arts, Mathematics, Literacy in History/Social
Sciences, Science, Technical Subjects and College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards.
Current professional development available is tailored for core subject teachers, leaving out
subjects not included in the core standards, such as foreign language, visual and performing arts
and physical education. This study examines what professional development opportunities are
available to non-core teachers around CCSS, as all teachers will be responsible for providing
students with curricula aligned to the new standards. Additionally, teacher perspectives gathered
from qualitative data analysis highlight strengths and limitations of current PD available, as well
as possibly inform future PD program design. Study results, as well as benefits and limitations,
point to implications for school districts and areas for future research.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

6
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Professional development (PD) is intended to expand and deepen a teacher’s content
knowledgebase, which in turn will transfer into the classroom and affect their practice. Borko
(2004) states that teacher learning can be understood as a process of increasing participation in
the practice of teaching, which occurs in different settings and contexts, and in order for teachers
to foster student conceptual understanding, they must have a rich, flexible knowledge of the
subject taught. Professional development activities are the conduit for teachers to receive
information about instructional strategies and best practices, along with collaboration
opportunities with peers and fellow professionals. Teachers experience a vast range of activities
and interactions that may increase their knowledge and skills, improve their teaching practice,
and contribute to personal and professional growth (Borko, 2004; Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-
Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). However, changes in
classroom practice relies solely on teachers, and this cannot be achieved without the proper
resources and support that professional development activities provide (Borko, 2004). The
importance of improving schools, increasing teacher quality, and improving the quality of
student learning has placed greater focus on professional development for teachers as a key way
to achieve these goals (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).
In this new education era, the role of the classroom teacher has shifted from simply
delivering subject specific material, to being held accountable for instruction that involves
rigorous student engagement aligned with specific and expected academic outcomes. In order to
prepare for the demands of the up to date curriculum standards, teachers need to change their
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

7
pedagogy. Teachers now need to integrate subject matter knowledge and really assess how
students learn. There needs to be a departure from prior experience, established beliefs, and
present practice, taking into account new state standards, curriculum framework and
standardized testing (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). A challenge with this, is that
teachers may not always be privy to the latest educational policy or district mandated
requirements because traditionally, their role has been to develop meaningful lessons that engage
students in a conducive learning environment. Additionally, Opfer and Pedder (2011) state that
the problem stems, in part, from the current available literature that fails to explain how teachers
learn from professional development and the conditions that support and promote learning.
Background of the Problem
Student achievement is one of the main goals of any educational system. Over the last
thirty years education reform policies have focused on ways to improve student performance.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), requires each state to adopt challenging
academic content standards and challenging student academic achievement standards that will be
used by the state, its local educational agencies (LEA), and its schools (U.S. Department of
Education [USDOE], 2012). According to Linn (2005), one of the most serious problems with
the NCLB is the unrealistic expectation for student achievement and that the mandated goals of
the accountability system should be ambitious but realistic to attain. Because of harsh sanctions
school districts faced with NCLB, the Obama administration approved NCLB waiver requests to
eight districts in California as part of the California Office to Reform Education (CORE)
(USDOE, 2013). Under the supervision of CORE, the participating eight districts requested
flexibility with respect to certain requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA). In exchange for the waiver from NCLB, the eight districts will develop
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

8
plans at the local level to prepare all students for college and career, focus on the neediest
students, and provide effective teacher support (USDOE, 2013).
California is operating on two different accountability systems, the Public Schools
Accountability Act 1999 (PSAA) and NCLB (Scotchmer, McGrath, & Coder, 2005). This
practice creates confusion and inconsistency when addressing school performance and student
growth. Under the PSAA, the Academic Performance Index (API) is used to measure success.
Under the federal NCLB, the Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) and Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) are used (Scotchmer et al., 2005). Both systems emphasize student assessment and
performance, however, California uses a growth model for accountability and the NCLB focuses
on whether a specific number of students achieved a certain level of proficiency (Scotchmer et
al., 2005). Hence the problem, a school can do well under the state accountability system, yet not
meet the criteria for the federal system and face severe penalties and sanctions.
In an effort to transition the public education system towards a system that reflects an
aligned set of standards and assessments, state and educational leaders developed the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS are educational standards that describe what students
should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade, and as of 2010, more than forty
states had adopted the same standards for English and Mathematics (California Department of
Education [CDOE], 2015). The goal behind the standards is that they would provide a cohesive
educational curriculum across the nation, allowing students to move from state to state receiving
the same rigorous education aligned to these standards. In California, the CCSS will also
facilitate the shift away from the API and AYP accountability systems that have created an
environment where assessments and performance are not equitably measured and heavily
sanctioned.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

9
Many studies and research suggest that teachers need professional development, however
despite this plethora of research few studies articulate what this PD should look like in terms of
content (Borko, 2004). Data found that professional development activities do not have features
of high quality and that most research on effective PD focuses on limited area of subjects and
grades due to challenges in time and planning, both related to financial constraints (Borko, 2004;
Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Additionally, “research says” has become a
common preface to many workshops and presentations, as a way to exercise authority, rather
than inform judgments to frame individual inquiries and assertions (Little, 1993). These
assertions align with what Garet et al. (2001) discuss in their findings: that research does not
focus on whether professional development offered is impacting teacher practice or student
outcomes.
According to research, a key structural feature of effective PD is duration and
sustainability over time, in conjunction with the material presented being directly related and
applicable to practice (Borko, 2004; Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001; Little, 1993). A study
conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics found that during the 1999-2000
school year, 73% of public school teachers reported participating in professional development
focused on teaching methods, and 59% of teachers reported participating in content specific PD
(Scotchmer et al., 2005). The same study found that regardless of focus, content or teaching
methods, a majority of teachers reported receiving 8 or fewer hours of professional development
and that 95% reported attending a workshop, conference or other type of training session.
Results from this study indicate that even though teachers are participating in professional
development, the types of activities and PD models do not include the main characteristics
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

10
identified by research as key components that will prove successful in improving teacher
practice.
Statement of the Problem
The Common Core standards policy elements, standardized assessments with
consequences attached to test results, are well established and embedded in states and local
school districts. These standards emerged from a need for transparency in accountability
measures, fewer, clearer and higher standards and the ability to effectively assess student
performance (McDonnell, 2013). In her research, McDonnell (2013) states that the
shortcomings of NCLB and educational reforms associated with the federal policy stem from a
lack of system capacity, especially supports for teachers and students, specifically shortage
among curriculum an instructional materials, teacher training, and schools lacking the ability to
financially support the standards based accountability ideal. The author further states that rather
than propose a comprehensive policy addressing the range of shortcomings evident in NCLB and
state accountability policies, including an underinvestment in system capacity, Common Core
advocates focused on remedying variability in state standards. Once the standards were adopted
however, CCSS proponents recognized that there needed to be a considerable investment in
instructional support in order to maintain educator buy in and effectively implement the new
standards (McDonnell, 2013). This idea is shared by the state of California, which emphasizes
building teacher capacity through professional development as a key to the successful
implementation and success of the CCSS system (CDOE, 2013).
Based on what is known about the common core standards, it is evident that teachers
need support in re-defining their pedagogy. In order to achieve this, professional development
needs to be based on the features that support teacher learning and are aligned with CCSS.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

11
Marrongelle, Sztajn, and Smith (2013) indicate that in addition to professional development
being ongoing, related to practice, content specific and aligned with school goals, it must also
incorporate practices the field has begun to see as promising, such as attention to discourse,
development of high-leverage practices, student thinking, formative assessments, and cognitively
challenging tasks. By focusing on practices that are directly related to classroom instruction,
teachers will have the opportunity to develop the knowledge needed to affect student learning
and achievement.
The CCSS are what will guide districts and educational leaders in the creation of
curriculum and instructional practices to support teacher and student needs to effectively
demonstrate content knowledge. These standards closely support the California Education Code
(EC), which establishes a minimum set of requirements for graduation from the California
schools (CDOE, 2015). The state mandated course requirements, known as A-G, include: (1)
English, (2) Mathematics, (3) Social Studies/Science, (4), Science, (5) Foreign Language, (6)
Visual and Performing Arts, and (7) Physical Education. Additionally, these courses comprise
the minimum set of required courses for admission as a freshman to the University of California
(UC) and the California State University (CSU) systems (CDOE, 2015). It is apparent that the
CCSS and the A-G requirements are aligned to ensure students are college ready by the time they
graduate high school. However, if examined closely, there is a critical gap between the subjects
incorporated in the CCSS and A-G required courses: the inclusion of non-core subjects,
specifically: foreign language, visual and performing arts, and physical education. This exclusion
poses a problem because the non-core subjects are required to obtain a high school diploma, yet
are absent in the new common core standards, which both students and teachers need to adapt to.
As recognized by the state of California, and current research (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009;
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

12
Garet et al., 2001; Marrongelle et al., 2013; Opfer & Pedder, 2011) teacher professional
development will be key to the successful implementation of the new state standards, however,
how will non-core teachers be supported if current professional development is focused
exclusively on core subjects? Teachers of all subjects are entitled to quality professional
development that is content specific and related to their practice, just as all students should
receive instruction from a highly qualified teacher in their content area. Academic achievement
is directly linked to subject knowledge and effective instruction, hence the development of the
common core standards. Effective professional development across all subjects is needed not
only to support building educator capacity, but because it directly impacts student learning and
success.
Purpose of the Study
The intent of this study is to investigate the type of professional development available to
non-core high school teachers. Most of the current research outlines professional development
as it relates to core subjects (Mathematics, Language Arts, Science and Social Studies) and how
it provides support for teachers in those fields. Although many of the elements present in
effective PD models are components that can be generalized, they are not specific to the non-
core teacher’s practice. In light of the CCSS that will drive curriculum decisions and the
creation and implementation of professional development programs for the next several years, it
is important for teachers in all subject areas to have access to activities that are subject specific to
support their practice. Additionally, non-core subjects are important to other kinds of learning
and outcomes, providing students with a well-rounded curriculum that will give them the skills
set needed to be successful in college and the demanding work force. Student achievement is
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

13
contingent on a successful education system that needs to provide equitable support to all the
stakeholders involved.
Research Questions
This study is guided by the following research questions:
1. As of summer, 2014, what, if any, professional development is currently available to
non-core teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District around Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)?
a. What do these professional development opportunities look like in terms of
structure (workshop, classes, on/off site in-service)?
b. Who is responsible for creating, developing, and facilitating PD? At the
district level? At the school site level?
c. What is the school principal’s role in the professional development
opportunities?
2. From a non-core teacher’s perspective, what are the strengths and limitations of
current PD focused on CCSS? From a principal’s perspective?
3. How can these perspectives inform in the current PD development process? What do
the perspectives suggest for how PD can/needs to be improved?
Definition of Terms
In order to provide clarity, the following terms are defined:
Professional Development (PD): activities intended to help teachers learn new
methodology, broaden their subject matter content knowledge, and stay informed of changing
policies (Borko, 2004; Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001; Gersten, Vaughn, & Deshler, 1997).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

14
Core subjects: subjects included in the Common Core State Standards: English Language
Arts, Mathematics, Literacy in History/Social Sciences, Science, Technical Subjects and College
and Career Readiness Anchor Standards.
Non-core subjects: subjects not included in the Common Core State Standards: foreign
language, visual and performing arts, and physical education.
Non-core teacher: a teacher that teaches a subject that is not included in the Common
Core State Standards, such as foreign language, visual and performing arts, and physical
education.
Significance of the Study
This study will benefit school districts, instructional leaders, and principals when
discussing the types of professional development offered to non-core teachers. This study will
also explore the strengths and limitations of the current PD opportunities available. Given the
shift in education and current policy, professional development programs need to reflect and
address the pedagogical change needed to successfully implement the new standards. This study
will provide insight on the perspective of the current professional development programs
available and shape future features and content of PD models. Conclusions, implications, and
recommendations in this study will help provide a basis for future research to build on and
further expand the literature on this topic. A pipe dream of this study is that it will, at the very
least, begin an actual awareness in the discrepancy between the subjects included in the
California Education Code and the Common Core State Standards. Education reform is slow and
methodic, involving many different ideals and stakeholders, but student success and achievement
are the driving forces behind the change. Because CCSS standards are the new kids on the block,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

15
they need one more round of revisions to include all academic subjects in order to properly
support both teachers and students in moving education forward.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

16
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The importance of building and sustaining professional capacity in the education field is
not only accepted, but expected. A teacher’s role and influence in academically preparing
students is viewed as a key, perhaps even the main factor in the quality workforce of tomorrow.
Because of this inherent accountability that is built into the teaching profession, teachers must
remain current with educational research, best practices, and effective strategies that will
positively impact their practice and translate into student achievement. In order to support
teachers, professional development (PD) programs have been designed and implemented both at
the district and school levels with the intention of assisting teachers in staying abreast with the
often changing educational policy. One would assume that with the acknowledged importance
the impact of a teacher has on student learning and achievement, professional development
programs offered would be directly aligned and reflect the needs of teachers. However, many
programs seem to be subject to arbitrary changes and influenced by current policy. In an attempt
to bridge the gap between what is known about good PD and what is actually implemented in
schools, I looked at studies published from the 1970s to current. The search criteria contained the
words teacher professional development, staff development, teacher training, effective teacher
practices, and effective professional development. The studies from the 1970s and 1980s
highlighted a shift in the content and format of professional development, from general
workshop style presentations to models that focus on teacher learning. The studies published in
the 1990s to the current year, focus on the types of professional development models that contain
specific components identified by researchers as effective. These include the length of time and
context in which PD is presented, ongoing themes aligned with school goals and collaboration.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

17
Looking at studies over the last 40 years, certain things remain the same, others are no longer
relevant, but what is a consistent, recurring theme is the need for effective professional
development as a main resource for teacher support.
The terms that have been used to talk about teacher training have fluctuated over the past
four decades, yet the ideas and concepts remain relatively the same. There is a consistent
emphasis on the importance of the role teachers play in improving student achievement and the
need for professional development. The literature also reflects the different PD models that have
emerged, each depicting an individualized interpretation of “best practice” or “best strategies.”
For many teachers, learning by experience has been a process of learning alone, characterized by
a series of trial and error episodes because organized inservice assistance is measured in days
and hours instead of weeks and months (Lortie, 1975). Lanier and Little (1984) say that
meaningful mentoring relations between experienced and beginning teachers have been the
exception, not the rule because in most schools, mentoring arrangements tend to be isolated,
informal activities. Joint planning and use of collaborative problem solving approaches are the
most valued aspects of coaching arrangements, however, those strategies are not commonly
practiced in schools because coaching was not found to be consistent with the established
workplace values, habits and schedules (Shultz & Yinger, 1982; Showers, 1983). A study
conducted by Bird and Little (1983) found that teacher collaboration was most effective when it
was established as a policy by the school administration and given support in the form of
materials, time, space and assigned staff. These findings indicate that professional development
needs to be embedded in the school culture, aligned with school goals, and supported by the
administration. However, Lanier and Little (1984) point out that despite district efforts to
develop meaningful professional development programs, the results have been isolated,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

18
fragmented style workshops, generated at the district level, with no structural connection or
coherence. Furthermore, these staff development activities bare no connection to curriculum and
instructional improvement, and are not evaluated for effectiveness (Lanier & Little, 1984). The
misalignment of the professional development activities to established school goals and
curriculum hinder the development of the teaching practice, impacting both sustained teacher
professional growth and student achievement.
Jalongo (1986) discusses the disconnect in education in regards to what is said about the
teaching profession and what is done, and how this practice creates ambiguity and sends mixed
signals to new teacher candidates. In the study, Jalongo (1986) mentions a 1969 survey where
75% of parents indicated a desire for a child to enter the teaching profession, down to 43% in
1984. The author contends that the language in which the profession is talked about is very
inconsistent, by teaching being called a “craft” to “public servitude,” yet when the conversation
turns to education reform, teachers are usually at the center of it (Jalongo, 1986). Sparks and
Loucks-Horsley (1989) agree with this idea, indicating that there is an almost unanimous
dissatisfaction with current efforts related to inservice education, however, there is a consensus
that inservice is a critical component of school improvement programs. Training programs for
teachers typically include outside experts that introduce teachers to a variety of best practices or
instructional models (Little, 1993). Educators have voiced their disenchantment with one time
consultants who come in, present on an isolated idea, and move on to the next school (Jalongo,
1986). This “traditional” approach to inservice education rarely yields to sustainable, lasting
results because the driving force behind the curriculum is not always theory, research or
collective professional judgment, but rather a “hot” topic or someone’s personal agenda
(Jalongo, 1986). Little (1993) expresses how these trainings are usually done in one day and do
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

19
not have an evaluation component to determine whether the workshop was effective, nor are
there follow ups to see if teachers transferred the knowledge gained and skills acquired into their
daily practice.
Professional development are usually inservice days, designated by the district on
specific days where consultants come in to deliver motivational messages, district initiatives,
state mandates or new educational theories. Ganser (2000) further states that PD has typically
taken the form of inservice training, workshops, conferences, summer institutes and graduate
courses. Data on PD as practiced in the mid 1990s indicates that 80% of teachers participated in
workshops or inservice training in their subject area sponsored by a school or school district
(Choy & Chen, 1998). In many cases, the information presented in these mandated inservice
trainings is not used by many and does not typically affect teacher knowledge or practice (Burke,
2000). Many districts are aware of the importance of professional development, and are
attempting an array of strategies and approaches to increase teacher capacity. Several limitations
to the current reform efforts are that districts lack proper assistance to develop meaningful
professional development programs, there is a shortage of trained staff to implement and
supervise programs at the school sites, and external demands that districts face often time divert
time and resources from meaningful attention to staff development (Lanier & Little, 1984).
Gersten et al. (1997) identified common misconceptions present in education research.
These findings, based on faulty assumptions contribute to why research fails to connect the
findings to useful implementation: (a) educators will accept and implement effective ways of
teaching once they know what they are; (b) educators will maintain effective practices and
discontinue ineffective ones; (c) effective practices can easily be implemented by teachers; (d)
many researchers until recently treated teachers as “subjects,” instead of professionals whose
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

20
knowledge could inform their work. The development of professional training for teachers needs
to be research based and translated into meaningful, concrete information that teachers can
readily adapt for use in the classroom. Hammel (2007) concurs by stating that educators are
willing to participate in on-site training if it is designed to meet the specific needs of their school
and students. Gersten et al. (1997) note that regardless of the research behind theories and
practices, these have no value unless they can successfully be incorporated and implemented in
the classroom. Recent research on PD criticizes “traditional” approaches advocating for newer,
more collaborative models. Butler et al. (2004) contend that traditional approaches to
professional development result in surface level implementation of the instructional principles
presented as opposed to deep-rooted changes in practice. Many of the in-service professional
development teachers participate in are expert-driven, top down workshops that convey
procedural skills yet no practical, direct application to inform or guide practice. They are also
conducted outside of the teacher’s classroom, usually during non school time with no ongoing
theme or alignment to school goals (Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001). This approach does
not provide teachers with the opportunity for in-depth discussion of content, strategy
implementation or instructional feedback.
Districts have taken a more active role in providing professional development.
According to Little (1993), because districts control PD, it is not necessarily job embedded, long
lasting, or related to practice. In her research, Little (1993) highlights “specialists,” which are a
new trend in professional development. These specialists can be district employees, not
necessarily former teachers, who design and deliver professional development at a high cost,
teacher specialists, which are classroom teachers that help plan and deliver professional
development on a part time basis, and external consultants, who are independent contractors.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

21
External consultants are ineffective, because they are not aware or take account of the school
culture and context, they have no relationships with the teachers, are not formally evaluated or
hired based on effectiveness or proven outcomes (Little, 1993). The disconnect with these
experts, is that the district is spending 50% of PD funds on specialists, and not allocating
resources to improve teacher capacity (Little, 1993). Instead, districts are taking part in the PD
market, which offers well packaged, generic, one size fits all workshops that do not account for
teacher differences in knowledge and experience, do to align to school goals, or provide
classroom time for practice and feedback (Little, 1993).
Components of Effective Professional Development
As the research points out, studies on professional development have been depicting
accepted effective practices that should be taken into account when designing programs for
teachers to participate in. Collaboration, alignment to school culture and goals, and relevance to
practice are some of the key components of effective models. The role districts and
administrators play, as far as discerning individualized teacher and student needs is also an
important factor that contributes to the success of a professional development model.
Professional development (PD) are activities intended to help teachers learn new
methodology, broaden their subject matter content knowledge, and stay informed of changing
policies. Studies conducted on professional development contend that in order for professional
development to be useful, the theories and practices presented for teachers to adopt need to be
based on research and applicable to practice (Gersten et al., 1997). A consensus has been built on
“best practices” and it is generally accepted that intensive, job-embedded PD focused on the
content of the subject taught is more likely to improve teacher knowledge, classroom instruction,
and student achievement, along with active learning, coherence, and collaboration. Direct
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

22
application to practice, the opportunity to implement strategies, feedback and alignment to
school goals are also key components of effective PD (Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001;
Gersten et al., 1997). Borko (2004) further states that professional development should focus on
teachers as learners and the relationship between teacher participation in PD and their learning.
The author further states that professional development programs should include explicit focus
on subject matter and include activities that allow the opportunity for teachers to engage and
experience the material as learners themselves. This component is especially important in order
to help students make and understand connections between ideas that foster deep, conceptual
knowledge.
Legislators and local school districts have identified professional development as a key
component of school improvement efforts. The literature on professional development contains
numerous studies which depict effective PD models. These models share common features,
components and characteristics that are relevant and related to practice, and can be implemented
in the classroom. Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1989) organize what is known about effective
staff development into five models supported by theory, organizational context and what is
required to support successful staff development efforts. The five models of staff development
are:
1. Individually Guided Staff Development
o A key characteristic is that learning is designed by teachers and based on
motivation theory, individuals will be most motivated when they select their
own learning goals based on personal assessment of needs. This model is
effective because learning theory takes into account teacher differences.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

23
2. Observation/Assessment
o An underlying assumption of this model is that reflection and analysis are
central means of professional growth.
o Observation and assessment of instruction provide the teacher with data that
can be reflected upon and analyzed to improve student learning.
o Once teachers see positive results from their change efforts, the behavior
change is more likely to sustain.
3. Involvement in a Development/Improvement Process
o This model works on the underlying assumptions that adults learn most
effectively when they have a need to know or problem to solve, that people
best understand what is required to improve performance when closely
working on a job and that their experience guide in framing problems and
development of solutions. Lastly, teachers acquire important knowledge or
skills through involvement in school improvement or curriculum development
processes.
o This model identifies a problem or need, by an individual or group; a response
is formulated, an action plan is created and evaluation procedures determined.
4. Training
o High participant-to-trainer ratio is usually a cost effective way for teachers to
acquire new knowledge and skills. However, for the training model to be
effective, it must include modeling, and the opportunity for practice and
feedback.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

24
o Teacher coaches or teacher experts are more effective than outside experts;
they have a relationship with the teachers, provide a comfortable and familiar
collaborative environment.
o Training can have positive effects on teacher behavior and impact teacher
knowledge, attitudes and instructional skills.
5. Inquiry
o Inquiry reflects a basic belief in teachers’ ability to formulate valid questions
about their own practice and to pursue objective answers to those questions.
o This model has teachers identify a problem of interest, explore ways to collect
data, analyze and interpret the data, make changes, gather new data, and
assess to determine effectiveness of interventions.
Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1989) also state that certain organizational characteristics are
needed for staff development to be most successful. These include having a common, coherent
set of goals and objectives, strong leadership and a positive school culture and shared vision.
Also, using a variety of ways to monitor progress towards goals, such as appropriate knowledge,
expertise, and resources. The authors state that the quality of recommended practices must be
aligned to school goals and teacher practice because teachers will not readily implement
strategies that they see as useless or ineffective (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989).
Ganser (2000) identified three basic principles to guide a PD model: (a) content,
identified as activities that should be grounded in theory and best practices, related to practice,
and support the local context of the school and community in order to ensure financial support
from the policy makers and local school boards. The activities should also be related to high
standards of student achievement, teacher development and demonstrate a connection to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

25
improved practice, (2) process, which entails the “how”; how activities are planned, organized,
carried out, and followed up. Effective PD takes into account the teacher as a learner. When
collaborating, individual skills are important to assess/recognize if change is the aim of the PD.
PD needs to be ongoing and sustained over time, be aligned with the school goals and all
stakeholders should be involved. It must also have an accountability piece, where PD is
evaluated in terms of increased teacher knowledge and student achievement, and (3) context,
refers to the organization and culture in which the activities occur and is imperative in the
success or failure of activities aimed at improving teaching. PD should be school or site focused,
related to practice, participant driven, and have an evaluation piece, which is essential to assess
effectiveness. This model, according to Ganser (2000), focuses on increasing teacher
effectiveness and student achievement by providing clear guidelines that are aligned with the
nation’s education reform agenda.
Burke (2000) describes a results-based professional development model that follows
certain characteristics acknowledged as effective. Burke (2000) argues that in most PD models,
information is presented, but awareness of the new strategies does not transfer into application
into practice. Follow up training, application opportunities with practice, and coaching are
essential components to affect change in teacher performance after the initial introduction of a
new theory or instructional strategy. The results-based professional development model consists
of six phases: phase 1, teachers select a theory or program to explore; phase 2, teachers
collaboratively establish professional and student centered goals with clear criteria; phase 3,
professional development plans are selected based on the student centered goals guided by a step
by step action plan; phase 4, data collection to assess success or lack of implemented
interventions; phase 5, consists of timelines using the school context for continued planning, and
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

26
phase 6, evaluation, where the principal usually meets with the teachers to review the PD plans.
The collected data and review of artifacts collected over the span of a year yields an in-depth
assessment of a teacher’s growth and development. This model is effective because it is teacher
driven and related to practice. It fosters a community of learners and empowers teachers because
they are a part of the decision making process and active participants in their professional growth
(Burke, 2000).
The mentioned studies outline key characteristics that should be present in an effective
professional development model: to take into account teachers as learners, have teachers be
involved in the design process, be specific to school context and goals, related to practice and
have an evaluation piece. Although each model examines components from a specific lens,
when looked at closely, the main elements and expectations are the same, to increase teacher
effectiveness by transferring presented strategies into daily practice . The studies also highlight
the importance of the professional development model having a well defined and clearly
articulated purpose in order to communicate goals and outcomes. These features are important to
consider when developing or implementing a professional development model in order to lessen
challenges and problems in implementation.
Implementation Strategies and Challenges in Professional Development
As mentioned, studies have provided key components for effective professional
development, as well as criticized traditional approaches and advocating for different models.
Little (1993) discusses six principles of professional development and pairs each one as
representing an aspect of or a problem of practice. The first principle is that professional
development offers teachers meaningful collaborative opportunities with their colleagues. This
characteristic is not evident in the passive teacher role observable in much of teacher trainings.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

27
According to Little (1993), teachers do not assume an active professional role simply by
participating in a “hands on” activity as part of a scripted workshop. Borko (2004) agrees that a
PD program should include explicit focus on subject matter and include activities that allow the
opportunity for teachers to engage and experience the material as learners themselves. A second
principle is that professional development takes into account specific teacher context and
experience, and focuses on meaningful collaboration. Strong professional communities can foster
teacher learning through continued communication, and collaborative interactions with the
common purpose of improving practice. However this is challenged by the “one size fits all”
models that introduces generic content, to a diverse audience of teachers. The idea that
professional development offers support for informed dissent, according to Little (1993) places
an emphasis on the evaluation of alternatives, which is far removed from the current structure
where teachers have little or no say on the content and format of professional development. The
fourth principle views instruction in the larger school context, where professional development is
aligned and connected to student achievement, school goals and teacher practice. However, this
is not the case as evidenced by presentations of specific, technical skills, of the moment
instructional strategies or generic curricular reforms (Little, 1993). To foster students’
conceptual understanding, teachers must have a rich, flexible knowledge of the subject taught to
help students make connections in order for them to learn (Borko, 2004). A fifth principle states
that professional development fosters the techniques and perspectives of inquiry, allowing
teachers the opportunity to question professional and institutional beliefs. This however is
counterbalanced with the current patterns of practice, where teachers are consumers of research
knowledge and not given the opportunity to generate and asses their own knowledge. Also, a
teacher’s expressed interest in alternative assessment far exceeds their skill and confidence in
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

28
constructing, evaluating or incorporating such alternatives, for which there are no resources to
implement them with (Little, 1993). The last governance of professional development, as
described by Little (1993) ensures bureaucratic restraint and a balance of individual and public
interests. This is not the case as evidenced by a generic, professional development market of
programs and workshops where teachers exert little influence or have leadership roles.
Additionally, few districts have criteria in place to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs,
how resources are being allocated and whether the professional development opportunities and
obligations align with the school’s and teachers’ views. Professional activities need to be more
responsive on how teachers learn and models should include ongoing themes, aligned with
school goals, learning standards and related to practice (Garet et al., 2001; Little, 1993).
Several key features have emerged in the literature as missing components of
professional development that would yield further evidence to the continued development of
effective programs. Current research does not articulate the specific content and duration a PD
program should consist of, whether it is impacting teacher practice, or that teacher participation
in PD is improving student achievement (Borko, 2004; Garet et al., 2001; Wayne, Yoon, Zhu,
Cronen, & Garet, 2008). Garet et al. (2001) state that relatively little research has been conducted
on the effect of professional development on improved teacher practice or student outcome, and
that reform types of activities should be more responsive to how teachers learn and influence
changing teaching practice. Borko (2004) agrees that despite the recognition of its importance,
the professional development currently available to teachers is inadequate. Each year, school
districts and the federal government spend large amounts of money on in-service seminars or
other PD programs that are fragmented, intellectually superficial and do not take into account
how teachers learn. Wayne et al. (2008) concur that with the investment in PD from federal
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

29
funds, plus investments made by states and school districts, there needs to be a strong base of
research to guide policy and practice.
Research suggests that several elements make a difference in the design of a professional
development program, such as the content of teacher education, defined as what is taught and
how it is conducted (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The content should also include the
extent to which participants acquire knowledge that allows them to see the relationships among
the domains of teaching and connect useful theory to inform practice and support student
learning (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Professional development should concentrate
on content covered and be specific to teacher practice, emphasizing and focusing on students’
learning goals (Garet et al., 2001). According to the authors, PD should center both on subject
matter content and understanding of student learning, providing teachers the opportunity to
become engaged in meaningful discussion, planning and practice. Although learning studies
suggest that learning is enhanced when learners encounter reinforcing ideas and skills,
specifically when these experiences are grounded in intentional chosen content and conveyed
through effective pedagogies, these characteristics are not necessarily integrated as key
components of a coherent program (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). That is a main
reason why much of the PD presented is inconsistent, disconnected from practice, and does not
consider how teachers learn (Borko, 2004; Garet et al., 2001). Because of this, many teachers
still use teaching models that focus on memorization of facts, not deep understanding of subject
knowledge. According to Garet et al. (2001), a shift is necessary to a more balanced approach,
where teachers re-learn how to teach in a way that places emphasis on continual deepening of
knowledge and skills. Open and transparent communication between the purpose of PD and
intended outcomes are essential factors in providing teachers with the support needed to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

30
effectively impact their practice. Little (1993) states that current PD does not lend itself to skill
training because it is not readily expressed in terms of specific, transferable skills and practices,
rather general situations and hypothesis on how the presented skill “would” look like in practice.
Effective training has come to be defined largely by its ability to provide adequate opportunities
for practice and to provide for classroom consultation and coaching as teachers learn how to use
new ideas. Based on research, focus on content knowledge, opportunity for active learning and
coherence with other activities are core features that significantly increase knowledge and skills
and impact change in classroom instruction (Garet et al., 2001). Borko (2004) also adds
understanding of student thinking and instructional practices as key characteristics to be
included. When considering this criteria, an effective approach is the use of mentors or coaches
within the school site, which provides the opportunity to make connections between PD and
practice, increasing the chance of sustainable change (Garet et al., 2001). Little (1993) concurs
with this stating that coaching and training can be an effective way to deliver PD, and if done
properly teachers will be able to transfer the knowledge and skills presented, however, it has to
be context specific, involve teachers as active participants, not just the recipients of information.
There is affirmation that PD should be sustained and intensive, and more likely to be
effective when done in large doses, however, the cost of developing and delivering PD grows
proportionally with the number of days involved, and requiring teachers to be out of the
classroom disrupts student learning (Wayne et al., 2008). Garet et al. (2001) state that duration is
a structural feature in any effective PD program and should be sustained over time. Longer
activities are more likely to provide the opportunity for in-depth discussion of content, student
needs and instructional strategies, also give teachers the opportunity to implement new practices
and receive feedback (Garet et al., 2001). Although the amount and length of training have a
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

31
positive effect on the acquisition of new skills, there are studies suggesting that the duration of
the professional learning experience is less influential in its effects than the content.
Furthermore, other research suggests that when teachers have the opportunity to practice, those
skills are more likely to transfer and be incorporated into their daily practice (Darling-Hammond
& Bransford, 2005). It is important to recognize the different practices research suggests and use
them as guidelines in developing PD programs.
Professional development that is “school based” and related to practice are also
acknowledged as most effective. This approach requires for schools to hire a coach or mentor to
work with the teachers on a continued basis in order to model lessons, provide practice
opportunities and feedback, and perhaps most importantly, evaluate whether the applied
strategies are effective and making a difference in teaching practice and student achievement.
This approach is expensive and with fixed budgets, schools may have to arbitrate between the
amount of off-site and school-based PD it offers teachers (Wayne et al., 2008). Little (1993) also
states that the training and coaching strategy, when balanced as a part of a larger configuration,
and clearly linked to transferable teaching skills, is an effective approach. However, the author
states that it is not clear whether any form of training and its content can mediate against specific
school context, climate, belief and practice. This indicates that the effectiveness of professional
development programs and designs need also to consider generalizability, and the possibility that
one size does not fit all.
Program generalizability and evaluation are two factors of focus when assessing the
effectiveness of a professional development program. Childress, Elmore, and Grossman (2006)
state that in order to make noticeable gains in student achievement, there needs to be a
framework for developing effective strategies that an organization can coherently implement in a
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

32
sustainable way. An inherent problem with this, is that often times, schools adopt programs and
practices that are effective at a particular site without knowing whether the acclaimed success
will transfer to their school. According to Elmore (2002), any plan of improvement has to
address the motives of individuals and of groups, their willingness to pursue a common purpose
that is likely to entail great effort, uncertainty and alteration in established norms and habits.
Elmore (2002) further asserts that few people willfully engage in practices they know to be
ineffective and that doing so would require a strong rationale and incentive. Many of these
programs lack a mechanism for evaluating the criteria on which resources are allocated, nor do
they examine or communicate how these training models fit with the school view, teachers, and
teacher development (Little, 1993). Borko (2004) also asserts that a professional development
program must be well defined and clearly specified before researchers can investigate how its
ratified by multiple facilitators, in multiple settings, and what resources are needed to ensure
effectiveness. Cohen, Raudenbush, and Ball (2003) identified several critical features of a well-
defined system, including: (a) academic tasks and instructional materials; (b) descriptions of
teaching and student outcome measures; (c) descriptions of facilitator roles; and (d) activities and
materials for teachers. The authors state that equally important in the program development are
field testing and revision (Cohen et al., 2003).
Although the literature reviews many studies depicting effective best practices for
professional development, as well as denouncing poor developed programs and calling for
reform, gaps remain in the research. Wayne et al. (2008) state that evidence lacks in current
studies about the way PD is delivered, whether the PD programs have the same effect across
multiple settings and trainers and what impact, if any, it has on student achievement. The authors
also question whether PD programs can be effective when delivered in typical settings by those
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

33
not involved in the development of said PD programs. Wayne et al. (2008) highlight three
common weaknesses of PD effectiveness, (1) poor alignment between the pedagogy the PD
trains teachers to use and how students are tested, (2) poor alignment between content of
classroom instruction and student assessments, and (3) insufficient time between PD intervention
and the measurement of PD impact. Professional development interventions are going to vary
based on the specific intended outcome for teacher knowledge, teacher practice and student
achievement. Some approaches are going to emphasize increasing a teachers knowledge and skill
in implementing instructional strategies, other PD programs may be designed to strengthen a
teacher’s content knowledge, with desired changes in practice less articulated. Other PD
interventions may focus on specific areas of student achievement or may be designed for broad
changes specific to school context (Wayne et al., 2008). Whichever the intended purpose of the
professional development program is, the outcome measures must be aligned with the specific
focus of the intervention and intended outcomes. The way these factors are handled are at the
discretion of local schools and local school districts and these institutions should be held
accountable for faithful program implementation.
Policy, Effective School Leadership and Professional Development
The term accountability can refer to many things including rules, procedures and the
delivery of certain academic content. The accountability movement also expresses the
expectations society has of the public school system, including persistent problems in teaching,
student achievement, and improvement efforts (Elmore, 2002). According to Ovando and
Ramirez (2007), the public school accountability movement has been a major factor impacting
the educational system. The authors state that the current accountability demands represent a
challenge for schools that aim to achieve student learning and academic success. Over the last
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

34
twenty years federal policy decrees introduced the idea of curriculum standards, whole school
reform and high-stakes accountability. The Goals 2000 Act of 1994, was designed to improve
learning and teaching by providing a national framework for reform, to measure student progress
and provide support for students to meet those standards (USDOE, 1994). The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), requires each state to adopt challenging academic content
standards and challenging student academic achievement standards that will be used by the state,
its local educational agencies (LEA), and its schools (USDOE, 2012). The White House, in an
effort to support state and districts in undertaking educational reform, will provide flexibility
from provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (USDOE, 2013). The Blueprint for
Reform, which reauthorizes NCLB, contends that interaction between teacher and student is the
primary determinant of student success. The federal reform will require districts to provide
teachers with meaningful feedback and professional development to inform and improve practice
(USDOE, 2013).
President Obama has an integrated plan to provide support to ensure early childhood
education, redesigning schools and enhancing teaching. His proposal will allocate $6 billion
annually for investing in education through in service scholarships for high-need fields,
improved teacher education and stronger accountability measures. The stimulus package also
includes mentoring for all beginning teachers, professional development and collaboration time
(Darling-Hammond, 2010). Most recently, because of harsh sanctions school districts faced with
NCLB, the Obama administration approved NCLB waiver requests to eight districts in California
as part of the California Office to Reform Education (CORE) (USDOE, 2013). Under the
supervision of CORE, the participating eight districts requested flexibility with respect to certain
requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). In exchange
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

35
for the waiver from NCLB, the eight districts will develop plans at the local level to prepare all
students for college and career, focus on the neediest students, and provide effective teacher
support (USDOE, 2013). These legislative efforts demonstrate an active effort by policy makers
to support districts and teachers in this new wave of education reform.
The California Department of Education established standards for professional teaching
practices in collaboration with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (CDOE,
2013). While the standards presented may correlate with the skills set needed to be an effective
classroom teacher, they are not practices that can be applied to the classroom setting in order to
enhance or effectively deliver instruction. The expectation is that teachers remain current with
the professional literature and integrate research with practice, as well as incorporate technology
and emerging state/district standards. Educators also need to develop and implement standards
based lesson plans, and focus on advancing the student’s content knowledge in a classroom
setting. Demand for higher student achievement has increased based on adoption of higher
standards, focusing reform on improving education by creating a shift in what students learn and
how teachers teach (Garet et al., 2001). However, many reformers who want more demanding
standards differ about what standards should be, how they might be developed and how they
would be implemented (Cohen, 1995). Teachers are at the center of the reform because they have
to carry out the demands of the high standards in the classroom. According to Garet et al. (2001)
the central elements of systemic reform: high standards, curriculum frameworks, and new
approaches to assessments aligned to standards, generate new expectations for teachers’
classroom behavior, as well as student performance. Cohen (1995) agrees that systemic reform
seeks much more challenging instruction for students, and aims to change teaching in order to
improve student learning. Cohen (1995) concludes that even though systemic reform has had
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

36
significant effects, it has not made guidance for instruction clear and coherent. The success of
ambitious education reform initiatives hinges largely due to teacher qualification and teacher
effectiveness (Garet et al., 2001). Borko (2004) also asserts that a main factor to these changes
in classroom practice relies solely on teachers, but that they cannot achieve this without the
proper resources and support and that professional development opportunities are essential for
teachers to enhance and deepen their capacity. Essentially, professional learning should be an
organizational focus and school districts and school leaders should provide the support needed to
achieve educational goals.
Elmore (2003) states that school systems that have a consensus on norms of instructional
practice, strong student assessments and administrators that provide quality feedback about work
have the strongest performance. The author further asserts that leadership is a cultural practice,
and that successful leaders have an explicit theory of what good instructional practice looks like,
model these theories in their work, and publicly work on improving their practice and engage
others about good instruction. An effective instructional leader will engage all stakeholders in
instructional improvement through distributed leadership because in order to strengthen an
organization, a leader must draw from people’s strengths and bring that expertise together to
achieve the established goals (Elmore, 2003). Effective leaders are as good as their team and the
resources available to carry out their tasks. Support from the district central office plays an
important role in school leaders being able to improve conditions at the school site. MacIver and
Farley (2003) identified several roles relevant to instruction that the district central office should
include as part of a support framework that will yield to improved student achievement. These
components include: (1), continued professional development, (2), reform models that support
implementation of classroom strategies, (3), organizational assistance, and (4) productive use of
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

37
data. Jackson (2005) concurs that school districts need to support instruction by giving
individuals the authority to meet the responsibilities they are given. Furthermore, the central
district office should remain current on research and best practices and district personnel should
make learning an essential part of their job in order to be aware of how their work impacts
curriculum and instruction from an operation perspective. Essentially, capacity building needs to
happen at all levels of the education system in order to provide cohesive instructional programs.
Instructional leaders are key to achieving school goals and expectations. According to
Andrews and Morefield (1991), to empower the school, the leader’s behavior must have four key
components: (1) vision, (2) communication, (3) positioning, and (4) self-management. The
authors state that the school principal must be able to clearly communicate and articulate an
instructional vision, set clear performance standards for instruction and be able to take the
necessary actions to attain the goals. The school principal must also lead by example and
empower others (Andrews & Morefield, 1991). Ovando and Ramirez (2007) state that a principal
can influence student achievement through the school climate they create as well as the
instructional quality that promotes teacher learning. Such actions by school principals can
include instructional collaboration time, teacher encouragement to reflect on their practice,
school wide professional development activities aligned with school goals, and promoting social
trust among staff members (Ovando & Ramirez, 2007). School principals, just like teachers or
other professionals, do not become effective leaders automatically. They too need to participate
in professional development that focuses on both instructional strategies and improvement, as
well as teacher support and current policies. A problem associated with principal professional
development, is that it is very limited and the administrative and political roles overshadow the
focus on instruction. In the research of MacIver and Farley (2003) a conceptual framework
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

38
outlining effective components of professional development for developing principals as
instructional leaders was identified. The model includes: (1), monthly conferences on
instructional initiatives, (2), enrollment in at least one seminar or institute, (3), support groups for
principals to build leadership skills, (4), principal study groups that focus on instructional
practice issues or content areas, (5), a mentor program for new principals, and (6), individualized
coaching from the central office. By participating in professional development, principals can
ensure they have the proper tools to lead a successful organization. As mentioned, an effective
school leader will create a school climate where there is open communication and procedure
transparency, a clear alignment between school goals and instruction, and where student
improvement and achievement drives curriculum decisions. A good principal will also plan
professional development that is teacher need-based and create a collaborative environment that
empowers faculty and staff. The leadership role of the principal has been acknowledged as an
important factor to the improvement and success of a school. As discussed, the central district
office plays a key role by supporting a context of accountability and performance standards,
professional development and reform implementation (Jackson, 2005; MacIver & Farley, 2003;
Ovando & Ramirez, 2007).
From a policy perspective, education policy, aimed at educational change, only becomes
reality once it has been implemented at the classroom level (Pitsoe & Maila, 2012). Pitsoe and
Maila (2012) state that although teachers play a key role in policy implementation, they are
usually not part of the process and how they experience and understand policy change in regards
to their teaching practice largely goes unacknowledged. Cohen (1995) adds that a teacher’s
different experiences, knowledge, and sense of efficacy contribute to the variability in their
response to reform and that encounters with policy can be interpreted differently by teachers at
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

39
the same school site. According to Cohen (1995), classroom instruction has begun to change as
teachers respond to reform and new criteria becomes available based on ambitious new
standards, however the move toward systemic reform remains disjointed and individualistic as
teachers interpret the guidance based on varied knowledge, beliefs and practices. Because of the
ambiguity that affects teacher perception and possible implementation of new policy, analysts
suggest that development of teacher knowledge to support high-quality teaching is not something
that can be easily mandated or bureaucratically enforced (Darling-Hammond & Bransford,
2005). The argument these analysts pose is that developing teacher knowledge is an ongoing
process and appropriate application is contingent on many factors, therefore members of the
profession itself should manage the development and transmission of the knowledge base. The
type of policymaking that bestows authority to the profession and holds it accountable for its
actions, can be called, according to Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) “professional
policy.” The authors describe professional policy as professional standard-setting rather than
direct regulation by the state. It emphasizes the development of expertise for problem solving
rather than imposing standardized prescriptions for teachers hindering their diversity (Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005). This idea is the opposite of what policy reform has looked like.
According to Cohen (1995), high priority has been given to creating new standards and devising
new assessments, where states create tests that drive instruction, rather than enabling teachers to
learn what the new standards and assessments propose, and in the process undermine teacher
professional knowledge base by not involving them in the creation of the very standards and
assessments they are expected to incorporate into practice.
When examining components of professional development, the literature suggests that
PD programs with the focus on increasing teacher knowledge are the most effective (Borko,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

40
2004; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Garet et al., 2001). Looking at reform from a
teacher quality perspective, one must examine teacher preparation programs. Schools of
education have undertaken the redesign of their programs to strengthen teacher knowledge base,
the connection between theory and practice and the capacity to support the development of
powerful teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Policy initiatives under NCLB have also
stimulated alternative certification programs which provide teachers with less preparation time,
training and experience, thus contributing to ineffective teachers and attrition in the teaching
field (Darling-Hammond, 2000). According to Darling-Hammond (2010) teacher preparation
matters because it can enhance the initial effectiveness and increase the likelihood of remaining
in the profession long enough to improve and become more effective.
The variability in standards for teacher preparation programs leads to the inability of
schools to ensure quality (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The authors describe certain
features in education program designs that contribute to teacher unpreparedness and can
ultimately affect the teacher workforce quality. The characteristics are, (a) inadequate time,
where a four-year undergraduate degree dos not focus on learning theory and effective teaching
strategies, (b) fragmentation, a curriculum that is not cohesive, where coursework is not aligned
with practice and students need to piece it together, (c) uninspired teaching methods, courses in
which traditional lectures predominate and there is no opportunity for practice or feedback, (d)
superficial curriculum, surface level instead of deep focus on subject matter, and (e) traditional
views on schooling, which because of external demands, prospective teachers learn to work
independently instead of collaboratively. Additionally, many programs don’t offer teacher
candidates the opportunity to experience fieldwork, which has a strong influence on teacher
preparation, self-efficacy and effectiveness (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Teacher
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

41
preparation programs are directly related to systemic reform because they influence the product
policy efforts attempt to change. Given what is known about education programs, teacher
knowledge and student learning, there needs to be a linear alignment in the education system that
cohesively links theory and practice and professional development in order to advance building
teacher capacity and increase student achievement.
There have been several initiatives over the last twenty years that have been enacted by
the federal government to address student achievement and improvement, along with
incorporating new accountability demands based on performance and measured outcomes. The
Goals 2000 Act and The No Child Left Behind Act led the reform movement and have brought
acute awareness to educational reform. Law-makers have responded to the federal policies by
creating and developing programs at the state and local levels that address the identified areas of
need. As research suggests, the central district office is a key player in providing support with
curriculum and instruction, continued professional development for both teachers and
instructional leaders, and overall organizational assistance to improve classroom instruction and
student achievement (MacIver & Farley, 2003; Ovando & Ramirez, 2007). The demand has
been made for teachers to reassess their practice to ensure there is alignment between
instructional methods and the new performance standards required by the state. In order to
support teachers with this necessary shift, it is imperative that professional development
programs reflect the current changes needed. As discussed, professional development
emphasizing teacher knowledge, that is related to practice, and that provides the opportunity for
modeling, practice and feedback are components identified as the most effective (Borko, 2004;
Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001; Gersten et al., 1997). Educational policy will always
evolve to reflect changes in new standards and reform efforts. It takes a strong institutional
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

42
organization, from the local district office, to the local school sites, to ensure a cohesive
education program, proper alignment between school goals and instruction, and effective
professional development that contains the identified effective components. Although the
challenges to student improvement and achievement are many, beginning with well prepared
teachers is a promising starting point.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

43
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
There is a consensus in the extant literature that effective professional development (PD)
is key to sustained student learning, student achievement, and the overall success of an
educational program (Borko, 2004; Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001; Gersten et al., 1997).
Although teachers are at the core of what drives professional development, they have little or no
input on the contents or type of training they receive. Because of educational legislation, most
recently No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and now the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) the
focus of instruction has shifted from high stakes accountability testing to a more robust set of
standards where students must demonstrate content knowledge, understanding and college
readiness (Marrongelle et al., 2013). These new standards were designed to include rigorous
content and application of knowledge through higher order skills that lead to a deep
understanding of the concepts studied. The CCSS expectations were established by governors,
educators and school leaders in an effort to have uniform school curriculums, instruction, and
assessments across states to best prepare students for the demands of postsecondary education
and the modern work place (Marrongelle et al., 2013). As teachers prepare to change the way
they present and deliver instruction, it is important to identify how they are being supported in
this transition. Marrongelle et al. (2013) assert that the successful implementation of the new
standards hinges on the success of professional development and how these systems respond to
the new academic demands. The state of California also identifies quality professional learning
opportunities for educators as critical to the success of the CCSS system (CDOE, 2013). At
conception, the CCSS included English Language Arts and Mathematics, updated by Senate Bill
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

44
1200 in 2012 to include English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,
and Technical Subjects. An additional change was made in March, 2013 to include the College
and Career Readiness Anchor Standards and technical changes (CDOE, 2013). Although these
standards provide instructional guidelines for the core disciplines included, non-core subjects,
such as foreign languages and fine arts are excluded. Those courses, traditionally viewed as
electives, have become part of the academic requirements for students who wish to apply to a
four-year university. Those classes are actively being offered in schools across the nation, with
teachers who are expected to be highly qualified in their content area, and entitled to meaningful,
effective, and need-based professional development opportunities. The question that arises is, if
PD is going to be tailored to support the CCSS initiative, where will support for the non-core
subjects come from? This study aims to uncover non-core teacher beliefs about the adequacy and
effectiveness of current professional development available in a market that is clearly geared
towards core subjects.
Research Questions
According to Maxwell (2013), the function of research questions is to specifically explain
what the study is intended to learn or understand. This study examined in what ways teachers
that did not teach common core subjects were supported in terms of the professional
development available to them. The first question examined whether there were professional
development opportunities tailored specifically to address the instructional needs of non-core
teachers. The second question addressed professional development from the educators
perspective in terms of whether the current PD opportunities were valuable and/or effective in
improving their practice. The data gathered from the third question yielded important
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

45
information about what components should be considered when designing professional
development programs. The following research questions guided the study:
1. As of summer, 2014, what, if any, professional development is currently available to
non-core teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District around Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)?
a. What do these professional development opportunities look like in terms of
structure (workshop, classes, on/off site in-service)?
b. Who is responsible for creating, developing, and facilitating PD? At the
district level? At the school site level?
c. What is the school principal’s role in the professional development
opportunities?
2. From a non-core teacher’s perspective, what are the strengths and limitations of
current PD focused on CCSS? From a principal’s perspective?
3. How can these perspectives inform in the current PD development process? What do
the perspectives suggest for how PD can/needs to be improved?
Research Design
In order to answer the research questions, a mixed design approach using both qualitative
and quantitative data was used for this study. Qualitative and quantitative methods are not
simply a different way of doing the same thing, but rather, by using different strengths and logics
different kinds of questions can be addressed (Maxwell, 2013). Quantitative researchers tend to
see the world in terms of variables, and attempt to demonstrate a statistical relationship between
those variables (Maxwell, 2013). A central characteristic of qualitative research is that
individuals construct reality in interaction with their social worlds (Merriam, 2009). The overall
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

46
purpose of qualitative methods is to understand how people make sense of their lives and their
experiences. That “reality” is a key component when answering the research questions because I
looked to identify teacher beliefs, in other words, their world-view as it relates to professional
development. Maxwell (2013) states that strength in qualitative research is based on the process
theory, which sees the world in terms of people, situations and events and the processes that
connect these. Additionally, qualitative research generates results that are understandable,
credible, and are intended to improve practice (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation, which involves
using different methods with different strengths and limitations is a strategy that reduces the risk
that conclusions will reflect biases of a particular method, and provides more understanding of
the topics being investigated (Maxwell, 2013). The mixed methods approach provides greater
consistency of the findings and ensures for validity and reliability. According to Creswell (2009),
by using more than one source of information, such as survey data, interview transcripts and
documents, mixed method design enhances the researchers understanding and comprehension of
complex experiences and phenomena.
This study was conducted in two phases. The first part was more quantitative in nature,
and consisted of a structured survey containing mostly closed ended questions. The second part
was qualitative, consisting of interviews. Non-core high school teachers in four urban districts
received an email invitation to participate in an online survey. The online survey was designed
to assess the teacher’s perception of the professional development opportunities currently
available to them. The online survey also attempted to identify whether non-core teachers
perceived the strategies and information presented in the professional development they
participated in as relevant to their practice. The online survey was also used to identify teachers
who would be willing to participate in the interview process. The teachers who expressed
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

47
interest in the one-on-one interview were contacted for the second, qualitative part of the study.
Five participants were selected for the interview process. Five high school principals were also
included in this study. I discuss how I sampled participants for survey and interviews below.
Participants and Setting
According to Maxwell (2013), decisions about where to conduct the research and whom
to include in it are an essential part of the research methods. Participant selection was based on
purposeful sampling because I needed to specifically obtain survey and interview responses from
non-core teachers to understand and gain insight from the different perspectives towards
professional development (Merriam, 2009). In addition, Maxwell (2013) asserts that selecting
individuals that can provide you with the information you need to answer your research question
is the most important consideration in qualitative research. Four urban school districts were
selected based on proximity and convenience to the researcher. Participants for this study were
purposefully selected from the four urban school districts through the district’s website. I reached
out, through email, to the department chairs of non-core subjects in ten local high schools. I
obtained the department chair’s email through the school website. In the email, I introduced
myself, stated the purpose of my email and study, and asked for their support in reaching out to
the non-core teachers in their departments. The teachers sampled had to meet the following
criteria: (a) the participants had to teach a non-core subject, identified as a foreign language or
fine art; and (b) the participants had to have a minimum of three year experience at the teaching
field. This information was also contained in the email sent out to the department chairs, and
served as a candidate pre-screening process. If the teachers met the criteria and were interested in
participating, I obtained their email address and sent out the survey through Qualtrics. Teaching
experience was an important component for this study because teachers had to have been in the
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

48
profession long enough to discern between effective and ineffective professional development.
Additionally, teachers that had been in the classroom for three or more years had the opportunity
to participate in PD activities and potentially apply the presented practices and strategies into
their daily lessons, again, provided with an opportunity to determine whether what was presented
was useful or not. There was no specific setting for this study. Participants that responded to the
survey were located in high schools within the four urban school districts selected by the
researcher. The interviews were conducted at various locations, based on participant availability.
In addition to the five non-core teachers, five high school principals were invited to
participate in the interview portion of the study, they did not take the online survey. Principals
often times make many decisions involving professional development. Obtaining a principal’s
perspective on PD practices offered an administrative viewpoint, as well as more detailed
information about professional development models used at their school site. Interviewing both
teachers and principals yielded richer qualitative data and provided broader answers to the
research questions thus better substantiating the findings.
Data Collection
For this study, surveys, documents, and interviews were used as data collecting tools to
help answer the research questions. Surveys are information collection methods used to
describe, compare or explain individual and societal knowledge, feelings, values, preferences
and behavior (Fink, 2013). Participants received an email invitation to complete a ten question
email survey. The participants were non-core subject high school teachers selected from the
faculty list available on each school’s website within the four selected districts. Qualtrics, which
is an online data collection tool, was used to disseminate and collect survey information from the
participants. Question ten of the survey asked participants whether they would be interested in
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

49
taking part in an individual interview. Those respondents that expressed interest were sought out
and interview arrangements were made. Principal participants received an email invitation to
participate in the interview. The purpose of the interviews was to further explore teacher and
principal perceptions about current professional development. The interview consisted of six
open-ended questions for teachers and five open-ended questions for principals. According to
Merriam (2009), less structured interview formats allow individuals to define the world in unique
ways, by means of open-ended questions. The semistructured interview protocol allowed
respondents more flexibility and provided rich responses. Since I wanted specific information
from all respondents on the issue to be explored, this type of interview was more conducive than
informal/unstructured. Merriam (2009) also states that documents as a data collection strategy,
are a useful, ready-made source for the investigator. Most schools have a professional
development calendar or agenda that depicts the dates and content of PD activities for the school
year, as aligned with district requirements. Teachers and principals that participated in the
interview part of the study were asked if this type of document was available at their school site,
and if so, to provide the researcher a copy. The purpose of the school site PD agenda is to
examine the type of activities teachers participate in. That information is of particular interest
because this study aimed to uncover professional development available to non-core teachers and
the agenda provides a clear picture of PD themes and activities.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of both organizing and making sense out of the data
(Merriam, 2009). Data management is an integral component of data analysis, which includes
organizing data into variables, naming and coding them by assigning categories based on similar
and recurring themes so they can be analyzed (Fink, 2013). Surveys are based on descriptive
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

50
statistics. Descriptive statistics provide simple summaries about the sample and responses to
some or all the questions and form the basis for quantitative analysis of survey data (Fink, 2013).
In order to identify themes, each survey question was categorized according to answer choice
frequency. This was done for all surveys collected.
For the interviews I conducted, I recorded and took notes. After each interview, I listened
to the recording again as I read my notes, and wrote down things that I might have missed. I
completed this procedure for the ten interviews to ensure I captured everything the respondent
said. I continued the coding process by reading through the interview notes, and highlighting
words or phrases that were repeated. For the interview notes, I separated the questions on the
interview protocol in sections, and looked for key words or ideas that may have been mentioned
by all respondents and placed them in categories. This approach, according to Maxwell (2013)
allows one to organize the data into broader themes or segments that seem important or
meaningful in some way by marking what is of interest in the text. This process allowed for the
discovery of recurring themes in each of the participants responses. Once the main themes were
identified, further coding of the data was done to identify similarities and differences and focus
on those relationships as categorizing strategies, using RQ 1: As of summer, 2014, what, if any,
professional development is currently available to non-core teachers in urban school districts
around Common Core State Standards (CCSS)? as the grounding point of the coding focus
(Maxwell, 2013). The way I coded the data connected to the three research questions by
identifying key concepts and themes that provided answers by revealing contiguity-based
relations or connections between things, in addition to similarities and differences (Maxwell,
2013).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

51
Limitations and Trustworthiness
As Merriam (2009) states, all research is concerned with producing valid and reliable
knowledge in an ethical manner. This is especially true for professionals in applied fields
because as practitioners they implement strategies presented in research. Because the focus of
qualitative research is to understand people, their experiences and how they create meaning in
their world, it is important to take steps to ensure there are strategies and criteria in place that
will make the research trustworthy. One of the ways I addressed validity in this study was by
using triangulation. The use of online surveys and interviews provided multiple sources of data
collection, a strategy that increased the credibility of the findings (Merriam, 2009). A limitation
of this study was the objectivity of the researcher or researcher bias, which according to Maxwell
(2013) is the researcher’s values and expectations that may influence the conduct and
conclusions of the study. As a non-core teacher, it was imperative that I construct survey and
interview questions that reflected the voice and opinions of the teachers, not my own. To ensure
this was the case, the survey and interview questions were read and analyzed by a colleague, also
a non-core teacher, who had no personal stakes in this study. A second limitation to this study
was the sample size. The research questions were centered around non-core teacher perspectives,
with data collected in only four urban school districts, therefore the results may not have been
representative of the entire non-core teacher population in California. A third limitation to this
study was response objectivity because the researcher was confined to the parameters of
participant selection and the voice of the particular individuals who participated in the survey
and interviews.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

52
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This study examined the professional development opportunities available to the non-
core high school teacher, specifically World Languages. The majority of school districts offer
professional development specific to what are considered the core subjects, Language Arts,
Mathematics, Social Science and Science, yet they are not always tailored to the needs of all
teachers. The rise of the common core state standards (CCSS) has created a sense of urgency for
the teaching profession to very quickly shift and change their pedagogy in order to appropriately
prepare students. This need for reform began at the national level, with the conception of the new
CCSS, and has successively impacted education at the state, district, and local levels. As
recognized by the state of California, in order for the CCSS to be successfully implemented,
professional development opportunities, which emphasize building teacher capacity through
professional development are key (CDOE, 2013).
At inception, the design of this study was mixed methodology, with both quantitative and
qualitative data collection methods in place. The quantitative portion consisted of a ten question
online survey for teachers done through Qualtrics. Principals did not participate in the online
survey. The qualitative portion consisted of semi-structured interviews, with questions
developed purposefully to help answer the three research questions. Teachers answered six
questions specifically designed for practitioners and principals answered six questions
specifically designed for administrators (see Appendices A and B). The multiple data points
would minimize the limitations and maximize the strengths of the existing data and provide a
more comprehensive response to the research questions than a single source of data. The online
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

53
survey yielded a very low response rate, practically zero, so it was decided by the researcher to
not pursue this data avenue and focus on the qualitative data.
The qualitative data is presented as it relates to each of the research questions organized
into themes that emerged during analysis. The teacher and principal data are presented together
in order to capture both the similarities and differences between perspectives of what is
considered effective professional development. Although non-core teachers include foreign
language and fine arts, the sample represented in this study only includes foreign language
because of a limitation of the recruitment strategies allowed.
School District and School Site Information
Four urban, K-12 school districts located in Southern California are represented in this
study. For anonymity, districts have been coded by numbers and will be referred to as District 1,
District 2, District 3 and District 4. Below is a general description of each district and the
professional development practices it follows.
District 1 consists of twenty schools, 1200 employees and 16,200 students (Ed-Data,
2014). This district follows a very structured professional development schedule, where the
professional development calendar is developed and finalized by May of the previous school
year, with minor revisions done during summer. Professional development is extensive, both at
the district and school site level. At the district level, there are four mandated lessons per year
that each school site must carry out, with each lesson consisting of four modules that have to be
delivered in a consecutive four-week period. The district contracts with a consulting company
that provides scripted lessons for these modules. At the school site, there is a Common Core
team, comprised of the principal, assistant principal, and 4 core teacher leaders. This team
attends each mandated lesson at the district office, then facilitate at the school site to “teach” the
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

54
scripted lessons to the rest of the faculty. In order to accommodate for the time spent on
professional development, the school is on a modified bell schedule, where students end the
school day 1 hour earlier every Monday. This was made possible by offering classes outside of
the regular school day, which is from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The school now offers a zero and seventh
period, before and after school, and about one third of the student body take those classes. The
state of California education codes requires school districts to provide 180 instructional days and
1080 instructional hours in grades 9-12 (CDOE, 2011). Adding those two periods allowed the
administration to be in compliance with the required state mandated instructional minutes and to
be able to provide teachers with one weekly hour of professional development. There are two
teacher participants and one principal that belong to this school district and school site.
District 2 consists of thirty-one schools, 2600 employees and 27,000 students (Ed-Data,
2014). This district also follows a very structured professional development schedule. There are
three district mandated modules that each school site has to implement during the school year.
Every school site has a team of teachers called the “common core learning leaders.” This team is
district created and participants are selected, by district administrators, through an application
process based on what applicant best represents the school. There are usually five to six learning
leaders per site, one from each content area. This is an additional paid, 50 hours a year
assignment. The learning leaders, in collaboration with district personnel create the training
modules which become the core of the professional development master plan for the school year.
The professional development days and focus are set by May of the previous school year.
In order to accommodate teacher professional development, both school sites represented
in the study from District 2 are on a modified bell schedule. Both school sites operate on
“banked” time, which is adding additional instructional minutes to the bell schedule four days of
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

55
the week, to be able to release students earlier or arrive later on the 5
th
day. By banking time,
schools ensure they are in compliance with the required instructional minutes mandated by the
state of California. School site one has banked instructional time by incorporating a zero and
seventh period to allot for nineteen minimum days designated for PD throughout the school year.
On minimum days, the instructional day ends early and teachers have two hours of professional
development. These days are scheduled twice a month, and alternate between Mondays and
Fridays depending on PD focus.
School site two also has “banked” instructional time that was achieved by incorporating a
zero and seventh period. By doing so, every Friday students arrive to school one hour later,
providing teachers one weekly hour of professional development.
At both school sites there is an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) comprised of
administrators, department chairs, counselors and the common core learning leaders. The ILT is
responsible for presenting the district mandated modules to the faculty, in addition to creating
school need based PD. This leadership team looks at the PD provided by the district, discerns
specific school needs and generates a PD plan for the year. There are five participants
representing this district, one principal and two teachers from school site one, and one principal
and one teacher from school site two.
District 3 consists of thirty-four schools, 2000 employees and 19,000 students (Ed-Data,
2014). Like Districts 1 and 2, District 3 also follows a structured professional development
schedule that school sites must implement. Teachers participate in contracted professional
development time, every Monday for 1 hour and 45 minutes. This is a district wide practice. The
Mondays alternate between “A” and “B,” where “A” Mondays are district mandated with a
specific focus and “B” Mondays are teacher discretionary, where teachers can collaborate with
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

56
colleagues or lesson plan. In order to accommodate for this PD time, every school has an
extended day Tuesday through Friday. On Mondays high school students arrive late, and middle
and elementary school students leave early.
Unlike Districts 1 and 2, District 3 does not provide school sites with uniform, district
developed trainings or modules, nor does it have a themed, pre-established PD agenda for the
school year with specific instructional focus areas. This model provides individual school sites
flexibility, but lack of cohesiveness in program development, implementation and use of district
wide strategies. According to Ravitch (2010), a well-conceived, cohesive curriculum is key to a
good education. Therefore, although there is district mandated PD time, individual school sites
have autonomy on what type of professional development is offered to teachers. This practice is
consistent with research, that states effective professional development must be school and
teacher-need based, applicable to practice and provide the opportunity to implement strategies,
feedback and alignment to school goals (Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al., 2001; Gersten et al.,
1997).
One principal representing District 3 participated in this study, there were no teacher
participants from this district. The school site representing District 3 follows the PD agenda as
mandated per the district. The school site also has an ILT on campus, made up of department
chairs, librarian, one counselor and the administrative team. The ILT meets monthly to discuss
and determine how to address the focus of what professional development has already been
presented, discern whether a certain topic should be further explored and to plan future PD.
District 4 has four schools, 300 employees and 3200 students (Ed-Data, 2014). It is a
small, high performing district with very different PD practices based on student and teacher
needs. Unlike the previously mentioned districts, District 4 does not have district mandated PD,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

57
nor is there a professional development plan. The teacher union negotiates professional
development days within the labor contract and those days are placed on the academic calendar
for the year. Teachers in this district participate in a total of seven professional development
days, three are conducted before the beginning of the school year, and four are carried out
throughout the year. All seven days are pupil free days. The administration at the school site
determines the PD topics and themes, with literacy being a school wide focus. One principal
representing District 4 participated in the study, there were no teacher participants from this
district.
Participants
Participants for this study were five high school foreign language teachers (Spanish and
French) and five high school principals. The teachers and principals collectively represent four
urban school districts and five high schools within those districts with varying student
demographics, socioeconomic status, and financial needs. The teachers and principals were not
matched per district or school site. All districts and school sites in this study participate in
professional development activities. The rationale for interviewing teachers and principals was
to gather both the administrative and practitioners perspective on the professional development
opportunities available. In many cases, the same workshop can be viewed as effective and useful
by an administrator and irrelevant and not applicable to practice by a teacher. Identifying these
discrepancies through specific interview questions for both principals and teachers helped
uncover some of the disparities in perception between what the district and school administration
see as effective professional development opportunities, versus what the teachers think of the
same mentioned trainings.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

58
In order to accurately report findings and maintain confidentiality, participants, schools
and school districts were assigned a number during coding. Please see Tables 1 and 2 below.

Table 1
Teacher Information

Teaching Experience Subject Taught District and School Site
Teacher 1 14 years French 1 and 1
Teacher 2 13 years Spanish 1 and 1
Teacher 3 7 years Spanish 2 and 2
Teacher 4 26 years French 2 and 2
Teacher 5 14 years French 2 and 3

Table 2
Principal Information

Administrative
Experience
Years as principal
at current site
District and
School Site
Principal 1 7 years 2 years 1 and 1
Principal 2 8 years 3 years 2 and 2
Principal 3 11 years 5 years 2 and 3
Principal 4 9 years 4 years 3 and 4
Principal 5 10 years 1 year 4 and 5

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

59
Results to Research Question One
The first research question in this study asked, “As of summer, 2014, what, if any,
professional development is currently available to non-core teachers in urban school districts
around Common Core State Standards (CCSS)? What do these professional development
opportunities look like in terms of structure (workshop, classes, on/off site in-service)? Who is
responsible for creating, developing, and facilitating PD? At the district level? At the school site
level? What is the school principal’s role in the professional development opportunities?” As
mentioned above, the answer to this question is tiered, and will be answered based on themes
that emerged from analyzing participant data.
Theme One: District Mandated Non-Core Professional Development
Based on participant responses, two of the four school districts offer professional
development tailored to the non-core teacher, specifically in World Languages around Common
Core State Standards. District 1 offers professional development opportunities that are district
mandated, workshop structured, held at the district office once a year, facilitated by a district
“CCSS expert.” World Languages teachers get together for the day and discuss specific ways on
how a language class can be CC structured. Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 are from the same school
site, both attended the same district mandated workshop, and shared very different experiences.
Teacher 1: The district PD provided at the district office was too narrow, not innovative; I
did not walk away with anything new.
Teacher 2: The district PD provided at the district office was great. It talked about
specific methodologies one can use in a language classroom around common core.
District 1 is also contracted with an educational consulting company. An expert visited the
campus twice in a school year to meet with the non-core teachers and provide examples of CC
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

60
lessons, what teaching and lessons look like in a CC structured classroom, compared to a non-
common core lesson. Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 participated in this training, and both thought the
trainings were comprehensive, engaging and did a wonderful job at breaking down the
information.
Teacher 1: Ever since I did the training with the consulting company, I’ve changed the
way I correct and present information to the students. I’m a bigger user of the document
camera; I don’t just show them the answer anymore, I really make them tell me how they
got the answer, even if it’s really obvious to me, it’s maybe not to all students. I don’t
take for granted the process, I really slow it down and break it down.
Teacher 2: I really enjoyed the video series the consulting company presented. They did a
fantastic job at introducing common core techniques.
Principal 1 mentioned teachers had provided positive feedback on this training and was going to
continue working with the consulting company as means of additional instructional support for
the non-core teachers. The difference in participant responses is worth noting, confirming that
perceived effectiveness is based on individual perspectives and experiences, and as such, must be
taken into consideration when addressing PD opportunities and needs.
District 2 also offers professional development opportunities to non-core teachers. These
are in the form of monthly, workshop style trainings where the learning leaders from each school
site get together and discuss common core techniques the district would like every school to
implement. Teachers 3 and 5 have been learning leaders for their school sites. Both teachers
agree the training modules are effective for non-core teachers because the focus is on common
core techniques and strategies, like improving reading comprehension or depth of knowledge,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

61
which are applicable across all content areas, rather than being subject specific. However, both
teachers identified flaws in the delivery of the material.
Teacher 3: I felt the trainings were more like information sessions, things one could
easily find online, rather than actual, useful strategies applicable to daily practice. I had to
spend about a day breaking down the district training in order to make it meaningful and
present it to my department. And the workshop style is not effective for me because I
didn’t get practice time or feedback; I’ve had to spend a lot of time “converting” the
strategies to make them applicable to my practice, and without clarity on how to do that,
it’s very challenging to implement these strategies.
Teacher 5: The district mandated modules do not leave out the non-core teacher because
the focus is on strategies that apply to almost all departments. The thing about common
core, is that many of the techniques that are presented as “new”, like student
collaboration and student centered classrooms, are not really new or innovative to the
language teacher; I have been implementing those techniques since I began teaching. So
from that point of view, I’m not really gaining anything from the district PD.
Principals 2 and 3 both represent district 2. From their perspective, the PD provided by the
district is effective for all teachers, including the non-core, because the focus is on literacy, and
all content areas are responsible for literacy in the classroom. Additionally, all teachers have the
opportunity to take paid release time in order to realign existing lessons to reflect current
common core techniques. Differing teacher views on the same trainings indicate the trainings are
somewhat generic in approach and do not account for participant prior knowledge, a key
component of effective PD based on current research which is lacking in this model.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

62
Theme Two: PD Practices Inconsistent with Current Research
A second theme that emerged from data analysis is that there are professional
development opportunities available for non-core teachers, however, the delivery method is what
participants expressed dissatisfaction with. In Districts 1 and 2, the professional development
opportunities available to teachers consist of district-mandated trainings that non-core teachers
must participate in. District 1 offers yearly workshops specifically designed for non-core
teachers lead by common core experts and District 2 offers monthly workshops the learning
leaders from each school site must attend. Teacher responses reveal that the techniques presented
at the workshops are somewhat irrelevant, not completely applicable to practice, or techniques
they have been already using in their classrooms. The true point of contention, is the way the
information is presented, in workshop style, which participants conveyed frustration about.
Teacher 3: I feel the district mandated PD is irrelevant to my practice. I asked if I could
skip it and do something different, and the district said no. These district trainings are
very top down. They [the district] want uniformity on who receives the trainings, which
is basically everyone. It would make more sense for me in my practice, and for my
department to have a person come to the school site for a day and do the training that
way.
Teacher 2: We only have [district mandated] workshops once a year, where we go to the
district office. I don’t think they are meaningful because they seem like isolated meetings
we attend, leaving the teacher the job of self-reflecting on how and why the workshop we
just attended was important and should impact our practice.
Teacher 4: Teachers get trained, then train others, very ineffective district mandated PD. I
don’t learn anything new, just attend meetings. The “push” of the common core is to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

63
think outside the box, but in a manner that makes sense to the individual teacher, subject
and students. It feels like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole when thinking about
the trainings and meetings I have to sit through.
As indicated by participant responses, the workshop style professional development trainings
they attend are not meaningful, nor is the material presented in a way that can easily be applied
in the classroom. Furthermore, the workshop style trainings do not provide teachers the
opportunity for practice and feedback, which based on current research are key components of
effective professional development. Teacher participants also indicated that many of the
techniques that are presented in the workshops as “new,” “innovative” and aligned to common
core, they have been implementing in their classrooms for years. These findings raise a couple of
implications. The first is that even though school districts are offering professional development
for the non-core teacher, it is being done through workshops, which research does not support as
effective. Second, non-core teachers are voicing the fact that they have been implementing many
of the new and innovative strategies in their classrooms long before the common core movement,
thus making current PD irrelevant and not allowing teachers the opportunity to build their
professional capacity. Third, based on teacher affirmations, it becomes clear that district hired
common core experts are not keenly aware of the intricacies and needs of a world languages
classroom, as reflected in the generic design and delivery of the workshops structured for non
core teachers. Participant responses indicate a certain level of frustration with the professional
development available to non-core teachers. Closer examination reveals a few key factors that
merit detailed attention by both school districts and school sites, such as the delivery method of
district mandated PD, the focus of the workshops as they relate to a world languages classroom,
and accounting for teacher knowledge when developing PD programs.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

64
Summary Research Question One
Research shows that in order for professional development to be effective, it must take
into account teacher knowledge, be related to practice, and provide the opportunity for modeling,
practice and feedback. Research Question One asked, “As of summer, 2014, what, if any,
professional development is currently available to non-core teachers in urban school districts
around Common Core State Standards (CCSS)? What do these professional development
opportunities look like in terms of structure (workshop, classes, on/off site in-service)? Who is
responsible for creating, developing, and facilitating PD? At the district level? At the school site
level? What is the school principal’s role in the professional development opportunities?” The
findings in this study indicate that there are professional development opportunities available to
the non-core teacher, however, it is mainly offered in workshop type style, which current
research indicates is ineffective.
Results to Research Question Two
The second research question in this study asked, “From a non-core teacher’s perspective,
what are the strengths and limitations of current PD focused on CCSS? From a principal’s
perspective?” Findings are discussed in the form of identified themes within the strengths and
limitations.
Theme One: Strengths
Based on participant responses, all 5 teachers recognized that there are strengths to the
common core state standards professional development they participate in. This is in part
because many of the strategies and techniques that are presented in most of the district trainings
they participate in, the teachers have been implementing in their classrooms for many years.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

65
Three identified strengths emerged from participant responses: (1) additional time to teach more
in depth, (2) consistency in delivery of instructional program, and (3) increased student literacy.
1. Additional time to teach more in depth. Part of what sets the common core state
standards aside from previous standards, is the way teachers need to teach and students need to
learn. Gone are the days where practitioners need to rush through a textbook and assessment
tools require students to select the correct of four answer choices. Students now are required to
justify and explain an answer, along with providing a rationale as to how that answer was
reached. Students must carefully read and analyze material, make connections between ideas,
and really understand the material presented, with the teacher facilitating the process. This
process is what affords teachers the time to slow down the pace and tap into students’ depth of
knowledge. All teacher participants highlighted this as a strength of the new standards.
Teacher 1: I am now able to take more time when teaching new material. I can also use
authentic sources, which in French, it’s naturally more difficult for students and would
take up more time. I don’t have to rush any more. I am able to break lessons down into
more steps and allow time for students to process, and make connections; and I ask
questions: “how do you know that?”, “where did you find the information?” It’s just so
much better not to rush.
Teacher 4: I don’t feel the common core strategies are much different from what I’ve
been doing, just a different approach. What’s new to me, is that I now combine strategies
together that I had previously been using separately. I do this mostly in reading, and that
is where the slower pace helps the students; they are not necessarily doing “authentic
readings,” but because of time, more of it, and I notice students are becoming more
literate.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

66
As indicated by the participants, they are already noticing an increase in student
knowledge by having the time to thoroughly analyze a text and have classroom discussions.
2. Consistency in delivery of instructional program. As indicated by research, student
success hinges on a structured, cohesive curriculum, appropriate assessments, and well-educated
teachers with the capacity to deliver high quality instruction to students (Elmore, 2003; Ravitch,
2010). Various types of assessments have been the norm to measure student achievement,
however, student knowledge is not always accurately reflected because students have difficulty
understanding the relevance between the purpose of assessments in relation to academic
achievement standards (Smith, Worsfold, Davies, Fisher, & McPhail, 2013). The common core
initiative is facilitating those key factors by creating classroom environments where specific
techniques and strategies allow for those conditions to exist and develop. Professional
development is at the forefront of this reform by helping build teacher capacity through
workshops and trainings that highlight school wide efforts and instructional planning. This clear
and consistent focus is seen across all content areas and is slowly becoming the driving force
behind increased student knowledge and achievement. As indicated by participant responses,
school wide strategies are improving their practice.
Teacher 3: For the last two years, we have been implementing 2 or 3 school wide
strategies based on district modules. Some of the strategies, like essential questions, have
been hard for me to incorporate into my lessons, because I’m not sure how to apply them.
Others, like DOK (depth of knowledge), although challenging to implement, I was able to
slowly do it and see the instructional benefits. I think it helps that, for the most part,
students are getting that in all of their classes, so it’s not just me trying to explain it, they
get it.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

67
Teacher 5: The district mandated modules focused on techniques and strategies to
improve reading comprehension, like close reading and text analysis. These strategies can
be applied by all content areas. I’ve been doing more student collaboration and student
centered classroom; because many more teachers are doing that as well, I’ve noticed a
significant decline in student behavior issues, students know it’s the new expectation.
There are clear benefits to school wide strategies, both for teachers and students. Just like a
cohesive curriculum is imperative for student success, a well planned out professional
development plan, that takes into account the tools and resources needed for teachers, is
imperative for teacher success.
3. Increased student literacy. According to Taylor and Gunter (2009), professional
development, respectful of the adults and their learning needs is essential for literacy. The
authors further assert that properly designed professional development aims to make changes in
instruction by integrating literacy into the curriculum to improve student achievement and
literacy skills. Emphasis on literacy also supports professional development being relevant to the
non-core teacher because it is not content specific. Principals have indicated literacy is a school
wide focus and strategy to increase and support student achievement.
Principal 1: The underlining theme to all PD is literacy. PD is framed around
instructional strategies and delivery of instruction, not content, which is why it applies to
all teachers.
Principal 3: The school has common strategies it’s focusing on. All strategies can be
implemented school wide. All teachers are responsible for literacy.
Principal 5: Our school doesn’t have official professional development because our
teachers are highly motivated and our students are high achieving. However, we have
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

68
recognized that with common core, there needs to be a shift in pedagogy. Students need
to understand how to create answers and justify them. It’s the same literacy, through a
different lens, using different tools.
Theme Two: Limitations
Three identified limitations emerged from participant responses: (1) the focus and
approach to current PD for non-core teachers, (2) lack of planning time, and (3) inadequate
resource allocation.
1. The focus and approach to current PD. A theme that emerged through data analysis
is that there are professional development opportunities available for the non-core teacher,
however, they are designed and delivered in ways that are ineffective and not directly applicable
to practice. Based on participant responses, the delivery method is what caused teachers the most
frustration because they do not walk away from the trainings with ready to apply techniques.
There is an additional layer that requires the non-core teachers to adapt the material presented in
order to incorporate it into their lessons. Both Districts 1 and 2 have mandated professional
development in the form of workshops for the non-core teachers, which indicates that school
districts are taking a more active role in the development of programs to build teacher capacity,
however, the PD they are providing is not necessarily job embedded, long lasting, or related to
practice. Additionally, the PD design does not allow for practice and feedback, which are two
critical components of effective PD.
2. Lack of planning time. Participants indicated that they have experienced lack of
planning time in order to accommodate for the shift in instruction required by the common core
standards. This is due in part because the professional development they attend is not exactly
designed for the world languages classroom, so the strategies and techniques presented need to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

69
be modified in order to be applicable to practice. As stated by teacher and principal participants,
much of what is presented in PD are literacy strategies that are not content specific and
applicable and relevant to all subject areas. However, this is not always the case, and often times
the non-core teachers will share PD time with the English Language Arts (ELA) group, which
focuses on the ELA standards that are not directly aligned to the world languages classroom
curriculum, and need modification in order to be implemented. When the non-core teachers
participate in such PD and have to modify the material presented, it takes away from subject
specific planning time and creates feelings of resentment because of this additional task with no
additional time to complete it.
Teacher 1: There is just not enough time to do everything. If I did everything that I
ideally wanted to, in terms of lesson design and planning, activities, projects and
everything the administration wants us to do, I would never have time to actually teach.
One can get so caught up in the re-doing and re-structuring and re-aligning that there
would be no time for implementation. It would be nice to have an extra hour a day, not
from my personal time, but school time to be able to accomplish all I need and want in
terms of lesson planning.
Teacher 3: It’s so time consuming to have to attend the meetings with the ELA teachers. I
just don’t understand why they [administration] think that what they do [ELA teachers]
and what we do [non-core teachers] is the same. It’s a waste of time for me to have to
convert all that material into something meaningful for me and my department.
A discrepancy emerged between principal and teacher responses, which is the perception of
“plenty of time” to plan, align, and implement lessons based on the common core standards. As
evidenced by teacher responses, teachers do not feel they have adequate planning time, however,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

70
principals state that teachers have sufficient time to disaggregate information presented in PD
modules and trainings, and effectively apply it into their practice, as well as time for lesson re-
design.
Principal 1: Our school went from nine hours of PD to twenty-eight hours of PD in a
school year. Each hour has been strategically accounted for. Each department receives
planning time from those hours which they can use as they see fit, administration is
hands-off, the department does PD based on their needs.
Principal 2: Teachers have two hours of PD time every other week, four hours total per
month. If teachers need more, they get release time.
Principal 3: It’s a bit of a struggle for the world languages teachers because they have to
re-write lessons and ways to deliver it. Historically, it was lots of memorization and rote
repetition, and now they need to shift from that to accommodate for common core. That
is why in addition to department PD time, there is release time available to re-write
lessons to align to common core.
The differing points of view between the administration and teachers in regards to planning time
indicates a lack of communication. This, if not properly addressed, can contribute to further
feelings of resentment from teachers and a negative school culture.
3. Inadequate resource allocation. Teacher participants identified resource allocation as
a substantial limitation in their practice. They are not referring to a general lack of funding, but
rather not having the flexibility or district and administrative support to acquire certain materials
to sustain their daily activities.
Teacher 1: My current text is not aligned to the common core standards; it’s very old and
dated, but it’s district adopted so I can’t get a new one. There is plenty of money for me
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

71
to make copies and buy the materials I need, but it’s so time consuming and not effective.
I really feel my instructional needs are not being met. There is a book out there that is
perfectly aligned to common core, yet the district will not buy it; but, in the 14 years I
have been here, my computer has been replaced 3 times. There is money for resources,
for me it’s just not being used properly because of all the red tape around what I can
purchase and not.
Teacher 5: I’m currently developing new pacing plans. It’s very time consuming, but now
with common core I’m able to go deeper into the lessons. Unfortunately I have to
supplement a lot of material. I wish I had more time, a better text book and the proper
resources. The textbook we use is very old and dated, it’s up for review next year, so I’m
really hoping the district will adopt the new textbook that is aligned to common core, that
will save me a lot of time.
Participant responses indicate a level of frustration with the lack of open access to obtain
materials needed for their classrooms. The shift to common core standards has placed additional
instructional demands on teachers, which districts and schools have addressed by placing extra
obligations on teachers, such as a more extensive and comprehensive professional development
requirements. Teachers expressed that there should not be restrictions on how funds are spent
and what resources and materials they purchase as long as they align to the new standards and
directly impact instruction and student achievement.
Summary Research Question Two
Research Question Two asked, “From a non-core teacher’s perspective, what are the
strengths and limitations of current PD focused on CCSS? From a principal’s perspective?” The
findings in this study indicate three identified strengths: (1) additional time to teach more in
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

72
depth, (2) consistency in delivery of instructional program, and (3) increased student literacy, as
well as three identified limitations: (1) the focus and approach to current PD for non-core
teachers, (2) lack of planning time, and (3) inadequate allocation of resources.
Results to Research Question Three
The findings related to Research Questions One and Two demonstrated that there are
professional development opportunities available for the non-core teacher and that from a non-
core teachers’ perspective, these opportunities have both strengths and limitations. Research
question three examined how these perspectives can inform future professional development.
Specifically, research question three asked, “How can these perspectives inform in the current
PD development process? What do the perspectives suggest for how PD can/needs to be
improved?” Based on participant responses, two themes emerged: (1) professional development
should reflect the non-core teachers practice, and (2) non-core teachers are expressing their
professional development needs.
Theme One: Professional Development for the Non-Core Teacher
As stated by Wayne et al. (2008), the intended purpose of a professional development
program must be aligned with the specific focus of the intervention and intended outcomes,
whether it is increasing a teacher’s skills set, strengthening content area knowledge or desired
changes in pedagogy. According to the authors, the way these factors are handled are at the
discretion of local schools and districts and highly impact program outcome based on
implementation. Both Districts 1 and 2 are offering professional development opportunities for
non-core teachers, however, there does not seem to be a clear alignment between the intervention
focus and the intended outcomes. This is made evident by teacher responses.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

73
Teacher 3: I’m not happy with having to attend trainings at the district. The presenters are
these experts that really have no idea what goes on in a foreign language classroom. They
present these strategies, that seem to work for other content areas, because that’s how
they were designed, but they don’t work for me. I understand there is a push for
uniformity and consistency, and the benefits of a continuous academic program instead of
an isolated curriculum, but there is a lack of connection for me.
Teacher 4: I’m aware of the expectation to incorporate the school wide strategies into my
practice, I just haven’t done it yet. I don’t think they are applicable to what I do. I know
I’m suppose to be modifying my lessons, but I have not done that either. Essentially, the
strategies that are presented in the PD meetings are not different from what I have been
doing, just a different approach.
Although Districts 1 and 2 have a clear and structured PD plan outlined for the school
year, with specific focus areas and systems in place to assess program implementation and
effectiveness, teachers are not experiencing the intended benefits of the trainings they participate
in. In their research, Cohen et al. (2003) identified several critical features of a well-defined
system, that include instructional materials, descriptions of outcome measures, and facilitator
roles. The authors state that equally important in the program development are field testing and
revision (Cohen et al., 2003). These identified components are missing from the professional
development teachers in this study participate in, yet they are critical factors as recognized in
effective professional development models.
Theme Two: Expressed Non-Core Teacher Needs
Professional development needs to be improved by shifting the approach focus,
understanding what the needs of non-core teachers are, specifically a world languages teacher,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

74
and having professional development activities reflect those needs. The non-core teachers in this
study have indicated that they are willing participants of the professional development
workshops and trainings mandated by the district and offered at the school site, however, the
theme that resonates among all participants is that the strategies and techniques presented are not
new. Before the common core movement, a typical classroom may have been characterized by
students sitting in rows, taking notes, while the teacher lectured, with very little student
interaction or collaborative work taking place. With the common core shift, the expectation is a
student-centered classroom, where the teacher facilitates discussions as students make
connections in order to understand new concepts and information. According to teacher
participants, the “new classroom” has been the world languages classroom since they have been
teaching, for some over twenty-five years. Non-core teachers have been creating a classroom
environment where students learn by asking questions and making connections between the
material presented and real life situations, by facilitating discussions in the target language, and
by providing opportunities to create original work that requires higher order critical thinking
skills. When a world languages classroom is seen through that lens, it is evident that teachers
were implementing common core strategies long before the common core movement.
The above mentioned reasons are the main explanation as to why the non-core teachers
feel the professional development available to them is not new or innovative, because they have
been using common core strategies in their practice. This highlights the point that school districts
are not taking into account teacher knowledge or specific classroom/content needs when
developing non-core professional development programs. Additionally, it undermines the non-
core teachers’ practice by not recognizing what strategies and techniques are already in place.
Professional development programs should provide teachers the opportunity to build on existing
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

75
best practices that contribute to continued professional growth, have the capability to be directly
applicable in practice, and be innovative in content and approach in order to impact and expand
existing pedagogical methods to impact student achievement and success.

Summary Research Question Three
Research Question Three examined how teachers’ perspectives can inform professional
development and what the perspectives suggest on how PD can/needs to be improved. The
findings show that teachers are participating in professional development opportunities, however
there is a misalignment between the program foci and intended outcomes, resulting in teachers
not receiving the full benefits of the trainings and workshops they participate in. Findings also
indicate that non-core teachers have specific professional development needs that are not being
met by current professional development opportunities.
Summary
The findings in this study indicate that there are professional development opportunities
available for non-core teachers. Participating districts offer professional development
opportunities in the form of mandated modules, lessons, trainings and workshops. Teacher
participants indicated differing perceived levels of usefulness in terms of the PD they attend.
Additionally, although teachers in District 2 have input opportunity in the development of district
mandated PD, both participants expressed dissatisfaction with the trainings, stating strategies
presented were not new, applicable to practice, and lacking practice and feedback opportunities.
Principal participants stated that the PD provided is very effective because it focuses on
techniques and strategies rather than content area. Analysis of district professional development
practices revealed workshop style trainings as the main type of PD offered to teachers, raising
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

76
the question as to whether these school districts are deliberately presenting material in a way that
research states is ineffective. Furthermore, the trainings and workshops designed specifically for
the non-core teachers do not take into account the needs of a world languages classroom and are
presented by experts who do not bring anything new to the table.
Teachers identified strengths in the common core shift, such as additional instructional
time, a consistent instructional program, and increased student literacy. These strengths are not
directly reflected in the PD they participate in, rather in the required change in pedagogy because
of the common core standards. Participants identified limitations within the current professional
development offered, mainly stating a flawed focus and approach. A second limitation is having
less time to plan because of the added work in having to implement required school-wide
strategies and techniques. A third limitation is inadequate resource allocation, forcing teachers to
use dated text books, scour for additional supplemental materials aligned to common core, and
needing additional time to re-design lessons. A clear discrepancy emerged between teacher and
principal beliefs in terms of available planning time. Teachers do not believe they have ample
time to fulfill all of their professional obligations. Principals state teachers have more than
adequate time and additional hours if requested.
Professional development research suggests the intended purpose of a PD program must
be aligned with a specific intervention focus and intended outcomes. Based on teacher
participant responses, these features are missing from the PD trainings they attend, resulting in
loss of intended benefits. Teachers expressed already implementing many of the techniques and
strategies presented in PD, eliminating the opportunity to expand their professional knowledge
and participate in meaningful trainings.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

77
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the type of professional development
opportunities available to non-core high school teachers around CCSS. The common core state
standards are rigorous and establish a framework for preparing all students to become college
and career ready. Teacher knowledge and pedagogy are two fundamental practices that
ultimately affect student learning and achievement, therefore consideration in the design of
professional development programs must be taken to help teachers transition to the new
standards.
Professional development is intended to broaden a teacher’s content knowledgebase and
affect their practice. Teacher learning is a process that entails an active role in the practice of
teaching, within different contexts that include collaboration opportunities with peers, and that
contribute and support their professional growth (Borko, 2004; Butler et al., 2004; Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The shift to a common set of standards has changed the
education system by no longer having different ways to assess and measure student success. This
is not to say that all students learn the same and teachers teach the same, but it has been
recognized that there are specific best practices and advantages to a cohesive curriculum that will
benefit student learning and success. Knowing that, the importance of improving schools,
increasing teacher quality, and improving the quality of student learning has placed greater focus
on professional development for teachers as a key way to achieve these goals (Opfer & Pedder,
2011).
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

78
There are key features in professional development models that research has identified as
effective, such as job embedded, applicable to practice, with the opportunities for modeling,
practice and feedback, and a way to evaluate its effectiveness (Borko, 2004; Burke, 2000; Butler
et al., 2004; Ganser, 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Gersten et al., 1997). Professional development
should also account for teacher knowledge, teacher instructional needs, and school wide goals at
inception. There are many components of effective professional development and school districts
and school sites need to identify teacher needs and design PD to address those needs based on
empirically substantiated effective features. Because of the CCSS, current professional
development opportunities reflect the subjects included in the core standards, English Language
Arts, Mathematics, Literacy in History/Social Sciences, Science, Technical Subjects and College
and Career Readiness Anchor Standards. Subjects not included in the Common Core State
Standards are foreign language, visual and performing arts, and physical education.
The research questions in the study were:
1. As of summer, 2014, what, if any, professional development is currently available to
non-core teachers in urban school districts around Common Core State Standards
(CCSS)?
a. What do these professional development opportunities look like in terms of
structure (workshop, classes, on/off site in-service)?
b. Who is responsible for creating, developing, and facilitating PD? At the
district level? At the school site level?
c. What is the school principal’s role in the professional development
opportunities?
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

79
2. From a non-core teacher’s perspective, what are the strengths and limitations of
current PD focused on CCSS? From a principal’s perspective?
3. How can these perspectives inform in the current PD development process? What do
the perspectives suggest for how PD can/needs to be improved?
Summary of Findings
The three research questions noted above guided the analysis of whether there are
professional development opportunities currently available for non-core teachers. Four urban
school districts, five high school principals and five high school non-core teachers participated in
the study. Teacher and principal interviews provided insight on the current professional
development practices of each district and at individual school sites. Additionally, they provided
a different perspective on the usefulness and effectiveness of the professional development
programs available. Through data analysis and examination, themes emerged that were not
necessarily obvious, but can have the potential to impact current professional development
programs, design and delivery methods. Those findings are discussed below.
The study revealed that districts do not offer uniform professional development, as there
are several layers to the creating, designing, facilitating, and approving of PD practices. One key
feature shared by all four districts is that the teachers’ bargaining unit decided how many hours
of professional development teachers could participate in based on the labor contract. In Districts
1, 2 and 3 the number of hours teachers participated in PD was equivalent, with about 2 hours
per week, as well as how those additional hours were reached, which was through a modified
daily bell schedule in order to be in compliance with state required instructional minutes. District
4 does not follow this schedule, as teachers only participate in seven days total of professional
development in one school year and those days are pupil free days for students.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

80
The creation and design of professional development falls at the district level for Districts
1 and 2. Professional development teams made up of experts decide what the school sites must
focus on and when the teachers should receive the trainings. At the school sites, the
administrative team incorporates the district trainings into the professional development schedule
for the year, based on when the teachers need to receive the trainings. Districts 1 and 2 also offer
professional development opportunities for non-core teachers at the district office. The purpose
of these trainings is to facilitate the transition to the common core standards, providing teachers
with techniques and strategies to help them align current lessons to the new standards,
differentiate between common core lessons and non common core lessons, and to provide a
platform for non core teachers to collaborate and share best practices. The structure of these
professional development opportunities are workshop, one day off site trainings, and in-service.
Current professional development opportunities should reflect the changes needed to
successfully implement the new common core state standards as well as support teachers with
this instructional shift. Marrongelle et al. (2013) assert that professional development needs to
have all the key components research has identified as effective, on going, related to practice,
content specific and aligned with school goals, and it must also focus on practices that are
directly related to classroom instruction and affect student learning and achievement. The
practices carried out by districts and school sites are consistent with key features of effective PD
models. The districts and school sites work closely together to develop a professional
development schedule that is cohesive and aligned to school goals. As expressed by both
teachers and principals, the use of school wide strategies has had a positive impact on student
achievement, evidenced by increased student literacy and cross curricular consistency. The
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

81
strategies used focus on literacy, which are not content specific and can be implemented in all
subject areas.
District created professional development has key features deemed effective by current
educational research. However, through data analysis a meaningful flaw in design emerged, the
current professional development offered by the districts is in the form of workshops, one day
trainings and off site meetings. Based on research those characteristics encompass everything
that is ineffective about a PD program. Teacher responses mirrored that sentiment and all stated
that the way professional development was delivered was just information, nothing new, not
directly applicable to practice, and had many components they had to mediate through, such as
additional time to convert strategies into material they could use in their classrooms. As stated in
Chapter 4, several implications arise from this finding. School districts are providing
professional development, however the delivery method is not supported as effective. Data
analysis of teacher responses brought to light their dissatisfaction with the professional
development they participate in, both in terms of the presentation and the district chosen experts
that facilitate the trainings. The purpose of PD is for teachers to expand their knowledge base,
build professional capacity and make positive changes in their pedagogy to support student
learning. This cannot be achieved if the programs designed to provide this knowledge are flawed
and do not produce the intended results. There could be many reasons as to why school districts
chose to design current professional development in a way that is not effective per research.
Those reasons are beyond the scope of this study and should be examined in the future.
Limitations
As noted in Chapter 3, several limitations were identified at the outset of this study, and
additional limitations emerged during the study. It was known from the outset that the researcher
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

82
was a non-core teacher, and steps were taken to reduce researcher bias, such as having the
teacher interview questions analyzed by a colleague with no personal stakes in this study.
Additionally, while conducting the interviews, the researcher did not provide teacher participants
with any personal identifying information to suggest a teaching background, nor to influence
participant answers. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, teacher participant responses correlate
entirely with their personal experiences as a practitioner. Other limitations noted and understood
at the outset of this study included a small sample size and response objectivity. Although this
did not impact the study findings, it limits the strengths of the study because it depicts the
perception of five practitioners in a field comprised of thousands.
The limitations that emerged during the study and data analysis were more significant
than those identified at onset. The first limitation that emerged during data collection is a poor
response rate for the teacher online survey. Only two responses were completed out of sixty-five
that were administered. Given this small number of responses, the data that were collected were
rendered insignificant and were not used in the data analysis. The qualitative data, however,
provided authentic insight into each of the research questions. Thus, although approaches to
capturing quantitative data should be improved for future studies, the data captured in this study
was sufficient to identify patterns.
A second limitation that emerged during data collection was low teacher interest for the
interview phase. Four districts took part in this study, and although it was not part of the study
design for participants to match up by district, those practitioner perspectives were not available.
This variable led to a limitation during data analysis because two of the four districts did not
have teacher data to corroborate or refute existing professional development practices, only
principal responses were available. This is a noteworthy limitation because disparate principal
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

83
and teacher perspectives in terms of the effectiveness and usefulness of the professional
development opportunities available to non-core teachers were a significant finding of this study.
The last limitation, which was not identified until data analysis, was the large variation of
professional development practices within districts. From the four districts that were included in
the study, Districts 1 and 2 have very similar professional development practices. District 3
shares features of professional development with Districts 1 and 2, but is missing the uniform,
district developed trainings or modules and the pre-established, year-long PD agenda with
specific instructional foci. District 4 does not offer professional development as it is defined in
this study. Although this did not impact the outcomes because it was possible to conclude, based
on the qualitative data, that there are professional development opportunities available for the
non-core teachers, it provided an unintended, narrower view of PD practices across districts.
The limitations identified at the outset of the study were acknowledged by the researcher
as relevant, but were not deemed to be so significant as to harm the findings of the study. The
unexpected limitations that emerged during the study had the potential to be more detrimental to
the strength of the study. The interviews conducted, however, provided ample authentic data to
capture trends and practices.
Implications for Practice
This study demonstrated that districts are creating professional development
opportunities for non-core teachers, however there are features that are not consistent with what
current research shows as effective. The use of research-based practices in the classroom has
become a paramount need in education (Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000). Its not always easy to
define what constitutes professional development, as classroom experiences, discussion with
colleagues, workshops and conferences can all contribute to the expansion of a teacher’s
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

84
knowledge. For this reason, professional development providers must use empirically based
evidence as a reliable method to determine key elements of effective professional development
(Desimone, 2009). It must be noted that many of the identified problems in this study reflect
general professional development problems that the existing literature has been arguing for
decades, independent of content and educational standards.
Teachers in this study have acknowledged that the use of school wide strategies have had
a positive effect on increased student learning, however some of the topics covered during the
professional development time are irrelevant to their practice, or are the “of the moment best
practice” that must be implemented until the next “of the moment best practice” emerges. Even
though school districts have taken it upon themselves to support teachers with the new
instructional needs that have arisen from the implementation of the common core standards, it
seems their efforts fall short of a well designed program. Teachers are well aware of this fact,
and although not necessarily voicing their concerns, they have become inactive participants of
poorly planed professional development programs that are not positively impacting their
practice. There has been considerable criticism of the traditional role of the district central office
in professional development, especially when it is bureaucratically organized, generic in
approach and not directly related to the instruction teachers need to give in the classroom, and
treats teachers as passive recipients of scattershot training rather than active participants in an
ongoing process of training within a community of learners (MacIver & Farley, 2003).
This study also demonstrated there is a clear difference of perspectives between
principals and teachers when it comes to assessing the usefulness and effectiveness of the
professional development opportunities currently available. Although it is not expected for
administrators and practitioners to share indistinguishable points of view, it is important that
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

85
there is agreement on key features of instructional programs, school goals, and teacher
preparation practices as these directly impact student achievement and success. When
questioning whether the professional development available was inclusive to non-core teachers,
principal participants responded yes, pointing out the focus of all PD was literacy, not content,
and that every teacher, core or non core is responsible for teaching literacy skills. Teachers
agreed on the benefits of school wide strategies focused on literacy, however the discontent came
from the way the material was delivered. Additionally, teachers felt the PD did not meet their
instructional needs because the techniques presented were not new to them, making the PD
irrelevant. This difference is important because teachers are at the forefront of this education
reform. Effective professional development is a key component in the ongoing support system
teachers need in order to develop and better their practice. Teachers are indicating they are not
benefiting from the professional development they participate in, therefore this should be
addressed by the district and the district administrative team that is designing the trainings. One
way to improve professional development programs is for teachers to be involved in the
development process of PD. Being active consultants in the design procedures is a way to ensure
the goals of the proposed trainings meet the expected outcomes. Additional benefits could
include greater teacher buy in, decreased costs from hiring outside consultants, and the
opportunity for teachers to build capacity by collaborating with peers and other professionals.
This finding is one way teachers’ perspectives can inform and improve future PD development.
It is important to consider and not dismiss teacher perspectives in the improvement of
future professional development. Professional development is intended for teachers to change
and improve their practice in order to support student learning. Districts and school
administrators are on the right track by providing PD opportunities and allocating funds for
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

86
materials and resources, however, they need to ensure that their efforts are appropriately placed,
not just well intentioned.
Foreign language teachers, now identified as non-core teachers because of the exclusion
of foreign languages in the Common Core State Standards have been developing lessons and
aligning them with The National Standards for Learning Languages since 1996. The content
standards define what students should know and be able to do in language learning and are
guided by 5 goals: (1) communication, (2) cultures, (3) connections, (4) comparisons, and (5)
communities (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL], 2012). The
National Standards for Learning Languages have been revised to clarify what language learners
would do to demonstrate progress on each Standard. Now called The World-Readiness Standards
for Learning Languages guides learners to develop competence to communicate effectively and
interact with cultural understanding. The changes were done to reflect the current educational
landscape to include language that aligns with the Common Core State Standards, College and
Career Readiness and 21
st
Century Skills (ACTFL, 2014). As evidenced by the National
Standards for Learning Languages, the five goals would require a non-core teacher to implement
many of the “new” techniques that are present in current professional development, thus not
making them new or innovative in their practice.
Policy and Professional Development
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative has been adopted by 43 states and
the District of Colombia with the first national assessment scheduled to begin in the 2014-2015
school year (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014). As recognized by the California
Department of Education, effective professional development will be a key factor in the
successful implementation of the new state standards. Because the CCSS require a different
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

87
approach, the process must begin by deconstructing the standards and helping teachers
understand the difference between the current state standards and the new CCSS (Jenkins &
Agamba, 2013). Policymakers need to be aware that implementation of the CCSS is a complex
undertaking that will take time and will affect many aspects of the education system, from
curriculum and instruction, to student assessments and teacher policies (Jenkins & Agamba,
2013).
The common core initiative represents a major step forward in education. According to
Hirsch (2012), while the new standards are promoting a radical change in creating a coherent
national framework for what students should know and how they should learn, there is a lacking
commitment to offering teachers the deep learning they will need to change their pedagogy. New
initiatives and legislation are directly correlated with new requirements for teacher professional
development to support teachers in successfully implementing the new mandates in the
classroom (Desimone, 2009).
Districts and schools are making decisions about curricular materials and professional
development related to the CCSS. The impact of the Common Core on curriculum and
instruction has become a controversial issue, with opponents claiming the standards will restrict
local decisions about what and how to teach and supporters asserting the new standards will
provide students access to rigorous academic content while still allowing for local flexibility and
creativity in curriculum and instruction (Rentner & Kober, 2014b). Districts and schools have
been preparing for the implementation of the CCSS and will soon begin administering the
assessments that measure student progress based on the new standards. Ultimately, states will
use the results from these assessments to meet federal accountability requirements (Rentner &
Kober, 2014b). The Center on Education Policy (CEP) conducted a comprehensive survey that
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

88
identified districts’ efforts to develop and implement CCSS aligned instructional materials and
the professional development provided to teachers and principals to prepare them for the
standards. Findings from the survey indicate that more than 80% of districts have already begun
implementation of CCSS aligned curricular materials, and of those districts, 90% reported that
developing or identifying those materials posed a challenge (Rentner & Kober, 2014a). In terms
of professional development, two-thirds of districts reported their teachers and principals had
participated in at least some CCSS related professional development for the 2014-2015 school
year, and the main focus was content of the standards, instructional strategies, and use of data
from CCSS aligned assessments (Rentner & Kober, 2014a).
Additionally, the CEP survey found that many districts reported providing their own
CCSS related professional development to teachers and principals, in addition to providing
principals PD on instructional leadership around the common core. State education agencies and
state regional service agencies are also providing professional development to teachers and
principals (Rentner & Kober, 2014a).
Future Research
This study uncovered current professional development opportunities available for non-
core teachers around common core state standards. It shed light on what these opportunities look
like, gathered non-core teacher’s perspectives on strengths and limitations of current PD focused
on CCSS and gained insight on how these perspectives can improve the future PD development
process. To the knowledge of this researcher, previous to this study, research on professional
development opportunities for non-core teachers around CCSS had not been conducted. Despite
the contributions of this study to the body of literature on professional development, more
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

89
research related to CCSS and non-core subjects is needed. The suggestions for future research
are outlined in this section.
Future research needs to be conducted in several areas in order to strengthen what is
already known about professional development opportunities for non-core teachers and uncover
possible explanations for current findings. More research is needed to uncover why current
district practices are inconsistent with research. According to Desimone (2009), there are two
conflicting ways for collecting and assessing the quality of professional development. The first is
to design and implement an instrument that examines the variety of experiences teachers
encounter in professional development, such as activities that increase teacher knowledge and
are directly applicable to practice. The second is to pre-determine the desired learning outcome
to be identified, such as the usefulness of a workshop, the effectiveness of collaboration or the
efficiency of technology. Desimone (2009) asserts that when designing professional
development, focusing on these critical features of a teachers’ learning experience rather than the
structure of the PD will provide positive results.
Professional development is one of the main avenues the teaching profession has in order
to remain abreast of current educational policy, be informed of new educational requirements,
and receive support in their practice. It is the districts’ responsibility to assure teachers are
receiving professional development that is aligned with what research indicates is effective, that
has a clear purpose and outcome, and that the presumed benefits are measurable and attainable.
As MacIver and Farley (2003) assert, the district offices need to support student achievement by
giving schools the flexibility, resources and support to build and develop human capital based on
the individual circumstances and needs of each individual school. School districts need to
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

90
adhere to instructional programs whose main features are empirically based, sustainable in
practice and will benefit all stakeholders.
Future research may want to further explore what is now known about the common core
state standards, effective techniques and strategies and how to incorporate those into professional
development programs specific for non-core teachers. Teachers in this study indicated that many
of the strategies presented in the trainings they attended did not provide new or innovative
instructional methods because they had been implementing the said methods in their practice
long before the common core movement. In order to correct this, teachers need to clearly
articulate their instructional needs to the administration and district in order to begin receiving
PD that is relevant and will support their practice. A useful first step may be for non-core
teachers to meet with principals and review the National Standards for Learning Languages,
identify commonalities between those standards and the common core standards, and based on
those findings collaborate on ways to make professional development more meaningful for non-
core teachers. In moving forward with the creation of new professional development programs, it
is important to consider this teacher assertion and modify program designs.
Additional research on the use of evaluation and assessment tools to gauge the
effectiveness of professional development programs by school districts and school sites should
be conducted. The literature on professional development contends that certain factors need to be
present in the design of professional development for it to be useful. According to Ganser
(2000), the evaluation piece is essential to assess effectiveness in models that focus on increasing
teaching efficiency. Likewise, Burke (2000) asserts that follow up training, application
opportunities with practice and coaching are key components needed to effect change in teacher
performance after the initial introduction of a new theory or instructional strategy. The
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

91
mentioned characteristics are lacking in the professional development models used by the
districts that participated in this study. Legislators and local school districts have identified the
importance of professional development for continued student learning and achievement. To
secure continued instructional support for teachers and student success, it is imperative that PD
models reflect the identified effective features.
Further research can seek to understand the relationship between district provided PD and
the influence current legislation and policy hold over the design and development of such
programs in terms of content, frequency and stakeholders involved. Based on the CEP survey
results, about one third of participating districts reported hiring for-profit organizations,
institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations as providers of CCSS related
professional development (Rentner & Kober, 2014a). Hiring outside entities to provide
professional development can infringe on the PD provided being job embedded, specific to the
school culture and addressing teacher needs. School districts should be mindful of this and
carefully select providers. However, survey results indicate that many districts are taking a
“localized” approach to developing curriculum aligned to CCSS (Rentner & Kober, 2014a).
Another challenge districts may face is timing problems in introducing the common core aligned
curriculum, as the tasks the standards demand are rigorous and time consuming to implement.
Most states will administer the new assessments in Spring 2015, whether instructional goals have
been met and students are adequately prepared. Soon after test results are released, education
leaders will attach consequences to the assessments, such as decisions about school interventions
and teacher evaluations (Rentner & Kober, 2014b). Future research will have to focus on
whether the new instructional strategies and aligned curriculum are preparing students for the
new assessments, and if the assessments are accurately measuring student mastery of the
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

92
standards. Additionally, researchers will have to identify if the current professional development
opportunities available are providing teachers with the necessary support to increase student
achievement, and whether state leaders and policy makers are more or less involved depending
on testing outcomes.
Conclusions
This study aimed to contribute to the existing body of literature on professional
development, specifically professional development opportunities available to non-core high
school teachers. Much of the research available on professional development focuses on
effective and ineffective components (Borko, 2004; Burke, 2000; Butler et al., 2004; Ganser,
2000; Garet et al., 2001; Gersten et al., 1997), implementation strategies and challenges (Borko,
2004; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Garet et al., 2001; Little, 1993; Wayne et al.,
2008), and policy (Cohen, 1995; Elmore, 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Jackson, 2005; MacIver &
Farley, 2003; Ovando & Ramirez, 2007; Pitsoe & Maila, 2012). Additionally, there is a growing
body of research around professional development and the Common Core State Standards,
however there is no current emphasis on the non-core subjects.
This study uncovered that school districts are providing professional development for
non-core teachers. This PD is in the form of mandated trainings and modules, as well as teacher
discretionary days at the school sites. Based on the extant literature, programs that focus on
increasing teacher knowledge, are related to practice, provide the opportunity for modeling,
practice and feedback and have well defined goals and outcomes are most effective. The PD
practices of districts included in this study fall short on some of the key effective features, as
they are workshop style, isolated trainings at the district office, and facilitated by experts that
undermine teachers’ prior knowledge. Even with the identified flaws, it is promising that school
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

93
districts and schools are providing teachers with support in order to best prepare for the
implementation of the new standards. It will be imperative for the creators of professional
development programs to re-examine their current PD design and assess the effectiveness of the
trainings to guarantee participants are receiving the intended benefits. A teacher evaluation tool,
such as a survey or questionnaire could help inform on the practicality of PD.
Differing views between principals and teachers on the effectiveness and usefulness of
current PD was another theme that emerged during data analysis that should be addressed. A
clear lack of benefits exists for teachers when professional development is intended to support
teacher practice and impact student learning, however those benefits cannot be measured or
quantified. Strong lines of communication and transparency should be established between the
district, administrative team, and faculty in order to create interventions that support teachers
with the demands of the new standards. The presence of professional accountability is imperative
in moving forward with the design and content of future professional development opportunities.
Suggestions for future research included addressing present professional development
practices in participating districts and uncovering the reason why PD design is not based on
empirical evidence of effective models. Additional research on the implementation of the
common core state standards and the type of professional development needed focused on non-
core teachers should be conducted. The relationship between district provided PD and mediating
factors, such as current policy and legislature is a topic that merits further analysis.
Teachers are the most important piece of the puzzle in our education system and directly
impact student achievement and success. Over the last 30 years, different policies and legislation
have affected the way teachers teach and students learn. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
was a game changer for the education system, requiring states for the first time to adopt
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

94
challenging academic content standards, administer high stakes assessments aligned to these
standards, and heavily sanctioning school districts and schools if performance and growth targets
were not met. Measuring student achievement using test scores placed teachers in a difficult
position by having to teach to the test, not being allowed to deeply delve into certain topics and
being stripped from the professional autonomy they once experienced in the classroom. The
newest change in education are the Common Core State Standards, which promises increased
student achievement through a framework that emphasizes a cohesive and challenging
curriculum, career and college readiness, and 21
st
century skills. The new standards are
promising, as they move away from standardized assessments and focus on deepening students’
knowledge.
With both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Common Core State Standards there
was a need to re-design professional development programs in order to support teachers in
meeting the new instructional demands to implement the standards. The No Child Left Behind
Act required teachers to teach to the test, having to cover a set curriculum by a given deadline,
and not have the flexibility to incorporate supplemental instructional materials that would deepen
a student’s knowledge. Professional development reflected these needs and focused on providing
teachers with test taking tips and time management strategies, nothing that genuinely built their
capacity. Now the CCSS are upon us, and they require a drastic pedagogical shift, once again
altering the type of professional development offered to teachers. This time around, because of
the focus of the new standards, teachers will once again regain control of their classrooms. They
will be able to facilitate discussions, help students make connections across disciplines and really
deepen students’ content knowledge. As evidenced in this study, the professional development
opportunities, although not perfect, are addressing current teacher instructional needs.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

95
The education system is ever changing. As Elmore (2002) states, practices of
improvement are largely about moving whole organizations including the teachers,
administrators and schools toward the culture, structure, and processes that support quality
professionals in the service of student learning. The ability to navigate future education reform
without compromising the quality and integrity of instruction will hinge on all stakeholders
sharing a unified vision for student success.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

96
REFERENCES
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency
guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/
publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2014). World-readiness standards for
learning languages. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/sites/
default/files/pdfs/World-ReadinessStandardsforLearningLanguages.pdf
Andrews, R. L., & Morefield, J. (1991). Effective leadership for effective urban schools.
Education and Urban Society, 23(3), 270-278.
Bird, T. D., & Little, J. W. (1983). Finding and founding peer coaching. A paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Burke, K. (2000). Results-based professional development. NASSP Bulletin, 84(618), 29-37.
Butler, D., Lauscher, H., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-
regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,
435-455.
California Department of Education. (2011). Reducing instructional time. Sacramento, CA:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/au/ag/reducingit.asp
California Department of Education. (2013). What are the Common Core Standards?
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/tl/whatareccss.asp
California Department of Education. (2015). The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pa/cefpsaa.asp
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

97
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84, 55-68.
Choy, S. P., & Chen, X. (1998). Toward better teaching: Professional development in 1993-94
(NCES 98-230). Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education.
Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 17-
31.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119-142.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Development process. Retrieved from
http://corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/#timeline-2014
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education,
15(3), 166-173.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Ed-Data. (2014). Ed-Data: Education Data Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.ed-data.org
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

98
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/
bridging-gap-between-standards-and-achievement
Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 6-10.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th edition). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ganser, T. (2000). An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers. NASSP
Bulletin, 84(618), 6-12.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based
instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 445-457.
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S. R., & Deshler, D. D. (1997). What we know about using research
findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 30, 466-476.
Hammel, A. (2007). Professional development research in general education. Journal of Music
Teacher Education, 17(1), 22-32.
Hirsch, S. (2012). Common-core work must include teacher development: Standards movement
must embrace teacher professional learning. Education Week, 31(19), 22-24.
Jackson, J. (2005). Leadership for urban public schools. The Educational Forum, 69, 192-202.
Jalongo, M. R. (1986). Decisions that affect a teacher’s professional development. Childhood
Education, 62(5), 351-356.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

99
Jenkins, S., & Agamba, J. J. (2013). The missing link in the CCSS initiative: Professional
development for implementation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2),
69-79.
Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1984). Research on teacher education (Occasional Paper No. 80).
East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.
Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
MacIver, M. A., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the Central Office
in improving instruction and student achievement (Report 65). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Marrongelle, K., Sztajn, P., & Smith, M. (2013). Scaling up professional development in an era
of Common State Standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 202-211.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
McDonnell, L. M. (2013). Educational accountability and policy feedback. Educational Policy,
27(2), 170-189.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

100
Ovando, M. N., & Ramirez, A. (2007). Principals’ instructional leadership within a teacher
performance appraisal system: Enhancing students’ academic success. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85-110.
Pitsoe, V. J., & Maila, W. M. (2012). Towards constructivist teacher professional development.
Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 318-324.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Rentner, D. S., & Kober, N. (2014a). Common Core State Standards in 2014: Districts’
perceptions, progress, and challenges. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.
Rentner, D. S., & Kober, N. (2014b). Common Core State Standards in 2014: Curriculum and
development at the district level. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.
Scotchmer, M., McGrath, D. J., & Coder, E. (2005). Characteristics of public school teachers’
professional development activities: 1999-2000 (NCES 2005-030). Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005030.pdf
Showers, B. (1983). The transfer of training: The contributions of coaching. Eugene: Center for
Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon.
Shultz, J., & Yinger, R. (1982). Developing inquiry skills in teachers: Some reflections on the
improvement of practice. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Smith, C. D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R., & McPhail, R. (2013). Assessment literacy
and student learning: The case for explicitly developing students’ ‘assessment literacy.’
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 44-60.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

101
Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal
of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
Taylor, R. T., & Gunter, G. G. (2009). Literacy leaders: Changing student achievement. New
England Reading Association Journal, 45(1), 20-26.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). The Goals 2000 Act of 1994. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/sec14307.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Laws & guidance / Elementary & secondary education.
Washington, D.C.: Author: Retrieved from http://ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02
U.S. Department of Education. (2013, February 28). ESEA: Request for window 3. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://coredistricts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CORE-
ESEA-Flexibility-Request.pdf
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with
teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8),
469-479.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

102
APPENDIX A
TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What does professional development (PD) look like at your school? How often do you
participate in PD? How is it structured?
2. Do you participate in PD that is focused on CCSS? What does that generally look like?
3. Of the PD focused on CCSS, is any of the content relevant or are any of the strategies
presented applicable to your practice as a non-core teacher?
4. As a non-core teacher, have you re-designed your curriculum and classroom instruction
to align it with CCSS? In what way? Have you been provided the proper tools and
support to effectively carry out this change?
5. Have you noticed a sense of “urgency” at your school site for you to incorporate CCSS
strategies into your daily practice? How so? Can you give me specific examples?
6. Foreign Language is a graduation and college requirement, however, it is not yet part of
the CCSS. What, if any, implications does this discrepancy create for you as an
educator? For your students? And what message do you think it’s sending?

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR NON-CORE TEACHERS

103
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Who is involved in the development of professional development (PD) activities at your
school? Are they voluntary or mandatory?
2. How do you discern what kind of professional development to provide? Is it teacher-need
based? District mandated? Do you have documents that could deepen my understanding
of the PD provided?
3. How and when are teachers and staff informed about the PD they participate in?
4. What criteria do you take into account when establishing themes for PD?
5. How do you, or in what ways do you evaluate the effectiveness of the PD provided?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Professional development (PD) are activities that teachers participate in to increase their content knowledge and skills, improve their pedagogy and afford the chance to collaborate with colleagues and peers allowing for personal and professional growth. School districts and school sites provide professional development opportunities based on established school wide goals, and identified teacher and student needs. Additionally, professional development programs reflect the support teachers need in order to implement current state standards. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are an aligned set of standards and assessments that describe what students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade. Subjects included in the Common Core State Standards are English Language Arts, Mathematics, Literacy in History/Social Sciences, Science, Technical Subjects and College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards. Current professional development available is tailored for core subject teachers, leaving out subjects not included in the core standards, such as foreign language, visual and performing arts and physical education. This study examines what professional development opportunities are available to non-core teachers around CCSS, as all teachers will be responsible for providing students with curricula aligned to the new standards. Additionally, teacher perspectives gathered from qualitative data analysis highlight strengths and limitations of current PD available, as well as possibly inform future PD program design. Study results, as well as benefits and limitations, point to implications for school districts and areas for future research.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

The degree to which the use of sheltered instructional strategies in classrooms impact student access to common core content as a consequence of professional development

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

An examination of the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge and skills in the use of text complexity

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Elias, Veronica (author)

Core Title Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/24/2015

Defense Date 03/24/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag common core,non-core high school teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Burch, Patricia E. (committee chair)

Creator Email veronicaoelias@gmail.com,veronioe@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-559230

Unique identifier UC11300245

Identifier etd-EliasVeron-3389.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-559230 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EliasVeron-3389.pdf

Dmrecord 559230

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Elias, Veronica

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA