Iowa Professional Development Model
2005
For Additional Information Contact:
Deb Hansen
for Teacher Quality
State of Iowa
Department of
Education
Grimes State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa
50319-0146
Phone: 515-281-6131
Fax: 515-281-7700
E-mail: Deb.hansen@iowa.gov
http://www.state.ia.us/educate/
State Board of Education
State of Iowa
Department of Education
Grimes State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa
50319-0146
State Board of
Education
Gene E. Vincent, Carroll, President
Sally J. Frudden, Charles City, Vice President
Jim Billings, West Des Moines
Charles C. Edwards, Jr., Des Moines
Sister Jude Fitzpatrick, West Des Moines
Rosie Hussey, Mason City
Wayne Kobberdahl, Council Bluffs
Gregory D. McClain, Cedar Falls
Mary Jean Montgomery, Spencer
Tara Richards, Indianola (Student Member)
Administration
Judy A. Jeffrey, Director and Executive Officer
of the State Board of Education
Gail M. Sullivan,
Chief of Staff, Division
of Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Pam Pfitzenmaier, Administrator, Division of Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Deb
Hansen, Professional Development Consultant,
Teacher Quality Team
Bev Showers, Staff
Development Consultant
It
is the policy of the Iowa Department of Education not to discriminate on the
basis of race, color, national origin, gender, disability, religion, creed, age
or marital status in its programs or employment practices. If you have
questions or grievances related to this policy, please contact the Bureau of
Administration and School Improvement Services, Grimes State Office Building,
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146, 515/281-5811.
Contents
The
Iowa Professional Development Model
Elements of the Professional Development Model........................................................... 1
Foundations
of the Model.................................................................................................. 3
Graphic of the Professional Development Model............................................................. 4
Iowa
Student Achievement and Teacher Quality Program.............................................. 7
Summary
of Legislation.................................................................................................. 7
Purposes
of the Iowa Professional Development Model.................................................. 7
Iowa
Professional Development Standards..................................................................... 9
Operating
Principles for the Iowa Professional Development Model........................... 11
Focus
on Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment......................................................... 11
Participative
Decision-Making...................................................................................... 11
Simultaneity................................................................................................................. 12
Leadership.................................................................................................................. 12
The
Professional Development Cycle............................................................................. 15
Collecting/Analyzing
Student Data................................................................................ 15
Goal
Setting................................................................................................................. 17
Selecting
Content......................................................................................................... 18
Designing
Process for Professional Development.......................................................... 19
Training/Learning
Opportunities.................................................................................... 19
Collaboration/Implementation....................................................................................... 19
Ongoing
Data Collection.............................................................................................. 21
Ongoing
Cycle............................................................................................................. 21
Program
Evaluation...................................................................................................... 21
A
Few Words About Context...................................................................................... 21
References........................................................................................................................ 23
Appendix A. Standards for Staff Development..................................................................... 27
For additional information on professional development, see the
Iowa Professional Development Model Training Manual and web site: http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/tqt/tc/pdmtm/state.html
In recent years, research
in the fields of school improvement and staff development* has converged in a
remarkable consensus about the most effective ways to improve student
achievement. The agreement is all the more surprising because it comprises a
cluster of variables rather than assertions that any single action alone will
increase student learning. This consensus includes:
q
The importance
of data for driving school improvement and student achievement goals;
q
The alignment
of assessment with curriculum and instruction;
q
The provision
of quality staff development with research-based content;
q
The necessity
for learning communities that study what is effective and work collaboratively
to learn and implement new knowledge;
q
The study of
the implementation of planned change;
q
The evaluation,
both formative and summative, of planned change for its impact on student
learning; and
q
The guidance of
strong leaders—teachers, principals, central office staff, superintendents, and
school boards—operating collectively and collaboratively to govern the staff
development/school improvement system.
At
the same time, legislation at the federal (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001) and
state levels has reinforced the need for these variables to operate
simultaneously to increase the learning of our students. The National Staff
Development Council (NSDC) has published revised standards for the conduct of
staff development that focus not only on the process of staff development, but
the content and context as well (NSDC, 2001). Given the overwhelming evidence
that well-designed staff development, fully integrated with effective school
improvement practices, can increase student learning (Cohen and Hill, 2001;
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2000; Elmore and Burney, 1999;
Joyce and Calhoun, 1996; Joyce and Showers, 2002; Loucks-Horsely, et al., 1998;
Schmoker, 1996; Supovitz, Mayer and Kahle, 2000), the NSDC now states that the purpose of staff development is increased student achievement (NSDC,
2001).
The model described in the following pages is a collaborative effort of
the Iowa Department of Education (DE) and a stakeholders group representing
area education agencies (AEAs), professional organizations (teachers,
administrators, school boards), local education agencies (LEAs), higher
education, and other providers of professional development in the state of
Iowa. The model reflects their study, collaboration, reflection, and
negotiation and provides an invaluable roadmap to the conduct of staff
development for educators in Iowa.
Elements of the Professional
Development Model
The figure on page 6 represents a model of professional development embedded in a school improvement environment and following an action research framework. While professional development may take many forms and follow many processes, this model is proposed for the state of Iowa for several reasons. First, the legislature’s intention is that professional development support “best teaching practice,” which would translate into improved student learning in all areas. (In fact, both the Iowa Teacher Quality legislation and the national No Child Left Behind Act (2001) specify the use of research-based content for staff development to increase the probability that staff development programs will result in increased student learning.) Second, since student achievement most frequently results from the collective focus of schools on specific student learning outcomes (Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Joyce and Showers, 2002; Schmoker, 1996; Slavin, et al., 1996), the model is designed as a structure for school professional development efforts operating under the umbrella of district goals and leadership (as per the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan, CSIP, with appropriate modifications for individual and collective professional development agendas.
The fundamental
tenet of the professional development model is that student need will drive decision making, and student learning will form
the basis on which professional development is judged. Thus, while much of
the professional development in which teachers currently engage can be integrated
with that provided for schools and districts, there are some professional
development activities (e.g., state mandates such as child abuse prevention)
that fall outside the purview of this model.
The foundations underlying development of the Iowa Professional
Development Model are described below. Studying these foundations helps the
reader understand the logic for each component of the model. This logic is
based on professional development research and the knowledge and experience of
the stakeholder group that developed the Iowa Professional Development Model.
Foundation 1 – School improvement
and staff development decisions are driven by student learning needs.
As
stipulated by the Iowa Student Achievement and Teacher Quality Program (SF 476,
2001) and advocated by the National Staff Development Council’s Standards for Staff Development (NSDC,
2001), the purpose of the District Career Development Plan is to increase
student learning. If the object of
professional development is increased student learning, the Iowa Professional
Development Model is a high-probability course of action.
Foundation
2 – The focus
is on instruction and curriculum.
Theory is present underlying the instructional strategy or model selected for staff development. The strategy or model:
q Directly addresses student achievement in an academic area (deep content knowledge in reading, math, science, etc.).
q Has
a research base (evidence of improved student achievement across settings,
across time, and for all students). (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 1999;
Calhoun, 1994; Kennedy, 1990, 1999; Joyce and Showers, 2002; Schmoker, 1996;
Slavin and Fashola, 1998.)
Foundation 3 – When increased
student learning is the goal of professional development, the efforts of collectivities
of people have the best chance for success.
The Iowa Professional Development Model
describes a collective process in which collaborative action toward shared
goals targets student learning needs. The
rationale for this foundation is the research documenting successful school
improvement efforts in which entire faculties or groups of teachers or schools
worked together to improve student achievement. All site and district personnel responsible for instruction
participate in the professional development. All teachers are included and the
principal is heavily engaged in all aspects of the initiative. District
administrative personnel and the approved provider are involved in training and
in providing follow-up. (Operationally, this looks different at the elementary
and secondary levels.) Research is clear that when increased student
achievement is the goal, it is the collective efforts of educators that
accomplish these goals. (Elmore, 2000,
2002; Fullan, 2001; Joyce and Calhoun,
1996; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Newmann and Wehlage, 1995; Rosenholtz, 1989;
Slavin, et al., 1996; Wallace et al., 1984, 1990.)
Foundation 4 – The collection and
analysis of data guide the entire professional development process.
Student learning data guide the setting of goals
for increased student learning as well as the content selected for study and
implementation during a professional development cycle. Implementation data enable
teachers/schools/districts to determine when their planned change is in
place.
