Executive Summary
Introduction
This study had its genesis in a meeting on educational policy issues, convened by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) in August 1998. The meeting was attended by staff from the state legislatures, governors' offices, and state departments of education in the North Central Region. It was clear from the discussions that teacher professional development was a high-profile topic. There were questions about how the various states funded teacher professional development and what the proper level of funding and the proper mix of state and local funds to support teacher professional development should be.
In order to reach a better understanding of the state policy context for professional development, the study asked states to provide information about state mandates for teacher professional development and continuing education and about the funding of those mandates. These questions addressed issues of specific state requirements for professional development; asked about the relationship among professional development, teacher certification, and continued employment; and sought information about direct state payment to teachers for professional development and state requirements for time allocated to professional development.
The finance portion of the study was organized around the following research questions:
- What funds are available for professional development from state and federal sources in the various states?
- How are these funds allocated to intermediate entities and local school districts?
- What requirements are imposed by the states for the expenditure of these funds?
The results reported in this study are organized around an analysis of six of the seven states in the NCREL region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. Wisconsin chose not to respond. The analysis of the North Central states is enhanced by data from the other states outside the region, which provided complete data: California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. Louisiana provided incomplete data, but the information is included here.
Survey Findings
- Some states reported using intermediate school districts or intermediate service agencies for the design and delivery of teacher professional development.
- Most states also reported having continued certification requirements that must be met for continued employment in the state. The typical requirement was that each teacher needed to complete a specified number of graduate credit hours, or the equivalent, each year or over a certain period of years.
As we examined state responses regarding issues that make up the policy context for state-funded teacher professional development, we identified six patterns:
- For the most part, state requirements for school districts or schools to develop professional development plans were underused as a policy mechanism for school change.
- Regionalization of state services was linked to a more direct state role in professional development.
- State policy on ongoing teacher certification is in flux.
- Alternative certification is still widely used.
- States rarely provide special subsidies for professional development.
- Release days were most often built into state financial systems. In general, states did not seem to play an active role in mandating and supporting teacher professional development resources in a general policy way.
An analysis of the state funding programs for teacher professional development both within the North Central Region and among the other states yields five tentative conclusions:
- It is difficult to determine just how much states spend on teacher professional development in most cases.
- There is tremendous variation among the states in the number and kinds of state-funded teacher professional development programs and in the funding levels.
- It is not clear that a great deal of state funding is directed primarily at the comprehensive and systematic professional development of teachers at the local level.
- State-funded programs focused directly on teacher professional development are likely to be targeted on fairly narrow curricular areas.
- The role of regional education agencies or intermediate education service units needs further exploration.
Conclusions
In order to have a direct impact on improving teacher quality, many states are developing and implementing new state-funded programs for teacher development. This trend raises many questions for state policymakers. Foremost among these questions is How will increased state funding for teacher development lead to improved student performance? Policymakers need to ask how such an investment will translate into desired school outcomes, how these outcomes will be measured, and how much time it will take before measurable results will be available. Also, consideration needs to be given to what types of policy mechanisms will best serve these purposes. States might use authoritative policy outputs that provide mandates for directed programs or actions, or they might use associated outputs, which offer incentives, rewards, and favors for desired behavior. Some combination might also be used, but forethought needs to be given to both the intended and unintended consequences of public policy in this regard.
