A Framework for Identifying the Linkages Between Professional Development Programs and Student Outcomes

Since measurable student outcomes are now of paramount concern to legislators and other policymakers who make funding decisions about education, it is necessary to link the new investments (i.e., funded professional development activities) to these outcomes. Unfortunately, the now-popular notion that investing in professional development leads to direct improvements in student outcomes poses problems for policy analysts who have to assess whether these investments have resulted in the intended effects. What they need is an appropriate and logical method— or framework—for assessing these linkages.

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 outcomes. 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. The common aspects of these models are summarized below.

First, both models agree that professional development influences outcomes through changes in teacher knowledge and practices, but the links are indirect. Guskey and Sparks (1997) combine knowledge and practice into a single conceptual construct that, in turn, directly influences student outcomes. St. John et al. (1998) suggest that the shared understandings of teachers in schools (their implemented philosophy that is influenced by professional development) can directly influence instructional practices, parent involvement in learning, and organizational features of schools; and that changes in these features have a direct influence on student outcomes.

Second, both models suggest that a range of other variables influence achievement, some of which can be influenced by professional development. These other features include parent knowledge and practices, the school culture, and other school policies influencing curriculum and school organization (Guskey & Sparks, 1997; St. John et al., 1998). While the two models vary in how they depict the ways in which these other variables might interact with the professional development process, both suggest a complex pattern. Therefore, it is important that state policies encourage schools to link their spending on professional development to student learning in cohesive ways.²

Criteria for Identifying Linkages

The next step in moving toward a framework is to examine the criteria for identifying linkages between professional development and student outcomes. These criteria offer two potential ways of informing state policy on professional development. First, by focusing on these criteria, it may be possible for states to evolve cohesive, learning-oriented approaches to supporting professional development. This involves more than describing how interventions link to outcomes. It also involves taking an inquiry-based approach to the ongoing development of state professional programs. The fact is that there simply is not a sufficient research base to develop workable approaches to professional development that ensure improvement in student learning outcomes. Therefore, states need to develop learning-oriented approaches that contribute to the development of the necessary research base. The three criteria are described below.

Recognize the complexity of improvingstudent outcomes

A review of the two previous models shows a clear indication that professional development has an indirect influence on student outcomes. Further, different state-funded professional development programs may influence different types of outcomes. Some may focus on improving achievement, others on attainment (e.g., reducing dropout rates) or other outcomes (e.g., reducing drug use). Others are actually intended to influence multiple outcomes. Thus gains in achievement do not take place in isolation from other outcomes. State policies need to recognize this complexity by providing guidelines that inform the educators about strategies for improving student outcomes, rather than relying on overly simplistic general principles to guide development of local professional development programs. Specific steps include encouraging schools to:

Assess the ways their professional development programs have influenced improvement in student outcomes.
Use alternative methods of assessing achievement in addition to standardized test scores.
Consider the ways their professional development policies might encourage improvement in other outcomes in addition to achievement.

Encourage coherent approaches to professional development and educational improvement

With the decentralization of professional development, school improvement puts more power into the hands of teachers. While this situation has merit, it further confuses the ways these processes actually link to student outcomes. Therefore, it is important that teachers focus on how their locally constructed school improvement and professional development processes provide coherent approaches that influence student outcomes. The newest approach—selecting from approved, research-based programs—appears to be cohesive, but may not adequately recognize the professional autonomy of teachers. An alternative approach is to encourage teachers to use an inquiry-based approach that focuses on improvement of student outcomes (St. John & Bardzell, 1999). In particular, research by Joyce and colleagues (1994) documents that conducting action research projects enables teachers to develop instructional strategies that actually improve student achievement. Some of the actions that might encourage schools to develop cohesive approaches to professional development might include:

Developing plans to define explicitly how and why their professional development interventions will influence improvement in student learning outcomes.
Seeking professional development opportunities for teachers to learn proven, research-based intervention methods and/or to seek inquiry-based approaches to professional development and school improvement.
Systematically assessing the ways their professional development interventions have influenced improvement in outcomes that were their focus.

Use an inquiry-based approach to inform the policy development process about ways of improving student outcomes through professional development

The newest wave of education reform policies (e.g., the Reading Excellence Act) promotes local discretion over decisions about professional development and educational improvement (decentralization) while focusing on accountability for specific outcomes. Therefore, it is important that the processes used to implement these new federal programs include inquiry-based approaches that promote learning within schools as well as within policy bodies that fund them. Some of the actions that might encourage an inquiry-based approach include:

Taking a research-based approach to ongoing development of state professional development programs that uses formative evaluations to refine the designs of the programs.
Encouraging schools to take cohesive approaches that focus on improvement in student learning outcomes.
Providing guidance for schools in planning for professional development that encourages schools to integrate inquiry into their site-based planning for professional development.

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. The ongoing professional development costs incurred by schools when they provide release time for teachers or subsidize their training and education have seldom been fully estimated.
Specially Directed Subsidies. Public subsidies for programs that are specifically directed toward professional development are easier to estimate if we identify categorical programs with this intent and the percentage of funds spent on professional development.

It is also important to recognize how local and state policies influence expenditure patterns:

Local Practices in Using Subsidies. Before the total cost of professional development can be estimated in any given state, it is necessary to know how local districts and schools combine the use of embedded and specially directed subsidies to support locally designed professional development plans and projects.
Unfunded Mandates. Very often states will mandate that schools allow teachers to take time for professional development, but do not fund these mandates (Ward et al., 1999). These practices essentially encourage schools to use embedded funds in innovative ways (with local discretion).
Professional Development Embedded in Educational Practice. Viable approaches to professional development involve collaborative planning for curriculum and instruction, reflecting on the ways assessment and evaluation practices promote student learning, and adapting curriculum and teaching practices to meet the learning needs of students who do not respond to the structure of classes. The time associated with this type of embedded activity is exceedingly difficult to discern.

Thus, the process of estimating local expenditures for professional development is exceedingly complex. The simplest way is to estimate (a) the number of professional development days teachers take and (b) the average cost of a professional development day, then multiply one number by the other (a x b). However, while this method of estimation provides an approximation of total expenditures, it provides little insight into the sources of funds, the role of local discretion, the influence of government mandates, or the extent of investment in embedded professional development.

While the ultimate goal of professional development may be to integrate inquiry-based approaches to curriculum development and adaptation into educational practice, it remains exceedingly difficult to discern the amount of time teachers spend on these embedded activities. Therefore, as states begin to develop more systematic methods for assessing time devoted to formal professional development, it is also important to consider whether and how these formal processes actually change as a result of increasing the state investment.

The models described here suggest an approach that state education officials can use to examine the linkage between funding for professional development and student learning outcomes. 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.

A Preliminary Framework

Since there is no comprehensive framework available for assessing the effects of diverse types of professional development interventions on educational outcomes, it is not yet possible to specify linkage structures that researchers can use to evaluate these interventions. In this paper, we suggest a preliminary framework for assessing the linkages between professional development and student outcomes.

This framework offers a way of reshaping state policy on teacher professional development to promote improvement in student outcomes. It is based on five questions that can guide policymakers in focusing their inquiries. We used these questions to analyze two case studies of professional development, one in Ohio and the other in Indiana.

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. This means that the policies should provide opportunities, if not incentives, for teachers and schools to engage in professional development activities that have a high probability of improving student outcomes.

Are state professional development programs linked to student outcomes in coherent ways?

If the goal of state policy on professional development is to influence improvement in student outcomes, then schools developing professional development plans should be encouraged to explicitly define the ways their interventions are likely to influence student achievement. One approach that is now gaining wide endorsement is to have an approved list of programs that have a sound research base. Another approach involves encouraging schools to develop their own plans and activities that use an inquiry-based approach to assess student learning needs and to reorganize their practices to improve critical 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. Other questions also merit consideration, but they are beyond our capacity to address from these exploratory case studies. A second set of questions can best be addressed through focused discussions among state officials, informed in part by researchers who are also concerned about these questions.

²The Guskey and Sparks (1997) model is more positivist, assuming �quality� staff development influences �improved student learning outcomes� (p. 35). In contrast, St. John et al. (1998) do not make positivist assumptions. Rather, they concentrate on the relationships among different types of features and student outcomes.

Next | Previous | Contents