Teacher Professional Development Policy From a Political Systems Perspective
A classic view of politics is who gets what, when, and how (Lasswell, 1958). Public policy is the result of the political process. Therefore, state policy toward teacher professional development and state funding to support it is the result of the state political process. To help us understand who gets what, when, and how in terms of teacher professional development policy, we need a model. One such model is a political systems approach (Dye, 1972; Easton, 1965, 1979). In the most simplified version of this model, to understand policy we must consider inputs such as demands on the political system and environmental support for policy, the political system itself, and the outputs of the political system in terms of decisions and actions (Dye, 1972; Easton 1979). We would add to this model the societal outcomes of policy, which we would distinguish from outputs.
The demand for state policies and funding programs for teacher professional development stem from a recognition that increased teacher quality is a critical component for improved student performance in American schools. Recent research on the relationship between resource allocation in schools and student performance strongly suggests that high-quality instruction and well-qualified teachers are key factors in student success (Card & Krueger, 1996; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Murnane, 1991; Murnane & Levy, 1996; Wenglinsky, 1997). These research findings take on greater power because they coincide with and reinforce the experience and common-sense beliefs about schools held by policymakers and the public alike.
Within the political system itself, support for state programs for teacher professional development is more feasible during a period when most states are experiencing increasing revenues because of robust economies. State funding for teacher professional development requires allocation of new funds rather than the reallocation of existing funds from other sources. Teachers welcome new funds for their own professional development and advancement, and the business community understands the logic of human resource development for systemic improvement.
Easton (1979) describes two kinds of policy outputs: authoritative outputs (which include binding decisions and actions, such as laws, orders, and mandates) and nonauthoritative or associated outputs (which take the form of policies, rationales, benefits, favors, and incentives). In the realm of state teacher development policy, authoritative outputs often take the form of mandates for teacher certification and continued licensure, required teacher institute days, and mandated district- and school-level professional development plans. Associated outputs might take the form of competitive state grant programs for professional development, voluntary teacher development opportunities offered by the state or its intermediate educational service agencies, tuition-subsidy programs for teacher graduate study, or block grants for teacher development. Feedback on the impact of outputs is important for policymakers in determining future support. Easton (1979) notes that heterogeneous outputs tend to produce heterogeneous responses. Conversely, homogenous outputs produce homogenous responses. For example, different types of policy outputs might be selected depending on whether the policymaker was interested in ensuring broad compliance with teacher development goals or in fostering innovation and experimentation in teacher development programs. A complicating factor in determining the value of policy outputs is the time lag between policy output, implementation, and feedback concerning the impact of policy.
A further complexity in the policy process is that policy output does not equal outcomes. If the desired outcome of state-funded programs of teacher development is improved instruction, then the relationship between teacher development and improved student performance must be addressed. The issue also involves knowing how teacher quality improves student performance and in what circumstances and under what conditions. If state funding for teacher professional development is to be a sound investment, then it seems that there must be some discernible improvement in student performance as a result.
Demands for improved teacher quality result from an interest in improving the performance of students in American schools. Those people designing policies intended to improve teacher quality through teacher professional development need some mental model of how teacher professional development can best be accomplished and how it will improve instruction and performance. Consequently, decisions need to be made about whether new professional development policies rely on binding decisions and actions or incentives, favors, and benefits, and what action each is supposed to invoke. Also, policymakers need to have a time frame in mind for when the intended results will be measurable. These issues and questions provide a framework for consideration of policy options.
