Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
May 05, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 6378 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 05, 1999 BEATRICE F. BIRMAN HOUSE EDUCATION AND
THE WORKFORCE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING
DEVELOPING QUALITY TEACHERS
BODY:
Statement of:
Beatrice F. Birman, Ph.D., Director National Evaluation of the Eisenhower
Professional Development Program American Institutes for Research Wednesday, May
5,1999 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here
today to discuss preliminary findings from the National Evaluation of the
Eisenhower Professional Development Program. I am Beatrice F. Birman, Director
of the National Evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program
(ESEA, Title II, Part B, State and Local Activities). I am
accompanied by Michael S. Garet, the Deputy Director of the Evaluation. We both
will be happy to answer any questions you may have after I present my testimony.
The professional development of teachers is a crucial element of the nation's
efforts to improve education. Over the last decade, states and school districts
have adopted high standards for student knowledge and performance.' National,
state, and local reform efforts seek a fundamental shift in what students learn
and how they are taught. None of these reforms will succeed without good
teachers who are immersed in their subjects and who know how to foster both
advanced thinking and problem solving among their students.ii The Eisenhower
program is the largest of the Department of Education's efforts to develop
teachers' competence."' Part B, with a 1999 appropriation of about $335 million,
awards funds to states and districts on the basis of a formula and to
institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations through state-run
competitive grant programs." The funds are earmarked to provide teachers with
opportunities to learn more about the content and processes of teaching
mathematics and science, with allowable expenditures for work in other content
areas when the total exceeds $250 million v Allowable activities are
wide-ranging and include workshops and conferences, study groups, professional
networks and collaboratives, task force work, and peer coaching. In its 1994
reauthorization of the program, the U.S. Congress makes explicit that
Eisenhower-funded activities should be designed to improve teacher practice,
and, ultimately, student performance. The law incorporates a number of
strategies to achieve this overarching goal. First, the reauthorized Eisenhower
program is aimed at supporting high-quality professional development activities.
Both the EPDP legislation and the program guidance published by the Department
of Education emphasize that the Eisenhower program should fund professional
development that is sustained, intensive, ongoing, and of high quality. Such
professional development should reflect recent research on teaching and
learning, and should provide teachers and other school staff with the knowledge
and skills necessary to provide all students with the opportunity to meet
challenging standards. Further, these provisions are reflected in ED's
performance indicators for the Eisenhower program, which fulfill one of ED's
requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).v' In
addition to requiring that EPDP funds support sustained and intensive
professional development activities, the reauthorized Eisenhower program intends
to ensure that professional development activities supported with Eisenhower
funds include and target teachers of at-risk students. Reflecting the strong
emphasis in education reform efforts and in federal programs on increasing
access to a high quality education for all students, the 1994 legislation states
that state applications and local plans should take into account the educational
needs of students from historically underrepresented populations. Furthermore,
the Eisenhower legislation places special emphasis on addressing the needs of
teachers in schools receiving Title 1, Part A funds; generally these are schools
that have higher rates of poverty than other schools in their districts. Third,
the reauthorized Eisenhower program intends to integrate Eisenhower-funded
activities with other reform efforts, as reflected in the law, program guidance,
and program indicators. Recent efforts to improve education have focused on
ensuring that all aspects of the education system-including curriculum,
assessments, teacher education-be consistent with one another and geared toward
the same goals. Reflecting this focus, the law requires that Eisenhower- funded
professional development activities be aligned with challenging state and local
standards and coordinated with education reform and professional development
efforts funded by federal, state, and local governments and other public,
private, and nonprofit organizations and associations. Such integration of
EPDP-funded activities with other reform efforts would presumably strengthen the
quality of those activities by gearing them to challenging standards and by
allowing the combining of funds from several sources to support the design of
higher-quality activities. The law's requirements for co-funding of professional
development activities promote linkages between Eisenhower-funded activities and
those funded from other sources. Finally, the reauthorized Eisenhower program
contains provisions intended to foster ongoing tracking of progress by states
and localities, supported by performance indicators. A number of the law's
requirements encourage state education agencies (SEAs) and local education
agencies (LEAs) to engage in a continuous improvement process, grounded in
careful goal-setting and in monitoring progress. The 1994 law establishes
detailed requirements for state and local planning under the Title II program. A
key aspect of state and local plans is the requirement that states and districts
that receive Eisenhower funds establish performance indicators-a requirement
that echoes the requirement in GPRA that ED establish performance indicators for
all of its programs. in both GPRA and the ESEA, indicators
based on results are used to facilitate more data-driven planning, evaluation,
and program management. In February 1997, the U.S. Department of Education's
Planning and Evaluation Service commissioned the American Institutes for
Research (AIR) to conduct a three-year evaluation of Part B of the Eisenhower
Professional Development Program. The evaluation was designed to: (1) Describe
Eisenhower-funded activities and evaluate their effects, and (2) Provide
information related to performance indicators that ED developed for the program
in response to GPRA requirements. GPRA requires ED to determine the program's
performance in relation to its goals and objectives. This national evaluation is
using a multiple-method strategy to collect quantitative and qualitative data
about Eisenhower-funded activities. The data come from a variety of
sources-state and district officials, directors of grants awarded to
institutions of higher education and non profit organizations, and teachers. The
evaluation is designed to obtain national data about program- funded activities,
to obtain a deeper understanding of how the program works in selected locations,
as well as to collect information about how professional development activities
affect teacher practice. The study involves three key strands of data
collection. The first strand, a National Profile, provides information about
program goals, strategies, operations, and activities nationwide. During the
1997-98 school year, we conducted telephone interviews with a nationally
representative sample of Eisenhower coordinators in 363 school districts and
project directors in 92 institutions of higher education or nonprofit
organizations (IHE/NPOs)."' We also collected data from a mail survey of a
national probability sample of 1025 teachers who participated in 657
Eisenhower-funded activities v... These Teacher Activity Survey data describe
the types of professional development supported with Eisenhower funds and
compare activities sponsored by school districts to those sponsored by higher
education institutions and nonprofits. The second strand of data, a set of
In-depth Case Studies, provides detailed information on how the EPDP operates in
selected states, school districts, and schools. AIR staff visited 10 school
districts--two school districts in each of five states: Kentucky, New York,
Ohio, Texas, and Washington. The districts were selected to represent a
diversity of region, urbanicity, and ethnic composition. The sites also were
selected to represent innovative approaches to professional development. Through
site visits to the In-depth Case Study districts during the 1997-98 school year,
we explored how decisions are made about the use of program funds, and the
reasons for variations in goals, operations, and activities across states and
districts. The case studies have been a critical source of information about how
Eisenhower-funded activities relate to other professional development and
education reform efforts, and the degree of coherence and consistency of these
efforts. The information they provide expands upon information we obtained
during the 1996-97 school year in a set of six exploratory case studies. The
third strand of this evaluation, a Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change,
examines the effects of Eisenhower-funded and other professional development on
teacher practice in mathematics and science. In each of the In-depth case study
districts, we interviewed and observed teachers in three schools-an elementary,
middle, and high school. We also surveyed all teachers who teach mathematics or
science in those schools. During the 1997-98 school year, we conducted two of
the three waves of the Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change. During the current
school year, the third wave of data from this study is being collected. We also
are conducting observations of professional development activities. Our focus on
mathematics and science instruction in this phase of the study enabled us to
collect valid data about classroom teaching practice, while minimizing the
burden on respondents. The Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change will enable this
evaluation to examine the extent to which teachers' participation in
Eisenhower-funded and other professional development activities changes
instruction over time. The first report of the evaluation, based on exploratory
case studies in six school districts, was issued last year. I have brought
copies of that report for your information. We are currently preparing the
second report of the national evaluation, which is scheduled to be submitted to
ED later this month. Today, I will highlight preliminary findings from the
evaluation. I have organized these findings to address some of the research
questions with which we began this study. Do teachers' experiences in
Eisenhower-supported professional development activities, in the context of
other professional development activities, contribute to teaching practice? The
primary goal of the Eisenhower program is to fund professional development
activities that will improve teacher practice. Improved teacher practice rests,
in part, on the knowledge and skills that teachers bring to the classroom.
Preliminary analyses of survey data from teachers, collected for the National
Evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, show that
Eisenhower-assisted activities vary in the effects they have on enhancing
teacher knowledge and skills. Some teachers report substantial enhancement in
their knowledge and skills, while others report much less. On average, the
higher education and nonprofit organization part of Eisenhower is producing
better results than the district- sponsored part of the Eisenhower program.
Sixty-six percent of teachers participating in Eisenhower-assisted activities
funded under the district component of the program reported that the activities
enhanced their knowledge and skills in instructional methods; 58 percent
reported that participation enhanced their knowledge and skills in curriculum
content; and 49 percent of participants in district-level Eisenhower activities
reported that the professional development deepened their knowledge of math or
science content. For the IHE/NPO component of the program, the proportions of
teachers reporting enhanced knowledge and skills in these areas were 77 percent,
65 percent and 75 percent, respectively. I must emphasize that these results are
based on teacher self- reported data collected at one point in time, and it is
possible that teachers may overstate the degree to which professional
development has enhanced their knowledge and skills. The national evaluation of
the Eisenhower Program is also collecting longitudinal data on classroom
teaching practices for a sample of teachers. When these data are analyzed, they
will permit a more rigorous assessment of the extent to which participation in
professional development has enhanced teaching skills. Results from this
longitudinal study will be available early in 2000. An important aspect of this
national evaluation is that it has attempted to bring to light the features of
professional development activities that are related to enhanced teacher
knowledge and skills, and changes in teacher practice. These features help to
explain why the activities sponsored by institutions of higher education and
nonprofits appear more effective than those sponsored by school districts. We
found six features of Eisenhower-funded professional development activities that
explain enhanced teacher knowledge and skills, which, in turn, influence changes
in teaching practice. First, a focus on content knowledge in Eisenhower-funded
professional development activities is directly related to teacher reports that
the activities enhanced their knowledge and skills. This finding is consistent
with the literature on professional development for teachers that has emphasized
the importance of professional development focusing on content knowledge and how
children learn that content." A recent research synthesis of professional
development in mathematics and science conducted for this national evaluation,
as well as a study of professional development and student mathematics
achievement in California, indicate that professional development that focuses
on subject-matter content and how children learn it is more effective in
boosting student achievement than professional development that focuses on
general classroom practices.' Case study data indicate that the Eisenhower
Program, because of its continued focus on mathematics and science, has played a
role in building the capacity of districts to provide professional development
activities that focus on subject-matter content in mathematics and science.
Second, Eisenhower-funded professional development that provides teachers with
opportunities for active learning also is very strongly related to teacher
reports that professional development enhanced their knowledge and skills.
Features of active learning, such as being observed, sharing knowledge, and
evaluating student work, played a key role in fostering learning, according to
teachers. Thus, our data are consistent with the literature that teachers
benefit from professional development opportunities that go beyond the
superficial awareness of new content that they might obtain in short workshops
or conferences. Teachers benefit from opportunities to develop, practice, and
reflect upon their new knowledge. Third, Eisenhower-funded professional
development activities that are connected to teachers' other experiences also
are strongly related to enhanced teacher knowledge and skills, and, therefore,
to changes in classroom practice, according to teachers. Continuity with
teachers' learning goals or previous learning experiences, and alignment with
state and district standards and assessments are critical features of
professional development activities that are connected to teachers' other
experiences. Fourth, the amount of time (i.e., number of hours) that teachers
spend in professional development and the span of time over which the activity
occurs are important features of professional development activities. The
literature and the current Eisenhower legislation place a great deal of emphasis
on promoting "sustained" and "intensive" professional development activities.
However, these features are important for teacher learning primarily because
they make it possible for professional development to focus more on content
knowledge, opportunities for active learning, linkages with teachers' other
learning experiences and goals, and state and district standards and
assessments. Time itself is a valuable feature of professional development
activities, but only if it is well spent. Fifth, the participation in
professional development of teachers who teach in the same school, grade, or
subject area departments enhances teacher knowledge and skills, and change in
classroom practice. Such collective participation helps support improved
teaching because it facilitates active learning, and linkages of the
professional development activity with other teacher experiences. The Eisenhower
legislation and recent literature on professional development emphasize the
importance of school-based professional development, where all teachers in a
school are exposed to the same learning activities, and presumably are then able
to provide more consistent learning opportunities for children. Our data
indicate that school-based participation, and participation of teachers in the
same grade or who teach the same subjects, are indeed important in enhancing
teachers' reported knowledge and skill, though indirectly. Finally, reform types
of Eisenhower-funded professional development activities, such as study groups,
teacher networks, or mentoring or coaching activities, tend to produce more
positive teacher outcomes than traditional types, like workshops and
conferences. This is because reform types tend to involve more hours and occur
over a longer time span than traditional workshops, conferences or courses. One
surprise in our analysis is that the "type" of professional development had only
a weak direct relationship with teachers' reports of enhanced knowledge and
skills. Whether professional development takes the form of traditional courses
or workshops, or more "reform" types of activities, such as study groups or
mentoring programs, appears less important than other features of the
professional development activities. Reform types of professional development
activities are associated with teacher outcomes primarily because they are
likely to involve more hours and occur over a longer time span. The duration of
the activity in turn affords greater opportunities for focusing on content
knowledge, active learning and connections to the teachers' other learning
experiences. However, traditional types of professional development also can
occur over a long time span, and involve more hours. If they do, they are likely
to be associated with positive teacher outcomes. What types of professional
development activities does the Eisenhower program make available to teachers,
and to what extent do these activities represent best practices? Knowing the
features of professional development activities that teachers say are associated
with enhanced teacher knowledge and skills enables this evaluation to ask a key
question: Do Eisenhower-funded activities have the features that are most likely
to enhance the knowledge and skills, and classroom practice of teachers? Our
preliminary analyses suggest that Eisenhower activities funded through
institutions of higher education and nonprofits are more effective than
district- sponsored activities because the IHE/NPO activities are more likely to
focus on content, to provide more opportunities for active learning, to be more
connected to teachers' other experiences, to involve a greater number of hours,
and to occur over a longer time span. Teachers who participated in
IHE/NPO-sponsored professional development activities are more likely to say
that these activities focus on content knowledge than are teachers in district-
sponsored activities. Approximately 50 percent of teachers participating in
district activities reported that the Eisenhower-assisted activities placed a
major emphasis on content knowledge, and 67 percent of teachers participating in
activities sponsored by institutions of higher education and nonprofits reported
a major emphasis on content knowledge. The institutions of higher education and
nonprofits component of the program also tends to provide more extensive
opportunities for active learning, including, for example, opportunities for
teachers to practice new methods, according to participants in Eisenhower-
funded activities. The national evaluation also asked teachers about the extent
to which Eisenhower-assisted activities were connected to teachers' other
experiences. For example, about 54 percent of teachers who participated in
district Eisenhower-assisted activities reported that the activities were
followed up with other professional development. The latter differs
substantially between institutions of higher education and nonprofits, and
districts: about 69 percent of teachers in activities sponsored by institutions
of higher education and nonprofits reported follow- up professional development.
Finally, the IHE/NPO part of the program also does better with regard to another
feature of professional development that is associated indirectly with teacher
outcomes, the time span of the activity. About 31 percent of teachers
participating in district Eisenhower-assisted activities reported that the
activity extended more than one month, while about 61 percent of activities
sponsored by institutions of higher education and nonprofits extended for more
than one month. Similar differences between district activities and those
sponsored by institutions of higher education and nonprofits can also be
observed in the total number of hours of instruction provided. During the
1997-98 school year, district Eisenhower-assisted activities lasted an average
of 27.4 hours, while activities sponsored by institutions of higher education
and nonprofits lasted an average of 59.2 hours. To sum up, the IHE/NPO component
of the Eisenhower program appears to be more effective than the district
component of the program. This is because IHE-sponsored professional development
activities are more likely to reflect best practices, such as greater content
focus, more active learning, connection to teachers' other experiences,
increased time span, and number of hours. These findings suggest that districts
too could improve the effectiveness of their Eisenhower- supported activities by
moving in these directions. In fact, districts appear to have improved the
quality of professional development activities since the last evaluation of the
Eisenhower Program, at least with regard to the duration of the activities that
they support. The number of hours of instruction provided as part of district-
level, Eisenhower-assisted activities appears to have more than doubled since
1988-89, when an earlier evaluation of the Eisenhower program was conducted."
While on average, districts may have improved some features of their
professional development activities since the last reauthorization, the national
evaluation's survey of district Eisenhower coordinators indicates that the
features of Eisenhower- funded professional development activities vary
substantially across districts. For example, while, on average, districts report
that 18 percent of participations are in Eisenhower-funded in-district workshops
and institutes that last for less than four hours, some districts use all of
their Eisenhower funds for short workshops, while other districts do not spend
any of their Eisenhower funds in this way. Similarly, virtually all districts
use their Eisenhower funds for traditional types of professional development,
such as workshops, institutes, and conference attendance; however, some
districts manage to use all of their Eisenhower funds for reform types of
activities, such as study groups or teacher networks, that are likely to be of
longer duration, and have a stronger relationship to teacher outcomes. Large and
high poverty districts are more likely to support activities that have features
of high quality. This may be because these districts have more resources. Large
districts receive a 4 1critical mass" of Eisenhower funds, and high-poverty
districts receive a higher amount of Eisenhower funding per capita. Case data
suggest that these resources allow such districts to fund activities that have
features of high quality. Resources also help explain why IHE/NPOs can support
professional development activities that are longer in duration and have other
features of high quality. IHE/NPOs spend over twice as much per participating
teacher as districts do. Based on available national data from annual
performance reports, we estimate that IHEs spend about $512 per participation
per year, compared to $195 for districts. Who participates in
Eisenhower-supported professional development activities? A major focus of the
Eisenhower legislation is on targeting teachers in high-poverty schools. This is
because high-poverty schools still have a lower percentage of highly qualified
staff than wealthier schools. For example, in 1993-94, teachers lacking a major
in their primary assignment taught almost a quarter of the classes offered to
students in high-poverty schools, compared with less than 15 percent of classes
in low-poverty schools. xii The Eisenhower legislation recognized this need in a
number of provisions that encourage districts to make special efforts to provide
Eisenhower activities to teachers from high-poverty schools. Data from the
national evaluation's survey of district Eisenhower coordinators indicate that
40 percent of teachers are in districts that strongly emphasize recruiting
teachers of low- income students, and about 18 percent of teachers are in
districts that give some emphasis to recruiting those teachers. Approximately 30
percent of teachers are in districts that strongly emphasize recruiting teachers
from Title I schools, and 28 percent of teachers are in districts that place
some emphasis on recruiting teachers from Title I schools. However, preliminary
analyses of survey data show that Eisenhower professional development activities
are not especially targeted to teachers from high-poverty schools, despite
reports of district coordinators. The proportion of district-level Eisenhower
participations from high- poverty schools is not much higher than the proportion
of teachers across the nation who teach in such schools. Twenty-three percent of
Eisenhower district-level participations are from high-poverty schools, and 21
percent of teachers across the nation teach in such schools. Eisenhower-assisted
activities sponsored by institutions of higher education and nonprofit
organizations are even less targeted to teachers who work in high-poverty
schools. Only 13 percent of the participations in the Eisenhower activities
sponsored by IHEs and NPOs are from high-poverty schools. Thus, while such
targeting is a good idea, it is not being implemented effectively. While
district coordinators report efforts to recruit teachers, tailor professional
development activities to their needs, and provide incentives for them to attend
professional development activities, they generally do not require that teachers
attend professional development activities. Most teachers who participate in
Eisenhower-funed activities are volunteers. While volunteering for professional
development activities reflects professional development in school districts
generally, it does not appear to promote targeting of Eisenhower- funded
activities on teachers in high-poverty schools. As designed, planned, and
implemented at the state, district, and school levels, how does the Eisenhower
program fit into the mosaic of professional development and other systemic
reform activities? Several provisions of the Eisenhower legislation stipulate
that Eisenhower funds should be an integral part of state and district
strategies to transform education. The law states that districts must use their
Eisenhower funds to provide professional development activities that are aligned
with challenging state and local standards. Furthermore, the Eisenhower
legislation requires that district Eisenhower-funded activities be coordinated
with other sources of finding for professional development, as appropriate. Our
data provide support for several key features of the legislation that intend to
foster connections between Eisenhower-funded professional development activities
and other state and district reform and professional development activities.
Most of the nation's teachers are in districts where Eisenhower coordinators
report substantial alignment of Eisenhower-funded activities with state and
district standards and assessments. However, case studies illustrate that
professional development activities that are aligned with standards and
assessments can take many forms. Some can be short activities that heighten
awareness of standards and assessments. Others can be more in- depth activities
aimed at deepening content knowledge. Furthermore, most teachers are in
districts where coordinators report working with administrators of other federal
programs, especially those funded by NSF. For example, among teachers who are in
districts that receive both Eisenhower funds and funds from an NSF Urban
Systemic Initiative (USI), 86 percent are in districts where the Eisenhower
coordinators report that they work closely with USI staff, 86 percent also are
in districts where the Eisenhower coordinators report that they co-fund
professional development activities with the USI. More than 80 percent of
teachers in districts that receive NSF Local Systemic Change funds report
coordination among activities supported by Eisenhower and these NSF projects. To
a lesser extent, Eisenhower coordinators also report working with administrators
of ED- funded programs, such as Title 1, Part A. Overall, among teachers who
work in districts that receive both Eisenhower and Title I funds, more than 80
percent are in districts where the Eisenhower coordinators report that they work
closely with the Title I staff. However, 50 percent work in districts where
Eisenhower coordinators report that they have co- funded activities with Title
1. Among teachers who work in districts that receive both Eisenhower and Title
III, VI, VII, or Goals 2000 funds, 60 to 80 percent are in districts that report
coordination among activities sponsored by Title II and these programs. However,
a much smaller proportion of teachers, 28 to 48 percent, are in districts where
Eisenhower coordinators report that they have co-funded activities with these
programs. Thus, our data indicate that there is more coordination and co-
funding of Eisenhower-funded activities with those of other mathematics and
science-oriented initiatives, in comparison with initiatives that do not focus
on these subjects. Some ED-funded programs such as Title I, for example, appear
likely to focus their professional development efforts on improving reading
instruction. This may explain the lower degree of coordination between the
Eisenhower-funded professional development activities and those funded by other
ED programs. These findings regarding co-funding of professional development
activities are important because districts that report co-funding
Eisenhower-supported professional development activities with those of other
programs are more likely than other districts to have professional development
activities that have features of high quality. Eisenhower-funded activities in
these districts tend to have longer duration, offer greater opportunities for
collective participation and active learning, and are more likely to be reform
types of professional development activities. Such districts also are more
likely to report targeting their professional development activities on
high-poverty schools. Similarly, districts that report higher levels of
alignment with state and district standards and assessments also report more
reform types of Eisenhower-funded professional development activities, which
tend to be of longer average duration. Thus, the national evaluation provides
support for some key features of the Eisenhower legislation-alignment with
standards and assessments and coordination and co-funding with other programs.
However, while districts report a "large extent" of alignment between
Eisenhower-funded activities and state and district standards and assessments,
and that they are likely to coordinate their professional development activities
by "working with" other programs, they are less likely to co-fund activities
with other programs. Co-funding across programs that fund professional
development activities could be related to high- quality professional
development because it provides districts with resources that they need to
support longer or more intensive professional development activities. How is the
Eisenhower program evaluated? A group of provisions in the Eisenhower
legislation incorporates the federal government's emphasis on program
performance and results. These procedures are grounded in a "continuous
improvement" approach that has permeated all federal programs in recent years,
spurred by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. The Eisenhower
Program requires that districts set performance indicators for improving
teaching and learning through professional development. Despite these
requirements, less than one-third of teachers are in districts with Title II
projects that have developed performance indicators. In addition, only about 19
percent of teachers work in districts that are collecting data for Eisenhower
performance indicators. It appears that many districts are unaware of the
requirement that they do so. Furthermore, case data indicate that for many of
those districts that have them, indicators seem to be a perfunctory response to
federal and state requirements, not a commitment to data-based decision-making.
One reason for this may be a lack of capacity in school districts to collect and
analyze the types of data that would make using indicators meaningful. Districts
do report providing guidance and overseeing schools and providers of
professional development in a variety of ways, from visiting classrooms,
interpreting rules, and helping to develop plans for professional development
activities. But of all the types of guidance that districts provide, those that
involve collecting and using data, such as requiring evaluations or developing
indicators, are among the least likely. Implications for the Eisenhower
Professional Development Program These preliminary findings of the National
Evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program have a number of
implications for future legislation and program operations. First, the program
should seek ways to encourage the use of all features of professional
development that appear related to teacher knowledge skills and change in
practice. The program should continue emphasizing "sustained, intensive"
professional development activities, as well as collective participation of
teachers in professional development activities. In addition, this evaluation
suggests that focusing on deepening teachers' content knowledge, opportunities
for active learning, and connections to teachers' other experiences are the most
important aspects of professional development. Second, the program should place
greater emphasis on targeting teachers in high-poverty schools. While this is an
important goal of the legislation, current approaches appear to be insufficient
to achieve this goal. Third, the program should continue to emphasize alignment
with standards and assessments, and co-funding with professional development
activities funded by other programs. Such connections with other school reform
and professional development activities appear to foster high- quality
professional development activities in school districts. Fourth, the program
should pay attention to building district capacity to foster continuous
improvement efforts. If using data to make decisions is a serious endeavor, then
districts may need assistance in determining the types of data that would be
useful, and interpreting them. Finally, the Eisenhower Professional Development
Program has provided continuous support for professional development activities
within mathematics and science. This evaluation highlights the importance of the
content focus of professional development activities and the role that the
Eisenhower program has played in building capacity in these subjects in school
districts. Generic professional development that focuses on teaching techniques
without a content focus does not appear to be effective. If the Congress is
considering expanding the program, it should consider creating analogous
programs in other subject areas, rather than eliminating the content focus on
mathematics and science. This evaluation provides a start to understanding the
dynamics of professional development. However, the evaluation is only a start.
While we have collected detailed information on the planning and implementation
of Eisenhower-supported activities, very little information exists about how
professional development activities, in general, are planned and implemented in
the nation's school districts. Even less is known about the relationship among
professional development activities, teacher practice, and the ultimate goal of
these activities-student achievement. Future evaluations will have to tackle
these issues. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee.
We are currently completing the second report of this evaluation and would be
happy to provide you with more information from the evaluation when the report
has been completed. I and Dr. Garet would be pleased to answer any questions
that you might have.
LOAD-DATE: May 7, 1999
