Chapter 5
Summary
There is wide spread agreement in education regarding the purpose of ongoing teacher professional development. It intends to qualitatively and quantitatively extend an educators’ skill set so that they are continually effective in the classroom. Like any other profession teachers must keep their skills sharp and updated as the educational system is only as good as its players. The key to this quality education for all students is the classroom teacher, but not just any classroom teacher (Killion & Harrison, 2006). Students must have skillful, highly effective teachers who have consistent access to ongoing professional development (Sparks & Hirsch, 2000; Guskey, 1997; Guskey, 1998; Maldonado, 2002).
NCLB offers broad guidelines for effective professional development acknowledging the integral nature of ongoing professional development that seeks to insure teachers continually possess the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully perform their duties (Lauer & Dean 2004). NCLB requires all 50 states to provide “high-quality” professional development that will ensure every teacher is both highly qualified and highly effective. The federal government’s definition of high-quality professional development includes activities that improve and increase teachers’ academic knowledge, are part of school and district improvement plans, provide teachers the knowledge to meet state content standards, are sustained, intensive and classroom focused, support the recruiting, hiring and training of high quality teachers, expand teachers’ understandings of effective instructional practices, are built upon scientifically based research practices, and support increased student achievement. They are not 1-day or short-term workshops or conferences” (NCLB, 2001).
States interpret these guidelines and add their own varied legislative requirements, suggestions, and expectations. The current result is an eclectic mix of ideas, methods, and approaches and to date there is no widespread use of an evaluation tool to determine the effectiveness of all of these efforts. As expected then, there is much dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs from all the stakeholders, policy makers, school districts and teachers. However, all agree the ultimate goal of teacher professional development is to increase student achievement (Sever & Bowgren, 2007; Dean & Lauer, 2001; Neville, Sherman & Cohen, 2005; Shaha, Lewis, O’Donnell & Brown, 2004, Guskey, 2002; Killion, 2002). There is further agreement that the path to higher student assessment scores, the prevailing definition of student achievement, is through quality teachers and their ongoing support through continued education.
Thus states must seek to educate their teachers in ways that insure teachers’ classroom practices are changed through and because of their participation in professional development and that these changes promote student achievement. Given the national expectations for the ongoing education of teachers, the state recertification requirements and the local obligations of school districts and teachers it is clear the ongoing education of teachers is a colossal enterprise. And as is true of large-scale enterprises, they are expensive. The existing reality is that school districts across the nation spend copious quantities of time and money on the continuing education of the teachers they employ. Fiscal responsibility necessitates asking multiple questions regarding the efficacy of these choices.

Therefore tools, theoretically sound with concrete applications, are needed to evaluate the professional development programs of school districts across the nation. Only with a systematic and comprehensive mindset can professional development exercises be evaluated to determine if they are indeed serving the purposes they are intended to. One means of accomplishing this task is to view the national and state professional development legislation through the eyes of Jack Mezirow’s transformational theory of adult learning. This lens highlights the existing strengths and gaps of current professional development programs on an individual basis. Jack Mezirow’s research primarily focused on adult women returning to higher education after an extended absence He identified conditions and methodologies that catalyzed changes in ways of thinking and acting in these students. This change he identified as learning – true learning, the goal of all education. Transformational learning, Mezirow labeled it, is when a person interacts with knowledge or experience, takes it in, assess and evaluates it and then determines not only where it fits in his/her scheme of things but also how that learning impacts their current thinking and behavior. Learning looks different for each student and yet education, at all levels, seeks to teach every student in ways that result in learning. Each learner, each student is important.
But education in this county is not done individually on a case-by-case basis. It is done in large groups orchestrated by even larger systems. Therefore, a wider net is needed. Mezirow’s ideas on transformation learning that informs and empowers individuals can also be described as the application of new learning or knowledge in real-time settings. Thomas Guskey, a current practitioner in the field of education and the professional development of teachers, also believes this is an important concept. He crafted a five -tiered evaluation tool that centered on the application of learning to accomplish the ultimate goal. Again, for teachers, the ultimate goal is the success and achievement of students. Guskey suggested examining what is being done in the ongoing education of teachers by focusing on the learners and the changes in their thinking and in their behavior. But his ideas include more that just teachers as individuals.
The constructs outlined in his model are participation, learning, organizational support, application of learning, and student achievement. His ideas are arranged hierarchally and success at the upper levels is predicated on success at the beginning levels. This tiered model allows for a wider lens view of professional development. It includes the context of district professional development programs where most educators receive their training as well the ultimate goal of continuing to train teachers – affecting students.
Mezirow’s theory is replete with ideas on how to insure teachers in professional development activities actually learn from those activities as evidenced by what they do in their classroom. Moving from individual teachers ‘professional development experiences with Mezirow, to large-scale district professional development programs requires a larger systematic model such as Guskey’s. Thus, Mezirow’s theory of adult learning is overlaid with Thomas Guskey’s (2000) model of effective professional development. It is this investigator’s opinion that both perspectives are necessary in order to be inclusive of students, teachers, schools and districts in broad evaluation strokes.
In sum, there are national, state and local expectations for the professional development of teachers. These expectations result in large expenditures of time and money for local school districts. Because of the large outlay of money and more importantly because the ultimate goal of professional development is the success of all students, it is important to consider the effectiveness of the current activities. A systematic, sound theoretical assessment and evaluation of the ongoing education of teachers needs to be conducted nation wide. This study is one small step towards that end.
This specific investigation explores the professional development system of a large, urban school district using a survey constructed around the five constructs outlined in Guskey’s evaluation tool. The purpose was to investigate the professional development program of the Dunbar Public School district and to use the information to strategically plan and improve the overall system. To accomplish this goal 186 ECE through fifth grade classroom teachers filled out a 54-question survey. The items in the survey asked participants about their experiences with the processes, formats and topics of the DPS professional development activities they participated in. The study also examined teachers thoughts regarding their own participation, learning, organizational support, application of learning and student achievement.
Summary
Findings show these teachers participated in professional development opportunities where the information conveyed was done so, in part, by supporting teachers’ interactions with each other. Which means participants were encouraged to talk about their practice and about their learning with each other during their sessions. This process of training occurred in the majority of the sessions teachers attended. However, less than half of the times were personal reflection and individual teaching contexts considered. This disparity has significant planning and implementation implications.
With regards to the format of the professional development sessions offered, educators participating in this survey primarily attended half or full day training sessions sponsored by the district or other kinds of professional development activities that were connected to one another and stretched out over a period of time. Conferences or sessions led by experts were attended much less. As far as the content of professional development session is concerned, teachers were asked what the sessions they chose to attend were about and if the focus was increasing their content knowledge or their pedagogical understandings. Teachers most often chose professional development options that centered on literacy and math and less so on other subjects such as science and social studies. They choose to attend, in even measures, sessions that focused on increasing both teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge.
Slightly more than half of the respondents felt their professional development experiences were effective overall. The attitudes and beliefs about learning of these teachers were positively affected in professional development sessions when their classroom experiences and self-assessment were impacted, when they learned practical strategies and when they became more effective as teachers. Educational experiences that encouraged teachers’ feelings of pride in their individual work and helped them develop a sense that they had become more effective and productive instructors in the classroom were part of what these teachers identified as included in effective professional development.
Less than half of the participants determined their professional development activitiess had been overall ineffective. For these teachers, similar to their counterparts, effectiveness and productiveness in the classroom as well as a sense of pride was a part of what they considered effective in their professional development experiences. However, these feelings were less strong in these participants than in those who felt overall more positively about their experiences. Teachers in both groups were seemingly less motivated by affecting student behavior, being recognized for their efforts and by impacting their annual performance appraisal.
There were differences in the attitudes and beliefs about learning between these two groups of teachers – those who identified their professional development as effective and those who identified it as ineffective or were unsure. Overall the results of the t-test found that the attitudes and beliefs about learning of teachers in the effective group were significantly higher than that of teachers in the ineffective. In other words teachers who felt their professional development was effective were generally more positive about their professional development experiences.
The study also investigated possible relationships between the attitudes and beliefs about learning of the teachers who identified professional development as generally effective and their ideas of participation, learning, organizational support, application of learning and student achievement. Positive high correlations were found between teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about learning and the constructs of learning in professional development sessions and the application of that learning in personal contexts. A positive low correlation was found between teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about learning and organizational support.
A counter part to investigating the attitudes and beliefs about learning of teachers with positive feelings about their professional development was investigating the attitudes and beliefs of those who didn’t feel their experiences were effective. For this group of teachers, there was a positive correlation between their attitudes and beliefs about learning and their ability to apply their learning in specific classroom situations. The ability to transfer learning from one setting to another was considered valuable to this set of individuals.
As was the purpose of this study, these findings have significant ramifications for the future planning and implementation of professional development in DPS. The results can more fully inform DPS as they seek to meet the needs of NCLB, state, and local professional development expectations, their teachers and ultimately their students. The following conclusions offer possible ways these ideas could effect change in the professional development program in DPS.
Conclusions
Keeping in mind that NCLB oversees all state and local professional development opportunities nation wide and its specific identifiers of what high quality professional development is – creates the starting place for this study that examines DPS professional development offerings in its light. In addition, Guskey’s evaluation framework allows for the data collected from this organization be used to recognize places where large-scale improvements could be made. Continuing the evaluations on a micro level, where teachers are affected personally, requires the fine lens of Mezirow and his ideas on transformation learning.
The first pieces of the investigation delved into the process, format and content of the current professional development program in DPS. While basic descriptive statistics answered the gist of the questions there wass more data to be teased out of the findings.
The initial question of the study investigated the nature of the professional development process in DPS. Queries about the professional development process asked about the means through which information was conveyed in the sessions. The two highest attendance percentages for teachers who identified their professional development experiences as overall effective, were at sessions where student achievement was supported and promoted 86.1% and where teachers were encouraged to interact with each other 81.5%. The attendance percentages for participants who identified their professional development as ineffective were 75.3% and 70.6%. For both the effective and ineffective groups these offerings were attended the most often.
There is explicit language in NCLB that includes supporting improved student achievement. Teachers in DPS were interested in attending sessions that intended to have an impact on students and their academics. With the increased accountability measures being created across the country, teachers are feeling the pressure and seemingly taking steps to address this need. DPS and its teachers appear to be responding accordingly. An example of an increased accountability measure tied to student achievement is in Colorado. The recent passage of Senate Bill 191 ties 50% of a teacher’s evaluation and subsequent pay to student achievement measures (yet to be determined). The agreed upon purpose of continuing to provide educational opportunities for teachers is to improve student achievement. This relationship is becoming more direct and distinct with the advent of legislation like that in Colorado. At the same time it is clearly represented in both Guskey and Mezirow’s ideas.
The final level of Guskey’s evaluation model is the positive affectation of student achievement. The previous four steps are designed to culminate in improving the metrics on standardized assessment measures. Student achievement is built into his model as the understood objective of all professional development efforts. Student achievement links to Meizrow’s theory are in the manner of teachers employing what they learn in professional development as a “guide to action” (Mezirow, 1994). Potentially, teachers’ practice has been changed if there is a corresponding increase in the level of their students’ performance from before they engaged in professional development. Having the end goal of effecting students in the forefront of teachers’ minds supports their learning and its transfer into individual classrooms rendering professional development activities more relevant and efficacious.
On the topic of encouraging teachers’ interactions with each other, NCLB does not include this idea in its definition of effective professional development. But DPS offered and its teachers often choose sessions where dialog with their peers was encouraged. For Guskey this would also fall in the fourth level of the model. Remembering also that the current and predominate medium for educating teachers is in groups it would be easy enough to intentionally build in time for teachers to communicate with each other. Mezirow would point to the need for adult learners to have social interaction to catalyze meaning and value from what they are learning. According to Mezirow learning is enhanced when learners actively participate in the process. Teachers conversing with each other it seems, is an aspect of identifying professional development as effective.
The attendance choice figures on the other end of the continuum are the lowest for both groups in the area of integrating the information and practices of the professional development session in to the current teacher evaluation system 33.7% and 24.7 % respectively. NCLB makes no mention of this practice in its high quality expectation and teachers do not seem to see its value either. However, if more states follow Colorado and tie teacher remuneration to student achievement metrics, school districts may offer and teachers may choose professional development opportunities that are integrated with performance evaluations more often. For right now it seems DPS teachers chose professional development sessions that support their students’ achievement without directly considering its ties to their individual job appraisals.
NCLB does specifically delineate that scientifically based professional development practices are part of highly effective ongoing teacher education. . However the legislation only sited scientifically based practices without identifying what exactly those were. Over the last few years, scientifically based practices have centered on data collection, data analysis, and the systemic use of analyzed data for informing classroom instruction. This has been a demanding and seemingly all encompassing focus for school districts and their teachers. This top down movement has been slowly filtering into the daily practices of classroom teachers. NCLB recognizes these activities as part of highly effective professional development but it has taken awhile for it to trickle down and become a regular part of education at the building and classroom level. As scientifically based research practices are specifically named in NCLB school districts like DPS will need to find a way to increase their use in all of their professional development opportunities they provide. In DPS slightly less than half of the effective group and a third of the ineffective group chose to attend sessions where these types or kinds of professional development practices were employed. For current and future references teachers will need to know, understand and expect the activities they engage in are supported by rigorous and extensive research and are not a fad or unproven.
Finally, teachers who felt their professional development had been effective more often chose to attend sessions where classroom applications were highlighted and important (63.4%) and where they were given time for individual reflection (54.5%). The ineffective group was 31.8% and 38.8% respectively.
NCLB states high quality professional development should be classroom focused. Teachers who felt their professional development was effective choose opportunities when there would be direct ties to their classroom instruction. In Guskey’s model, the fourth level, the application of new skills and/or knowledge in individual classrooms, is the immediate predecessor to increased student achievement. Mezirow would concur. The nature of transformational learning is critical engagement with the environment, which for teachers is their classroom and their students.
Teachers also seemed to value time to reflect on what they were learning and their own practice. NCLB says nothing of this aspect, Guskey’s model implicitly acknowledges it in the application phase of the continuum but Mezirow puts great value on individual think time. Learning that transforms the learner is the result of personal engagement with information. The resulting weighing, measuring, assessing and ultimately placing credence and value on the pieces and whole of what has ben presented is really what learning is. Eventually that learning must also be assigned a place in the learners overall schema or individual zeitgeist. Only then has true learning occurred.
NCLB is the national legislation all states and school districts are bound to, thus its tenants must be addressed in all professional development endeavors. Using Guskey’s planning/evaluation tool casts a wide net that in many ways connects to NCLB. Mezirow’s ideas of how adults best learn refocus that lens for a finer view of what is present and missing in the current professional development program. Professional development must be designed from the purpose of increasing student achievement and then determinations made as how to best instruct their teachers to meet that goal. Mezirow’s ideas hold the key for success with individual learners. Infuse these ideas with Guskey who takes a system wide view of professional development and the result is a comprehensive and insightful tool for creating an effective professional development program. The open-ended responses from teachers add further weight to the value of the above ideas.
Comments such as those below demonstrate teachers want practical ideas to use in their classrooms with their students and value the time they spend identifying these ideas and thinking them through with their professional colleagues.

* They gave me strategies and techniques I can apply to my classroom * My most recent PD has been quite practical – easy to put into practice in my classroom * (Professional development is effective) When we meet as grade levels to discuss things that pertain to our grade level * I have learned new teaching strategies to use in my classroom, helps me maintain “fidelity to curriculum” by learning with my colleagues * Peers work together to help me utilize learning in my teaching * We come back and discuss as a staff what we tried and what was effective * Reflection – need time to implement strategies * I enjoy being able to share teaching strategies with my coworkers and get fresh ideas from others in my building and other buildings * I would like time to understand all the information given. I would also like more time to talk to colleagues about what we learned Guskey’s and Mezirow’s ideas provide a means to encourage systematic planning for and evaluation of the effectiveness of professional development efforts for large and small school districts across the nation. An evaluation model infused with their ideas is an incredible, valuable and much needed too in the professional development arena. A summary of the ideas above and their alignment to NCLB expectations, the wide lens of Guskey and the individual lens of Mezirow are in table 24. This table shows the areas of agreement between NCLB, and the ideas of Guskey and Mezirow.

Table 24
Alignment between NCLB, Guskey and Mezirow | NCLB | Guskey | Meizrow | Interactions with others was encouraged | | | X | Increased student achievement was promoted | X | X | | The information and practices were integrated into the teacher evaluation system | | | | Scientifically based professional development practice were used | X | | | Classroom applications were highlighted and important | X | X | X | Participants were given time to reflect on individual applications of material | | | X | To continue the assessment of the DPS professional development program teachers were asked about the professional development opportunities they availed themselves of. They identified the kinds of sessions they chose to attend.
The largest attendance percentage for large-scale professional development opportunities were those provided by the district in the form of half or full day sessions (87.1%). This kind of opportunity is not what NCLB identified as high quality because it is not an ongoing and is not connected to specific classroom content. Teachers who considered their professional development experiences and those who considered them ineffective attended these sessions in almost the same number (85.1% and 89.4%.)
However, district ongoing professional development opportunities that did include multiple sessions over time with connected content were chosen by 83.9% of the classroom teachers in the sample. This format was also chosen equally by teachers who were overall satisfied and those who weren’t (84.2% and 83.4%).
Smaller percentages of teachers attended expert-led sessions (54.8%) or conferences (37.6%). These figures indicate teachers more often accessed shorter professional development sessions offered by district personnel rather than opportunities presented by state and national resources. Teachers in each set attended these types of sessions almost equally; expert led sessions 56.4% and 52.9%, state or national conferences 37.6% for both groups.
The data for smaller scale participation mirrors that of the large-scale figures presented above with one exception. Classroom observation and assessment by an administrator had the highest participation rating of 58%. Of these participants, 68.3% were in the overall effective category while 58.8% identified their professional development as ineffective. This difference of 9.5% is the largest gap between the two groups with regards to their professional development format choices. This data could indicate that teachers who are overall happier with their professional development experiences are more receptive to input from their principals. It makes sense that learning and growing from educational activities increases feelings of self-competency and self-worth. Then the opinions may be heard and evaluated for their own merit.
There are two conclusions to be drawn from this data when planning professional development. The fist is that the format, for participants, is not a significant deciding factor. Participants in equal measure attended all the different session types DPS offered. In most cases half of the teachers determined their overall experiences were effective and the other half categorized them as ineffective. Secondly, it does seem that many teachers value their administrators’ thoughts on their teaching practice. Principals are striving more and more to be instructional leaders in their schools. This data suggest teachers’ professional development satisfaction may impact the reception of a principal’s instructional thoughts on a teacher’s practice.
The principal and his or her input is part of the third level of Guskey’s evaluation model. This step explores the idea of the local building’s support, encouragement, advocacy and general good will toward the new learning teachers are doing in professional development sessions, Another way of describing this is when teachers take back their fresh learning and attempt to make pedagogical changes in their classrooms - In what was does the school and its personal receive them?
For the teachers in the effective professional development group there was a positive but low correlation between their attitudes about learning and their thoughts on their organization’ support. For teachers in the ineffective group there was no relationship. This lack of a connection could potentially be an area for DPS to improve in. NCLA dictates professional development is to be on going, linked to classroom teacher practice, intensive, and not short-term. Teachers were asked about their thoughts regarding the ongoing level of support or engagement after they completed some of their professional development sessions in one of the open-response questions. Many comments can be linked to a gap in the definition of high quality professional development with regards to formatting and to organizational support. Some of the teachers’ comments indicate DPS has work to do in this area. * Sometimes we are required to implement items into our classrooms- usually not much support or continued learning – just a one day shot

* Sometimes things are followed up after an in service and sometimes they are not * Once you leave the training there isn’t much support provided. We do PD and then are forced, pushed, rushed into doing one small thing to show we learned & then it is dropped & on to the next * There is a lot of ongoing assistance with the PD * Good support from both building coaches and district personnel
Table 24 shows the data for each of the format questions the participants were asked.
Table 24
Large and small-scale professional development opportunities offered in DPS Variable | Effective | Ineffective | X2 | P | | N | % | n | % | | | Large scale opportunities | | | | | | | College/university classes | 61 | 60.4 | 50 | 58.8 | .047 | .83 | Ongoing district sessions (multiple ongoing sessions & connected content) | 85 | 84.2 | 71 | 83.5 | .013 | .91 | District ½ or full day presentations(not ongoing) | 86 | 85.1 | 76 | 89.4 | .746 | .39 | Expert led presentations | 57 | 56.4 | 45 | 52.9 | .228 | .63 | District, state, or national conferences | 38 | 37.6 | 32 | 37.6 | .000 | 1.0 | Small Scale Opportunities | | | | | | | Participation in a PDU | 67 | 66.3 | 58 | 68.2 | .075 | .78 | Peer group book study | 42 | 41.6 | 37 | 43.5 | .071 | .79 | Classroom observations & assessment by administrators | 69 | 68.3 | 50 | 58.8 | 1.80 | .18 | Peer classroom observations with discussion and feedback | 48 | 47.5 | 37 | 43.5 | .297 | .59 |

Teachers who voluntarily filled out the survey were also asked about the content of the sessions they choose to attend. However, before they identified the content they chose, they were first asked if the classes they attended focused on increasing their content knowledge or increasing the effectiveness of their instructional practices. The first question addresses gaining additional knowledge the second, the ability to apply that knowledge. They are different in both Guskey’s and Mezirow’s minds.
NCLB describes high quality professional development as “activities that improve and increase teacher’s academic knowledge” (NCLB, 2001). The participants in this study for whom professional development was effective choose to attend sessions where they focused on increasing their content knowledge 79.2% and their pedagogy 81.2 % as opposed to the ineffective group at 70.6% and 80.0%. Teachers from both groups participated in these in sessions almost equally. With regards to the content of the professional development offered by DPS the data is found in table 25. This table shows the comparison between the attendance figures for those who labeled their professional development as effective and for those who didn’t.
Table 25

DPS professional development content Content | Effective | Ineffective | X2 | p | | N | % | n | % | | | Math | 65 | 64.4% | 48 | 56.5% | 1.20 | 2.73 | Science | 58 | 57.4% | 48 | 56.5% | .017 | .896 | Social Studies | 48 | 47.5% | 39 | 45.9% | .050 | .823 | Literacy | 89 | 88.1% | 74 | 87.1% | .048 | .827 | RtI | 59 | 58.4% | 55 | 64.7% | 2.160 | .340 | Special education | 11 | 10.9% | 10 | 11.8% | .035 | 8.51 | Discipline | 40 | 39.6% | 32 | 37.6% | .074 | .785 | Bullying | 32 | 31.7% | 19 | 22.4% | 2.02 | 1.55 | Data collection/analysis | 54 | 53.5% | 51 | 60.0% | .802 | .371 | There was little variation in the participation rates between the two groups. NCLB has no specific requirements on the content of professional development on the national level. Guskey and Mezirow like wise have no specific thoughts on content. The data show teachers are just a likely to be happy with the content as unhappy. The open –ended response questions confirm this. A few of the teachers’ comments are below. * Professional development has helped me learn new ways of teaching the

curriculum that allow me to expand my practices in the classroom

* I am continuing my education and it helps to understand the new content expected

* Pd has provided knowledge (or more) about learning strategies, etc…

* Pd has offered me insight into new curriculum and instructional strategies

* The PD has taught me about the various curriculum taught to students in the

district

* It has helped me learn the district’s curriculum

* Most pd revolves around learning new curriculum or content

Viewing this substantial data through the lenses provided by Guskey and Mezirow, DPS can make meaningful changes with regards to the process of professional development and to a lesser degree the format. Process is how the ongoing education of teachers actually takes place. In this area both those who felt their experiences were effective and ineffective had much to say that can guide the district in improving the overall quality of their professional development program. With regards to the formatting of professional development activities, DPS must strive for a tighter alignment between their offerings and the NCLB definition of high quality of professional development. Additionally DPS has much work to do in the area of organizational support.Table 25 provides a summary of the varied professional development sessions offered by content.
Research questions 4 and 5 were complements of each other and explored the attitudes about learning of the participants in both the effective and the ineffective group. Questions investigating these constructs were aimed and trying to identify the perceptions, feelings and underlying values of teachers who felt positive about professional development as well as those who didn’t. An understanding of teachers motivations, values, and perceptions could do much to inform professional development and ultimately to improve it. Elementary schools are about the business of educating students, but the culture of the buildings in which they do so is understandably influenced by the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and values of the individuals who work there.
This survey showed teachers value their own opinions and assessments of their teaching practice. They want to do well in the classroom and to help their students succeed. They seem to recognize when their practice has qualitatively improved and their students have been positively affected. They choose to attend professional development opportunities that will make differences in these areas. These teachers are intrinsically motivated to do their job well.
The data also indicates they do not place importance on outside recognition for their efforts or seek out professional development that will impact their performance evaluations. These teachers do not value outside accolades – they want positive recognition of their actions and but appreciate this more when it comes from themselves. In other words, their own constructive self-assessment of their teaching is more meaningful to them than that of someone else, like a principal or other supervisor. The question is how do you support individuals who want to be successful with their students, are pleased when they are, attend professional development sessions that help them extend and improved their practice which helps them perform better in their classroom, which in turn pleases them…? How do you support and positively affect this self-perpetuating cycle? Guskey’s wide lens offers some answers, Mezirow’s individual lens offers even more.
For these teachers professional development is effective when they learn practical strategies (97%), become more effective as teachers (96.1%) and when their teaching itself is more effective and productive (95.1%). These ideas are embedded in the fourth level of Guskey’s professional development evaluation model. For these teachers applications to the classroom are of paramount importance. In addition to the head knowledge they gain at the second level they are looking for ways to relate that information to their specific teaching context. This piece of true learning is critical for these teachers and for the success of their students, as one is predicated on the other. Attendance at professional development sessions where there is no direct link to individual classroom or no time allotted for teachers to make their own connections seems to be less valuable to teachers and what they determine as ineffective.
Here is the tie to Mezirow and his transformational learning ideas. The three major tenets of his theory applicable to adult learners in professional development settings are; a) the emphasis in learning is about changing how an individual thinks about things rather than changing the amount of knowledge an individual processes (qualitative knowledge rather than quantitative knowledge): b) learning includes cognitive, affective, interpersonal and moral aspects that involve a learner’s existing knowledge and background as well as their ability to examine their own learning processes (personal context and reflection are important): c) learner’s ways’ of knowing, their frames of reference, are impacted when individuals are fully engaged in their own learning through reflection and dialogue (meaning constructed through both individual reflection and social interaction can further serve to guide future behavior). These factors are effective as they interface with each other encouraging learners to build upon, reinterpret and consider the implications and applications of their own current learning experiences and teaching context.
A concise summary of the above information, tied to the data gathered in this study, highlights three important pieces for professional development designers to keep in mind. * Teachers want more than just knowledge from their professional development they want connections to themselves and to their students. * Teachers value time to make and build those bridges and to integrate their new learning into their existing schema. * Teachers need time to involve themselves in their learning and hash out personal applications through talking with colleagues and using personal reflection time.
These ideas also surfaced in the data on the processes of professional development sessions and what teachers who identified their professional development as effective choose to attend.
Additionally, there were positive correlations between the attitudes about learning for the teachers who felt their experiences were effective and Guskey’s levels of learning, learning application and student achievement. These positive relationships echo teachers sentiments that they value the learning that happens in professional development sessions and the application of that learning with their students in their classrooms. The continued success of their students, the ultimate goal of helping teachers to continue developing their knowledge and skill base, is probably one reason these teachers are motivated to attend ongoing professional development.
Much time is spent on preparing continuing education opportunities for teachers. It seems the outcomes from this planning would be augmented if this phase also included time for teachers to talk with their colleagues and to personally reflect on what they are learning and what it means to them, and if direct applications were made to classroom practice and pedagogy or if time was provided for teachers to make these connections on their own. DPS needs to plan instruction and activities that promote these ideas as part of each of their professional development sessions. Teachers in their open-ended responses concur. * It keeps me informed on new practices in the field, gives me an opportunity to

connect with other colleagues

* Helped me to become a better teacher by learning from more experienced teachers

* I’ve used many new ideas that I’ve learned from other teachers-much of what I

learn in pd’s is from other teachers not just the instructor

* By trying different techniques taught to us and making any tweaks needed for me

and my kids

* Pd gives me the structure need to teach. With that structure then I can mold it to

my teaching style

* Professional development has helped me learn new ways of teaching the

curriculum that allow me to expand my practices in the classroom

Teachers who considered their professional development effective made these comments. But a large portion of the sample (45.7%) was not pleased with their educational experiences. Further examination of their thoughts can also yield ideas for improving the overall DPS program as well. Teachers in this group mirrored their counterparts in what they valued in professional development – but to a lesser degree. Like their colleagues, they valued professional development when they learned practical teaching strategies and when they were proud of themselves. This again speaks to the internal wirings of teachers indicating they want to do well in their classroom and have expectations for themselves to do so. Mezirow’s and Guskey’s ideas are also applicable to these educators. But Guskey’s evaluation model is organized as a hierarchy and success at the higher levels is predicated on success at the beginning levels.
The first step for Guskey is teachers’ initial satisfaction with the professional development experience. The teachers in this group indicated that overall they found little value in and were generally not pleased with their experiences. At this basic level changes are easy to make by taking into account the physical environment of the professional development location. Pay attention to the details such as having enough chairs, providing refreshments, and possible supplying handouts.
The second level addresses the participants’ actual learning. The question to be asked and answered here is did the attendees gain the knowledge or skills that were intended? Success at this level requires knowledgeable presenters that are engaging and dynamic. In short, teachers also need good teachers if they are to learn what is expected. It is important here to note that good teachers of children do not automatically make good teachers of adults. The education of adult learners requires a different skill set that elementary teachers by training may or may not possess. Leaders in charge of identifying and securing presenters for the professional development of teachers should be aware of the differences in pedagogy necessary for elementary students versus those necessary for the teachers of elementary students. The effectiveness of the educational experience is intimately tied to making a good choice in a knowledgeable and capable presenter. Success in the first step of participation and the next step of learning are the foundation of the evaluation model
These two levels can be assessed immediately. Participants are asked at the culmination of the experience if they enjoyed themselves and if they learned anything. Evaluation here is easy and quick and necessary changes can be made for the immediate upcoming professional development sessions. But again satisfaction must be evident at these two introductory levels if the ultimate goal of increased student achievement is to be realized.
The next two steps in the professional development evaluation model are organizational support and the application by teachers of what they learned. Teachers who determined their professional development experiences had not be effective offered several insights on these two levels as to their dissatisfaction. Some of their comments are below. * I don’t feel supported by district personnel

* Don’t feel supported necessarily

* I do not feel supported because there’s not enough time or a follow up in class. I am

supported with materials

* I have learned new strategies for teaching but little has been done to connect the

curriculum

* Usually not much goes back to the classroom due to lack of time and support to

implement something new

* I have used much that I learned in pd’s in the past but very little in the last three

years has been about instruction in the classroom

* Year in and year out we are given pd that we cannot really use in the class

It is clear that DPS has much to do in these two areas. The district as a whole must address its lack of support connected to the training they provide. These teachers obviously did not feel supported by the district at large or by the individual administrators, coaches or facilitators present in their schools. If money is provided to offer training for teachers and teachers are paid to attend then it follows that funds must also be allotted to help individual buildings support their employees in the implementation of the ideas they are learning. DPS is at least one step short in terms of organizational support. Lastly, just as the teachers in first group that considered their professional development as overall effective could benefit from an increased focus on personal application and transformative learning so might the teachers in this group.
The data also indicates that what doesn’t motivate the teachers in either group is impacting their annual performance evaluations and being recognized for their efforts. This finding is interesting considering the growing number of school districts currently seeking to use or create a pay for performance or merit pay systems for their teachers. Nation wide the numbers are between 3-5% of the total number of school districts, about 500 out of 14,000 (Greene & Buck; 2011). However, DPS will be piloting a merit pay system for the 2011-2012 school year. The district wide plan is to evaluate all classroom teachers multiple times in one year by an administrator and a peer. They will in turn provide feedback inside a short period of time with a goal of improving instruction.
In sum, one avenue for DPS to improve its efforts in crafting effective professional development experiences is to refocus on the successful implementation of levels 1- 4 of Guskey’s evaluation model. If this is done with specific attention to level four and the inclusion of Mezirow’s ideas of transformation learning, DPS can increase the number of teachers who have overall effective experiences.
Certainly these actions can aid in improving the professional development program of DPS and possibly other local school districts as well. Intentional and informed changes are critical to the success of any program and good leaders must take action when provided with information that could potentially advance their efforts. But a comparison of the two groups of teachers shows that overall the teachers who identified their professional development as effective were generally just more positive and happy. A reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that regardless of any substantive changes made that may or may not have been informed by detailed program evaluations - some teachers will still consider their experiences as unhelpful to them and thus ineffective.
While 100% satisfaction is an unrealistic goal for any endeavor currently only 54.3% of DPS’s teachers labeled their professional development as effective, leaving lots of room for genuine improvement. The first credible steps to be taken towards increased effectiveness are suggested in paragraphs above. But there are other resources available to school districts that may address deeper character issues present at individual building sites that are inhibiting professional development from being its most effective. School buildings are where teachers practice the art and science of teaching and where often the unspoken or unidentified ethos or culture of the school impedes transformative learning connected to professional developing opportunities.
Three, of many potential suggestions to address this issue such as Killion and Roy’s ideas on collaborative professional learning, Bryk and Schneider’s work on building trust in schools and Fierce Conversations by Susan Scott and are outlined below.
In 2009 the National Staff Development Council, now called Learning Forward, published a book called Becoming A Learning School. Understanding that professional development is in need of improvement, the authors Joellen Killion and Patricia Roy suggest collaboration in professional development as the key to increasing its effectiveness. The book and its plethora of ideas intend to serve as a resource guide for those who design, implement and otherwise provide professional development to teachers. Their thinking is based on understanding that teachers learn best when their specific content and classroom are the focus of training and when they are part of a group that is developing school wide capacity rather than only individual knowledge and skill sets.
Collaborative professional development may be one strategy that could potentially affect the less happy participants of professional development in a positive manner. This is possible because of its real time focus and because these less satisfied teachers will now be face to face with other colleagues who may hold a different set of more optimistic attitudes about learning. Planning intentional interaction between all participants, engaging them in activities designed to collectively improve teaching and learning can potentially result in higher levels of satisfaction for all. Personal application of learning is part of Guskey’s evaluation tool and a mainstay of Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning. These ideas may help local sites improve teachers’ feelings about learning and increase their general satisfaction with the professional development they experience. Teachers from this sample offered the thoughts below. It is possible collaborative professional learning may address some of the concerns they site because it is focused tightly on specific building issues and individual teachers, classrooms and students as members of a collective learning community. * In recent years pd has been a frustrating waste of time for me. I have been

required to sit through many hours of information that has no relation to my age

group or needs of my class

* Deadlines are imposed and I spend planning time on paperwork rather than

planning for instruction

* Sometimes we go to a pd and we have no time to implement in the classroom the

knowledge because nobody on the teams wants to implement

* I’ve taken 10 PD classes this summer. The only one that was worthwhile was the

kinder math class because we had time to look at the curriculum and plan

A second resource likely to improve the climate and culture in individual buildings is Bryk and Schneider’s extensive work on creating trust in schools. These researchers contend that schools with high levels of trust and community are more likely to have higher student achievement scores than schools that struggle with collegial relationships (Bryk & Schneider 2002). Relational trust, which includes respect, competence, personal regard, and integrity, is their term for healthy and positive collegial interactions. Schools that have high measures of trust are more likely, according to their research, to embrace pedagogical changes that precipitate increases in student achievement. Buildings that have a large percentage of teachers who are dissatisfied with their current involvements with professional development may benefit from backing up and working first on their relationships with their coworkers and supervisors. A positive foundation here may lead to greater gains in knowledge, skill and application gleaned from on-going educational experiences. From the comments below improved collegial relationships may indeed be needed to help teachers get more out of their professional development experiences. * The pd @ school by facilitator has been demoralizing and useless * When I began teaching, I could not BELIEVE the amount of time dedicated to

this worthless practice. I had no time to plan and my students suffered

I feel like PD doesn’t contribute to my skills * There is no feedback in this building at all. Although I come back willing and

eager to share my PD experiences my good intentions are ignored

* Year in and out we are given PD that we cannot really use in the class It is conceivable that even after large-scale, insightful changes to a professional development program, intentionally planned collaborative educational experiences and intensive work on relationships at the site level, that some or many teachers will still be displeased. Susan Scott’s writings on Fierce Conversations and more specifically fierce in the schools (fits) may provide principals, facilitators, coaches and colleagues the means to address the negative and unproductive attitudes of coworkers in their work place. Ultimately, if numerous changes are made regarding the plan, design, and implementation of professional development, and intermediary actions address the climate, culture and collegial relationships in local buildings with minimal effect on this groups of teachers- then the last place to intervene is with the impenetrable attitude of these individual teachers themselves. Ms. Scott presents ideas in her book that she intends to, provoke learning, tackle tough challenges and enrich relationships. Teachers, who feel that all the efforts on their behalf to create effective professional development have been and are still for naught, may need to be confronted with the notion that the problem may indeed be them. Personal accountability, investment and professionalism from each individual present in training activities leads naturally to Guskey’s level of learning application and to Mezirow belief that true learning causes a change in the learner. If a teacher can’t get to the application level or to a deeper understanding of learning, when their district and school has done a lot of things right, they may need to challenged as to the fit of the profession they have chosen. Either the individual or the job can be changed to insure a better match – but a choice is needed. Fierce Conversations may be a final tool that provides direction for this tough but necessary confrontation. In the big picture, for these individual teachers, the effectiveness of professional development hangs in the balance. Some of the comments below seem to indicate an overall attitude adjustment may be helpful. * I honestly can say that the time wasted in PD is astronomical; teachers as a whole

hate it and find it worthless

* My biggest concern is the tunnel vision teaching of all students and the lack of

creativity for which we were previously recognized. There is a huge amount of

time putting students in testing situations and gathering data at the cost of

removing them from school. Students are getting burned out and no one is

listening

* I can summarize in a sentence: to me pd’s are unrealistic, not connected with each

other subjects (literacy, math) especially those about science and SS. I see those

days more a justification of somebody “selling” something than actually worried

about students. But of course “on behalf of the kids” everything is ok. Summer

developments are expensive for the district and ineffective

* Unfortunately, district level pd has not been very engaging for me. Nothing

cutting edge and way too long.

* I have never seen a district correlation between PD and student achievement

The three resources suggested above are by no means exhaustive. They merely represent the wide array of other means school districts and individual buildings may have at their disposal. Given the NCLB professional development mandate and the vast amounts of money and time devoted to these efforts by states and local school districts, it is incumbent on education to use every asset to its fullest extent for the benefit of all students.
Study Limitations This study has four primary limitations. The first is that the investigation focused only on one urban school district. More studies of its kind need to be conducted across the nation to add substance to the value of using this particular evaluation tool. DPS is a large district that serves a sizable percentage of students of color and of second language learners. It’s results could be potentially be extrapolated to other locales of similar demographics. However, many more investigations across all types and configurations and settings would lend credibility to these findings. A second limitation is that this study only included data from elementary school classroom teachers. The constraint of only classroom teachers was intentionally part of the investigation due to the vastly different ways teachers who have their own self-contained classrooms and specialists receive their professional development in DPS. Specialists such as social workers, physiologist, speech therapist etc… are offered training by their respective departments specific to the positions they fulfill. Their individual specialty supervisors are responsible for designing, conducting and evaluating the training these individuals receive. Because of the number of individuals requiring these specific skills, this kind of training is done on a limited scale and affects a small sub group of individuals. Likewise the specific training physical education, music, art, dance and library teachers receive is also conducted by individuals with specific content knowledge for those disciplines and typically separate from the training classroom teachers are offered. Additionally, this inquiry also restricted the sample to only elementary school teachers. DPS is a large district able to offer different professional development options for different types of teachers. For example, elementary school teachers are often presented with classes such as; Guided Reading, The Writing Workshop Model or Response to Intervention Strategies. Middle and High school teachers have content and often class specific needs. They are math teachers of algebra or geometry, or science teachers of biology or chemistry. The structure within their specific buildings is also different. Department chairs or lead teachers can potentially provide organizational support not typically found in most elementary schools. Therefore, this research can only suggest improvements for the professional development of elementary classroom teachers. Findings cannot be transferred to their colleagues in middle or high school or to those who serve in positions other than those of a self-contained, regular education, classroom teacher. Last, this study explored the actual program happenings of a large, urban, school district, the attitudes of teachers who felt overall positive regarding their professional development experiences and those who didn’t. The relationships between the five constructs of Guskey’s evaluation model and the teachers’ attitudes and beliefs were examined but no directionality or causality was investigated or can be identified.
Recommendations
If DPS is to learn from this study and take steps to improve the effectiveness of the on going education of teachers in their district based on the data collected herein, the following recommendations should be addressed * The process of professional development sessions is crucial to participants’ perceptions of its effectiveness. DPS needs to intentionally create time for participants to talk with each other and make personal connections and applications to what they are learning. * The format of professional development sessions is not crucial to participants’ perceptions of its effectiveness. However DPS does need to keep in mind to NCLB expectations of high quality professional development and to work towards more and stronger organizational supports of teachers’ learning. * The content of professional development sessions is not crucial to participants’ perceptions of its effectiveness, but should reflect instruction on district specific curriculum requirements or new state content expectations. * Teachers who labeled their professional development as effective could benefit from a more intential use of Guskey’s ideas of personal application and Mezirow’s ideas of transformational learning. * Teachers who labeled their professional development as ineffective could benefit from an examination of the district’s professional development activities from the basic levels of participation, learning and organizational support. * Individual school sites may need to devote time to developing positive climates in their buildings that in turn support professional development efforts.
Future Research This evaluation of the professional development program of a large urban school district should only be the beginning of evaluations conduced across the country. More research of this kind from various states and school districts with different demographics will inform the enterprise that is professional development and move it towards greater effectiveness. Further research also needs to be done in the area of causality. What steps, strategies, designs, and actions in professional development actually precipitate a corresponding increase in teacher effectiveness? Specific, detailed, and contextualized answers about the direct links between the teaching and learning of educators in professional development activities. Last, it is crucial to investigate how to improve the climate and culture of individual elementary schools so that professional development is sown on fertile ground.
Final Thoughts
The strengths and gaps illuminated this study can serve to guide DPS in designing and implementing a professional development program that meets more of its teachers’ needs and in turn positively affects student achievement. Precipitating an increase in the success rates of students on multiple measures is the ultimate goal of all ongoing teacher education. No Child Left Behind legislation outlines broad expectations for teachers and for their students. States and local school districts charged with meeting these guidelines and providing professional development to a vast array of teachers for an even wider range of subjects and grade levels are in desperate need of a planning and evaluation tool to help them accomplish their task. This inquiry proposes such a tool and demonstrates the valuable and insightful information gleaned from its use. The preponderance of time and money spent on these endeavors necessitates a stark look at their effectiveness on all grounds – fiscal, moral, and professional
On a professional note, this researcher would be most pleased with my district’s efforts to systematically improve the quality of the professional development I attend. As a veteran teacher I still seek new information, strategies and skills that I can take back to my classroom and use to the benefit of my students. “When Educators Learn, Students Learn (Killion & Hirsch; 2009). Improved and consistent quality of the educational opportunities I avail myself of would be professionally welcomed and ardently desired.
Personally, to be presented with information and ideas relevant to my grade level and classroom, to be given opportunities to connect with my colleagues and discuss with them the meaning we see in the material before us, to be granted time to sift and sort the value of what I am learning and to make connections to my own background and experiences, values and beliefs – would be a gift of incalculable measure.
I began this study out of my own frustrations with my professional development experiences and because I am now in the position of providing trainings for my coworkers. I desire high quality experiences for myself and for my colleagues. My hope is that DPS will use these ideas and tools to improve professional development in the district. But regardless of their future choices this investigation has transformed and will inform my practice as an adult educator of educators.

Tables below were removed but saved just in case I want them later!
Table 17
Professional development processes in DPS Variable | Effective | Ineffective | X2 | p | | n | % | n | % | | | Interactions with others was encouraged | 82 | 81.2 | 64 | 75.3 | .950 | .330 | Increased student achievement was promoted | 87 | 86.1 | 60 | 70.6 | 6.74 | .009 | The information and practices were integrated into the teacher evaluation system | 34 | 33.7 | 21 | 24.7 | 1.78 | .182 | Scientifically based professional development practice were used | 49 | 48.5 | 25 | 29.4 | 7.03 | .008 | Classroom applications were highlighted and important | 64 | 63.4 | 27 | 31.8 | 18.5 | .00 | Participants were given time to reflect on individual applications of material | 55 | 54.5 | 33 | 38.8 | 4.52 | .033 |

Table 19 shows the alignment between DPS and the NCLB descriptors of high quality professional development. (not sure about this yet…still thinking about it)

DPS offerings | NCLB | DPS | Large scale opportunities | | | College/university classes | | | Ongoing district sessions (multiple ongoing sessions & connected content) | X | X | District ½ or full day presentations(not ongoing) | | X | Expert led presentations | | X | District, state, or national conferences | | X | Small Scale Opportunities | | | Participation in a PDU | X | X | Peer group book study | | X | Classroom observations & assessment by administrators | | X | Peer classroom observations with discussion and feedback | | X |