Correlation Between Staff Development and Student Achievement

¶ … Staff Development and Student Performance

Staff Development: An Overview

State Standards for Staff Development

Progressive Trends in Staff Development

Recommended Guidelines for Successful Implementation

Georgia's Example

It stands to reason that proficient teachers are poised to make a positive contribution to the learning environment. The more educated, prepared and confident a teacher can be when entering the classroom, the more the students too can benefit. The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future issued a report in 1996 entitled: "What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future." The crux of the report was based on three simple ideas:

What teachers know and do is the most important influence on what students learn."

Recruiting, preparing and retaining good teachers is the central strategy for improving our schools.

School reform cannot succeed unless it focuses on creating the conditions in which teachers can teach, and teach well.

These simplistic statements cannot be understated. The teacher is the conduit for student learning; teachers are the electrical charge that powers the mental machinery, they are the front line to education. If the teacher is ill equipped, students will be the recipients of his or her inability. According to Linda Darling-Hammond, educator and Executive Director of NCTAF, "At its root, achieving high levels of student understanding requires immensely skillful teaching -- and schools that are organized to support teachers' continuous learning." (HTSB, 2003)

Staff Development: An Overview

In an essay entitled "What Matters Most," the author asserts: "If teachers are to be prepared to help their students meet the new standards being set for them, teacher preparation and professional development programs must consciously examine the expectations embodied in new curriculum frameworks and assessments and understand what they imply for teaching and for learning to teach. Then they must develop strategies that effectively help teachers learn to teach in these much more demanding ways." (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996).

The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) is a nonprofit educational association with 8,000 members. The Council's mission is directed at ensuring high levels of learning and performance for all students and staff members. NSDC regards high quality staff development as essential in creating schools in which all students and staff members are successful. (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2003)

According to Dennis Sparks, Executive Director of the National Staff Development Council, in A New Vision for Staff Development, a report of the National Staff Development Council and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, professional development is "a means to an end rather than an end in itself; it helps educators close the gap between current practices and the practices needed to achieve the desired outcomes. This comprehensive approach to change assures that all aspects of the system -- for example, policy, assessment, curriculum, instruction, parent involvement -- are working together with staff development toward the achievement of a manageable set of student outcomes that the entire system values."

How exactly do we make the connection between staff development and student progress? And having established such a connection, where do we currently stand? It may be prudent to answer the first question by first understanding the answers to the second one. What Matters Most has developed a state-by-state report card that measures elements of teacher proficiency such as the percentage of unqualified hires, the percentage of out of field teaching, the number of teachers as a percentage of staff, the percentage holding professional accreditation and so on. In addition, the report assesses by state the number of public high school teachers who taught one or more classes without at least holding a minor in that field. So where do we stand? Do these snapshots tell us how educated our teachers are?

State Standards for Staff Development

What they do tell us is how the individual states score based on the quality indicators put forth in the study. The states scoring the highest include Minnesota (7), Kentucky (6), Iowa (5). The remainder of the states scored 4 or below on a scale from zero to ten. The data indicates that there is room for improvement across the board.

More specifically, when looking at the percent of teachers who lack a minor in their subject field, we can see that the individual states vary widely. The average of all states yields 26.24% of teachers, or just over one fourth nationally, who are teaching a topical subject without holding at least a minor in educational background of that topic. The states with the highest percent of teachers lacking topical minors are, respectively, Alaska (63%), California (51%), and Hawaii (51%). All other states fell under the 50% mark. The states with the lowest percentage of teachers without minors were Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, all with zero.

According to the "What Matters Most" report, on average 6.8% of states hire unlicensed teachers. Again, the proportion varies widely by state, with the District of Columbia being highest at 53%, followed by Maryland (29%), Lousiana (23%) and Florida (17%). What this data reveals is that there is a gap between addressing teacher development and fulfilling the basic requirements of teaching. Before we can truly address teacher development, we must begin with a pool of teachers who hold the minimum qualifications for teaching in the first place. This must be the basis from which to build upon.

State

Total Quality Indicators (0-10)

Unqualified Hires (% of unlicensed new hires)

Out-of-Field (% of math teachers w/o a minor or more)

Teachers as a % of Total / staff

Professional Accreditation

Student Teaching (# req'd weeks)

Student Teaching (experience w / diverse learners)

New Teacher Induction (State req'd)

Professional Standards Board

Nationally Certified

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California partial

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware proposed

District of Columbia

Florida partial

Georgia

Hawaii n

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas piloting

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan partial

Minnesota y

Mississippi

Missouri partial

Montana proposed

Nebraska

Nevada n

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina proposed

North Dakota

Ohio proposed

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas partial

Utah

Vermont

Virginia partial

Washington

West Virginia partial

Wisconsin

Wyoming y

Source: "What Matters Most"

Teachers themselves are interested in improving these statistics. According to the National Federation for the Improvement of Education, 73% of teachers are motivated by their interest in improving student achievement, 55% are aiming to improve their teaching skills, and 34% are seeking a broader knowledge base. According to Joellen Killion, "Some states and districts have been fortunate enough to receive increased time allocations for professional development. Yet, they rarely receive more funding to support staff development opportunities." (Killion, 1999) According to the data contained in "What Matters Most," Incentives for National Board Certification are supported at the state level as follows: fifteen states provide links to licensing, thirteen states provide formal support for professional development, and six states provide financial rewards for board certification. This supports Killion's assertion that financial support is rarely available for staff development opportunities. The following table illustrates this position by state. (A number one constitutes a yes, a zero constitutes a no.)

Incentives for National Board Certification

State

Link to Licensing

Support for Prof. Development Financial Rewards

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Certainly a challenge exists in developing cohesive professional development initiatives that can be implemented across the board to the 2.4 million teachers who work in 85,000 schools across the nation. In order to begin to assess a task of this magnitude, policymakers at the state level must have a deep understanding of the current system in their respective states. There is presently no consensus regarding best practices for professional development, except for a general agreement that it is beneficial for teachers and students, and is thus a desireable goal. (Corcoran, 1995)

Progressive Trends in Staff Development

Some states, as evidenced by the earlier tables, are implementing changes. However, the majority of states are maintaining the status quo, which consists of professional development being conducted as a course or workshop that is available to teachers multiple times during the course of a year. Yet others release students for a half or a full school day during which teachers participate in "in-school" programs that may or may not directly address professional development needs. The programs may feature topical experts, a panel of representatives from federal or state agencies regarding standards and certification requirements, or trainers offering tips and techniques for classroom management. The level of this activity is often dependent upon district financial resources.

Teachers participating in programs that are funded by state and regional agencies with a categorical focus have greater opportunities for professional development if they choose to avail themselves of these offerings. In addition, traditional salary scales offer increments to teachers for completing certain continuing education units (CEUs) or accomplishing recertification within a certain period of time. In some states, a Master's degree opens the door to a permanent license or a career boost.

California study conducted in 1986 estimated the average expenditure per teacher for professional development was $1,360 per teacher. (Little, 1989) However, when this metric was evaluated to include the contributions of individuals and the present value of future salary increments, the value was more like $4,000. A more recent study conducted by the Education Development Center estimated a range of $1,755 to $3,259 in annual per teacher costs for four large districts. These numbers represented 1.8 to 2.8% of local school budgets overall, not including the present value of future salary increments. (Miller, 1994) The similarity among these studies is that the actual expenditures for professional development exceeded the original estimates of state and local policymakers.

Local district investments in professional development typically consist of the extra operational school days required to put aside professional development time, the staff costs of planning and delivering in-service programs, reimbursing tuition and teachers' salary increments upon earning added degrees and certificates. It is estimated that these activities comprise 3-5% of operating expenses. States' professional development commitments include intermediate agencies, categorical set aside funds, employees who provide services and consulting to schools, administrative costs for recertification programs, state subsidized workshops and programs, and state aid to local districts. According to Corcoran, traditional state investments in professional development range from less than 1% to over 3% of total state spending on public education.

In 1993 the federal government spent an estimated $369 million on teacher development programs in science, mathematics, and technology. In addition, Chapter Two of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), The Eisenhower State Mathematics and Science Program, allocated $246 million in the same year. (Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, 1993) In 1994, Congress passed legislation (dubbed Goals 2000) to increase federal support for professional development, particularly funding for the Eisenhower Program.

In virtually every state in the country, reform efforts are dramatically raising expectations for students, and consequently, for teachers. In response to these reform initiatives, educators are being asked to master new skills and responsibilities and to change their practice. To meet these new expectations, teachers need to deepen their content knowledge and learn new methods of teaching. Given that teachers, administrators, federal agencies and educational organizations are all interested in fostering teacher development, how exactly do we make the connection between staff development and student progress? According to the authors of Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics, "The most compelling reason to invest in effective professional development is that it works." The authors add: Successful professional development "not only makes teachers feel better about their practice, but also reaps learning gains for students, especially in the kinds of more challenging learning that new standards demand."

In 1997, the National Center for Education Statistics conducted a study on the effects of professional development. The study found that "participation in professional development programs on cooperative learning, interdisciplinary problems, portfolio assessment, or technology integration led to more extensive use of those strategies in the classrooms. In short, "even no-frills staff development resulted in teachers' willingness to try new strategies to improve classroom instruction."

Trends in student achievement also support the power of professional development. Doing What Matters Most, the NCTAF follow-up to What Matters Most, found that states which made substantial investments in professional development during the 1990s have been rewarded with improved student achievement. Long-term correlation between professional development and student achievement can be seen in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Iowa, which have consistently led the nation in achievement, and which "have all had a long history of professional teacher policies, and are among the 12 states that have state professional standards boards which enacted high standards for entering teaching." In contrast, Doing What Matters Most reports that "state reform strategies during the 1980s that did not include substantial efforts to improve teaching have been much less successful."

Recommended Guidelines for Successful Implementation

While there is no consensus for a standard blueprint for professional development programs, many have suggested common guidelines: (Griffin, 1982)

Stimulate and support site-based initiatives. Professional development is likely to have greater impact on practice if it is closely linked to school initiatives to improve practice.

Support teacher initiatives as well as school or district initiatives. These initiatives could promote the professionalization of teaching and may be cost-effective ways to engage more teachers in serious professional development activities.

Should be grounded in knowledge about teaching. Good professional development should encompass expectations educators hold for students, child-development theory, curriculum content and design, instructional and assessment strategies for instilling higher-order competencies, school culture and shared decision-making.

Model constructivist teaching. Teachers need opportunities to explore, question and debate in order to integrate new ideas into their repertoires and their classroom practice.

Offer intellectual, social and emotional engagement with ideas, materials and colleagues. If teachers are to teach for deep understanding, they must be intellectually engaged in their disciplines and work regularly with others in their field.

Demonstrate respect for teachers as professionals and as adult learners. Professional development should draw on the expertise of teachers and take differing degrees of teacher experience into account.

Provide for sufficient time and follow-up support for teachers to master new content and strategies and to integrate them into their practice.

Most importantly, groups suggest that professional development should be viewed as an integral part of a teacher's curriculum rather than a privilege granted to a selected few by administrators. There is a growing consensus that the traditional models for professional development are too hierarchal and isolated from classroom authenticity to positively impact a teacher's practices. Characteristics being identified as enhancing classroom technique are things like focus, follow-up, intensity and continuity. It has been mentioned by many sources that it is important that the goal of the individual instruction, whatever it may be, be aligned with district goals in order to be fully effective in translating learned skills to the classroom. This stands to reason, for competing goals will result in inconsistent messages.

Georgia's Example

Weaving continuous learning for teachers into the fabric of the teaching job is the foundation for large-scale improvement of student achievement in all public schools." (Renyi, 1996) This work can and should be initiated by the teaching profession itself, in partnership with other education employees, communities, districts, and states in an effort to reshape public schooling in order to support contiguous learning for all districts, and states in an effort to reshape public schooling in order to support continuous learning for all the workers in every school -- adults and children alike.

The 1998 study entitled "Staff Development and Student Achievement: Making the Connection in Georgia Schools" conducted a qualitative analysis comparing the relationship between staff development and student achievement. Funds had been appropriated towards staff development under the Quality Basic Education Act since 1985 at the state level (over $35 million in 1998). The state of Georgia has been gathering information on the use of resources, participation levels and accomplishments by district for years in a unique effort at assessing areas of success in staff development initiatives.

For the purpose of the '98 study, staff development was defined as: An organized learning opportunity for teachers to acquire knowledge and skills to help them become more effective teachers. Staff development activities may consist of activities such as a single workshop, a conference, a workshop series, summer institutes, college coursework, or organized peer coaching and study group sessions. A staff development activity may be sponsored by many entities including a school, the school district, Regional Education Service Agencies, state agencies, teacher academies, colleges, or professional networks and organizations.

For this study, the group selected a sample population of higher and lower achieving schools and collected data regarding staff development at the schools. Sixty schools across 35 districts were chosen for the study, representing a range of socio-economic factors. For each school a focus group of six to ten teachers was conducted. IN addition a survey was implemented, with 1,150 teachers responding. Overall, it was discovered that the higher achieving schools considered staff development a tool to improve student performance rather than a function separate from classroom results. The characteristics between the two subsets of schools are summarized below:

Staff Development in Higher and Lower Achieving Schools

Staff Development Characteristics Higher Achieving Lower Achieving

1. Decision-Making Process

More collaborative

Less collaborative

2. Content

No difference

3. Focus

More student and classroom focused

More emphasis on certification renewal and stipends

4. Providers

No difference

5. Strategies for Providing Time

No difference

6. Format and Delivery

More training strategies used, higher levels of use by teachers, greater number of positive outcomes

Fewer training strategies used, lower levels of use by teachers, fewer number of positive outcomes

7. Teachers' Views on Support

More sure of support

Less sure of support

8. Leadership at the School

More direction, support and capacity

Less direction, support and capacity