Staff Development and Its Impact on Student Achievement
This paper examines the relationship between teacher staff development and student achievement, drawing on national reports, state-level data, and a Georgia school study. Beginning with an overview of why teacher quality matters, the paper surveys the National Staff Development Council's mission and the "What Matters Most" report card on teacher qualifications across states. It then reviews spending trends, federal legislation, and progressive reform efforts before presenting recommended guidelines for effective professional development programs. A qualitative study comparing higher and lower achieving schools in Georgia illustrates how collaborative decision-making, classroom-focused content, and administrative support distinguish schools that successfully translate staff development into measurable student gains.
- Introduction: Why Teacher Quality Matters: Teacher quality as the primary driver of student learning
- Staff Development: An Overview: NSDC mission and professional development as means to student outcomes
- State Standards for Staff Development: State-by-state data on teacher qualifications and certification gaps
- Progressive Trends in Staff Development: Spending patterns, federal legislation, and reform outcomes
- Recommended Guidelines for Successful Implementation: Seven research-based guidelines for effective professional development
- A State-Level Example: The Georgia Study: Qualitative comparison of higher and lower achieving Georgia schools
- Conclusion: Attitudes and norms, not just training, drive student achievement
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds abstract policy claims in concrete state-by-state data, including tables on teacher qualification rates and funding for National Board Certification, giving the argument empirical weight.
- It moves logically from national frameworks to state-level statistics to a specific qualitative study, building a cumulative case rather than relying on a single source.
- The Georgia school comparison table efficiently contrasts higher and lower achieving schools across nine distinct staff development characteristics, making the core argument visible at a glance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates synthesis of mixed evidence: it weaves together national commission reports, NCES survey data, expenditure studies, and a qualitative school study to build a converging argument. Rather than simply summarizing one source, the author triangulates across sources to show that the staff development–student achievement link holds from multiple methodological angles—a technique especially valuable in education policy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a conceptual framing section that establishes the stakes of teacher quality. Subsequent sections move from national overviews to state-level policy data, then to spending and reform trends, before arriving at normative guidelines and a concrete case study. The conclusion returns to the study's findings to deliver the paper's practical takeaway: attitudes and collaborative norms—not just training content—are the decisive variables linking staff development to student outcomes.
Introduction: Why Teacher Quality Matters
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 is when entering the classroom, the more students stand to benefit. The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) issued a report in 1996 entitled "What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future." The crux of the report rested on three simple but powerful 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 statements cannot be understated. The teacher is the conduit for student learning — the electrical charge that powers the mental machinery and the front line of education. If the teacher is ill-equipped, students will be the recipients of that inadequacy. 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. The NSDC regards high-quality staff development as essential to 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 joint report of the NSDC 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 second. "What Matters Most" developed a state-by-state report card measuring 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 the number of public high school teachers who taught one or more classes without holding at least a minor in that field.
State Standards for Staff Development
The state-by-state report card tells us how individual states score based on the quality indicators put forth in the study. The states scoring highest include Minnesota (7), Kentucky (6), and Iowa (5). The remainder of the states scored 4 or below on a scale from zero to ten. The data indicate that there is room for improvement across the board.
More specifically, when looking at the percentage of teachers who lack a minor in their subject field, individual states vary widely. The national average is 26.24% — meaning just over one-fourth of teachers nationally are teaching a subject without holding at least a minor in that field. The states with the highest percentages of teachers lacking topical minors are Alaska (63%), California (51%), and Hawaii (51%). All other states fell below the 50% mark. The states with the lowest percentage — Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont — all registered zero.
According to the "What Matters Most" report, on average 6.8% of states hire unlicensed teachers. The proportion varies widely by state, with the District of Columbia highest at 53%, followed by Maryland (29%), Louisiana (23%), and Florida (17%). What this data reveals 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 the profession. This must be the foundation from which to build.
Teachers themselves are interested in improving these statistics. According to the National Federation for the Improvement of Education, 73% of teachers are motivated by a desire to improve student achievement, 55% aim to improve their teaching skills, and 34% seek 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 data 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 for staff development is rarely available.
Certainly a challenge exists in developing cohesive professional development initiatives that can be implemented consistently across the 2.4 million teachers who work in 85,000 schools nationwide. In order to begin addressing a task of this magnitude, state-level policymakers 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 benefits both teachers and students and is therefore a desirable goal. (Corcoran, 1995)
Conclusion
As the Georgia study indicates, training teachers in their subject areas, assessment strategies, and instructional strategies may be necessary for high student achievement, but it is not sufficient. The key element in translating the results of training to students is the attitudes of school administrators and teachers. The belief that teachers' skills and knowledge are transferred to the classroom is fundamental to higher student achievement. In essence, the norms in higher achieving schools focus on student performance and the classroom.
Works Cited
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Accessed July 21, 2003.
Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1982). "The Coaching of Teaching." Educational Leadership 40(1): 4–10.
Corcoran, Thomas B. (1995). Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Professional Development.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Findings from the Condition of Education: Women in Mathematics and Science (NCES 97-388). Washington, D.C.
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology. (1993). The Federal Investment in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education: Where Now? What Next? Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Griffin, G. (1982). "Staff Development." Paper prepared for the National Institute of Education Invitational Conference, Research on Teaching: Implications for Practice, Arlie House, VA. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. NCTAF Report. Accessed July 22, 2003.
Killion, Joellen. (May 1999). "Time for Adult Learning Must Connect to Student Learning."
Little, J.W. and others. (1987). Staff Development in California: Public and Personal Investment, Program Patterns, and Policy Choices. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Research and Development.
Loucks-Horsley, Susan, Hewson, Peter W., Love, Nancy, and Stiles, Katherine E. (1998). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics.
Miller, B., Lord, B., and Dorney, J. (1994). Staff Development for Teachers: A Study of Configurations and Costs in Four Districts. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). "What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future."
Renyi, Judith. (1996). Teachers Take Charge of Their Learning: Transforming Professional Development for Student Success.
Sparks, Dennis and Hirsh, Stephanie. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development.
Staff Development and Student Achievement: Making the Connection in Georgia Schools. (July 1998).
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.