University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of professional development in two middle schools with significant increases in statewide test scores

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of professional development in two middle schools with significant increases in statewide test scores

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
IN
TWO MIDDLE SCHOOLS WITH SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN STATEWIDE
TEST SCORES
by
Stephanie Noelle Hall
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Stephanie Noelle Hall
ii
Dedication
This whole adventure would not have been possible without the love and support
of my family and friends:
 My mother-in-law, Judge Cynthia Hall, whose generosity and strong belief in
education gave me this unbelievable opportunity. I am forever grateful to you for
making this possible.
 My parents: mom, Rod, dad and Claudia, who always support my choices in life
and give me all the love and happiness that a person could ever ask for. I hope I
always make you proud.
 My husband, Harris, my rock, who always loves and supports me – no matter
what. I love you!
 My young children, Carly and Sean; and nephews, Aaron and Jacob, who will
soon understand the importance of a lifelong education. I can only hope they too
will live their lives with an insatiable hunger of knowledge. You all make me so
proud!
 My sister, and best friend, Amy (with Paul), who is always there when I need her.
Thank you for bragging about my accomplishments. You make me blush!
 Last but not least, I want to thank my dearest friend, Jamie Baxter Lite, whose
semiannual “girls-only” trips with me have kept me sane throughout this entire
process!
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Etta Hollins, my dissertation advisor, whose
wisdom and oversight helped guide me through the dissertation process. I also want to
thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Love and Dr. Hirabayashi, for their time
and encouragement. Lastly, I want to thank my professors throughout the Ed.D. program
who supplied me with new lenses through which to examine the educational machinery.
Finally, I want to shout out a loud “YAHOO! We finally made it!” to my friends
in the cohort who began this adventure with me back in the fall of 2006. Three years
seemed like forever. And, yet, here we are…
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 2
Research Questions 3
Significance of the Study 3
Methodology 4
Assumptions 5
Delimitations and Limitations 5
Organization of the Study 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 8
Introduction 8
Documentation 9
School Reform Conceptual Framework 12
A Nation at Risk 13
Goals 2000 15
No Child Left Behind 16
The National Staff Development Council 18
Current Organization of Professional Development Activities 19
Professional Development 23
Program Content and Context Characteristics 23
The Role of School Leadership 32
Measuring Effectiveness 42
Conclusion 44
Implications 45
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 48
Introduction 48
Methodology 49
Research Design 50
School Site and Participants 52
Mountain Middle School 53
Mountain Middle School’s Testing History 55
River Middle School 55
River Middle School’s Testing History 57
Data Collection 58
Interviews 59
v
Observations 60
Document Analysis 61
Data Analysis 62
Ethical Considerations 64
Summary 65
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 66
Overview 66
Professional Development History 67
Mountain Middle School 67
River Middle School 68
Professional Development Opportunities Provided for Teachers 70
Mountain Middle School 70
River Middle School 73
Similarities between the Two Sites 75
Differences between the Two Sites 76
Context Characteristics of Professional Development 78
Mountain Middle School: Context Characteristics 78
River Middle School: Context Characteristics 80
Similarities between the Two Sites: 81
Differences between the Two Sites: 81
Measuring the Effectiveness of the Professional Development
Activity 82
Mountain Middle School 82
River Middle School 83
Similarities between the Two Sites 85
Differences between the Two Sites 85
Perceptions of the Benefits of Teacher Professional Development 86
Mountain Middle School 86
River Middle School 87
Similarities between the Two Sites 88
Differences between the Two Sites 88
Perceived Impact of Professional Development on Teacher
Learning 89
Mountain Middle School 89
River Middle School 91
Similarities between the Two Sites 92
Differences between the Two Sites 92
The Role of Leadership in the Professional Development Process 93
Mountain Middle School 93
River Middle School 95
Similarities between the Two Sites 96
Differences between the Two Sites 96
Summary 97
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 98
vi
Summary of Findings 98
Professional Development Opportunities 98
Professional Development Organization 101
The Perception of Professional Development Strategies 103
The Role of School Leadership in the Professional
Development Process 104
Implications 106
District Office 106
School Sites 107
Limitations 108
Future Research 110
Conclusion 111
Appendix A 112
Appendix B 113
Appendix C 114
Appendix D 115
Appendix E 116
References 117
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: School Profiles 57
Table 2: API Scores 58
Table 3: Similarities: Professional Development Opportunities
Provided for Teachers 77
Table 4: Differences: Professional Development Opportunities
Provided for Teachers 78
Table 5: Similarities: Context Characteristics of
Professional Development 81
Table 6: Differences: Context Characteristics of
Professional Development 82
Table 7: Similarities: Measuring Effectiveness of the Professional
Development Activity 86
Table 8: Similarities: Perceptions of the Benefits of Professional
Development 89
Table 9: Differences: Perceptions of the Benefits of Professional
Development 89
Table 10: Similarities: Perceived Impact of Professional Development on
Teacher learning 93
Table 11: Differences: Perceived Impact of Professional Development on
Teacher learning 93
Table 12: Similarities: Role of Leadership in the Professional
Development Process 96
Table 13: Differences: Role of Leadership in the Professional
Development Process 96
viii
Abstract
Administrators and teachers are held accountable for the academic achievement of their
students as measured by the California Standards Test. Because teacher preparation is
strongly correlated to student achievement, providing professional development can help
schools improve their performance.
This study examined the professional development processes at two California middle
schools, which have shown a 100+ point increase on their API scores, which are derived
from the California Standards Test. Both sites are comprised of a majority of an
ethnic/racial minority subgroup as well as a majority of socio-economically
disadvantaged students.
A qualitative study was conducted by interviewing up to six teachers and administrators,
observing professional development meetings and classrooms, and studying school
documents to examine how these schools organize and develop their professional
development programs.
Many similarities between the two sites’ professional development programs were
uncovered: a) The leadership at both sites collaborated with the district office to
determine professional development decisions relevant to their individual needs, b)
professional development opportunities largely were based on student results from
assessment data, c) the design of the professional development activity included
collaborative and active engagement strategies, d) the perceptions of professional
development activities significantly affected the impact of the teacher professional
development activity, and e) the school leadership was viewed as important to creating
and sustaining an environment of continuous learning through professional development
opportunities.
1
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Knowing how schools actually improve is our most urgent task. ~ Elmore
Schools increasingly are being held accountable for the academic achievement of
their students. This includes the administrators who must meet state wide performance
goals, the teachers who are responsible for classroom results, and the students who are
expected to meet higher learning standards (Guskey, 1998). The No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act specifically outlines accountability measures for all of these participants,
and sanctions should they fail to meet these standards.
However, gaps between NCLB targets and actual student achievement persist,
and understanding and addressing the causes of these gaps is essential to closing them.
Therefore, the best solution is “to focus state, local, and school resources and effort on
the development of strong theories and practices of school improvement” (Elmore, 2003,
p. 3). But how to focus these resources is the challenge facing educators.
Because teacher preparation is strongly correlated to student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2000) providing high quality professional development may help
create “schools in which all students and staff members are learners who continually
improve their performance” (National Staff Development Council, 2008). Although both
NCLB and the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) give general guidelines for
professional development programs, many school leaders are uncertain how to implement
them effectively at their site.
2
Statement of the Problem
Effective professional development practices may contribute to increasing teacher
knowledge and skills (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2000). However, despite the
mandated reform guidelines and extensive findings on professional development
practices that influence student achievement, many school leaders continue implementing
models of professional development that have been ineffective in raising student
achievement outcomes, and many students continue to under-perform.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study is to analyze the professional development
programs at two middle schools that have shown continuous progress on their API.
Specifically, the researcher is looking at how each school organizes its professional
development opportunities, the teachers’ perceptions of the professional development
activities, what perceived impact these activities have on classroom instruction and
student performance, and the role of school leadership in the professional development
process.
There are many variables that influence teacher learning. Therefore, this study is
not designed to measure the direct impact of professional development on teacher
learning, and it does not make any causal assumptions. Instead, it examines the
professional development process at two schools and discusses to what extent the
findings corroborate the research conclusions on effective professional development
programs.
3
Research Questions
This study aims to reveal the nature of professional development at two middle
schools that have shown increases in student achievement. The primary research
question is: What is the nature of the professional development process at a middle
school that has shown significant increases in API scores? The sub-questions include:
1. What professional development opportunities are provided for teachers, and what
are the program content and context characteristics of these activities?
2. How does the school measure the effectiveness of the professional development
activity?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of the professional development
activities provided for teachers at the school?
4. What is the perceived impact of teacher professional development on teaching
practices and learning outcomes at the school?
5. What is the role of leadership in the professional development process?
Significance of the Study
By the school year 2013-2014, the NCLB Act requires that all third through
eighth grade students become proficient in mathematics and reading (National Center on
Progress Monitoring, p. 1). This mandate makes schools accountable for student
achievement outcomes. The schools may face sanctions if they fail. A comprehensive
school wide professional development program can be instrumental in meeting these
achievement mandates. For many under-performing schools, beginning the process is a
major challenge due to a lack of knowledge about effective professional development
strategies. However, according to Stecher, Hamilton, and Gonzalez (2003) “similar
4
schools and districts that have demonstrated high levels of achievement can provide
invaluable models for improvement” and most schools “have companion schools or
districts that face similar challenges and have similar resources to meet them” (p. 34).
The potential impact of this study, therefore, is to provide information about
teacher professional development that might help inform practices at schools that are not
as successful with students’ learning outcomes. According to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” out of the five
most populous states, California alone scored below average on every NAEP test taken in
2005. These tests included reading, mathematics, writing, and science (Ed-Data).
Compared to the rest of California, Los Angeles County has, on average, a higher
percentage of students who drop out of school (Ed-Data). These findings increase the
urgency for California schools, especially those in the Los Angeles area, to develop
reform strategies to improve student performance.
Methodology
An analysis of two middle schools that have shown steady increases in student
performance was conducted to determine the nature of professional development at the
sites. A qualitative, mixed methods approach was used to understand the variations and
nuances of the activities and their perceived impact on student learning outcomes.
Interviews were conducted with staff members, observations were made of staff and
classroom instruction, and documents were analyzed to help form a holistic perspective
of the professional development process.
5
Assumptions
The first assumption of this study is that professional development is offered at
the school sites, records of the content and purpose of professional development are
maintained, and that teachers participate in professional development activities. The
second assumption is that the informants will provide truthful and accurate information.
A third assumption is that professional development will be studied as one aspect of the
school reform effort; however, because learning cannot be directly observed, findings in
this study will be based on teacher self-reporting.
Delimitations and Limitations
Delimitations are the boundaries or limits set by the researcher in the study. For
this study, the delimitations are as follows:
1) This study will consist of two middle schools in Los Angeles County
comprised of 6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
graders.
2) Both sites will have shown an increase of over 100 points on their API scores
over the past eight years. API is the Academic Performance Index which
measures the performance and growth of schools on a variety of academic
content areas.
3) The demographics of the school will be composed of a minimum of 50% of
an ethnic/racial minority as well as a minimum of 50% socio-economically
disadvantaged students.
4) The location of the schools will be considered on the “fringe of a large city”
as defined by the Ed-Data population status. Population status is the U.S.
Census Bureau’s designation of size. Los Angeles County is currently
6
composed of 86 separate school districts (the 2007-2008 school year), which
serve 1,648,102 students from a variety of ethnic and socio-economic
backgrounds (Ed-Data).
The limitations of the study are the factors not controlled by the researcher that
may affect the study. In this study,
 Both schools will be studied using a case study approach; therefore all of the
observations and inferences will be limited to those specific sites.
 Because a qualitative study design will be used, it will be important to be
cognizant of any potential subjective biases of the researcher.
 Because of the short time of the study (four months), not all of the elements of
professional development activities and their impact on teacher and student
learning will be observed directly.
 The classroom observations were limited to 10-15 minute walk-throughs at
various times throughout the day, which may affect what was observed.
Organization of the Study
Chapter one defined the professional development challenges facing educators
today and illuminates the need for schools to implement effective practices. It also
outlined the purpose and significance of the study that was conducted, along with an
overview of the methodology, assumptions, and delimitations and limitations. In chapter
two, the researcher examined the emerging role of professional development within a
school reform framework and explored findings on traditional forms of professional
development activities and newer approaches that support teacher learning. Chapter three
outlined the study that took place examining the nature of professional development at
7
two middle schools and how they organized their professional development activities to
support student learning. The methodology, sample and population, data collection and
analysis procedures, as well as ethical considerations of the study were discussed.
Chapter four revealed the findings of the research study. Chapter five concluded with a
discussion of the findings as well as implications for practitioners and future research.
8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The following literature review looks at site professional development through the
lens of the current school reform effort. Numerous school reform efforts such as new
course requirements, new curriculum, testing policies, altered organizations of
management, and other regulations and special programs have been proposed and many
instituted. However, they can easily fail to make a difference in student learning without
the “knowledge, skills, and commitments of those in schools” (Darling-Hammond, 1997,
p. 15), along with the appropriate supports such as training, guidance, materials, time,
and opportunities to learn. More recently, school reforms have focused on increasing the
amount of academic coursework and tests student take, in hopes of raising student
performance. Despite these changes, however, improvement scores have actually
improved very little (Darling-Hammond, 1997). The assumption is that the “missing
link” to increasing student achievement is the quality of instruction the students receive,
and therefore, the effectiveness of the instruction the teachers give.
Teacher expertise is one of the most important factors in determining student
success (Darling-Hammond, 1997, 2000; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 1998). Therefore,
teacher education is essential to building the skills and knowledge needed to successfully
reach each student. A number of strategies and changes are currently proposed to address
and improve teacher instructional efficacy. They include realigning the states’ and
districts’ licensing and hiring practices, overhauling pre-service teacher education
programs, offering a rich and comprehensive beginning teacher program, connecting
teacher evaluation and reward systems to the nation’s educational goals, and having
9
access to site-based learning opportunities. For the purpose of focus and in-depth
inquiry, however, this literature review and subsequent study was limited to exploring
those professional development opportunities that can be organized at the school site to
help build and improve teachers’ knowledge, skills and practices.
The purpose of this literature review, therefore, is to examine the research on the
context characteristics and program content of effective professional development
activities and how school leadership can organize these professional development
opportunities at their sites. It is organized into four sections. The first section looks at
the context of professional development within national reform efforts, how schools
currently organize their professional development programs, content and context
characteristics of effective professional development programs, and the role of school
leadership in organizing professional development activities. The historical context
examines the nature of professional development within the context of school reform
efforts. The second section reviews professional development models and how schools
currently align themselves with the NCLB mandates. The third section moves into
findings of content and context characteristics of effective professional development
activities. The fourth section explores the role of school leadership in developing,
designing, and delivering a professional development program.
Documentation
This chapter presents a review of the literature that focuses on professional
development activities at schools designed to improve teachers’ skills and knowledge and
contribute to the overall school reform effort. Although professional development has
the potential to be a cornerstone of systemic reform efforts, it is oftentimes difficult for
10
school practitioners to become familiar with the current research and also to know how to
effectively organize support for professional development activities. This literature
review, therefore, examines the history and current guidelines and findings on
professional development as well as identifies emerging patterns of effective professional
development.
This research study will add to the current body of literature on professional
development practices, raise awareness of the need for schools to align their practices
with research-based professional development findings, and suggest areas for future
research. The following questions guided the literature review:
 What is the importance of site-based professional development within the current
school reform efforts?
 What professional development processes and activities support and impact
teacher learning and instruction?
 How can school leadership design, organize and deliver effective professional
development?
To develop the literature base, I began a search of key terms such as professional
development, staff development, teacher learning, leadership, and high performing,
among others in databases such as ERIC and JSTOR. Through these databases, studies
from the American Educational Research Journal, the American Journal of Education,
the Journal of Staff Development, and the Peabody Journal were found. Published
dissertations were also utilized. The search engine Google and Google Scholar produced
articles from the Middle School Journal, the Education Policy Analysis Archives, the
NASSP Bulletin, the Education Trust, the SIRS: School Improvement Research Series, the
11
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, the NW Archives Regional Educational
Laboratory, the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, the Educational
Administration Quarterly, the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and
Teaching (NCREST), the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), and the
National Staff Development Council.
After the initial search, I read several studies and articles highlighting key authors
and pioneers in the field of professional development and then attempted to access their
original work. I repeated this process several times to expand my literature base.
Eventually common patterns began to emerge, which helped guide the focus of the
literature review and also the study. Through this process, over 30 studies initially were
found. However, the studies that explored the professional development process as one
small component of school reform were used only for supporting information. The rest
of the studies that had a main focus on designing professional development programs
were the ones researched further for this literature review.
During the process of writing, I continually searched for more studies and articles
to add to the body of findings and discarded articles or studies whose focus strayed too
far from the topic of professional development, or the aim of my study. Several studies
and articles were utilized in the final draft of the literature review. Within the studies, I
focused on a number of factors: (1) the purpose of the study, (2) the context and method
of study, (3) the limitations of the study, and (4) the findings and conclusions. Articles
and books were used to supplement the background information as well as support the
studies.
12
The purposes of this chapter were to (1) look at the history and emerging
importance of professional development within the current school reform efforts, (2)
examine the extent to which school districts currently align their practices with suggested
professional development guidelines, (3) explore the literature on professional
development activities that support teacher instruction and improve student learning
outcomes, and (4) determine how the school leadership can design, develop, and support
these activities at the school site.
School Reform Conceptual Framework
The current school reform movement advocates a combination of strategies that
work synergistically to improve student outcomes. For the purpose of focus and in-depth
analysis, the following literature review and study is framed by the school reform effort
in order to examine how the professional development process emerged as one essential
component to increasing student performance.
Beginning in the 1950s “public dissatisfaction over declining student achievement
grew, reflected in opinion polls critical of schools” (Wirt & Kirst, 2005, p. 18) and the
federal government’s interest and financial involvement in schools increased. For
example, massive numbers of soldiers returning from World War II were given federal
financial assistance to attend college, known as the G.I. Bill or the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA). And in 1957 after the successful orbit of Sputnik, the Russian
space satellite, the notion that the United States was failing the “space race” prompted a
national focus on funding science and mathematics programs. But the largest, most
comprehensive federal involvement in schooling began with President Lyndon Johnson
who, in his war on poverty, passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
13
of 1965, which provided funding for programs targeted toward disadvantaged students at
the elementary and secondary level (ESEA of 1965, 2004).
While the government continued to tie federal funds with school policy and
mandates, the gap in expectations and actual student achievement widened, which
resulted in growing concerns over providing equitable educational opportunities for
students, adequately preparing students for the workforce, increasing U.S. economic
competitiveness, and conflicting public desires toward education and its purpose (Wirt &
Kirst, 2005). It became imperative, therefore, for schools to examine and redefine their
curriculum and pedagogy to meet the varying needs of all of their students. How to
address these educational disparities became a substantive and vital issue in the national
spotlight.
A Nation at Risk
A Nation at Risk (1983), a report on the state of education, argued that
“individuals in our society who do not possess the levels of skill, literacy, and training
essential to this new era will be effectively disenfranchised, not simply from the material
rewards that accompany competent performance, but also from the chance to participate
fully in our national life”. The report found that on international tests comparing student
achievement, American students were never first or second and oftentimes last, 23
million American adults and 13 percent of all 17 year olds were considered functionally
illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension, science
achievement was in decline, and college remedial courses were increasing. This “rising
tide of mediocrity” further increased the nation’s involvement in local educational
matters as the government continued to seek ways to close this gap in achievement.
14
Findings outlined in A Nation at Risk became the bugle call for school reform.
Reformers called for systemic change such as increased standardized tests of
achievement, increased core content taught, a lengthened school day and year, increased
teacher pay, and increased federal fiscal support (Desimone, 2002, p. 433). However,
many of these approaches were deemed insufficient to change student performance; thus,
a second wave of reform began toward the late 1980’s. This movement worked toward
developing relationships between schools and families, focusing on the needs of special
groups of students, improving teacher education, and attracting and retaining effective
teachers (Desimone, 2002, p. 433). Despite these changes, however, neither teacher
instruction nor the school’s organization changed much, nor did student performance
substantially improve.
What factors, then, lead to improvement in academic achievement? In the 1970s
a body of research, called the school effectiveness literature, suggested that
“programmatic and/or structural changes at the school level can produce an environment
that leads to academic improvement” (Purkey & Smith, 1985, pgs. 354-355). The major
tenets were: (1) schools’ primary purpose is instructional, (2) the school provides the total
environment in which learning takes place, (3) schools are organic units, therefore,
improvement strategies that focus on certain aspects of the school environment, to the
exclusion of others, are unlikely to be successful, (4) the characteristics of effective
schools are found in the attitudes and behaviors of the staff, and (5) schools must assume
the responsibility for the success and failure of student learning (pgs. 354-355). This
view suggests that lasting and effective school growth and improvement involves all of
the staff members in the decision-making process, increased opportunities for
15
collaborative planning, and more flexible change strategies. They also propose a model
of nine characteristics of effective schools that any school can adapt to and use to fit
within their own unique context. These are: (1) school-site management and democratic
decision making, (2) leadership, (3) staff stability, (4) curriculum articulation and
organization, (5) professional development, (6) parent involvement and support, (7)
school wide recognition of academic success, (8) maximized learning time, and (9)
district support. In essence, the school is the unit of change; therefore, all of the elements
of reform are interrelated and can be designed to influence the individual school’s
culture. Despite a general wariness of educational quick-fixes and panaceas, many states
incorporated these findings into their school improvement policies.
By the end of the 1980s, policymakers used the term “effective schools” less
often. Instead, words such as restructuring, site-based management, professional
development of teachers, and systemic reform replaced it. Other beliefs about school
reform also emerged. Policymakers decided that school reforms should be part of the
larger context of national goals, curriculum, and testing. However, regardless of how
these terms were labeled, the fundamental focus stayed the same: a “central commitment
to all children learning, its focus on clear goals and the school as the natural site for
improvement, and its embrace of standardized test scores as a proper measure of
academic performance” (Cuban, 1998, p. 468).
Goals 2000
In 1994 the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was passed and was amended in
1996. The Act provided resources to states and communities to ensure that all students
reach their full potential. It also established a framework for identifying standards - or
16
clear and measurable levels of specific information that students and staff should know
and be able to demonstrate - measuring student progress, and providing support to
students so they can meet the standards (Summary of Goals 2000).
Although not all of the intended goals were actually reached by the year 2000, Goals
2000 created a framework to identify standards and also provided support for schools.
Under Goals 2000, the U.S. Department of Education developed a statement of mission
and principles of effective professional development - defined as a series of training and
learning opportunities for school staff designed to produce a demonstrable and
measurable effect on student academic achievement - based on analysis of the best
available research on exemplary practice and discussions among a wide range of
education constituents. Their professional development guidelines became the
predecessor of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002, which was a
reauthorization of the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) first
initiated in 1968, but compelled states to “comply with scores of stricter assessment,
accountability, and performance requirements” (Wirt & Kirst, 2005, p. 50).
No Child Left Behind
NCLB required states to set performance targets for children from economically
disadvantaged families, with disabilities, with limited English proficiency, and from all
major ethnic and racial groups. Additionally, the schools and districts must report annual
progress to the state as well as inform parents and communities. Schools must meet
performance targets or the districts must provide them with further school choices, more
supplemental services, and possibly a restructured school governance system (Closing the
17
Achievement Gap, p. 1). Federal funding emphasizes those educational programs
that are research-based and have demonstrated effectiveness in improving student
learning and achievement.
In order to prepare teachers to meet the demand of increased accountability for
the learning of all students, Title II of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act stated that
schools must prepare, train, and recruit high quality teachers, and also align their
activities with state standards and scientifically-based research, develop professional
development activities in a collaborative fashion and seek the input of teachers,
principals, parents, administrators, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel, and
also use funds to develop annual objectives for measuring progress toward these
requirements (No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference, 2007). Specifically, section
9101(34) stated that professional development will:
 Improve and increase teachers’ knowledge and management skills,
 Be an integral part of a broad school wide and district wide educational
improvement plan,
 Give teachers and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students
with the opportunity to meet challenging state academic content standards,
 Be high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused,
 Support the recruiting, hiring, and training of highly qualified teachers,
 Advance teacher understanding of effective instructional strategies that are based
on scientifically based research,
 Be aligned with and directly related to state academic content standards and
assessments,
18
 Be developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, parents, and
administrators,
 Review the ongoing evaluation and impact on increased teacher effectiveness and
improved student academic achievement, and
 Include instruction in the use of data and assessment to inform and instruct
classroom practice (University of the State of New York State Education
Department, 2003).
The National Staff Development Council
The National Staff Development Council (NSDC), the largest non-profit
professional association is “committed to ensuring success for all students through staff
development and school improvement” (NSDC’s Standards for Staff Development,
2001). Its purpose is to connect professional development with student learning. They
also believe that all educators “have a responsibility to learn in order to improve student
performance” (NSDC) and that:
 Every student learns when every educator engages in effective professional
learning, Schools' most complex problems are best solved by educators
collaborating and learning together,
 Remarkable professional learning begins with ambitious goals for students,
 Professional learning decisions are strengthened by diversity,
 Sustainable learning cultures require skillful leadership, and
 Student learning increases when educators reflect on professional practice and
student progress.
19
They also advocate three standards of professional development. The context
standards support looking at the organization of the staff and developing learning
communities, here defined as a powerful professional development strategy for school
change and improvement in which the teachers and administrators in a school
continuously seek and share learning and then act on what they learn, as well as
examining the resources needed to support them. The process standards suggest looking
at and collaborating on student data, and teaching various strategies for preparing
educators. And the content standards focus on the content knowledge and skills
associated with student improvement (NSDC’s Standards for Staff Development, 2001).
Essentially, teachers must receive professional development, here defined as a series of
school wide activities designed to improve classroom instruction with the ultimate goal of
producing demonstrable and measurable effects on student academic achievement, which
reflects the goals outlined by NCLB. And schools must provide opportunities for
teachers to become highly qualified in classroom instruction (University of the State of
New York State Education Department, 2003).
Current Organization of Professional Development Activities
Although NCLB provides professional development guidelines for schools to
follow, they remain purposefully vague so state education agencies (SEA) and local
education agencies (LEA) can adapt them to their own needs (University of the State of
New York State Education Department, 2003). Unfortunately, however, many “districts
receive little guidance about how to manage and improve their efforts” and “the vast
majority of districts are doing what they have always done” (Corcoran, 1995, p. 2).
Effective and sustained change remains elusive. As a result many students continue to
20
under-perform. The following two studies, supported with research articles, look at the
extent to which schools currently implement the mandated guidelines set forth in NCLB
and purposefully employ a strategic and sustained professional development program.
Gall and Renchler (1985) found that most professional development activities pay
“little attention to student achievement as a desired outcome” (p. 8). In 1982 a team of
researchers from the Center for Educational Policy and Management at the University of
Oregon examined the research literature to identify effective professional development
practices. They then surveyed teachers and administrators to see if they actually utilized
these practices at their sites. The literature on effective professional development
practices revealed that professional development activities were defined as successful if
they contained one or more of the following criteria: (1) the specific practice, after the
in-service, was incorporated into the classroom, and/or (2) student achievement
increased. Using these findings, the researchers then surveyed teachers and
administrators to see if they were using these criteria to determine the effectiveness of
their professional development practices. The results of their survey showed that the
majority of professional development activities were not focused on student achievement
as a desired outcome, nor were many of the programs designed for the purpose of school
improvement. It followed, then, that the professional development activity was not
transferring into the classroom. Instead, 67% of the professional development programs
they observed tended to be fragmented and designed for teachers’ personal professional
development.
True to Gall and Renchler’s findings, further research corroborates that most
school districts remain entrenched in traditional forms of professional development,
21
meaning practices that have been repeatedly used in schools, regardless of effectiveness.
In an essay that examined prevailing configurations of teacher professional development
programs, Little (1993) found that although effective professional development ideally
“engage[s] teachers in the kinds of study, investigation, and experimentation required to
understand” (p. 2) and grow, professional development activities were often short-term
and fragmented, and focused on improving classroom skills using a training model that
puts teachers in the role of passive consumers of knowledge. Her essay looked at
different areas of reform pertaining to subject matter teaching, diverse student
populations, the use of student assessments, the social organization of schooling, and the
professionalization of teaching, and found that the prevailing configurations of
professional development activities were inadequate in addressing student needs.
In his article on school reform and professional development, Sparks (in
DeJarnette & Caldwell, 1997) also recognized that professional development tended to be
one, separate aspect of a recognized, complex, and interdependent system. The extent of
professional develop activities was that the teachers were given a lesson which usually
took place over a few hours or a few days, but was rarely ongoing and consistent.
Furthermore, the teachers were often exposed to new ideas by outside experts, and at the
end of the session, a questionnaire was typically given out to assess the teachers’
happiness with the lesson (Sparks, 1997).
In 1995, Corcoran reviewed professional development activities in elementary
and secondary education. He found that despite current reform efforts focused on student
achievement, professional development activities remained isolated, traditional, and
formal. Activities were limited to trainings, in-services or work-shops where the teacher
22
spent time passively ingesting information, with little or no follow-up, limited to only
those districts with the available funding. Furthermore, professional development tended
to be top-down and isolated from classroom realities with “weak effects on practice
because they lack focus, intensity, follow-up and continuity” (p. 4).
Little (1989) also found that most professional development activities tended to
be isolated activities decided by the district office. She sought to create a portrait of
organized professional development activities and look at the actual policies of the
districts toward schools and their professional development activities. Her study focused
on a description of local policies and practices of professional development in a
probability sample of 30 of California’s more than 1,000 school districts. She found a
pattern heavily weighted toward district-level control of professional development and
that “relevant policy and program decisions reside primarily in the central office” (p.
169), not internally generated by each site based on their individual needs. Her study
also found more short-term or one-time activities, where follow-up was optional, rather
than long-term professional development focused on a guiding vision. She also
discovered that most of the sessions were taught by outside experts focused on skill
acquisition, and that teachers-as-designer and leaders of professional development
activities were lacking. Their professional development programs were largely
dissociated from their other policies and not an integral part of the school vision. She
acknowledged that her study did not aim to “capture atypical district configurations” (p.
177) that had experienced success. Little admitted that the centralization of resources has
advantages such as aligning professional development activities and supplying new
23
methods and material to teachers across schools. However, the drawbacks include
uneven coordination at the district level and ignoring a site’s individual strengths and
areas for improvement.
Research indicates that many schools and districts currently lack a purposeful,
strategic, comprehensive, and sustained professional development plan (Wilson & Berne,
1999). Furthermore, innovative and comprehensive approaches tend to remain
comparatively small overall compared to the traditionally discrete practices which usually
remain separate from the school’s goals and organizational context. Little (1993), Sparks
(1997), and Corcoran (1995) argue that this conventional model is inadequate to meeting
the current reforms in education. By “recognizing the link between staff development
and successful educational change, leading school reformers…have called for a new form
of professional development” (Sparks, 1997, p. 2). Furthermore, the literature findings
indicate the need for school leaders to start viewing professional development as an
essential and integral process of a school organization with the goal of continuous student
achievement.
Professional Development
Program Content and Context Characteristics
Why the intense focus on high quality teacher professional development? The
Coleman Report of 1965 created controversy when its findings suggested that “school
resources including…teacher quality…do not show statistically significant effects on
student achievement” (Wong & Nicotera, 2004). However, many studies have since
found that there is a strong correlation between teacher preparation and student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 1998). Today’s
24
classroom demands high levels of knowledge and a broad range of skills from teachers.
Almost every public education classroom currently encompasses students with
disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, students of a racial/ethnic minority
group, students who are recent immigrants to the United States, and students who live
well below the poverty line, among others. Without an appropriate education, these
students “will not succeed in meeting the demands of a knowledge-based society and
economy” (Darling-Hammond, 1997). In order to educate and prepare all students for
success, teachers need to be highly qualified to teach them.
Therefore, it became imperative for schools to provide “high quality” professional
development activities that would increase teacher instructional efficacy, and hopefully
translate into increased student learning. Specifically, schools are required to implement
a professional development program that is an integral part of an overall educational
improvement plan. However, interpretation of these guidelines remains purposefully
vague, so school districts can interpret and integrate them according to needs at the
school site. Because no specific road map is given, however, districts and schools tend to
implement the goals differently, with varying results. Therefore, an examination of the
professional development process and characteristics of effective professional
development activities can help guide schools to marshal their own resources, according
to their own needs, in their quest to increase student performance outcomes. It is
imperative that schools begin by examining their current practices and aligning them with
the goal of increased student achievement.
Teachers are the agent for learning within the classroom, therefore how teacher
learning activities are designed can determine how much they learn and transfer into the
25
classroom. The design and content of professional development activities are essential to
maximizing teachers’ knowledge and skills (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon,
2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon,
& Birman, 2002). The following examines some of the basic principles of adult learning.
Literature findings on the design of professional development activities and the impact on
teacher skills, knowledge, and teaching practices are explored.
Knowledge about various approaches to adult learning can be useful in designing
effective professional development. Because professional development is aimed toward
adult learning, those activities must “utilize the basic principles that facilitate optimal
learning and growth” (Webb & Norton, 2009, p. 186) for adults. According to Hall and
Loucks (1981):
 Change is a process, not an event, that takes time, adjustments, and support to be
successful,
 The change process involves growth on the part of all the individuals, groups, and
institutions involved,
 Change is accomplished by individuals, not the institution,
 Change influences people differently, and
 It is possible to influence, intervene, promote, or inhibit the progress of
implementation, and it entails growth by the individual.
Butler (1992) furthermore lists common descriptors of adult learners:
 Adults learn throughout their lives,
 Adults exhibit a variety of learning styles,
26
 New learning is affected by their previous life experiences and their stages of
development,
 Adult learners control/select what is learned,
 Adults tend to learn best through practical applications of what they have learned
and,
 Adult learners must be treated as adults and respected as self-directed persons.
Knowles and Associates (1984, in Webb & Norton, 2009) also argue that as
adults mature their self-concept moves from one of dependency to one of self-
directedness. Therefore, teachers-as-adult-learners need to be treated as responsible
persons. It follows that situations where teachers are not allowed to be self-directed
learners can produce tension and resistance to the new material. Second, adults already
have a wide body of experiences which they can relate to new experiences. Thus,
“active, participative activities such as simulation, discussion, problem solving, and team
projects” (Knowles & Associates, 1984, p. 186) should be favored over passive
instructional methods, in which teacher input is not valued. Third, for teachers, readiness
to learn is more dependent on the tasks required to perform in the classroom, and less just
for the sake of learning. Therefore, professional development activities should revolve
around performing a task or solving a problem, where a problem-centered approach to
learning is used (Knowles & Associates, 1984; Drago-Severson, 2007).
Professional development activities aligned with the standards, connected to prior
learning experiences, engages teachers in a discussion of the activity, allows sufficient
time for the activity, and provides follow up support is associated with increased levels of
teacher knowledge and program implementation (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, &
27
Yoon, 2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher, 2007). Garet, Porter,
Desimone, Birman, & Yoon (2001), leading researchers in the field of professional
development, looked at the data from a self-reported Teacher Activity Survey as part of a
national evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program from Title II
of ESEA. This federal program financially supports professional development for
teachers, primarily in mathematics and science. Their focus was to examine the
relationship between “features of professional development identified in the literature and
self-reported changes in teachers’ knowledge and skills and teaching practices” (p. 918).
They drew a national probability sample of school districts receiving Eisenhower funds
and collected a list of all of the professional development activities conducted with those
funds. All of the schools had similar minority and socioeconomic populations. Overall,
the researchers received responses from 1,027 teachers which was a 72% response rate.
The researchers gave a Teacher Activity Survey to the teachers which asked them
to describe the specific Eisenhower-assisted professional development activity in which
the teacher participated. Teachers had to evaluate the duration of the activity, the content
focus and extent the activity promoted coherence and alignment with the state standards,
the degree of collective participation, and the active learning opportunities. Next they
measured teacher-reported changes in teacher knowledge and skills as well as changes in
classroom teaching practices.
Using regression analysis, the researchers found that more time spent (duration) in
the professional development activity allowed for more opportunities to plan for
classroom instruction, observe teaching, review students’ work, and give presentations
and demonstrations. Longer activities promoted more discussion and increased
28
professional communication with other teachers. As a result, the teachers believed that
increased time on a professional development activity had a “positive influence on
enhanced knowledge and skills” (p. 933).
Next they found that content focus and coherence of an activity had positive
effects on teachers’ knowledge and skills. Professional development activities that were
connected to teachers’ prior professional development experiences, aligned with
standards and assessments, fostered professional communication, and encouraged active
learning, here defined as “opportunities for teachers to become actively engaged in the
meaningful analysis of teaching and learning (for example, by reviewing student work or
obtaining feedback on their teaching)” (p. 920), improved teachers’ knowledge and skills.
Furthermore, the researchers found that “enhanced knowledge and skills have a
substantial positive influence on change in teaching practice” (p. 934). Thus, teachers
who reported changes in their knowledge and skills believed that the new information
changed their teaching practices as well. Garet et al. concluded that professional
development that focused on academic subject matter, was connected to the teachers’
prior knowledge and experiences, and offered active engagement opportunities was more
likely to positively impact teaching practices.
Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher (2007) reinforced these findings by
analyzing the results from a survey of 454 teachers who engaged in professional
development activities to examine the effects of different characteristics of teacher
development on their knowledge and transference into the classroom. Unlike the Garet et
al. (2001) study on the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, they focused on
a relatively small sample of teachers who engaged in a specific international earth-
29
science education program (GLOBE) with a well-articulated model of implementation
and objective measures of implementation. This allowed them to draw conclusions for a
specific domain of education. However, it is also important to note that it is possible that
their sample consisted of teachers who were more likely to implement GLOBE than the
general population of GLOBE schools, thus potentially skewing their results.
Penuel et al. first explored the characteristics of professional development
activities offered in the GLOBE program that were associated with increased levels of
program implementation. They found that when GLOBE activities were aligned with the
standards and teachers engaged in the discussions, interest was higher. Their second
finding, which paralleled the Garet et al. findings, revealed that increased professional
development hours provided by the GLOBE trainers influenced whether teachers actually
implemented the GLOBE protocols in their classroom. Third, the emphasis on GLOBE
content during the activities showed a significant positive relationship to teacher
preparedness. Lastly, the researchers found that additional follow-up support was related
to GLOBE implementation in their classrooms.
Penuel et al. next explored which kinds of professional development activities in
GLOBE were associated with increased teacher knowledge and changes in teaching
practice. First, teachers reported the most change in knowledge and practice when the
activity included collective participation, meaning all of the teachers actively engaged in
the activity. Second, the coherence of the activity along with content discussions of
pedagogy influenced the transference into the classroom. Their overall findings
suggested that teacher perceptions and interpretations of the professional development
activities, “not just the design of the activities themselves, are important in shaping the
30
effectiveness of those activities” (p. 951). Furthermore, and paralleling the Garet et al.
(2001) findings, the content, duration, active learning strategies, perceived coherence,
and collective participation were significant in influencing teacher learning and
transference into the classroom. They advocate using these findings as a useful
framework for designing professional development activities, but that it is also essential
to recognize that the “configuration of demands on teachers and adaptability to local
context” (p. 952) can make some features more or less important. They acknowledged
that their research was limited to teacher reports about specific practices, and that it is
important to validate these findings with direct observations or some other independent
measure of practice.
Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, and Birman (2002), who built on the results of
their Garet et al. (2001) study, also found that professional development that actively
engages teachers in discussions of pedagogy increases the teacher’s use of those activities
in the classroom. Using a purposefully selected sample of 207 teachers in 30 schools, in
10 districts, in five states, they looked at specific features of professional development
and their effect on changing classroom practices. Their longitudinal study surveyed
teachers at high poverty schools at three points in time: 1997, 1998, and 1999 in order to
examine “the characteristics of professional development that foster change in teachers’
instructional practices” (p. 84). The teachers had to describe all of the components of a
single professional development activity they had participated in over the last year. The
teachers reported that professional development that focused on a specific teaching
practice (pedagogy) increased their use of that practice in their classrooms. Furthermore,
when teachers engaged in active learning strategies, here defined as interacting with their
31
colleagues on a regular basis to discuss their work and students’ learning, they gained a
“deeper understanding of how children think and learn” (p. 101). However the duration,
or time span, of the professional development activity did not yield any effects in their
study. The researchers did acknowledge that their limited findings may be due to their
small sample size and possibly because each teacher was only asked to describe a single
professional development activity they found effective, instead of giving them a range of
possibilities.
Wilson and Berne’s (1999) research revealed that professional development that
ensures collaboration and collective participation, focuses on aligning curriculum and
instruction, provides ongoing opportunities, is school based and embedded in teacher
work, and treats teachers as professionals and empowers them through active learning
opportunities constitute effective professional development. However, Wilson and Berne
challenged these concepts by delving deeper into the research to investigate the extent of
professional knowledge that teachers actually acquire in such experiences through an
examination of the content of professional development activities. They selected high-
quality professional development projects in which the what and how of teacher learning
had been carefully considered. The research they collected fell within the categories of
opportunities to talk about and “do” subject matter, opportunities to talk about students
and learning, and opportunities to talk about teaching. Their results shared some
common themes: (1) Teacher acquisition of professional knowledge was enhanced when
their teaching included inquiry into students’ thinking as well as instruction, (2) New
curriculum was not sufficient to bring about desired change – rather teachers needed to
understand their own knowledge in relation to the curriculum, and (3) In addition to
32
learning about children’s thinking, teachers also needed to re-conceptualize their own
teaching practices. Essentially, the key was to “engage them as learners in the area that
their students will learn in but at a level that is more suitable to their own learning” (p.
194). However, they also acknowledged that this can be a painful venture because the
process of examining one’s knowledge and teaching skills can be fraught with criticism
or resulting feelings of inadequacy. Yet the most powerful discussions often entail in-
depth examinations of one’s practices.
The research reveals that certain features of professional development activities
can impact how much teachers learn and transfer into the classroom. Both the context
and content characteristics are integral to success. When practices are aligned with the
standards and assessments, connections are made to teachers’ prior experiences, and
active engagement occurs, teachers perceive that they learn more and, in turn, their
classroom practices are impacted. Furthermore, the actual content of the activity cannot
be considered lightly. Real progress requires a dedication to ongoing discussions about
subject matter, students and learning, and pedagogy. However, the researchers do not
intend for the practices to be considered in isolation. The strength of the activities and
learning relies on a synergy of all of the components working together.
The Role of School Leadership
Large scale school improvement requires a total-staff focus on the knowledge,
skills, resources, and capacities within the school to increase student learning. For
teachers and school leaders this means engaging in learning new practices in specific
areas of academic content and pedagogy and applying these practices to students.
However, doing this first requires examining the values and beliefs about what is worth
33
doing and what is possible to do, the structural conditions under which the work is done,
and the ways in which people learn to do the work (Elmore, 2002, p. 30). This
improvement effort cannot be random innovations applied to a few select groups, and it
cannot be limited to a few staff meetings. Instead, long term improvement is a
“discipline, a practice that requires focus, knowledge, persistence, and consistency over
time” (p. 13). Professional development, within this context, is a series of learning
opportunities that enable teachers and administrators to improve classroom practice and
performance. Therefore, it is “effective only to the degree that it engages teachers and
administrators in large-scale improvement” (p. 14).
School wide professional development is not about the personal growth and
learning of an individual. Instead it is about the growth and learning of the individual
that contributes to the organization’s improvement. According to Elmore (2002), this
assumption rests on a number of concepts:
 Learning is both an individual and a social process. It also depends on structures
that support interdependence in substantive ways.
 Values and practice change in concert. Both should be the focus of learning for
administrators and teachers.
 Context matters. Improvement requires a specific understanding of how theory
interacts with the particularities of the school.
This transformation for schools does not happen instantaneously, nor is it the
result of one program or change in instructional materials. Instead it is a continuous
process that starts with creating goals and objectives at the school site, planning
programs, activities, and delivery systems to address these goals, scheduling and
34
delivering the programs and activities, and constantly evaluating the professional
development process (Webb & Norton, 2009). The following section first looks at how
the principal is integral to establishing this process, how the principal can provide the
time and scheduling for the process, and how the principal can support the process
(DuFour & Berkey, 1995; Palmatier, 1999; Angelo 2005; Youngs & King, 2002;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
A 2000 report by the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) stated that
successful school reform lies in strengthening school leadership which, in turn, can shape
the school environment through creating strong professional development programs.
Because “instructional leaders shape the environment in which teachers and students
succeed or fail” (p. 4), leadership holds tremendous potential for shaping the direction of
a school. Therefore, the best way for principals to facilitate meaningful change in a
school is by “creating conditions which promote the growth and development of the
professionals within their school” (DuFour & Berkey, 1995, p. 1). And how the principal
establishes the professional development process is integral to improving student learning
outcomes (DuFour & Berkey, 1995; Palmatier, 1999; Angelo, 2005; Youngs & King,
2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Drago-Severson, 2007).
These findings were further supported with a large-scale study by a collaborative
research team consisting of EdSource, Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, and American
Institutes for Research. The study sought to determine why some California elementary
schools that serve a large percentage of low-income students scored as much as 250
points higher on their API test scores than other schools with similar demographics.
They surveyed principals and teachers in 257 California elementary schools from 145
35
school districts to determine which current school practices and policies were most
strongly associated with higher levels of student performance. Interviewing schools that
covered the full range of school API performance – high, middle, and low – helped the
researchers understand what “high-performing schools may be doing that low-performing
schools are not” (Williams, Kirst, Haertel, et al., 2005, p.4). Approximately 5,500
teachers and 257 principals responded to the surveys which focused on actionable items
that could be implemented by other schools. However, it is important to remember that
this large sample was focused solely on elementary schools.
The first finding that emerged was that the higher performing schools prioritized
student achievement. Both teachers and principals reported that their school had “well
defined plans for instructional improvement and that they put priority on meeting the
state’s API goals” (Williams, Kirst, Haertel, et al., 2005, p. 2). A second finding was that
the more academically successful schools implemented a coherent, standards-based
curriculum and instructional program. Third, a strong correlation between higher API
scores and the use of assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction
was found. Fourth, the schools that provided up-to-date and sufficient instructional
materials along with the support for struggling students also experienced higher
performance.
In addition to these interrelated practices, the role of the principal strongly defined
the success of the school. Principal leadership acted as “managers of school
improvement, driving the reform process, cultivating the school vision, and extensively
using student assessment data for a wide variety of school improvement areas” (p. 3).
36
Furthermore principals’ responses indicated that districts that set clear expectations for
schools to meet their API growth target and provided the schools with achievement data
experienced more success.
In their article on professional development, Dufour and Berkey (1995) also
argued that principals are integral to school improvement, and that the principal’s
primary role is to “create the conditions which enable a staff to develop so that the school
can achieve its goals more effectively” (p. 1). This process starts with principals creating
consensus with the staff on the vision and goals of the school. Second, the principal can
identify, promote, and protect the shared values of the school, which are the messages of
the common purpose of the school and the agreed upon standards of achieving these
goals. Third, the principal is responsible for monitoring the critical elements of the
professional development process. This means that the principal can assess the teachers’
satisfaction with the professional growth programs and ensure that the new skills are
being acquired and transferred into the classroom. Fourth, the principal can ensure
systematic collaboration throughout the school that focuses on teaching and learning.
This might be achieved by organizing the faculty into teams by grade level or subject
area. These teams can then assume responsibility for developing curricular outcomes,
assessing student achievement, participating in peer observations and coaching, and
selecting instructional materials, among other topics. Finally, the principal is responsible
for being committed to continuous improvement of the professional development process
and sustaining the professional development effort.
Palmatier’s (1999) study of the nature of professional development at a high
achieving school found that the school attributed their success to a number of principal-
37
related activities, many of which derived from DuFour and Berkey’s suggestions.
Palmatier examined the nature of professional development in a high-achieving, high-
poverty Texas elementary school and found that the school leader was integral to
“initiating and building the shared commitment to change” (p. 140). The school leader
also was responsible for restructuring the school day and preparing accountability
measures aligned with district policies. Using a qualitative study design, Palmatier
conducted interviews, observations, and reviews of school records to determine the
nature of the school’s professional development on campus, identifiable elements of
professional development, and the staff’s perceptions regarding the success of the
professional development activities. He found that each year the principal, along with a
professional development specialist, grade level representatives, and the site-based
decision making team developed a professional development plan. Throughout the year,
teachers were encouraged to attend professional development meetings (at the district)
and were compensated for attending. On Wednesdays and Fridays, the principal re-
structured the classes to provide time for on-site professional development activities.
These meetings consisted of teams made up of subject area teachers and/or grade level
teachers. Within the teams, teachers would analyze data and engage in problem solving
to improve student performance. The principal heavily emphasized collegiality and
consistency during the process. As a result, the teachers believed that the continual focus
on curriculum and instruction had a positive impact on student performance. These
findings were further corroborated in Drago-Severson’s (2007) study of the principal’s
role in professional development. The principals in her study developed teacher-leaders,
38
shared the decision-making, and advocated collegial inquiry through reflection and
critical thinking of pedagogy to support teacher learning.
Angelo (2005) also found similarities in how a principal’s approach to school
wide professional development activities contributed to higher student performance.
Using a case study approach, Angelo investigated leadership behavior toward
professional development in a high-poverty, high-performing Virginia middle school that
increased their test scores. He looked at the behaviors perceived as effective by the
principal and teachers and what, if any, changes in the principal’s behavior had taken
place since standards and accountability measures had become more rigorous. When the
principal first came to the site, she found that the teachers were scattered into different
rooms regardless of subject matter. She then moved the teachers into classrooms closer
to each other based on specific subject areas. Next, she arranged the staff into
collaborative teams ranging from shared subject areas to grade levels, whose
responsibility it was to discuss and improve the curriculum. She also had the teachers
meet each summer to plan and guide the instructional goals for the year. As a result of
these efforts and the value placed on teacher input, teachers continued thinking and
talking about effective teaching, which began to transform student learning in the
classroom. However, it is important to note that Angelo conducted a case study so
generalization across schools may be inhibited. However, his findings can be used to
help inform the literature on effective leadership practices for developing professional
development programs.
In a 2002 study, Youngs and King found that principals who conducted frequent
professional development meetings, engaged the staff in problem solving and creating a
39
common curriculum, and focused the meetings on achievement data and instructional
strategies experienced increased school wide performance. The researchers looked
specifically at principal leadership for professional development at four elementary
schools that had shown progress in student achievement over three to five years,
participated in professional development activities, and attributed their progress to school
wide professional development. Although each school used “the collective power of an
entire faculty to strengthen student performance throughout their school” (p. 645) each
school used a variation of professional development strategies. The first elementary
school in Texas served a high minority/high poverty student population. When the
principal started, he was committed to a sustained professional development program that
featured a well-defined curriculum for teaching reading, mathematics, and a world lab
with clear student outcomes established for each grade level. To promote teacher
commitment to this process, he held frequent grade-level and whole-faculty meetings,
where the teachers engaged in problem solving. In order to hold these meetings, he
structured daily common planning time for the grade teams and monthly team leader
meetings. He also created eight additional half-days throughout the year dedicated to
professional development.
The second school in the Youngs and King (2002) study was in California and
also served a racially diverse student body with a significant percentage of low-income
students. When a new principal took over the school, he sought to maintain continuity of
the professional development strategies already instituted by the former principal. These
activities included consistently engaging teachers in examining their teaching practices.
The new principal also structured numerous forums for collaborative work among
40
teachers. These included grade-level team meetings, bi-weekly inquiry groups, and
whole-staff institutes prior to the start of the school year and mid-year. The content of
the meetings focused on disaggregating achievement data by race/ethnicity and social
class, discussing instructional strategies, and identifying areas needing attention. Not
only were teachers always involved in planning these activities, but they also helped
facilitate them.
The third elementary school in Kentucky served a similar population as the first
two schools but used a different approach to professional development. In this school,
the principal used less collaboration and input from the whole staff and directed more of
the professional development process herself. In response to low student performance on
state reading and writing assessments, she focused on implementing a school wide
literacy training program. She hired a writing teacher to work with the other teachers on
writing instruction and planned most of the professional development with the district
resource teacher, the school resource teacher and two literacy teachers. As a result of this
intense focus on literacy, teachers’ knowledge and skills did improve. However, unlike
the other school staffs who engaged in most of the professional development decision
making, this principal tended to make most of the decisions regarding the direction of the
instructional program. As a result, when the principal later switched the school’s
priorities to focusing on district mandated standards and tests, her staff’s shared
commitment and high levels of collaboration began to fall apart. Although the study does
not directly attribute this threat to a lack of shared decision-making among the staff, it
can be inferred that the principal’s leadership style contributed to a lack of trust among
her staff.
41
The fourth school in the Youngs and King (2002) study was in South Carolina
and had a majority of minority students and a high number of low-income families, along
with a history of inconsistent professional development. When the new principal started,
she came in with a specific vision for curriculum and instruction which was a thematic,
arts-integrated curriculum. However, the professional development activities needed to
incorporate this vision within the school slowly evolved. In the beginning, grade-level
teams met infrequently. Eventually, however, teachers met weekly with lead teachers
and monthly with the principal. The meetings were collaborative with the teachers
determining a common curriculum. Student performance gradually began to improve.
All of the schools in the studies above demonstrated the importance of the
principal in establishing and sustaining the professional development process.
Professional development found at these high performing schools was characterized by
(a) shared goals for student learning, (b) meaningful collaboration among faculty
members, (c) in-depth inquiry into assumptions, evidence, and alternative solutions to
problems, and (d) opportunities for teachers to exert influence over their work. By
creating the support structures in their schools that increased the staff’s knowledge and
skills, made available the social resources in the school, and created program coherence
“directed at clear learning goals, and sustained over time” (Youngs & King, 2002, p. 646)
the principals were able to build and sustain a school wide professional development
process that supported high achievement. Creating the “conditions which enable a staff
to develop so that the school can achieve its goals more effectively” (DuFour & Berkey,
1995) is at the heart of establishing an effective and sustained professional development
program.
42
The findings reveal that effective professional development is a school wide
endeavor by the entire staff, not limited to discrete trainings, or “drive-by” sessions. If
the activities focus on alignment with standards and assessments, connect to teachers’
prior experiences, and encourage active engagement by the teachers, learning outcomes
may be affected. Also the principal is central to initiating the internal support structures
and supporting the professional development process. But how does all of this actually
impact student learning?
Measuring Effectiveness
As the findings suggest, the design and content of high quality professional
development is a prerequisite to improvement in teacher instruction and student learning
(Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003) and that a quality professional development program
itself can have a “direct and primary influence on…student outcomes” (Guskey, 1991, p.
5). However, as interests in education increase, so does the call for evidence of
professional development activities on student learning (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis,
2005). Many researchers recognize that to simply document professional development
activities and what effects they have on teacher knowledge and classroom practice is
inadequate. Researchers must also look at the impact of these programs on student
learning outcomes (Guskey & Sparks, 1991; 1996; Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005).
One of the most significant findings is that there is actually a lack of evaluation methods
to determine the link between professional development and student learning (Guskey &
Sparks, 1991).
Although professional development is an integral component to school reform,
little empirical evidence on which to build the design and implementation of professional
43
development programs exists (Fishman et al., 2003) other than teachers’ self-reported
changes in learning and teaching practices. Because of the complexity of factors and
contexts in which professional development takes place, researchers are not sure
precisely which elements of professional development contribute to improved teaching
and student learning (Guskey, 1997). However, a number of approaches to evaluating
professional development activities have been proposed and used. Current measures
include incorporating learning indicators of student achievement into the professional
development process such as pre-post tests, assessment results, grades, portfolio
evaluations, journals or notebooks, observed interactions in class, and embedded
assessments in the curriculum materials. They may also include measures of students’
attitudes such as study habits, attendance, and classroom behavior, or homework
completion rates (Guskey & Sparks, 1991; 1996; Guskey, 1997). Additionally, Guskey
(1997) and Fishman et al. (2003) propose a backward design process model for gauging
the effectiveness of a professional development program in improving student learning.
Essentially, the process begins with an analysis of relevant content standards followed
with evidence of student performance to determine the areas of need.
Although the research on how specific characteristics of professional
development individually impact student learning is sparse, effective professional
development programs may have achievement indicators built into the process to gauge
both teacher and student progress, which in turn can help evaluate and modify the
process.
44
Conclusion
This chapter began with an historical background for the emerging role of
professional development within the school reform process. Although schools have been
slow to implement change, the national outcry against failing schools, inadequately
prepared children, and significant differences in student achievement has sparked
substantial changes in how federal funding is tied to tighter accountability measures, thus
expediting the reform process. And as a tool to help raise student achievement, the
current guidelines compel schools to prepare and support educators through high quality
professional development activities. Nevertheless, the complexity of these mandates
along with a lack of knowledge and/or confusion in how to implement these changes
leaves many schools perpetuating the same ineffective practices. For example, although
NCLB states that teachers should receive, and school should provide, “high quality”
professional development, there is no uniform roadmap to successfully doing this.
Instead, the research indicates that most professional development programs remain
fragmented and inconsistently executed with no comprehensive or coordinated approach
to learning.
However, the findings also suggest that professional development can address
these weaknesses and help schools improve student performance. The professional
development process starts with the school leadership, which is integral to establishing
and sustaining the professional development process and supporting the staff through
creating a school wide focus on improvement, sharing authority, structuring meetings,
and continuously using student information to guide improvement. The content and
context characteristics of alignment with the standards, a focus on pedagogy, sufficient
45
time, teacher engagement, and additional support have been correlated to increased
teacher learning and transference into the classroom. And, finally, a thoughtful system of
evaluation can help determine and modify the school’s progress toward learning
outcomes.
Implications
Students need a good education to compete in a competitive economy. In
response to this need, national reform efforts have called for increased and stricter
accountability measures, with sanctions for under-performing schools. In order for
schools to successfully meet this challenge, they might consider examining their policies
and practices in relation to student achievement. The research indicates that
“professional development can lead to improvements in instructional practices and
student learning” (Borko, 2004, p. 3). Furthermore, there are a number of features of
professional development activities that have emerged in the literature and have been
found to be effective in guiding schools toward higher student achievement. A
combination of purposeful strategies, all designed with increasing teacher instructional
efficacy, is the potential key to raising student performance.
Despite these reform guidelines and findings on effective professional
development practices, too many schools continue implementing ineffective and
inconsistent models of professional development. Districts can be educated in the
literature and supplied with models of similar schools that have effectively organized
professional development activities to enhance teacher skills and knowledge, so they, in
turn, can become the catalyst for change at their schools and help support the individual
site leadership.
46
Because of the complexity of school organizations and the different cultures at
each site, it is often difficult to measure the extent of an individual strategy’s
contribution, therefore a one-size-fits-all approach is not recommended. Instead each
district and site can adapt strategies to their own strengths and weaknesses, and develop
programs that work for them. Continuous inquiry can help strengthen the literature base
on professional development practices and ideally increase the transference of these
strategies across schools. The goal is to continue building on the current research, so that
this knowledge of effective professional development pervades school-systems’ thinking
and becomes common practice.
I examine the nature of professional development at two middle schools that have
shown an increase in student performance to see how these strategies fit specifically
within the middle grades. The reason for studying middle schools is that most of the
current studies tend to focus on primary schools, leaving a gap in how to adapt these
strategies at the secondary level. Middle schools, in particular, pose a special challenge
because of their unique characteristics. Typically they are larger than primary schools
with more staff and buildings. They have a “broader curriculum with a multiplicity of
goals transmitted through a department structure combined with student tracking”
(Purkey & Smith, 1985, p. 367). They are politically more complicated, there are several
layers of administration, and teachers are “less likely to share common educational
methods and goals” (p. 367). Behaviorally, the “transition into middle school
characterizes the end of childhood and presents an emotional challenge, especially when
coupled with the natural changes that occur with adolescence” (Richardson, 2002, p. 2).
Also students have established educational histories, which have resulted in varied
47
attitudes, roles, and norms for work and behavior. Their peer groups are especially
influential, and “they are likely to be less passive and more resistant to change than
elementary school students” (Purkey & Smith, 1985, p. 367). Therefore, more research
and examples are needed of professional development strategies that have demonstrated
improvements in teacher learning and student achievement at the middle school level.
48
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Chapter three describes the methodology used for conducting the study, the
design of the research, and the data collection and analysis procedures. An effective
professional development program can positively influence student outcomes (Borko,
2004; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Guskey, 1991). Even with these findings, however, the
research showed that many schools remain entrenched in past policies and practices,
failing to align their practices with these research-based strategies. Although most
research involved studies of elementary schools, middle schools are especially vulnerable
to dealing with the unique transitional period of adolescence. Besides focusing on
academic performance, many students are experiencing tremendous changes in their
biological, cognitive, and social development, which, in turn, affect their focus on
learning.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the nature of professional
development at two middle schools on the urban fringe of a large city, with a diverse
student population and a high percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged students,
that have shown continual growth in their API scores; and how each site organizes,
executes, perceives and evaluates their professional development process. The study
findings were based on a combination of teacher self-reports, school documents, and
researcher observations. This was not a direct examination of teacher or student learning.
Furthermore because each school had its own unique experiences and values, I did not
advocate one approach. According to Stecher, Hamilton, and Gonzalez (2003) “similar
schools and districts that have demonstrated high levels of achievement can provide
49
invaluable models for improvement” and most schools “have companion schools or
districts that face similar challenges and have similar resources to meet them” (p. 34).
Therefore, the potential impact of this study was to provide information about teacher
professional development that might help inform practices at schools that are not as
successful with students’ learning outcomes.
I conducted a qualitative inquiry on two middle schools in Southern California by
analyzing how the schools organize and develop their professional development
programs, the staffs’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the professional development
process, the perceived impact of the professional development process on increasing
student performance, and the role that school leadership played. This was accomplished
by interviewing staff members, observing staff interactions, and studying documents at
the site to determine how they contextualize their professional development practices.
This research model was chosen to capture the complexities involved in a study of a
school site with many layers, best described as smaller cases. According to Patton (2002)
these small cases can combine to produce intersecting units for analysis. McEwan and
McEwan (2003) further believe that this type of research can help explain how and why
things work in a particular setting. Second, it was a naturalistic study that took place in a
real-world setting and was not intentionally manipulated by the researcher, but rather
studied as events unfolded naturally. And third, this was a detailed and descriptive study
designed to better understand the events and interpret meaning and significance.
Methodology
This study sought to reveal the nature of the organization and implementation of
professional development at two middle schools that have demonstrated significant
50
increases in their statewide test scores. The main research question explored was: What
is the nature of the professional development process at a middle school that has shown
significant increases in statewide test scores? Borko (2004) found that “studies that
focus on either the individual or the group as a unit of analysis can provide valuable
insights about teacher learning” (p. 8). Patton (2002) also argued that a qualitative
method of study can be used to “permit inquiry into selected issues in great depth with
careful attention to detail, context, and nuance” (p. 227). The unit of analysis studied was
the schools with a focus on professional development. The aim of the study was to learn
about the variations in these program processes, and “any common patterns that emerge
from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core experiences
and central, shared dimensions of a setting” (p. 235). Because the professional
development process is a complex system, this study took on a holistic perspective. An
inductive analysis was used to identify patterns and interrelationships among the different
components.
Research Design
The first step in a research process is getting clear about purpose ~ Patton
The purpose of this study was to examine what professional development looks
like at two middle schools that have shown significant increases in their statewide test
scores. Patton (2002) suggested that the purpose of this research was “to contribute
knowledge that will help people understand the nature of a problem in order to intervene,
thereby allowing human beings to more effectively control their environment” (p. 217).
During the study, a guided form of naturalistic inquiry, or studying situations as they
unfold naturally was used by collecting qualitative data and analyzing the content.
51
According to Fetterman (1988) the importance of qualitative research for this study was
based on the belief that “what people believe to be true is more important than any
objective reality; people act on what they believe” (p. 18). For the purpose of this study,
specifically, Shulman (1981) argued “there are many times when we wish to know not
how many…, but simply how” (p. 7).
Furthermore Shulman advocated using a case-study approach which helped
capture the contextual complexities of a professional development program within its
unique school environment, and build a link between this case and other cases in hopes of
providing a model whose components can be generalized, or transferred, to other school
sites with similar demographics. The National Research Council (2002) defined
generalization, for the purpose of this qualitative study, as determining regularities “in the
patterns across groups and across time – rather than replication per se” (p. 82).
Patton advocated the triangulation of the data using interviews, observations, and
document analysis to offer opportunities for deeper insight, create validity, or correctly
understand the nature of the phenomenon, and test for reliability, or find consistency and
trustworthiness in the findings. According to Creswell and Miller (2000) the primary
purpose of qualitative methodological triangulation was to “search for convergence
among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories… by
eliminating overlapping areas” (pgs. 126-127). The program components that were
studied were the professional development activities that supported teacher learning and
instruction, how they were organized, what the teachers’ perceptions were of the benefits,
what the perceived impact of this program was on teacher learning, and the role of
leadership in this process. I conducted interviews with the staff to determine what
52
professional development activities were implemented at the school site and their
perceptions regarding the effectiveness of those activities. I also studied school
documents such as the school plan and staff meeting minutes to support or negate those
perceptions, and observed classrooms and staff meetings to see how the staff implements
these strategies and how they might influence their classroom instruction.
A purposeful intensity sampling strategy was chosen to provide information-rich
cases, or cases that can offer a lot of information and yield insights and in-depth
understanding regarding the components of professional development at the school site.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued that sampling may be terminated when no new
information is forthcoming. My intent was to interview both school administrators and
teachers. My assumption was that the administrators were responsible for creating and
implementing a professional development program, therefore, they would be
knowledgeable about the process. It was also important to interview teachers who served
in leadership roles at the site as representatives of their peers.
School Sites and Participants
This study consisted of two middle schools in Los Angeles County comprised of
6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
graders. The intent of the researcher was to seek out two middle schools
with similar demographics based on the following criteria:
 The demographics of the school were composed of a minimum of 50% of an
ethnic/racial minority as well as a minimum of 50% socio-economically
disadvantaged students.
 Both sites had shown a steady increase of over 100 points on their API scores
over the past eight years. API is the Academic Performance Index which
53
measures the performance and growth of schools on a variety of academic content
areas.
 The location of both schools was classified as being on the “fringe of a large city”
as defined by the Ed-Data population status. Population status is the U.S. Census
Bureau’s designation of size. Although the number of districts can change
annually due to the merging or consolidation of districts, there were 86 separate
school districts in Los Angeles County at the time of this study (the 2007-2008
school year), which served 1,648,102 students from a variety of ethnic and socio-
economic backgrounds (Ed-Data).
Mountain Middle School
The first school, Mountain Middle School, was located approximately 40 miles
northwest of Los Angeles and was classified as being on the urban fringe of a large city.
It served a culturally diverse community of 38,100 residents with a 43% minority
population. One school district served the entire community. There was one high school,
two middle schools, five elementary schools, a Head Start Center, which housed a child
development program and a Pre-K program, one continuation high school, and one
alternative program campus.
Mountain Middle School was comprised of 637 students, a reduction of 89
students from the 2006-2007 school year, of which 13% were English Language Learners
and 66.3% were receiving free and reduced lunch. The racial and ethnic subgroups
consisted of Hispanic or Latino (66.7%), White – not Hispanic (14.6%), African
American (8%), and Other (10%) (see Table 1). The teaching staff consisted of 28
teachers, with 26 of those teachers fully credentialed. The student support team was
54
made up of an assistant principal, a program advisor, two counselors, one Outreach
Consultant, a school psychologist, and a health assistant.
At Mountain Middle School, I first met the principal to introduce myself and
outline the purpose of my study. He suggested that I attend a professional development
meeting to both observe as well as introduce myself and my study to the staff. During the
meeting I introduced myself and my study and asked for volunteers to interview with me.
I also stated that each participant would not be identified by their name in the final
written study, in case they felt uncomfortable sharing some opinions and perceptions with
me that might be viewed as negative by the school administration. Next I met with the
school principal, who also suggested that I interview members of the leadership
committee because of their direct role in determining the course of professional
development activities at the site. I decided that I would first meet with the school
administrators because of their direct involvement in organizing the school’s professional
development program. Next I decided to choose the teachers who volunteered to be
interviewed based on their years of teaching experience as well as their experience
serving on school leadership teams.
I first interviewed the principal, who had 24 years of experience in education
along with eight years in his current position. I then interviewed the assistant principal,
who had eight years of teaching experience and two years as an assistant principal. Next
I interviewed the program advisor, who not only served on the site leadership team and
who was directly involved in the professional development process, but also served as a
science teacher at the site. I then chose a Language Art’s teacher with 14 years of
teaching experience at that site, who also had extensive experience working with various
55
leadership committees. At this point I felt that there was a lot of redundancy in the
information I was gathering from the staff, so I terminated the interviews.
Mountain Middle School’s Testing History
In early 2000, the first base API scores were released from the tests taken the
previous spring. Mountain Middle School’s initial base score of 637 out of a possible
1000 were considered very low. The subsequent testing years showed a slight dip,
further lowering their ranking. In 2002-2003, however, Mountain began to show a steady
increase in API scoring. During the initial writing of this study, the 2006-2007 scores
reached 763, reflecting a 126 point gain since that first year of API testing. The 2007-
2008 scores, recently published, showed another gain of 21 points (see Table 2).
Mountain has made substantial increases in the API growth of their subgroups as
well. Specifically, in 2000, Mountain’s Hispanic/Latino student subgroup scored 580.
By 2008, their scores had reached 752, an increase of 172 points. Their socio-
economically disadvantaged student subgroup also went from 590 in 2000 to 748 in
2008, a gain of 158 points.
River Middle School
River Middle School was located approximately 45 miles northwest of downtown
Los Angeles and was also classified as part of the urban fringe of a large city. One
school district served the entire community and was comprised of 11,353 students. There
were two high schools, three middle schools, 12 elementary schools, one continuation
high school, and a ninth grade academy designed to give "at-risk" students specialized
attention during their ninth-grade year.
56
River Middle School was comprised of 834 students, of which 33.9% were
English Language Learners and 73.7% received free and reduced lunch. The racial and
ethnic subgroups consisted of Hispanic (90.5%), White (4.7%), African American
(1.8%), and Other (3%) (see Table 1). The teaching staff consisted of 37 teachers, with
35 of those teachers fully credentialed. The student support team was made up of the
principal, an assistant principal, a testing standards coordinator, one counselor, and
department chairs.
At River Middle school, I repeated the process of introducing myself to the staff
during a professional development meeting. I stated the purpose of my study and asked
for volunteer participants. I also told the staff that any participants would not be
identified by their name. The principal also suggested a number of staff members, who
were either directly involved in the professional development process or that had taken
on some leadership responsibilities outside of the classroom. In addition to interviewing
the principal, who had 21 years of experience in education and two years in her current
position, I interviewed the assistant principal, who also had ten years experience as a
teacher and two as the current administrator. I then interviewed the math coach/teacher,
who had been at the site for 15 years and lead a number of professional development
activities with the staff. I chose another teacher to interview, who has been teaching at
the site for 15 years and also led a number of professional development activities with the
staff. Although I had terminated the interviews after four at Mountain Middle School, I
felt that these four interviews at River Middle School were not sufficient to gain an in-
depth analysis and determine patterns among the components of the professional
development process. Therefore, I interviewed two more teachers: a Language Art’s
57
teacher, who has been at the site for 33 years, and a History and Language Art’s teacher
who serves on school leadership committees. At this point, I terminated my interviews.
River Middle School’s Testing History
In early 2000 when the first base API scores were released from the tests taken
the previous spring, River scored an initial 538 out of a possible 1000 points. The
subsequent testing years showed intermittent gains in their scores, with some dips. For
example, from 2000-2001, River jumped from 538 to 584. However, the next year
showed a decrease of 1 point, but then another substantial jump the following year to
620, and then 660 by the 2004-2005 school year. At the time of this study, their overall
API had reached 676 (see Table 2).
River has made substantial increases in the API growth of their subgroups as well.
Specifically, in 2000, River’s Hispanic/Latino student subgroup scored 507. By 2008,
their scores had reached 670, an increase of 163 points. Their socio-economically
disadvantaged student subgroup also went from 497 in 2000 to 662 in 2008, a gain of 165
points.
Table 1: School Profiles
Mountain Middle School River Middle School
No. of Students: 637 834
Grades: 6-8 6-8
Population Status: Urban Fringe of a Large City Urban Fringe of a Large City
Ethnicity:
Hispanic 66.7% 90.5%
African-American .8% 1.8%
Caucasian 14.6% 4.7%
Filipino 3.8% 2.0%
58
Table 1, Continued
Asian 3.6% .5%
American Indian .8% .4%
English Learners 12.9% 33.9%
Economically
Disadvantaged (as
measured by
number of free
and reduced
lunches):
68.1% 75.2%
Academic
Performance
Index (API):
784 676
* All Data taken from the 2007-2008 school year.
Table 2: API Scores
Year: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Mountain
Middle
School
637 619 624 658 681 727 767 763 784
River
Middle
School
538 576 580 619 620 660 651 658 676
Data Collection
The questions of time and resources were essential to planning this study.
According to Patton (2002) “Fieldwork should last long enough to get the job done – to
answer the research questions being asked and fulfill the purpose of the study” (p. 275).
Because the purpose of this study was to uncover the nature of school wide professional
development practices at two school sites, this was accomplished through beginning the
study in October, 2008, and concluding in December, 2008 – three months total. A
timeline for activities with weekly visits to the school sites was established according to
the following:
59
 Conduct interviews with school leadership and teaching staff (October and
November)
 Attend staff meetings; Observe classroom instruction (October and November)
 Review relevant documentation (October, November and December)
Qualitative data collection included observations, interviews, and school
documents. During the interview and observation process it was important to remember
that “a qualitative design needs to remain sufficiently open and flexible to permit
exploration of whatever the phenomenon under study offers for inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p.
255). Therefore prior to the interviews, careful and systematic preparation was taken to
prepare the interview questions along with follow up questions, and identify the
observation and document analysis protocol. Oftentimes it was essential to revise or
revisit some of these ideas in order to clarify or crystallize further points, or when new,
sometimes unexpected findings emerged.
To protect the interview, observational data, and document data, all notes,
transcriptions, audio-tapes, and documents were kept in a locked file cabinet at the
researcher’s office. The computer data was password protected and backed up by a
thumb-drive with all paper copies kept in the filing cabinet.
Interviews
Interviews were essential to understanding what cannot be directly observed such
as feelings, thoughts, and beliefs. This was based on Patton’s (2002) findings “that the
perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit” (p. 341). A
combination of interview approaches was used for this study. Questions were carefully
planned and written out beforehand using an interview guide approach. Patton (2002)
60
described an interview guide approach as listing the questions to be explored beforehand,
but allowing the interviewer to further explore and ask questions that would illuminate
the particular subject. Using the interview guide approach provided the freedom to
explore the subject matter with more flexibility depending on the desired depth or new
areas of inquiry (see Appendices A and B for the complete list of interview questions).
Potential limitations of the interview method were also considered. Patton (2002)
argued that an interviewer’s emotional state may impact their interpretation of events.
Therefore, interviews were used as only one method for discovery. At both school sites,
the principals were helpful in identifying staff members who could provide information-
rich data. Overall, the staff members were eager to share their perceptions regarding the
professional development process. Emails were the primary form of communication for
scheduling the interviews. The administrators were interviewed in their offices, and the
teachers were interviewed in their classrooms during their preparatory (prep) period. Pre-
planned research questions guided the interviews but remained sufficiently open to
explore other areas of interest. These interviews were audio-taped and then transcribed.
Observations
Observations in a qualitative study allow the observer to better understand the
context of a situation. Practices can be observed and potentially corroborated with the
findings from the interviews. Alternately, disparate practices may be discovered, which
can lead to a richer understanding of the professional development process. Patton
discovered that subjects may behave differently when they are being observed or
evaluated. The observations were limited to observing external behaviors; therefore the
61
data may be constrained by the restricted sample of activities. All of these limitations
were offset by the use of different data sources such as the interviews and document
analysis.
Two types of observations were conducted at each school site. The first was a 45
minute observation of a professional development meeting including the teaching staff.
The purpose was to determine the content of the activity as well as how it was organized
to either corroborate or negate findings from the interviews. Five to seven randomly
chosen classroom observations were the second type. Each class was observed for 10 to
15 minutes. The purpose was to see whether the content and design of the professional
development meetings influenced the content and organization of the classroom
environment. The observation protocol guide can be found in Appendix C.
Document Analysis
Analyzing school documents provided a rich source of information about the
professional development process. A picture of the complex organization emerged by
analyzing what was revealed in the documents with the interviewees’ perceptions and
school wide practices. School documents, for the purpose of this study, included the
School Accountability Report Card (SARC), and the Single Plan for Student Achievement,
along with schedules of professional development meeting dates and curriculum. Other
documents such as the school website, Ed-Data statistics, and written professional
development activities helped describe the physical environment and program setting, the
social environment, the historical perspective, and the program activities. However, it
was also noted that some of the documents and records may be incomplete, inaccurate, or
vary in their quality and completeness. Therefore, by using different types of data
62
collection, this study sought to minimize any weaknesses in the research. The document
analysis guide can be found in Appendix D.
The SARC provided extensive data disaggregated by overall student achievement,
subgroups, grade levels, and subject areas. It also included observations of the data. For
example, one graph showed that Mountain Middle School’s 7
th
graders broke the 800
point mark of the API for the first time. The next section provided a written analysis,
conclusions, and theories generated to explain this achievement. The final section
provided an action plan for the coming year including ongoing data review plans.
Each site annually wrote a Single Plan for Student Achievement based on an
analysis of API data and local measures of student achievement. This document set
performance improvement goals and defined the actions that the site took to achieve
these goals. For example, River decided to address four subject areas for the 2008-2009
school year based on an analysis of their student achievement. Under each focus area, a
plan of action was described, and professional development opportunities to address these
needs were outlined.
Data Analysis
After collecting the data from the interviews, observations, and documents, the
process of making sense of the data and finding common patterns began. According to
Anfara, Brown, and Mangione (2002) this process was necessary “to present the reader
with the stories identified throughout the analytical process, the salient themes, recurring
language, and patterns of belief linking people and setting together” (p. 31).
After transcriptions of the interviews were concluded, the process of coding, or
marking units of text with labels to find patterns and meaning began (Gay, Mills, &
63
Airasian, 2006). Under each interview question, I highlighted the answer that directly
supported the question. For example, under the research question: What school wide
professional development strategies are provided for teachers? I highlighted words such
as Bloom’s Taxonomy or test-taking strategies or any other professional development
strategies. Next, I used a variation of the three iterations of code mapping as proposed by
Anfara, Brown, and Mangione (2002) which is a strategy designed to help the researcher
bring structure to the data and interpret the findings. My first iteration of code mapping
was to categorize the findings according to a framework. I used the research questions as
my framework to organize the data. They were: 1) the professional development
opportunities provided for the teachers, and the content and context characteristics of the
professional development activity, 3) how the site measured the effectiveness of the
professional development activity, 4) the teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of the
professional development activities, 5) the perceived impact of professional development
on teacher learning, and 6) the role that leadership played in the professional
development process. I listed the findings from the data under each of these categories.
The second iteration of code mapping included creating meaning and generating
insights into the interview findings, the document analysis, and the observational data. I
conducted a cross analysis among the three sources of data. For example, the findings
from the interview questions were either corroborated or not by secondary (i.e.
documents) and/or tertiary (observation) evidence. Next I went through the school
documents such as the SARC, the School Improvement Plan, and the Staff Development
Schedule to identify the professional development activities, their content and contextual
organization, how the site measures the effectiveness of the activity, and what role the
64
school leadership plays in that process. I then categorized the findings from my
observations to corroborate if those professional development activities were actually
demonstrated during the professional development meeting and also to see if any of the
strategies transferred into the classroom.
The third iteration was to analyze the content of all three sources of data and
generate meaning and insights within each category of findings. Once these patterns
were established “through inductive analysis, the final…stage… [was] affirming the …
appropriateness of the inductive content analysis” (Patton, 2002, p. 454). The final step
in the process was to compare and contrast the individual findings from each school site
to find converging or diverging patterns.
Ethical Considerations
Special considerations were taken to protect all of the parties involved either
directly or indirectly because this research study entailed fieldwork at two school sites
where students were present, and staff was interviewed and observed. For example, the
names of the teachers involved in the interviews were eliminated and they were referred
to simply as a “teacher” to ensure and protect their anonymity, and all notes, audio-tapes,
and transcriptions were kept in a safe place. Furthermore, full disclosure of the purpose
of this research project was given as well as explicit explanations of the research
questions. Each staff member was assured that they could decline to interview or pass on
a question, without fear of repercussions. Also, the institutional review board (IRB),
which is commited to treating all people with respect, approved this study design on
October 23
rd
, 2008, to ensure that the research participants would not be deceived nor
observed or studied without their knowledge or consent. According to Patton (2002),
65
ethical issues involving the participants can “have real consequences for the types of
designs, data collection, and consequently, results that can be generated from education
research” (p. 94). Therefore, the researcher designed the study anticipating these
occurrences and sought to understand and describe their effects in the results of the study.
Finally, the utmost care, considerations, and ethical guidelines were given and followed
to secure the integrity of the research and findings.
Summary
The literature revealed that the content of a professional development activity that
is connected to prior experiences, aligned with standards and assessments, and focused on
examining teacher knowledge and practice may positively impact teacher learning. Also,
how the activity is organized such as the duration, the coherence, and the active
engagement of the staff can affect the learning outcomes. Finally, the school leadership
can be instrumental in creating and supporting the structures in the school for the
professional development process to occur.
A case-study approach was used to examine the nature of professional
development at two middle schools that have shown continuous growth over eight years
on their API scores. Both sites were chosen based on their location, demographics, and
test scores. The findings were categorized according to the research questions posed.
Triangulation of the data using interviews, observations, and document analysis was used
to better understand the nature of the professional development process.
66
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Overview
The purpose of this study was to explore the professional development
opportunities at two middle schools that have shown significant increases in API scores
over several years and to reveal teachers’ perceptions of the impact on their learning. I
used interviews, observational data, and documents to find common patterns and provide
deeper insight into the professional development process The findings from the study
were organized around the major ideas from the research questions:
1. What professional development opportunities are provided for teachers, and what
are the content and context characteristics of these activities?
2. How does the school measure the effectiveness of the professional development
activity?
3. What are teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of the professional development
activities provided for teachers at the school?
4. What is the perceived impact of teacher professional development on teaching
practices and learning outcomes at the school?
5. What is the role of leadership in the professional development process?
The first section provides a brief history and description of both school sites. The next
section reports the findings organized around each research question and discusses the
similarities and differences between the two sites.
67
Professional Development History
Mountain Middle School
The role of the district office in planning the professional development programs
at the school sites has shifted. Traditionally, professional development was organized at
the district office level by the assistant superintendent of human resources. This
encompassed Beginning Teacher Support and Assistance (BTSA) and assistance to
experienced teachers known as Peer Assistance Review or PAR. Additionally, the
district office organized and executed several professional development days that
included all of the school sites. With the introduction of standards, additional
professional development days were negotiated so they could provide workshops on
aligning curriculum with the standards.
The district office quickly realized that the diversity of site specific needs dictated
a new approach to how professional development should be organized. In response, a
Curriculum and Instruction department was tasked with providing the school sites with
the instructional materials, appropriate principal training, and other educational resources
needed for the principal to assume primary responsibility of their own professional
development program. The district’s goal was to provide general focus areas for each
site and also collaborative support for the principals to address their own areas of need.
The program advisor explained:
Basically, it really starts there – at the district. Whatever the goals the district is
working on disseminates down. They tell our administrators, and then from there
they bring that information to us at the administrative team meetings that we have
every Monday and we figure out what it is that we are going to work on for staff
development.
68
The district’s goals were modified annually based on each school’s statewide
performance outcomes. The Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program was
the primary measure of how well students were learning California’s content standards
for core subjects. One objective was for the middle school to align its instruction with
the state content standards and the students to score at the proficient level or above
(advanced). Mountain Middle School also hoped to achieve an API ranking of 800
points. Mountain’s Accountability Report written by the principal and submitted to the
superintendant and the director of Curriculum and Instruction at the district office
analyzed current performance data, theorized about the findings, and drew conclusions.
Next, it described focus areas and an action plan, which included professional
development goals and other instructional program enhancement efforts. The principal
then collaborated with the director of Curriculum and Instruction using the principal’s
assessments, to help Mountain create objectives and goals for the school year.
River Middle School
The role of the district office in determining the professional development
programs changed. The principal at River Middle School provided a brief history of its
evolving professional development process. Before she came on board as the current
principal a year and a half ago, she spent time as the assistant principal at River before
leaving the district for a few years. When she was the assistant principal, professional
development was “more determined by the D.O. (district office)” and encompassed only
three student-free days during the year. Specifically, the Director of
Curriculum/Instruction/Assessment and/or the Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services determined the course of professional development activities.
69
The district office also provided professional development to their new teachers
through a support provider, who worked with the new teachers for two years, training
and supporting them during the school day. The district also had BTSA for new teachers,
as well as PAR, for struggling teachers.
Since the 2001-2002 school year, one instructional day per week was shortened to
provide time for professional development. The principal conceded that back then, “it
was very early attempts at collaboration among teachers to share effective
strategies/materials that will improve instruction” and that even today this was not an
easy task but that they were “still in the process of learning how/striving to accomplish
this.” River’s district was getting close to being classified as a Program Improvement
district due to low achievement scores at several schools. The NCLB Act required all
schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on their state test scores. If a school
failed to do this two years in a row, it was formally designated a Program Improvement
(PI) school and may have faced corrective measures. As a result, the Los Angeles
County of Education (LACOE) offered a pilot program, the District Assistance
Intervention Team (DAIT), to help keep districts out of Program Improvement, and
ultimately to keep the state from coming in and taking over. The program advisor of
DAIT, according to the principal, “helped the district office to look at district systems,
and rather than being scattered here, there and everywhere with everybody doing their
own little thing, they are establishing systems…to help everyone.” This effort included
providing each school site principal with group coaching, individual coaching, and
70
district support. However, since DAIT’s intervention, the district office assumed more
control over the professional development process, and many decisions were made at the
district level.
Professional Development Opportunities Provided for Teachers
Mountain Middle School
The leadership at Mountain Middle School provided a variety of opportunities for
teachers to meet and discuss student performance. When Mountain took over the primary
planning of its professional development days, the school leadership quickly determined
that there was not enough time for the staff to meet and learn and ultimately effect
significant change in teacher learning. In addition to the negotiated three days during the
school year, Mountain’s district decided to shorten every Wednesday to allow for an
extra hour of professional development weekly. According to the assistant principal this
was a positive change because:
The kids know that their teachers talk…And we couldn’t do that without short
Wednesdays and more days off for professional development. To set the time
aside for teachers to do that on a regular time constrained day – teachers in
general don’t really have those conversations with each other just because of time
constraints and family outside and added things happening outside of work. And
if we can set some times where they can be together, then that’s when they start
talking and start working out things.
Although Mountain created a year-long professional development focus based on
their areas for improvement, the school leadership team comprised of the principal,
assistant principal, program advisor, counselors, and the office manager met every
Monday morning to discuss the site’s professional development goals for that week and
decide how to organize the activity.
71
According to the program advisor, “There is a big focus on test scores. It drives a
lot of what we do.” Test scores were measured by different types of assessments.
Statewide, the school’s API results were disaggregated by grade level, subject areas, and
subgroups. Locally, pacing guides detailed what each department should be teaching and
what every student should be learning within a six week period. This ensured continuity
and consistency among the schools in the event a student switched schools within the
district or even classes at the same site. Benchmark tests also assessed incremental
learning and were administered approximately every six weeks. Each of these
assessments helped the leadership team look at the areas in which their students scored
poorly and figure out how they can help the students. According to one teacher:
What can we do as a staff to help bring the scores up and what can we do to give
them what they need? Sometimes when it is towards test taking time we talk
about what we can do to raise certain kids to the next level, what do we need to
do, what do we need to push? Every time no matter what it’s about, how can we
help the kids? I can't remember one staff development that was really focused on
the teachers. And that's okay; pretty much everything we do is focused on the
kids.
A second emphasis of professional development meetings was looking at factors
besides instruction that may affect student achievement. For example, many of
Mountain’s professional development activities focused on the processes within the
school that were unique to their environment. Five years ago the staff spent time looking
at their school’s climate. There were a lot of student fights and suspensions and
expulsions were up. As a result of these discussions, a school wide discipline plan was
implemented as well as an updated School Safety Plan, another counselor was hired to
institute proactive conflict-resolution measures, a school leadership class was formed,
and lunchtime activities were introduced. The culture of the school changed
72
tremendously. Students were proud to belong to Mountain Middle School. Fighting
decreased, suspension and expulsion numbers declined, and school pride increased. In
addition to the school climate, Mountain decided that other factors such as the school’s
grading policy and the homework policy also may influence the learning environment.
Every year, Mountain’s Single Plan for Student Achievement determined its
annual school goals for improving student achievement and defined the actions that the
site would take to achieve these goals. This year (2008-2009) some of Mountain’s
instructional goals were:
 Improving English Language Development (ELD) proficiency,
 Increasing History/Social Science proficiency levels for 8
th
graders,
 Increasing proficiency in mathematics, and
 Showing gains in the “Written Expression” content standard under
Reading/Language Arts.
The design of the professional development activity was then decided working
backwards. For example, the leadership team determined how to best align their
curriculum and instruction with the goals and then decided what teachers needed to know
and do in the classroom to help their students succeed in these areas. This consistent
communication kept the staff focused on areas for school improvement. According to the
program advisor, “We figure out what areas we need to work on and what needs growth
and from there we develop our staff development days.”
73
River Middle School
Because River’s new principal was starting her second year, a complete
understanding of the professional development program was limited. Prior to the 2008-
2009 school year, professional development activities focused on:
 Establishing common instructional pacing guides and benchmark assessments,
 Aligning instruction and vocabulary with content standards,
 School climate
 AVID strategies,
 Cornell notes,
 Costa’s questions,
 GATE strategies,
 Test-taking strategies, and
 Instructional components for ELD students
At the end of last year, the leadership team met to review the school wide actions
that they perceived as helping to increase student learning. Among the instructional
strategies, the team felt that the focus on school climate was beneficial. For example,
Bell-to-Bell instruction was a strategy that broke up classroom time into units of specific
instruction. The teacher stood at the door and greeted students, got them started on a
sponge activity, clearly stated the learning objective, brought closure to the lesson, and
dismissed the classroom. Classroom observations also were conducted by the researcher
to observe whether or not these activities were evident in the classroom. The
observations were limited to 10 minute intervals and occurred during the beginning,
middle, and end of the lesson so conclusions drawn were limited. This did not allow
74
enough time for the researcher to identify specific strategies such as Cornell note-taking,
AVID strategies, or COSTA’s level of questioning. However, the researcher identified
parts of Bell-to-Bell instruction as well as various classroom organization techniques.
Four out of the seven teachers observed posted their objectives for the day along with the
content standard being taught. The researcher also observed four out of the seven
teachers seamlessly transitioning from one activity to another without any student
disruption. Each classroom also had classroom procedures posted, along with
consequences for disruptive behavior.
Many of the professional development activities were determined by the principal
and the site leadership team, although LACOE’s recent intervention at the district office
changed that dynamic. LACOE added its own professional development mandates in
addition to the site’s decision, for example, the Essential Elements of Effective
Instruction or EEE3I. EEE3I was a professional development strategy that helped
teachers create strong lesson objectives and task analysis using Bloom’s taxonomy.
However, some of the teachers’ responses at the site were negative. One teacher felt that
there were teachers “that have been doing that all along and then those people who are
being reminded of it and some people being taught again,” and that this one-size-fits-all
approach was not necessarily helpful to all of the teachers. Another teacher echoed this
sentiment saying that many of the teachers felt that, “this is redundant…we’ve done this
already.”
The district’s mandates seemed to compete with River’s control over their
professional development decisions. River’s document, the Single Plan for Student
Achievement 2008-2009 identified the most important areas to address student
75
achievement. This document was based on an analysis of their API data. This year they
concentrated on:
 Strengthening academic vocabulary and reading comprehension in English
Language Development (ELD),
 Increasing proficiency in Mathematics,
 Increasing proficiency in English Language Arts, and
 Examining the school climate.
River listed a number of professional development ideas to address each of these
areas. For example, increasing proficiency in English Language Arts was accomplished
through providing professional development activities such as teacher training in program
placement and instructional components, visiting similar model schools to observe
instructional strategies, and participating in reinforcement training of AVID strategies.
The role of the leadership team, which met once a month and was made up of the
principal, assistant principal, department chairs, an ELL representative, a Fine Arts
representative, a Special Education representative, and a few student representatives, was
to determine how to design the instructional activity and provide support for the teachers.
Similarities between the Two Sites
Mountain Middle School and River Middle School shared many similarities in the
professional development opportunities provided to the staff. At both school sites,
professional development primarily was determined by the site principal. The district
office retained control over new teacher professional development, as well as assisted
struggling teachers through the BTSA and PAR programs. The curriculum department at
76
each district office also worked closely with the school principal to determine the
direction of professional development.
In addition to three whole days of professional development, whose content was
usually determined by the district office, both schools had one shortened day during the
week, with an extra hour allocated to the staff to meet its professional development
needs. The content of the staff development on those shortened days was determined
primarily by the school leadership. Both sites had a leadership team comprised of
administrators and staff members who worked together to decide how to organize the
professional development activities. Both sites also emphasized analysis and discussions
of student assessment data and how to improve student performance (see Table 3).
Differences between the Two Sites
Mountain Middle School and River Middle School had leadership teams which
met to determine the focus of professional development activities. However, the
Mountain leadership team met every Monday to “touch base” and discuss what was
going on that week, or determine which students or staff members might need help in the
immediate future. This frequency allowed the leadership team to alter or modify that
week’s professional development activity based on new information or events happening
at the site. River’s leadership team, however, met once a month to evaluate and update
their professional development objectives (see Table 4).
Another difference between the sites was the competing interests of the district
office and the school sites. At Mountain, there was a symbiotic relationship between the
district office and the school site with each working together to determine the site’s
individual needs. At River, LACOE’s intervention at the district office gave them more
77
responsibility over the professional development agenda, which was perceived by some
teachers as redundant and irrelevant, causing feelings of resentment. The district’s
agenda seemed to ignore the individual needs of the site, which already had a number of
areas to focus their professional development meetings on – as determined by their Single
Plan for Student Achievement.
Table 3: Similarities: Professional Development Opportunities Provided for Teachers
Similarities: Mountain Middle School & River Middle
School
Professional development opportunities
provided for teachers
 Professional development activities
based on testing data, focus areas,
and school climate
 Curriculum department at district
office collaborated with site
leadership on developing
professional development goals
 Three days of instruction throughout
the school year dedicated to
professional development growth
 One hour per week for professional
development activities at school site
 Site leadership teams instrumental
in determining direction of
professional development at the site
78
Table 4: Differences: Professional Development Opportunities Provided for Teachers
Differences: Mountain Middle School River Middle School
Professional development
opportunities used to
promote student
achievement
 Site leadership team
met every Monday,
which allowed for
more flexibility in
planning of
professional
development
activities
 District office
worked in close
relationship with site
leadership to
determine and
support site’s
professional
development needs
 Eight years
experience with
same principal
defining and
refining professional
development
process
 Site leadership team
met once a month
which allowed less
flexibility in
planning
professional
development
activities
 District office
maintained
competing control
over the professional
development
process
 Two years
experience with
same principal
defining and
refining professional
development
process
Context Characteristics of Professional Development
Mountain Middle School
According to the principal, assistant principal, and program advisor, when the
leadership team met every Monday to determine areas for professional development
activities, it also decided the best way to organize and execute the activity. The first step
was deciding whether the topic was more appropriate for a whole-staff meeting, a grade
level meeting, or a subject specific meeting. The second step was deciding who should
lead the meeting. Most times, the principal felt that, “Professional development is
sometimes more productive when I have the teachers lead them because it's colleague to
79
colleague, and their responses are better.” Rarely did he or another administrator lead the
meetings, but he did acknowledge that there were many topics or issues that came up that
required his leadership. The third step was deciding how to organize the teachers at the
meeting to maximize their learning. The principal believed that, “Groups of three
[teachers] are far more productive for us than groups of six or seven [teachers] because
then nobody has to be part of the conversation. They feel more comfortable opening up
their feelings [in smaller groups].” Furthermore team leaders were strategically chosen to
run the groups. The meetings always began with the whole staff together. A general
statement, direction, or focus area was given, and then the staff broke into groups and
worked on the activity or discussion. At the end of the meeting, each group shared its
comments with the whole staff. The leadership team agreed that this construction works
more effectively in engaging each staff member in the discussion.
The leadership team also determined what type of instructional strategy should be
used: directed learning, small group discussion, large group discussion, self-reflection, or
a combination of strategies. The team usually decided on a combination of strategies.
For example, the first ten minutes of the meeting might employ directed teaching
methods, the next ten minutes might include a self-reflective activity, and the rest of the
meeting might be dedicated to small group discussion.
Observational data also verified the context of these meetings. A general focus or
topic area was introduced during a professional development meeting. Each staff
member was assigned to a specific group. Questions or guides were given for discussion,
and then each group spent time in discussion and/or writing. The person/s leading the
80
professional development activity then circulated around the room. After a measured
amount of time, the staff came together as a whole and shared their findings and insights.
River Middle School
The organization of activities at River Middle School varied depending on the
purpose of the professional development activity. For example, the professional
development activities directed by the district office usually involved the entire staff of a
school, or they were conducted with the middle schools combined (3 total). The
workshops were aligned so each middle school received the same instruction regardless
of the individual need.
Professional development activities conducted at the site varied by subject area
group, grade level groups, or whole school groups. Many opportunities for collaborative
discussions and sharing of findings also were observed during the researcher’s
observations and gleaned from school documents. During a November professional
development meeting, the staff at River met as a whole group at various tables. The
activity was led by a fellow teacher who presented a PowerPoint presentation on
COSTA’s levels of questions so that teachers could use these questions in their
instruction to elicit deeper insight by their students. The presenter then had each table
engage in collaborative discussion, writing down their findings on paper. This process
then was repeated in a “jig-saw”- type activity. The activity ended with the whole staff
sharing their findings with the others. Further evidence of these types of collaborative
activities was found in documents gathered at the school site.
81
Similarities between the Two Sites
Both sites’ leadership teams determined the most effective way to conduct
professional development sessions whether it included whole-staff instruction, a group
broken out by grade level or a group broken out by subject matter. Each activity was
initially modeled by a presenter, whether an administrator or teacher, and then
collaborative and active engagement by the staff followed. Occasionally, both schools
continued to attend workshops where outside expertise was brought in to help them learn
a new teaching strategy (see Table 5).
Differences between the Two Sites
The findings also revealed small differences in how both sites organized their
professional development. Mountain Middle School conducted the majority of its
professional development meetings at the school site with its staff. River Middle School,
however, shared a number of its late-start Friday meetings with the other two middle
schools, working on curriculum alignment as shown in a school document that listed the
topics and times for the professional development activities. This may be attributable to
the district office’s influence over professional development activities (see Table 6).
Table 5: Similarities: Context Characteristics of Professional Development
Similarities: Mountain Middle School & River Middle
School
Context characteristics of professional
development
 Organized by whole staff
instruction, grade level, or subject
matter
 Used collaborative and active
engagement strategies
 Conducted by site staff and
occasionally outside experts
 Self-reflective strategies built into
professional development activity
82
Table 6: Differences: Context Characteristics of Professional Development
Differences: Mountain Middle School River Middle School
Context characteristics of
professional development
 Primarily on-site
activities
 Both on-site
activities and
activities with other
middle schools,
possibly determined
by district office
Measuring the Effectiveness of the Professional Development Activity
Mountain Middle School
Measuring the success of a professional development activity can be difficult
because there are a number of variables that influence teacher learning. It is, therefore,
important to explain that this study was based on teachers’ self-reporting, not a direct
examination of teacher learning. According to the principal, assistant principal, and
program advisor, the most obvious measure of the effectiveness of a professional
development activity was an increase in student test scores. Mountain Middle School’s
API scores increased from 763 in 2007 to 784 in 2008, with their Hispanic/Latino and
socio-economically disadvantaged subgroups meeting their growth targets. Benchmark
tests and end-of-the-year California Standards Test measured the achievement level, and
thus change, in the student’s level of understanding
A reported second measure of the effectiveness of a professional development
activity was informal observations by the teachers of their own practices as well as their
students’ level of participation and improvement in skills. Conversely, administrators
could see a change in instructional techniques by both informal and formal observations
of teachers. Although formal staff evaluations were confidential and not available to the
83
researcher, informal observations of the instructors during their teaching time provided
the researcher with insight into whether professional development strategies and activities
were translating into improvements in the classroom environment.
The observation protocol used by the researcher included looking at the overall
classroom environment and how it was conducive to student learning, observing teaching
strategies of the teacher, and watching for student engagement with the material. Four
out of the five classrooms observed had learning standards and objectives posted in plain
sight. One teacher engaged the students in the material through directed teaching with
whole class discussion and feedback. Two teachers guided their students through
reviewing difficult concepts on a Smart Board (a large computer screen that can be
manipulated by touch). One teacher had their students in groups of four for discussion.
One teacher assigned partner-projects to the students and gave them time to discuss the
activity. In four of the five classrooms, students were clearly engaged in the learning,
whether they were part of a whole class group or smaller groups, while teachers
circulated throughout the classroom checking for understanding. In the fifth classroom,
the students were engaged in off-topic conversations. The majority of classrooms
observed appeared well organized and focused on a particular learning objective. The
students appeared engaged in the learning activity and were aware of the standards and
objectives they were expected to meet.
River Middle School
Many of the staff members interviewed at River agreed that the effectiveness of a
professional development strategy was best measured by collecting testing and
assessment data from the CSTs and benchmarks. For example, one teacher found that
84
students’ test scores helped her to “disaggregate the data…to see if some of my strategies
when I implement them raise the test scores and benchmarks.” Another teacher used
other measurement strategies such as reflections from the students and informal
observations of, and interactions with, the students to determine how well her students
responded to her teaching strategies.
River Middle School’s API increased from 653 to 676 in 2008, with its
Hispanic/Latino and socio-economically disadvantaged subgroups meeting their growth
targets. This change in the school’s API may have been influenced partially by the new
professional development strategies implemented under the new district and school
leadership. One document provided a written account of school wide actions and
professional development activities that the staff perceived as contributing to the increase
in student performance. Findings from this document also served as feedback and helped
staff decide whether to continue, modify, or discard some of the activities.
The classroom observations also helped determine whether the perceptions of the
effectiveness of the professional development activities were consistent with the
classroom environment. Within the observed classrooms, some of the teachers employed
similar accountability strategies as they had experienced in their professional
development meetings. For example, four of the teachers called on certain students while
checking for understanding instead of solely allowing students to volunteer. This kept
students focused on the activity, knowing they would be held accountable for
understanding the information. One teacher had students segregated into groups of four
to six where they were directed to share their findings with the rest of their group.
Another teacher was observed leading a “popcorn” reading activity where students would
85
be called on spontaneously to read aloud to the rest of the class. Most of the teachers
circulated throughout the classroom, checking to make sure that students were on task.
However, two classrooms were observed where there was no evidence of active
engagement by the students. Instead, the students stared passively around the classroom
or talked quietly to other students, while the teacher instructed from the front of the
classroom. These teachers did not seem to be aware that students were off-task and,
therefore, did not modify their instruction accordingly.
Similarities between the Two Sites
The staff at both schools believed that the primary measure of success of a
professional development activity was determined by rising test scores on the California
Standards Test and local assessments. They saw the professional development activity as
a link to increasing student performance. As a result, both schools used testing and local
assessment (benchmarks) data to drive their professional development focus. They also
informally measured student growth through observations of student engagement and
student work (see Table 7).
Differences between the Two Sites
There were no noted differences in how each school measured the effectiveness of
the professional development activity.
86
Table 7: Similarities: Measuring Effectiveness of the Professional Development Activity
Similarities: Mountain Middle School & River Middle
School
Measuring effectiveness of the
professional development activity
 Used the California Standards Test
and local assessments to measure
student progress
 Informal measurements of student
learning through observations of
student work and student
engagement
 Researcher observed some, not all,
teachers transferring professional
development instructional strategies
into classroom
Perceptions of the Benefits of Teacher Professional Development
Mountain Middle School
The staff interviewed at Mountain Middle School felt that professional
development at their site was beneficial. First off, they were happy with the increase in
communication across grade levels and subject matter. The program advisor explained,
“Overall I think there is a lot more communication. So people are saying we want help
with this; we need this.” The staff enjoyed talking to each other and learning new ideas
from each other. They perceived that they were improving the school climate as well as
their teaching instruction. The assistant principal concurred that professional
development has helped,
“Teachers to get off their own little island and feel like part of the community
where they can talk to someone else and work problems out. Life is better
because they can really solve problems without them being by themselves. And if
we can provide that time for them, it's only going to benefit the school and the
morale and student learning.”
Another teacher offered a similar viewpoint: “I think it gets everybody on the same page
on a specific issue.” This enthusiasm for the benefits of the professional development
87
process may have affected teachers’ motivation to learn, thereby increasing their
involvement and immersion in professional development activities.
River Middle School
Some teachers perceived the benefits of professional development activities as
positive. Many of the staff interviewed agreed that professional development led to the
staff “speaking the same language” and that professional development activities
introduced new teaching concepts which may lead to an improvement in instruction.
Furthermore, professional development kept teachers knowledgeable about current
practices as well as kept them aligned with what the other middle schools in the district
were doing. According to one teacher, the benefits “continue to open our eyes to how to
refine what we are doing rather than giving us more stuff that’s different. To me, [there
were] so many years of so many staff developments in so many different notebooks
stuffed in a closet, whereas now it seem like there’s a vision.” This teacher’s opinion
suggested that professional development programs prior to the new administration were
negatively viewed.
However, not everyone shared this opinion. One teacher felt that professional
development was only beneficial if teachers were open to change. Some teachers
claimed they did not want to attend professional development meetings because they
believed many of the topics were redundant. One teacher felt that the school site had
moved toward “a lot less teacher input to what we think we need to more kind of top
down and not having any input… [for] something we really need…or maybe something
better [that] would be more useful.” Among some of the teachers, this led to feelings of
88
frustration and the perception that teachers could not be trusted enough to know what
they may or may not need.
Similarities between the Two Sites
Staff members at both sites perceived professional development activities
positively and believed that they increased communication among the staff. Professional
development also helped focus the staff on common issues, and helped them solve
problems. Many also agreed that the weekly meetings taught them new ideas and kept
them current with research on student learning. Some staff members stated that there has
to be a willingness to learn about and try new techniques in the classroom, but that there
were still some staff members who viewed professional development as a “waste of time”
(see Table 8).
Differences between the Two Sites
Although staff members at both sites had positive perceptions regarding the
benefits of professional development, more of the staff at River held negative perceptions
about its professional development process. For example, the activity was perceived
negatively if the teacher felt that s/he did not have input into the direction of the activity,
the activity was perceived as a one-size-fits-all training, or the activity appeared
unfocused. Furthermore, some staff members viewed the lack of input into the
professional development process as a lack of trust in the teaching staff to make decisions
(see Table 9).
89
Table 8: Similarities: Perceptions of the Benefits of Professional Development
Similarities: Mountain Middle School & River Middle
School
Perceptions of the benefits of professional
development
 Increased communication across
staff
 Focused on common issues and how
to solve them
 Weekly professional development
helped staff learn new ideas and
keep current with research
 Professional development can be a
“waste of time” if teacher is not
willing to change practice
Table 9: Differences: Perceptions of the Benefits of Professional Development
Differences: Mountain Middle School River Middle School
Perceptions of the benefits
of professional development
 Overall positive
influence
 Some viewed
professional
development as a
one-size-fits-all
approach
 Professional
development
activities perceived
as unfocused
 Not enough staff
input for direction of
professional
development, which
was perceived as a
lack of trust in the
staff to make
effective decisions
Perceived Impact of Professional Development on Teacher Learning
Mountain Middle School
According to the staff at Mountain Middle School, professional development
favorably impacted teacher learning. As a result, they believed students were learning,
teachers were talking and working together, and kids knew that their teachers talked and
90
had their best interests in mind. The assistant principal believed this positive perception
existed because of “short Wednesdays and more days off for professional
development…and if we can set some times where they can be together, then that's when
they [the teachers] start talking and start working out things.” Although the majority of
the staff believed that professional development encouraged positive change in many
teachers, they also acknowledged that some teachers still saw it as a “waste of time” and
that was a fundamental problem. According to the principal, “If you are ‘old school’ you
want to stay ‘old-school’ and the thought of changing drives you nuts, because there is a
fear involved of going away from your comfort level.” Some of those interviewed agreed
the main challenge is in complacent veteran teachers resistant to changing teaching
strategies. There was a mindset that students should be able to learn whatever and
however they (the teacher) taught. According to the principal, change requires a level of
comfort, “broad shoulders” to open up one’s practice to scrutiny, and a willingness to
change.
All those interviewed agreed that the students only benefitted if what the teacher
learned was applied to the classroom. One teacher stated that professional development
was instrumental in getting the staff “on the same page” of a specific issue, but that in
itself may not be enough to change teacher instruction. It could only alter or enhance
what was being taught and how. She also felt that when outside presenters were brought
in and paid a lot of money to tell the teacher what s/he was doing wrong; most of the staff
felt insulted and did not pay attention to the information. This same feeling existed about
district office mandated professional development activities. Instead, the teacher felt that
professional development should address the specific needs of the site to be more
91
effective and claimed, “I don’t care how much they say we should be like the other
middle school in the district. We are not them. Our needs and our students are different
from them.”
River Middle School
Some of the staff interviewed at River Middle School felt that the professional
development process instituted by the new principal had a positive impact on teacher
learning. The principal felt that when she came on board last year “morale was low” due
to low test scores and the threat of the district entering Program Improvement status. One
of her goals this year was to re-establish and reinforce school wide processes that had
been largely ignored. For example, by the end of the 2008 school year, the school’s
Disaster Preparedness Plan was just being updated at the site. Furthermore, school wide
discipline procedures needed to be revisited and reestablished after being neglected for a
number of years. As a result, classroom management techniques were implemented and
new discipline policies were enacted.
Likewise, the assistant principal viewed the school working more as a team now.
He believed that the staff was learning and described it as everyone “jumping on board
right now.” He also added that pressure from the state had created a sense of urgency
among staff members to improve student performance. One of the teachers concurred
about the professional development process and described the staff as, “all going down
the same road of professional development…instead of speaking 20 different languages,
we’re speaking one language.” She believed it brought the staff closer together.
However, this positive enthusiasm was not shared by everyone interviewed. Two
of the teachers felt that the district office and site were going in too many different
92
directions without a clear focus. As a result, many of the staff felt overwhelmed. One
teacher believed that it was better to have a few topics covered consistently and in-depth
rather than reviewing many different topics, but each only briefly. She provided an
example of this:
Some Kate Kinsella is an example…there was a lot of money that was spent…we
did revisit it one time but then some of those strategies that were there got put on
the back burner because something else came along.
Furthermore, another teacher viewed many of the teaching strategies from the
professional development meetings as mandatory to incorporate into the classroom,
describing it as “some things we have to do.”
Similarities between the Two Sites
Many of those interviewed at both sites agreed that professional development
positively impacted teacher learning. Both sites overall concurred that weekly and
consistent professional development meetings encouraged staff to work more as a team,
instead of remaining isolated within the classrooms, which also encouraged more free
exchange of information and strategies (see Table 10).
Differences between the Two Sites
Although professional development may potentially encourage positive change in
teacher learning, many factors influenced its effectiveness. At Mountain Middle School,
the principal believed that teachers who were not open to changing their practice would
not change their instruction with any amount of professional development. At River
Middle School, a few of the teachers felt that the current professional development
activities covered too many topics without enough depth or follow-up. This potentially
negatively impacted teachers’ willingness to attend to the information.
93
Table 10: Similarities: Perceived Impact of Professional Development on Teacher
Learning
Similarities: Mountain Middle School & River Middle
School
Perceived impact of professional
development on teacher learning
 Weekly professional development
activities encouraged staff to work
together as a team
 Had potential to encourage positive
change in instruction and school
wide processes
Table 11: Differences: Perceived Impact of Professional Development on Teacher
learning
Differences: Mountain Middle School River Middle School
Perceived impact of
professional development
on teacher learning
 Professional
development could
positively impact
teacher learning but
must have right
people on board
 Professional
development could
positively impact
teacher learning, but
currently covered
too many topics
sporadically – which
lead to feelings of
being overwhelmed
and resulted in no
change
The Role of Leadership in the Professional Development Process
Mountain Middle School
The school leadership established and maintained many of the school processes at
the site. Leadership, for the purpose of this study, focused primarily on the principal.
During the interviews, the school leaders were called “guides,” “part facilitators,”
“coaches,” “cheerleaders,” and “directors.” They were described by one teacher as, “the
ones who initiate or light a fire under the staff to show them this is what we need to do.”
For the professional development process, the school leadership chose an area of focus
based on the data and opened it up for discussion. Based on the leadership team’s
94
findings and recommendations, the principal made the final decision regarding the course
of the professional development activity. The leadership oversaw the professional
development process by providing time for the teachers to meet and discuss different
topics of concern.
The school leadership understood who the effective people were on the staff.
According to the principal, knowing which teacher “has a good grasp on what is going
on” is essential to running things smoothly. However, he also acknowledged that “part of
the process is weeding out the people who are not going to be on board. You cannot ever
get to 100% of people on board. But you have to make sure the ones who are not on
board are not messing it up for the people who want to do it.” The principal ensured that
the people who served on the site leadership team were enthusiastic and willing to work
on improving the school.
The SARC detailed the role of leadership in determining the focus areas for school
improvement. Each year the school leader looked at their school data such as API and
AYP scores, their benchmark tests, their culture, and their individual departments’
success and from these developed long-term goals and manageable objectives. For
example, the SARC outlined overall strengths of Mountain Middle School’s performance.
These included a steady increase in scores over the past eight years as well as an increase
in subgroup scores, among others. However, some of the overall challenges for
Mountain this year were addressing Special Education scores and helping the 8
th
graders
achieve 16 more points on the upcoming API.
95
River Middle School
Some of those interviewed agreed that the role of the principal at the school was
to ensure that the support systems were in place for professional development to take
place. According to one teacher, the principal looked at the data and made “sure that we
have reflection time and that we have met with our department and our colleagues and
our curricular area, to make sure that we can look at the data and see where we are
going…and see how we are addressing the students that are not meeting their needs.”
Some of the staff interviewed also described the current principal, who was in her second
year at River, as more “direct,” “hands-on,” and “dynamic” than the former principal.
The assistant principal saw his own position as supporting the principal, attending
training workshops, and supporting professional development processes. One teacher
viewed the principal and assistant principal as carrying “down directives from the district
office” which implied that the principal’s role is not autonomous but rather subject to the
demands of the district office. A couple of teachers interviewed also believed that with
the current school leadership there was less teacher input regarding what direction
professional development should take. This lack of input was perceived as a lack of trust
in the staff.
School documents such as the SARC and the Single Plan for Student Achievement
assisted the school leadership in determining the important areas of student achievement
to address. The principal looked at school data generated from school test scores, as well
as input from staff regarding which actions were most helpful increasing student learning
the previous year and what might work in the upcoming school year. Furthermore, the
96
Strategic Plan for Student Improvement outlined the school’s goals based on an analysis
of state API data and local benchmarks.
Similarities between the Two Sites
Those interviewed at both sites agreed that the role of the school leadership was to
create and sustain the support systems for professional development to take place. Many
at both sites felt that the school leadership determined what specific areas the school
should focus on for professional development (see Table 12). This was corroborated with
documents such as the SARC, and the Single Plan for Student Achievement.
Differences between the Two Sites
Although the site leadership at both schools decided the focus of the professional
development activity, teachers at River felt they had insufficient input. This lack of input
was perceived as a lack of trust between the administration and the teaching staff. This
was not seen at Mountain Middle School (see Table 13).
Table 12: Similarities: Role of Leadership in the Professional Development Process
Similarities: Mountain Middle School & River Middle
School
Role of leadership in the professional
development process
 Created and sustained support
systems necessary for professional
development to take place
 Determined what areas to focus
professional development activities
on
Table 13: Differences: Role of Leadership in the Professional Development Process
Differences: Mountain Middle School River Middle School
Role of leadership in the
professional development
process
 Used input from the
staff to decide areas
of need and how to
proceed with
professional
development
activities
 Used limited input
from the staff to
decide areas of need
and how to proceed
with professional
development
activities
97
Summary
This chapter discussed the findings from the research questions. Both sites had
district level involvement in the professional development decision-making process, and
both sites were given additional time for professional development activities. Site
leadership teams worked closely with the school principal to determine the course of
professional development activities. Mountain Middle School’s meeting frequency
allowed for more flexibility and input. Furthermore, both sites emphasized testing data to
drive their content strategies, incorporated collaborative and active engagement
strategies, and used various formal and informal assessments to determine the
effectiveness of the professional development activity. The perceptions of the impact of
professional development activities on teacher learning were varied at the school sites.
Finally, the school leadership was viewed as important to creating and sustaining the
resources necessary for professional development opportunities to take place.
98
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The literature revealed that teacher expertise is one of the most important factors
in determining student success (Darling-Hammond, 1997, 2000; Rivkin, Hanushek, &
Kain, 1998). Therefore, teacher education is an essential part of building the skills and
knowledge needed to help students learn. The studies on professional development
revealed that effective professional development practices may contribute to increasing
teacher knowledge and skills (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2000). However, the
research also revealed that many schools continue implementing ineffective models of
professional development that may not be instrumental to teacher learning.
The purpose of this study was to analyze two teacher professional development
programs at middle schools that have shown continuous growth on their California
Standards Test scores and examine how each school organizes their professional
development opportunities, the perceived impact these activities have on classroom
instruction and student performance, and the role of school leadership in the professional
development process. As schools become more accountable for student achievement
outcomes, this study may provide information about teacher professional development
that might help inform practices at schools that are not as successful as these middle
schools with students’ learning outcomes.
Summary of Findings
Professional Development Opportunities
Most professional development programs in California are designed from the top
down, with the district office mandating and executing professional development
programs. However, this configuration may exclude the individual needs of each school
99
site by not taking into consideration the individual strengths and areas in need of
improvement (Corcoran, 1995; Little, 1993). Both schools in this study engaged in a
blend of district-office mandated activities as well as site-driven activities. Perhaps the
emerging focus on standards and accountability changed how the district office supported
the individual needs of each site. The districts of each site in this study worked closely
with the site leadership to determine the focus of professional development. There were
some significant differences, however.
At Mountain Middle School, the district office examined and disaggregated the
California Standards Test scores generated by the school. Mountain’s principal and
leadership team analyzed the performance data, drew conclusions, and theorized about
the findings. The Single Plan for Student Achievement written by the principal described
areas of focus based on statewide and local assessment data. An action plan, written by
each site, detailed how the school would address these gaps in student performance. The
principal then collaborated with the Director of Curriculum and Instruction at the district
office to help develop objectives and goals for the site. This symbiotic relationship
empowered the school site to determine the course of their professional develop
opportunities while receiving guidance and expertise from the district office. Despite
Corcoran’s (1985) and Little’s (1989) findings that professional development tended to
be top-down, isolated from classroom realities, and not internally generated, Mountain
worked collaboratively with the district office to determine the goals and objectives based
on teachers’ needs.
100
The findings from River Middle School were different. Before LACOE’s
intervention with the DAIT program, the principal described a professional development
process that was in transition. Her perception was that the district office was working
with the sites in “very early attempts at collaboration.” Since the DAIT program was
implemented, there appeared to be more district control of the professional development
process. For example, the Curriculum/Instruction/Assessment director worked with the
school sites on the EEE3I project, which was developing strong lesson plans. However,
some teachers at River felt this was a redundant exercise and a waste of their time. As
Little (1989) noted in her research findings, when professional development is primarily
controlled by the district office, a site’s individual strengths and areas for improvement
are largely ignored. The negative perception by the staff suggested that some of the
teachers at River, who had been in the district a long time, viewed the district office’s
intervention as intrusive leading to resentful feelings. As a result, the teachers’
participation and motivation in the activity potentially was diminished, thus did not lead
to any significant learning or changes in teaching practices.
The decision at each site to have a leadership team also warranted discussion.
Both site leadership teams were comprised of staff members who were representative of
their peers. It was composed of administrators and teachers who each brought their
perspective and expertise to the meeting. The decisions regarding the content and design
of the professional development activity were based on school wide data, which was
disaggregated and analyzed by the team. However, the researcher noted a significant
difference between the sites in the frequency of their meetings. Mountain’s leadership
team met weekly, whereas River’s leadership team met monthly. At Mountain this
101
regular participation between the administrators and teachers not only allowed for more
flexibility and modification of the professional development focus, but it also may have
attributed to more positive perceptions of the purpose of the professional development
activities, thus influencing motivation and participation. The frequency of the site
leadership team meetings may have empowered teachers to make more school wide
decisions and fostered more trust among the members.
Professional Development Organization
Many schools and districts currently lack a purposeful, strategic, comprehensive,
and sustained professional development plan (Wilson and Berne, 1999). However, the
findings showed that both schools in this study had a purposeful and strategic
professional development plan. This was evidenced by the interviews and documents.
Each site regularly spent time analyzing their test scores and school climate and planning
their professional development meetings around these findings.
It was important to note that River Middle School had new school administration
as well as district administration; therefore, the professional development process was
undergoing major changes, so this was a relatively new process. Mountain Middle
School, however, had been working on this process under the same principal for almost
eight years. Therefore, it was possible to conclude that Mountain had experience in
developing and modifying this process, whereas River was still in the beginning stages of
a new process. This may have affected not only the content and context of the activity,
but also the staff’s perception of the activity.
Professional development activities that focused on aligning instruction with state
standards, encouraged discussion and active engagement, and had sufficient time built in
102
for the activity show increased effectiveness in teacher learning (Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). The findings
from both schools revealed that professional development activities primarily were
focused on aligning instruction with the state standards as well as teaching instructional
strategies for different subject areas. Activities were designed to encourage discussion
and collaborative engagement. These design features of professional development
activities corroborated Knowles and Associate’s (1984) findings on adult learning.
Activities should favor active participation, discussion, and teacher input over passive
methods of instruction. Staff members at both schools perceived these context
characteristics as positive to improving colleague communication as well as establishing
a more effective focus on common issues and how to solve them. However, some of the
staff at River felt that despite the benefits of increased colleague communication, their
input was largely ignored. Therefore, their interest in the activity was low. As a result
they felt mistrusted by the school administration, which in turn, fostered mistrust toward
the school administration.
Research suggested that professional knowledge was enhanced when reflective
strategies were used to delve into pedagogy. Teaching the content of the activity itself
was not sufficient but rather understanding one’s own knowledge in relation to the
curriculum and student learning was essential (Wilson and Berne, 1999; Penuel et.al.,
2007; & Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002). A review of documents at
both sites indicated that self-reflective activities were regularly incorporated into the
professional development activity. However, it was difficult to ascertain whether these
reflections were focused solely on data analysis or on pedagogy and how students learn.
103
Conclusions drawn from these findings were limited. Mountain and River continued to
demonstrate increases in their API scores, but the researcher cannot suggest that the
presence or lack of these learning practices influenced teacher learning in any way.
The Perception of Professional Development Strategies
In addition to the design of the activity, teacher perceptions and interpretations of
the professional development activities significantly influenced teacher learning and the
transference of this learning into the classroom (Penuel et. al, 2007). Those interviewed
at both sites felt that the process of professional development was beneficial because it
increased communication across the staff, allowed the staff to focus on common issues,
and kept them current with the research.
However, at River Middle School there were differing viewpoints regarding the
effectiveness of their professional development program. To begin, some staff members
perceived the district office as driving the professional development process. As a result,
some staff members felt that the staff did not have enough input on the direction of the
professional development activities. Other staff members felt there were too many
different activities currently being pursued to be effective, and that the professional
development activities were not always pertinent or relevant to each teacher’s specific
needs. When asked about her perception of teacher professional development at her site,
one teacher stated that her first thought was that she did not want to attend the meeting
and then she questioned whether she would actually learn anything from the meeting.
This suggests that the current professional development activities were not always
relevant to addressing her particular instructional needs, which may be extrapolated to
not addressing other teachers’ needs as well. Although it was assumed that the leadership
104
team was composed of teacher representatives, it is unclear how much they actually
represented their peers or how much influence they had to determine the course of
professional development activities. This may be a new change partly due to the
district’s intervention by LACOE. This also may be partially attributable to the school’s
new administration, which was working to define its role within the school culture.
Conversely, this perception may be influenced by a reaction of the staff to new school
and district leadership and a new change process. Knowles and Associates’ (1984)
research findings point out that change is a personal experience that varies for each
person and is also a process that occurs over time. It is a person’s perception of an event
that influences how much they will internalize and be transformed by the information. If
teachers feel frustrated with the content of the professional development activity, they
may be less likely attend to the information.
The Role of School Leadership in the Professional Development Process
School leaders have the ability to shape the school environment in which students
succeed or fail (NSDC; DuFour & Berkey, 1995). This includes being able to facilitate
change in their school by creating the conditions that enable their staff to learn and grow;
for example, creating goals and objectives for the school, planning and scheduling time
for professional development activities, and constantly evaluating the process (Webb &
Norton, 2009). The principals at both schools effectively created regular opportunities
for the staff to meet to discuss student achievement. They each had long range goals and
short-term objectives based on student results from state and local assessments with
carefully planned out professional development strategies throughout the year.
105
The principal at Mountain Middle School had eight years of experience with his
staff. According to Elmore (2002) long term school improvement requires knowledge,
persistency, and consistency over time. Furthermore, school improvement requires an
understanding of how theory interacts with the school culture. The principal’s extensive
experience with his staff and collaborative relationship with the district office may have
given him deeper insight into effective school improvement strategies. Since his
administration, Mountain’s API scores have increased 126 points. He perceived his role
as orchestrating the professional development process and making sure that the teachers
take ownership of the activities. He claimed his primary job was to listen to and
empower his staff members but that he retained the final decision. This view of his role
was further corroborated by other staff members interviewed. One teacher described him
as a director who chooses a specific area to focus on and then has the staff analyze that
area and make suggestions how to improve it. Another teacher described the principal’s
role in the professional development process as determining what areas need to be
evaluated and then having the teachers and department chair collaborate and problem-
solve. These perceptions corroborate Dufour and Berkey’s (1995) findings that the
principal can facilitate meaningful change in a school by creating the conditions which
promote growth and development of the professional.
At the time of this study, the principal at River Middle School had two years of
experience at that site. Since 2000, River’s API increased 138 points. Her role in the
professional development process was perceived differently by the staff interviewed. The
principal saw her role as a leader who makes and carries out decisions regarding
professional development. One of the teachers interviewed described the principal’s role
106
as creating the time and resources necessary for teachers to meet and collaborate.
Another described her role as carrying down the professional development directives
from the district office to the school site. Yet another teacher described the principal’s
role as conducting professional development meetings. These findings suggest that the
principal’s role in the professional development process was not clearly delineated and
understood by the staff, which can lead to misunderstandings about her purpose as well
as the staff’s role in the professional development process.
According to Dufour and Berkey (1995) the principal is responsible for
monitoring the critical elements of the professional development process. This includes
teacher perception and satisfaction. This confusion regarding the principal and staff’s
role in the professional development process may have influenced how the staff
perceived the professional development process and can lead to resentment. The data on
high performing schools suggests that teachers need to exert influence over their work
(Youngs & King, 2002).
Implications
District Office
This study may help school districts understand the importance of the district
office in working with schools to develop a professional development program unique to
each site’s needs. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach toward all the school sites, it is
recommended that the district office recognize each site’s individual strengths and areas
for improvement so they can work with the site leadership in determining the best course
of action. At Mountain Middle School, a symbiotic relationship existed between the
Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the school leadership. Each had their own
107
defined roles in disaggregating, analyzing, and addressing the data. At River Middle
School, however, LACOE’S intervention at the district office influenced the dynamics
among the roles of the district office, the site principal, and the staff in the professional
development process. The teachers’ attitudes at River were clearly influenced by their
perception of the district office’s management of the professional development process at
their site. Some felt that many of the activities such as EEE3I were not relevant to their
specific needs and were resentful of having to attend those meetings. This may
negatively affect how the teachers attend to the new information and internalize the
learning.
It is also suggested that the district office continue providing the resources
necessary for effective professional development to take place. This includes
maintaining regular and consistent time for staffs to meet. In addition to three full days
of professional development, the shortened school day once a week frees up the school
staffs to meet to discuss instructional issues regularly. This organizational strategy was
perceived by the staff as increasing communication and helping them focus on common
issues. Another resource is expertise. School districts have the expertise and ability to
develop principals’ knowledge and skills regarding the professional development process.
It is recommended that they help define their role in the professional develop process and
empower the school leadership to develop and organize effective professional develop
programs utilizing the most current research and practices.
School Sites
An effective professional development program may influence teacher learning.
Therefore, beginning, and being committed to, a comprehensive professional
108
development program immediately is essential. As evidenced at both schools, the
ongoing process of defining, evaluating and modifying the professional development
process takes time. This study further reveals the importance of current professional
development research and how principals can effectively organize professional
development goals, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses at the school site, create the
opportunities to address those needs, and measure the effectiveness of the process.
Teaching strategies alone do not necessarily equate with teacher learning and
change in classroom practice. A number of variables influence teacher learning. The
research suggests that using the principles of adult learning and building reflective
strategies focused on pedagogy may enhance teacher learning. Furthermore, teacher
perception may largely affect motivation to learn.
A site leadership team comprised of representatives from each subject matter who
meets frequently may be helpful for gathering input and building support for the
professional development process. It can be instrumental in representing the needs and
values of each school area and, therefore, can help determine the direction of the
professional development process. Increased frequency of the meetings may also allow
for needed flexibility and modifications and may contribute to more positive perceptions
of the purpose of the professional development activities, thus further influencing
motivation and participation
Limitations
In addition to the limitations previously discussed in Chapter 1, there were more
factors during the study that were not controlled by the researcher that may have affected
the outcomes of the study:
109
 The significant demographic differences might contribute to the differences in
API and standardized achievement scores. When the 2007-2008 school profiles
and test results were released during the time of this study, there were almost 200
more students at River than at Mountain, the Hispanic population at River was
20% larger than Mountain, and the English Learner population at River was
almost twice the amount than Mountain. Although River’s API increased from
538-676 points (+138) and Mountain’s API increased from 637-763 points (+126)
Mountain’s 2007-2008 API score remains higher than River’s.
 The principal at River Middle School was in her second year as principal, so the
organization of the professional development program was relatively new to the
staff. This may have influenced the perceptions and impact of the professional
development activities on teacher learning.
 As a result of LACOE’s recent intervention, there were more directives coming
from the district office, which tended to take time away from site-determined
professional development activities. Furthermore, teachers’ perceptions of the
professional development process were affected by LACOE’s involvement.
However, it is also worth noting that since LACOE’s intervention at the district
level, River’s California Standards Test scores have continued to increase.
 The researcher recognized that each staff member held differing perceptions and
attitudes toward the professional development process; therefore the findings
from the researcher were limited to only those interviewed.
110
Future Research
Although professional development is one aspect of a school wide comprehensive
approach to increasing student performance, future research might provide more insight
into the impact of the professional development process on teacher learning. One
recommendation is to study more professional development models at middle schools
that are consistently increasing student achievement. Other research studies might
include studying the professional development opportunities at high school sites, which
tend to encompass a larger range of skills and attitudes. A third suggested area for study
is to examine the individual components of this study separately to determine their
strength and contribution to teacher learning. For example, one study might focus on the
content characteristics and one study might focus on the context characteristics of a
professional development program. Teacher’s perceptions largely affect their motivation
to learn. Therefore, studies on teacher motivation might help illuminate the factors that
contribute to teacher learning. Another suggested area of research is to examine students’
perceptions and how they may affect the professional development process.
A unique variable to this study was that the researcher was able to study two
school sites in the beginning stages and more advanced stages of implementing a
professional development process. Although each site had its own unique culture and
practices, there were many similarities found between the programs. There were
differences as well that could possibly be attributed to the different stages of
implementation. Therefore, further research may focus on the evolving process of
implementing a professional development program.
111
Conclusion
The study of two school sites with different demographics and student
achievement provided a broader understanding of the professional development process.
Although each school had different cultures, they both implemented similar strategies
that research has shown to improve teacher learning. Furthermore, the role of school
leadership was integral to creating and sustaining the conditions necessary for effective
professional development practices to take place.
112
Appendix A
Administrator Interview Questions
Research Question: What does the professional development model of a middle school
look like?
1. What is your position in the school and how many years have you been a faculty
member of the school itself and in education overall?
2. What school wide professional development strategies are provided for teachers?
a. How are teacher professional development activities organized?
b. What is addressed (content)?
3. How does the school measure the effectiveness of the professional development
activity?
4. What are your perceptions of the benefits of teacher professional development?
5. What do you think is the impact of teacher professional development on teaching
and learning at your school?
6. Specifically, what role do you play in this process?
Probing Questions:
How so?
To what extent?
Can you clarify?
Can you be more specific?
Is there anything else?
113
Appendix B
Teacher Interview Questions
Research Question: What does the professional development model of a middle school
look like?
1. What is your position in the school and how many years have you been a faculty
member of the school itself and in education overall?
2. What school wide professional development strategies are provided for teachers?
a. How are teacher professional development activities organized?
b. What is addressed (content)?
3. How do you measure the effectiveness of the practices?
4. How do you believe your classroom instruction has changed as a result of these
activities?
5. What are your perceptions of the benefits of teacher professional development?
6. What do you think is the impact of teacher professional development on teaching
and learning at the school? In your classroom?
7. Specifically, what role does the principal play in this process?
Probing Questions:
How so?
To what extent?
Can you clarify?
Can you be more specific?
Is there anything else?
114
Appendix C
Observation Protocol
Focus Words: Environment Practices
Engagement Rigor
Strategies Standards
Programs
Event being
observed:_______________________Teacher:___________________Date:____
What is Happening? What Do I Think is Happening?
115
Appendix D
Document Collection and Analysis
Date of Document:_____________
Documents What Looking For:
 School Accountability Report Card
(SARC)
 Single Plan for Student
Achievement
 Staff Development Meeting
Minutes/Agenda
 Professional Development Plan
 Daily & Instructional Schedules
 Other Documents as needed:
Background Data:
 Population
 Other background data as needed
Overall school data to support school wide
professional development activities:
 Vision and mission statements
 Teacher groups/leadership groups
 Schedule of instructional day
 Professional development activities
 Meeting minutes of professional
development activities
 Professional development activities
aligned with classroom practices
116
Appendix E
Definition of Related Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): The scoring and ranking of a school’s
academic performance and growth on a variety of academic content areas.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A statewide accountability system mandated by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which requires each state to ensure that all schools
and districts make Adequate Yearly Progress by annually establishing a series of
academic performance goals for the schools.
High-performing/High-poverty/High-minority schools: Schools with large
numbers of poor and minority students that demonstrate successful academic growth in
both AYP and API performance.
Human capital: The combined knowledge and skills of all the human resources
(teachers, administrators, staff, students, parents, etc.) within a school.
Learning communities: A powerful professional development strategy for school
change and improvement in which the teachers and administrators in a school
continuously seek and share learning and then act on what they learn.
Professional development: A series of learning opportunities for school staff
designed to produce a demonstrable and measurable effect on student academic
achievement.
School capacity: The actual or potential ability to utilize all school resources to
maximize student achievement outcomes.
Standards: A set of expected outcomes and expectations for achievement that
students and staff should know and be able to demonstrate.
Traditional models of professional development: The same professional
development practices that have been repeatedly used in schools, regardless of
effectiveness.
117
References
A Nation at Risk (1983). Retrieved May 4, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
Archived Information: Goals 2000 Legislation and Related Items (n.d). Retrieved January
28, 2008 from www.ed.gov/G2K/Index.html
Anfara, V.A., Brown, K.M., & Mangione, T.L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage:
Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher.
Angelo, J. F. (2005). An analysis of principal leadership affecting student achievement in
a high-performing, high-poverty middle school: A case study (Doctoral
Dissertation, The George Washington University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 65, 4405.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher. 33(8) 2004. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from
www.jstor.org.
Butler, J.A. (1992). Staff development. School Improvement Research Series (SIRS).
Close-Up #12. Retrieved November 21, 2007 from
www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html
Closing the Achievement Gap (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2008 from
http://www.subnet.nga.org/educlear/achievement/
Corcoran, T.B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional
development. New Brunswick, NJ: CPRE Policy Briefs, Carriage House at the
Eagleton Institute of Politics.
Creswell, J.W. & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry, theory
into practice, 39(3) 124-130. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure.
Teachers College Record, 99(33), 453-477.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.
Retrieved July 21, 2008 from the ERIC database.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 8(1) 2000. Retrieved
May 6, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
118
DeJarnette, S. & Caldwell, E. (1997). Professional development in learning-centered
schools [Electronic version]. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from the ERIC database.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully
implemented? Review of Educational Research. 72(433). Retrieved July 22, 2008
from www.rer.sagepub.com
Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects
of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study [Electronic version]. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis. 24(2), 81-112.
Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principals as professional
development leaders. Teachers College Record. 109(1) 70-125.
DuFour, R. & Berkey, T. (1995). The principal as staff developer [Electronic version].
Journal of Staff Development. 16(4).
Ed-Data (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2008 from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
Education Trust, The (2007). Retrieved May 5, 2008 from
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/PowerPoint.htm
Elmore, R.F. (2003). A plea for strong practice [Electronic version]. Educational
Leadership.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from www.nsdc.org
ESEA of 1965 (2004). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from
si.unm.edu/si2002/SUSAN_A/TIMELINE/TIM_0015.HTM
Fetterman, D.M. (1988). Qualitative approaches to evaluating education. Educational
Researcher. 17-23.
Fishman, B.J., Marx, R.W., Best, S., & Tal, R.T. (2003). Linking teacher and student
learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and
Teaching Education. 19(6) 643-658.
Gall, M.D. & Renchler, R.S. (1985). Effective staff development for teachers: A research-
based model. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management College of
Education, University of Oregon.
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
[Electronic version]. American Educational Research Journal. 38(4) 915-945.
119
Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and applications. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Guskey, T.R. (1997). Research needs to link professional development and student
learning. Journal of Staff Development. 18, 36-40.
Guskey, T.R. (1998). The age of our accountability [Electronic version]. Journal of Staff
Development. 19(4).
Guskey, T.R. & Sparks, D. (1991). Complexities in evaluating the effects of staff
development programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL, April 1991.
Guskey, T.R. & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development
and improvement in student learning. Journal of Staff Development. 17, 34-38.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995 [Electronic version].
Educational Administration Quarterly. 32(1) 5-44.
History of American Education Web Project (2004). Retrieved May 4, 2008 from
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of
professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student
outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10). Retrieved June
4, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n10/.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. www.sagepub.com.
Little, J.W. (1989). District policy choices and teachers’ professional development
opportunities [Electronic version]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
11(2) 165-179.
Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. New York, NY: NCREST Reprint Series. Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Loucks, S.F. & Hall, G.E. (1981). Investigating program implementation: A field
perspective [Electronic version]. Paper presented at a conference on
Documentation of School Improvement Efforts: Some Technical Issues and
Future Research Agenda, Pittsburgh, March, 1981.
McEwan, E.K. & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s
not, and how to tell the difference. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
120
National Center on Progress Monitoring (n.d.). Determining adequate yearly progress
from kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement.
Retrieved June 2, 2008 from www.studentprogress.org
National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington D.C:
National Academy Press.
National Staff Development Council (2000). Learning to lead, leading to learn:
Improving school quality through principal professional development. December
2000.
National Staff Development Council (2008). Retrieved May 13, 2008 from
http://www.nsdc.org/connect/about/index.cfm
No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference (2007). Retrieved March 17, 2008 from
www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page_pg17.html
NSDC’s Standards for Staff Development (2001). Retrieved January 7, 2008 from
www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm
Palmatier, R.L. (1999). The nature of professional development in a high-performing
urban elementary school (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 3225.
Patton, M..Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. California: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum
implementation [Electronic version]. American Educational Research Journal.
44(4) 921-958.
Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the
effective schools literature. The Elementary School Journal. 85(3) 352-389.
Retrieved July 23, 2008 from www.jstor.org
Richardson, T.L. (2002). The importance of emotional intelligence during transition into
middle school [Electronic Version]. Middle School Journal. 33(3) 55-58.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A. & Kain, J.F. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. NBER Working Paper No. 6691, August 1998.
Shulman, L. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview [Electronic
version]. Educational Researcher. 10(6) 5-23.
121
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. 2003. Working smarter to leave no child
behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Summary of Goals 2000: Educate America Act (n.d.). Retrieved January 28, 2008 from
www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/stw/sw0goals.html
University of the State of New York State Education Department (2003). Retrieved March
17, 2008 from www.highered.nysed.gov/nclb09-2003f.htm
Webb, L.D. & Norton, M.S. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel issues
and needs in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 5
th
Ed.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005. Similar students, different results: Why
do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Wilson, S.M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education. 24(1999), pgs. 173-209.
Retrieved from www.jstor.org.
Wirt, F. & Kirst, M.W. (2005). The Political Dynamics of American Education, (3
rd
ed.)
chap. 1 and 2. Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Wong, K.K. & Nicotera, A.C. (2004). Brown v. board of education and the Coleman
report: Social science research and the debate on educational equality. Peabody
Journal of Education. 79(2) 2004, pgs. 122 – 135.
Youngs, P. & King, M.B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to
build school capacity [Electronic version]. Educational Administration Quarterly.
38(5) 643-670.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education
[Electronic Version]. Journal of Teacher Education. 58(1) 36-46.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Administrators and teachers are held accountable for the academic achievement of their students as measured by the California Standards Test. Because teacher preparation is strongly correlated to student achievement, providing professional development can help schools improve their performance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The distinguishing characteristics of a high performing urban public high school: a descriptive analysis self-study

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

Cross-case analysis of the use of student performance data to increase student achievement in California public schools on the elementary level

PDF

Examining the effects of structured dialogue grounded in socioculturalism as a tool to facilitate professional development in secondary science

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

The impact of professional learning community on teacher learning and student achievement: a qualitative approach

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

How professional learning communities use student data to increase achievement

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: a statewide imperative

PDF

Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers

PDF

Twenty-first century skills and academic student achievement: a case study of Provence Polytechnic Charter School Organization

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of teacher training on the improvement of California standardized test scores at Eva B. Elementary School

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

A story of achievement in areas where others fail: a case study of secondary school reform in mathematics at Pacific North High School

PDF

Supporting learners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a professional development curriculum for elementary teachers

PDF

Impact of leadership on professional development programs on districts' and schools' implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

Developing 21st century skills through effective professional development: a study of Jamestown Polytechnic Charter School Organization

PDF

Culturally responsive coaching and professional development for teachers working with English learners: a case study in early childhood education

Asset Metadata

Creator Hall, Stephanie Noelle (author)

Core Title A study of professional development in two middle schools with significant increases in statewide test scores

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 05/05/2009

Defense Date 03/24/2009

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

Tag API,AYP,California standards,content and context characteristics,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,school leadership,school reform,staff development

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hollins, Etta R. (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Love, Laurie (committee member)

Creator Email stephanienhall@gmail.com,stephhall@mail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2188

Unique identifier UC1455176

Identifier etd-Hall-2844 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-239627 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2188 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hall-2844.pdf

Dmrecord 239627

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hall, Stephanie Noelle

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu