An Analysis of Professional Development in Two States
We chose two states (Ohio and Indiana) in the North Central Region for this study because they had taken recent steps to imple-ment comprehensive approaches to profes-sional development. This section examines recent developments in these states. We first describe our study method and then compare the data. Finally, we analyze the two cases using the research questions as a guide. Descriptions of the professional development programs can be found in the Appendix.
Case Studies
In this section, we first set out the method we used to describe professional development programs in the Ohio and Indiana. Then, we compare the two states to other states nationally and in the North Central Region.
Case Methods
We developed two case studies illustrating how the framework could inform the refine-ment of state policy. First, we conducted a survey of professional development programs in states in the North Central Region (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) and nationally (Ward, et al., 1999). Of the states in the region, Ohio and Indiana had done the most to develop state policy aimed at improving pro-fessional development.
Second, we reviewed documents on state pro-fessional development policies in the two states. A set of reports on Ohio's professional development programs and policies were pro-vided in response to the survey. Based upon our review of these documents, we selected Ohio as a case study. In addition, we had access to several planning documents on pro-fessional development in Indiana, which we used as an integral part of our analysis.
Third, we met with policymakers in each state's department of education. Transcripts from the presentations and question-and-answer period were analyzed as part of the study.
Comparison to Other States
To help build an understanding of the two states, we first examine how professional development in Indiana and Ohio compares to other states in the region and to the national average for all states. Choy and Ross (1998) recently reported the results of the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey. Below, we use their report to examine how the two states compared to national statistics on the process of decisions about professional development and types of support teachers received.
First, Indiana and Ohio, like most states in the North Central Region, can be character-ized as being decentralized in the locus of decisions about professional development (Table 1). About 15 percent of the principals in both states indicated that state depart-ments had a great deal of influence, com-pared to a national average of 21.3 percent. Also, a small percentage indicated that their school boards had a great deal of influence: 16.1 percent in Indiana and 14.2 percent in Ohio, compared to a national average of 20.5 percent. While a high percentage of principals in both states felt teachers had a great deal of influence (65.5% in Indiana and 63.1% in Indiana), a somewhat larger per-centage nationally indicated that teachers had a great deal of influence (70.6%). In both states, most principals felt that they had a great deal of influence in the selection of content on professional development (69.9% in Indiana and 70.6% in Ohio), but again somewhat less than the national average (72.4%). All of the other states in the region were also lower than the national average in the percentage of principals who indicated that the state department and school district had a great deal of influence. However, all other states in the region were higher than the national average in the percentage who reported that principals, teachers, or both had a great deal of influence. Thus, not only are Indiana and Ohio relatively decentralized in their decisions about the content of profes-sional development, but both states were not as clearly focused on principal and teacher decision making as other states in the region.
As for the second indicator, Indiana and Ohio have substantially different forms of public support for professional development (Table 2). The percentage of teachers in Indi-ana who indicated they received release time (57.9%) was substantially higher than the national average (48.2%) or any other state in the region. In contrast, compared to other states in the region, Ohio had the lowest per-centage of teachers (45.1%) reporting they had release time. Indiana and Ohio were both substantially lower than the national average (40.0%) in the percentage of teachers reporting they had professional development time built into the schedule (Indiana, 30.9%; Ohio, 31.2%). Indiana had a higher percent-age of teachers (27.1%) who reported they were compensated for travel expenses than either Ohio (22.7%) or the national average (23.6%). In contrast, Ohio had a slightly higher percentage of teachers reporting they had had tuition and fees paid (24.0%) than did Indiana (20.0%) or the nation as a whole (22.8%). Indiana had an extremely low per-centage of teachers who reported they received professional development credits (9.9%), in contrast to Ohio (29.9%) and the national average (32.4%).
| State Department of Education | School District | School Board | Principal | Teachers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nat'l Average | 21.3 | 66.4 | 20.5 | 72.4 | 70.6 |
| Illinois | 13.6 | 55.4 | 19.6 | 80.3 | 78.0 |
| Indiana | 15.0 | 57.7 | 16.1 | 69.9 | 65.5 |
| Iowa | 18.0 | 65.7 | 20.2 | 78.1 | 79.1 |
| Michigan | 5.5 | 60.1 | 21.2 | 73.2 | 70.1 |
| Minnesota | 15.9 | 53.5 | 14.5 | 73.7 | 83.9 |
| Ohio | 15.6 | 69.8 | 14.2 | 70.6 | 63.1 |
| Wisconsin | 12.0 | 66.9 | 19.2 | 71.5 | 77.4 |
| Abstract from Choy & Ross, 1998, p.11 | |||||
| State Department of Education | School District | School Board | Principal | Teachers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nat'l Average | 48.2 | 40.0 | 23.6 | 22.8 | 32.4 |
| Illinois | 52.7 | 35.7 | 27.7 | 26.9 | 20.6 |
| Indiana | 57.9 | 30.9 | 27.1 | 20.0 | 9.9 |
| Iowa | 52.9 | 43.5 | 35.2 | 27.0 | 25.1 |
| Michigan | 54.7 | 34.6 | 23.0 | 23.2 | 12.7 |
| Minnesota | 56.0 | 38.0 | 27.7 | 24.4 | 46.5 |
| Ohio | 45.1 | 31.2 | 22.7 | 24.0 | 29.9 |
| Wisconsin | 51.1 | 31.6 | 32.0 | 22.6 | 26.2 |
| Abstract from Choy & Ross, 1998, p.74 | |||||
Thus, while Indiana and Ohio are similar with respect to the locus of decisions about professional development, they differ sub-stantially in the ways professional develop-ment is supported. Indiana makes greater use of release time for teachers and less use of tuition subsidies and professional credits, while Ohio provided somewhat more support for tuition and also supported professional development credits at a level close to the national average.
In both Indiana and Ohio, there have been substantial new developments in professional development activities since these surveys were administered. Ohio has taken a com-prehensive approach to providing professional development opportunities and incentives for teachers and schools, while Indiana has taken an incremental approach to encouraging teachers to embed professional development in daily processes in schools.
These comparisons of Ohio and Indiana with other North Central states and with national averages reveal that state and local educational agencies already make a substantial invest-ment in professional development through embedded subsidies. Interestingly, as the case studies illustrate, the latest wave of reforms in professional development focus on specifically directed subsidies for intervention programs, but relatively little attention is paid to accounting for these embedded subsidies.
Analysis
The description of professional development programs and policies in the two case states shows that Ohio has a cohesive and compre-hensive program, though evaluations are only now in progress. Indiana has taken a more incremental approach, which though initially disjointed appears to be coming together. With that understanding, we now apply the analytic questions introduced earlier to these two states' cases.
- Do state policies on professional development recognize the complexity of improving student outcomes?
- Are state professional development programs linked to student outcomes in discernable ways?
- Is there evidence that professional devel-opment programs have influenced student outcomes?
- Does the state have an established method of accounting for subsidies for professional development?
- Does the state have a method for linking the subsidies for professional development to improvements in student outcomes?
Both states have taken steps toward compre-hensive policies on professional development. Recent developments in the states appear to recognize the complexity of the ways profes-sional development links to student out-comes. Ohio has developed a comprehensive set of strategies that tightly link the efforts of teachers, schools, regional consortia, schools of education, and the Ohio Department of Education in an effort to improve professional development. In Indiana, the components of professional development are still more loosely linked together, but there is now a concerted effort to embed ongoing profes-sional development into educational practice. Further, the policies in these states encourage schools to consider student outcomes as a part of their professional development plans. Thus, the reforms in both states recognize the complexity of the professional development process, but the linkages to student outcomes are loose.
Both states have taken steps in the right direction. The approach taken in Indiana holds some promise for defining a strategy that has discernable linkages between profes-sional development programs and student outcomes. As a part of the proposals schools write for grant funding for early literacy interventions and educational technology integration, the state could require schools to think through how their plans link with the specific outcomes they intend to promote. In Ohio's model, schools are encouraged to con-sider linkages to student achievement when developing improvement plans. However, the capacity to influence behavior in this way could be lost in a highly decentralized strategy of coordinating individual, school, and dis-trict- level improvement plans. Further, both states have developed specific strategies that provide financial incentives for schools to adopt coherent approaches to professional development. Ohio's Venture Capital Pro-gram encourages schools to adapt a research-based reform approach or to develop their own inquiry-based approach. Indiana's Early Literacy Intervention Grant Program encour-ages schools either to adapt a research-based intervention or to develop an inquiry-based approach of their own design. Both pro-grams were implemented in advance of new federal initiatives such as the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program or Reading Excellence Act. Clearly these states took initiatives prior to the new wave of fed-eral reforms.
The reforms in both states are too new to have comprehensive information available about their impact. However, since neither of the state policy frameworks identifies explicit linkages between program features and student outcomes, it may be difficult to assess what these new policies and programs actually contribute to student outcomes. Indeed, one of the challenges facing educa-tional researchers and policymakers in these states is to discern how specific programs and policies influence the program features in schools that directly affect student learning.
If the goal of restructuring policy on profes-sional development to improve student out-comes is to be realized, then state officials will need to work more directly with the edu-cational research community to design pro-jects that will more clearly test the ways pro-fessional development links to student out-comes. Using the framework outlined above, it may be possible to think through design strategies that can be empirically tested. For example, in the second year refinement of the Early Literacy Intervention Grant Program in Indiana, an effort was made to define these linkages more clearly and to use this infor-mation to inform the local design of interven-tions. However, this approach needs to be further tested, and it will take a few years to obtain empirical results.
Neither state fully and routinely accounts for all state and local subsidies for professional development. Ohio maintains a list of pro-fessional development programs that it funds each year, while Indiana does not. However, neither state accounts for the subsidies for professional development that are embedded in the state and federal funding formulas.
No such accounting or analytic method cur-rently exists in either state. In Indiana, a study is under way that will examine these linkages in one program area—interventions in early literacy acquisition. In Ohio, the state has begun to account for spending in specially directed programs. However, neither state has developed a systematic approach for accounting for embedded and specially directed subsidies for professional development, nor do they have well-defined and systematic methods of evaluating impact.
