State Programs for Funding Teacher Professional Development
Introduction to the Study
Recent commentaries on education reform have increasingly focused on teacher quality as a critical factor in improving student performance in elementary and secondary schools. Everyone agrees that high-quality teachers produce better results (Card & Krueger, 1996; Ferguson, 1991; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Murnane, 1991; Murnane & Levy, 1996; Wenglinsky, 1997).
Teacher quality can be addressed in at least two ways. The first is through reforms in the ways in which teachers are initially prepared for service: teacher education programs, teacher certification and licensure processes, teacher induction programs, and similar efforts. The second way is through reforms in the professional development of teachers now in service. The latter approach offers the advantage of working toward improving the instructional capabilities of both new and experienced teachers.
Professional development efforts for teachers can have a more immediate impact than teacher education programs in enhancing the knowledge and skills of the approximately three million public school teachers in the United States today. For the purposes of this study, we define teacher professional development as those state programs designed to prepare teachers for improved performance by enhancing their knowledge, skills, and motivation to improve learning for all students. Such programs might involve services offered through state professional development offices or intermediate education agencies, state programs to subsidize graduate education for teachers, or other state-administered or state-funded categorical programs for professional development. In considering the context of state programs for teacher professional development, we distinguish between two approaches: state department of education or other state-funded categorical programs that provide direct funding for purposes of teacher professional development, or state mandates for teacher professional development that may be funded by local schools and school districts or by teachers themselves.
The professional development of teachers raises some important policy questions concerning the responsibility, funding, and sponsorship of programs. Should the major responsibility for professional development rest with the state, the local school district, the individual school, or the teacher? Who should pay? How much should be invested? Should teacher professional development be accomplished through mandates and administrative rules and regulations or through an incentive system? To what extent should teacher professional development be aligned with other policy initiatives, such as school improvement plans, state standards and assessment programs, and academic watch lists? Do professional development programs satisfy access and equity considerations among teachers and school districts? In addition to these concerns, questions must also be raised about the content and delivery of professional development programs for teachers.
This study had its genesis in a meeting on educational policy issues, convened by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) in August 1998. Staff from the state legislatures, governors' offices, and state departments of education in the North Central Region attended the meeting. 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. However, before discussing the results of the study, it is useful to examine the historical and political context of professional development as a state policy instrument.
