Executive Summary
As states have begun to consider requests to fund more extensive professional development opportunities for teachers, many state legislators have asked what returns they can expect from their increased investment. Frequently, these questions focus on how increased spending on programs supporting the professional education and training of teachers will improve student achievement. Unfortunately, this question has seldom been addressed in a systematic way.
This paper develops a preliminary framework (based on five questions) that can guide policymakers in focusing their inquiries.
- Do state policies on professional development recognize the complexity of improving student outcomes? Professional development should not be limited to training, but rather should include an explicit focus on changing practices that can influence student outcomes. State policy on professional development should recognize the linkages between the professional development process and student outcomes.
- Are state professional development programs linked to student out-comes in coherent ways? If the goal of state policy on professional development is to influence student achievement, then schools developing professional development plans should be encouraged to explicitly define the ways their interventions are likely to influence student outcomes.
- Is there evidence that professional development programs have influenced student outcomes? The question that legislators keep coming back to is whether the investments they make in professional development and other forms of educational improvement actually result in improved outcomes. If the funded programs and projects have linkages to outcomes and if they are implemented well, then they should lead to improvements in student outcomes.
- Does the state have a method of accounting for subsidies for professional development? If states seek formal mechanisms for tracking expenditures on professional development including both the subsidies embedded in the state and local funding formula and the specially directed subsidies included in categorical programs, then they will need methods of accounting for public expenditures on professional development.
- Does the state have a method of linking the subsidies for professional development to improvements in student outcomes? States need a systematic way of linking subsidies for professional development to student outcomes if they intend to have measurable returns.
Establishing a way of assessing how increases in a state's investment in professional development links to improvement in student out-comes is not a simple matter. Not only are few professional development programs linked to student outcomes in discernable ways, but there is little shared understanding about how professional development should be linked to improvement in educational out-comes in ways that can be measured.
If the goal that new professional development initiatives affect student outcomes is to be realized, then the structure of state policies will need to be reexamined, if not radically restructured. The policy discourse needs to focus on the ways the knowledge and skills attained through formal and embedded professional development influence teaching practices and student learning outcomes.
State funding for professional development can take many forms, which complicates attempts to discern the amount of money states actually invest in professional development. Discerning the actual costs can be a problem because (1) it is difficult to estimate direct subsidies; (2) categorical programs often provide local discretion; (3) ambiguous linkages occur between professional development and school improvement; and (4) some professional development is embedded in educational practice.
Models for Defining Linkages
In order to move toward a framework that states can use to examine how their subsidies for professional development programs influence student outcomes, it is first necessary to understand how professional development practices are likely to influence student out-comes. Two contrasting conceptual models address this issue. Guskey and Sparks (1997) link quality professional development to improvement in educational outcomes through its influence on teacher knowledge and their practices. St. John, Bardzell, Michael, Hall, Manoil, Asker, and Clements (1998), on the other hand, postulate that professional development influences the implemented philosophy in schools (i.e., the knowledge base teachers use in action), which in turn influences the education practices (i.e., classroom instruction, organizational processes, and parent involvement) that have a direct influence on student outcomes.
Estimating Government Subsidies for Professional Development
Before states can develop a common systematic approach for assessing the returns on their investments in professional development, they need to have a common systematic approach to estimating the costs of professional development. As a starting point in accounting for professional development costs, it is important to distinguish between two types of government subsidies: embedded subsidies and specially directed subsidies. It also is important to recognize how local and state policy influence expenditure patterns.
At a minimum, it is important to:
- Specify the learning outcomes the professional development interventions are intended to influence.
- Identify how the professional development process will influence educational practices and how these practices link to outcomes (the linking structure).
- Assess the costs associated with the professional development intervention.
An Analysis of Professional Development in Two States
Case studies were developed using two states in the North Central Region to illustrate how the framework could inform the refinement of state policy. (See the Appendix for detailed descriptions.) We examined how professional development in Indiana and Ohio compares to other states in the region and to the national average for all states. The two states are similar with respect to the locus of decisions about professional development, but they differ substantially in the ways professional development 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.
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 investment in professional development through embedded subsidies. Interestingly, as the case studies illustrate, the latest wave of reforms in professional development focuses on specifically directed subsidies for intervention programs, but relatively little attention is paid to accounting for these embedded subsidies.
Reshaping State Policy
Some state legislators and other public officials are asking whether spending on—or rather investments in—the professional development of teachers will lead to improvement in student outcomes. We suggest a specific set of questions that state officials can ask in their efforts to develop refined approaches to planning, implementing, and assessing statewide professional development programs:
- Does the professional development program encourage educators to assess the locally situated learning needs of students?
- Are the funded professional development activities linked in discernable ways to the learning needs of students in the schools where teachers work?
- Does the professional development activity use a research-based or inquiry-based approach?
- Does the state have an established method of accounting for public subsidies to professional development?
Conclusions
This study was initiated in response to requests for information from state officials. There is substantial interest among educators in many states in promoting statewide professional development programs. However, the state officials confronted by these requests lack a capacity to assess their relative merits. This paper has suggested a preliminary framework for reshaping these linkages, but there are a number of unanswered questions. In this paper we have suggested a set of questions that can be used to guide conversations in states that might lead to the development of well-designed statewide professional development programs.
