7 Effective New Trends for District Professional Development

Handout for Curriculum Implementation Class

So, when was the last time you’ve heard a school administrator say, “Wow! I can’t believe I have all this money to spend on professional development!”? Despite shrinking budgets and spiraling costs, school administrators are dramatically altering the structure of professional development in their districts…and they are getting positive results. Here are seven ways how that is happening:

1. In-house Training – Instead of sending a team of teachers out of district for trainings, administrators bring trainers into the district. Doing so, they train 25 teachers for about the cost of eight teachers sent out of district. Administrators can also choose professional development dates that are convenient for the district and they can customize offerings that might otherwise have been presented in a one-size-fits-all fashion.

2. Consortium Building – When in-house training is too pricey, some self-assertive administrators slash costs by creating consortiums with neighboring districts. Some administrators make arrangements where costs are split evenly; others agree to having each district pay per seat occupied.

3. On-going & Systemic Training – Rather than filling professional days with many trainers covering a variety of topics, administrators are turning to data driven decision making, focusing deeply on fewer areas. Administrators then create communities of learners by having presenters make multiple visits across the school year to review and expand upon focal areas with their team of participants.

4. Mentor Coaches – While districts are moving towards on-going, in-house professional development, presenters are increasingly being expected to walk-the-walk. It is not unusual to find presenters moving from classroom to classroom observing, coaching, and even modeling techniques directly with students. One added benefit to this method of professional development is that any day of the school year can become a training day, at little or no disruption to the instructional schedule and with no substitute teacher expenses.

5. On-line Training – Another way administrators avoid substitute teacher expenses and disruptions to the instructional schedule is by offering on-line workshop and college course opportunities. Most of these trainings are not held live, which means that they can be accessed anywhere and at times that are convenient to the participant, such as at home during evenings or weekends.

6. Teaching Academies – Many administrators will agree that expertise can be found from within the ranks of the district staff. Six southern NJ counties have adopted this belief with the creation of Teaching and Learning Academies. These academies are created and governed by teachers, for teachers. Professional development opportunities are offered through quarterly meetings and a wealth of resources are available on the Academy website: http://www.southjerseyacademy.com/.

7. Subcontracting – Perhaps the ultimate professional development commitment comes from districts who subcontract consultants on a full or part-time basis. Districts who cannot afford full-time personnel are using educational agencies to hire reading coaches, ITs, directors and even superintendents of schools. These consultants often come from the ranks of retired administrators and teachers, saving the district and educational agency the cost of benefits.

Separation of Church and State - Michael Martusus

The idea of separation of church and state has been discussed by scholars for over 2000 years. This view came to the forefront in the Western world during the enlightenment period (17th century). The Philosophers of this time period, especially John Locke, will directly influence the founding fathers on this topic when developing the United States constitution. The first major challenge came about when clarifying freedom of religion in the 1st amendment. Our third president Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter in 1802 which he coined the phrase, “Wall of separation between church and state”. This phrase will go hand in hand with many Supreme Court decisions and is still a highly debated topic today with many pros and cons.


The advantages and disadvantages of separation of church and state for U.S. citizens are clearly written in the 1st amendment in our Constitution. These clauses are the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause.

(Pros)
First, the Establishment Clause states that the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. This right has not allowed the government to declare and financially support a national religion. The government must remain neutral towards all religions. This clause will be challenged by state governments throughout the United States history. For example: The Supreme Court case in 1962 of Engel VS. Vitale. The state of New York approved a voluntary prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer read as followed: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." The question arose; does this nondenominational prayer violate the establishment of religious clause of the first amendment? Yes it does. By New York providing this prayer it is supporting an official state religion. If this was accepted in New York what would stop other states from passing their own approved religion. This would be extremely discriminatory towards students of different religious faiths. The government would be able to influence our student’s moral values and their secular views.

Second, banning formal school prayer is a benefit for the student body as a whole. With so many religions practiced in the U.S. and with the various denominational differences a school would not be able to assure a positive spiritual experience for all the attending students. This would create a split in the student body thus hurting the main objectives of the institution which is to educate the students. For example: The social/political climate in the U.S. has changed immensely since the 17th century. The roots of public education started when the Puritans passed legislation in 1642 requiring all children to attend school so they could read and understand the principles of their Christian religion. They wanted to ensure that their children would grow up committed to their religious doctrines. However with today’s diverse population this idea would never be feasible.

Third, public school systems are created for all students and paid for by taxpayers. If a public school supported one religion and allowed prayer in the school the tax payer who is not of that religious sect would not feel obligated to support the school financially. This would affect the school budget, let alone split the parents, the board of education, and the political structure within the municipality. For example: If a public school placed a Christmas tree in the lobby and had the students recite Matthew 1:18-25 (story of Jesus’ birth) the other religious sects (Islam, Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu) would feel their religious beliefs were not being supported by the educational institution. Thus, their taxes would not be beneficial for their child’s education.

(CONS)
First, the Free Exercise Clause in the Constitution states that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This means people can worship their religion without government interference unless it breaks the law. This has become freedom from religion not freedom of religion. To ban school prayer takes away a student’s religious freedom and forces them to act in a manner that is uniform of the institution they are attending. Students lose the freedom to express themselves. This can hinder their education because they are following an institutions way of thought and not their own.

Second, school prayer would benefit students in schools. The public school systems have been decaying over time. This is evident by the alarming rise of drug use, teen pregnancy, school shootings, and the transfer of sexual transmitted diseases among the students. If school prayer was allowed it would help fight theses issues. It would establish a sense of morality within the children. Also, school prayer would address the needs of the whole student. Schools would not just be preparing the students academically but would strengthen values that are taught at their homes and throughout the community.

Third, prayer in school could help students achieve higher on the state tests. If a student is allowed to pray in school it will set their mind at ease. If student’s minds are at ease then they are able to concentrate more with task on hand. With every public school district struggling to achieve AYP this would be a good idea. If a school was allowed to have a school prayer before everyday then students would have the ability to confirm their faith and have a positive outlook for the day. When taking tests a positive attitude can go a long way to passing.

In conclusion, there are many pros and cons with the separation of church and state. Both views can be argued to what is beneficial for the development of for the students in our school systems.

Charter Schools

Dionna D’Ambrosio
Charter School Blog

Charter schools are publicly funded primary or secondary schools that are not obligated to follow the rules, regulations, and statues of other public schools. Each school has implemented a “charter” which explains the accountability for producing certain results, and some schools even provide curriculum for specific fields. Since charter schools are funded by tax dollars they are open and attended by choice and are not allowed to charge tuition. Some of these institutions can be founded as well funded by teachers, parents, private donors, corporations, and activists, some may even be state authorized. Charter schools reflect their founders' varied philosophies, programs, and organizational structures, serving diverse student populations, and continued commitment to improving public education.

There are many members of society that are dissatisfied with education and public school districts, so supporters see charter schools, as a workable compromise and an alternative to vouchers. The charter approach is guided by two principles:  1.)  insisting that schools operate as an autonomous public school  2.) they are accountable for student achievement. So the most common reasons for founding charters were to pursue an educational vision and gain autonomy. Charter schools tend to be somewhat more racially diverse, and enroll slightly fewer students with special needs and limited-English-proficient students than the average schools in their state. Most newly created charter schools face obstacles when implementing their charter, making them more vulnerable due to limited resources and inadequate startup funds. Even though most charter activists recommend schools control all pupil funds they usually end up receiving less funding then other public schools. The greatest benefit of charter schools according to supporters is that all public schools will get better if there is competition. The public school system as it previously stood was a monopoly. Except for paying for private schooling which some families may be lucky enough to do, the local public school was the only option a parent had for educating their child. Another argument for charter schools is that they give parents options. Charter schools give parents the option of sending their children to schools that are more to their liking, especially when cultural or religious preference is a concern. So a benefit is that charter schools give choice to those who previously lacked it.

A criticism of charter schools is that they attract students with concerned parents, who want to take an active interest in their child’s education. There have been studies that show that children who have parents actively involved in their education do better overall than students who do not. Therefore, charter schools may attract the students who tend to do better in school leaving the local school system left with fewer children who have active parents. In the end it would be hard to accurately compare the charter with the local school district. In the United States democracy and fairness is very important, so is the belief that schooling should serve all regardless of class and give all an equal chance at an education. However, the traditional public school system has not delivered on the democratic equality promise because all schools are not equal. Some are much worse than others and poor students in these schools have no choice but to attend them. This results in them not having a fair chance at succeeding. Charter schools may offer this fair chance so in turn children can succeed in all that they choose. In the end education through charter schools will hopefully help us create a higher educated society.

Class Size

In reviewing some of the literature and research over the past decade, the issue of class size has continued to draw much interest, research, and controversy. The problem persists because of the powerful assumption that students who are taught in classes with less pupils will invariably out-perform those students educated in larger groups. Given this assumption, much of the research, although not all well controlled, has substantiated the obvious. However, the findings have led to notable caveats and nuances. Moreover, the leaders in education are looking for direction which might assist in striking a balance between the initiatives to lower class size and yet permit policymakers and school districts to work within reasonable budgetary constraints.

Interestingly, there have been several major studies initiated by various states to exam the benefits of smaller class size. From 1985 to 1989, Tennesse was prompted to complete a large scale, randomized experiment called the Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) (www.aera.net). The experiment included a substantial 11,600 kindergarten through third grade students with 1,300 teachers in 76 schools from 42 districts, wherein comparisons were made between classes of 13 to 17 students and classes of 22 to 26 students. The results were touted as the most credible scientific evidence due to its large scale effort. It was found that small class size led to significant long term improvement in reading and math, with the greatest benefits noted for those students who started very early in their school career. Another study in Wisconsin (1996-1997) called Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) reinforced STAR’s results but extended the goal to focus on the achievement of children living in poverty. It was found that the impact is greatest for low-income minority students and those attending inner-city schools. Wisconsin continues to offer renewable 5-year contracts designed to promote academic achievement through lower class sizes in the primary grades. Schools receive state aid up to $2,250 for each low-income K-3 child (www.dpi.state.wi.us/sage).

Other reviews of research, i.e. Indiana’s PRIME TIME (1984) wherein the state funded an initiative to reduce class size over three years in 1^st through 3^rd grades, found positive outcomes for small classes on such factors as time on task, individualized attention and instruction, improved student behavior, and teacher satisfaction. However, the research was not well controlled and did not follow rigorous procedures, resulting in criticisms that the results were neither confirmatory nor refutable of previous findings. Another notable follow-up study, again by Tennessee, was called the Lasting Benefits Study (LBS) (1995-1996) and it involved tracking students who were in the original study, the majority who were in 10^th grade at that time. They concluded that for students who had been in smaller classes, the benefits included: lasting student motivation, student inclination to expend more effort in school, tendency to assume greater initiative in their learning, less disruptive, and less inattentive behaviors. Both the STAR and LBS studies were touted as providing compelling evidence that smaller classes in the primary grades are academically superior to classes of larger size (www.nber.org).

Continuing in this arena, other studies have focused on related issues such as student on/off task behaviors, pupil achievement levels, socioeconomic status, age effects, minority students, class size thresholds, teacher strategies and methodologies, amount of teacher-pupil interactions, teacher to pupil ratios (defined differently than “class size”), and classroom management (www.classsizematters.org).

In California and Florida, there were statewide efforts to move in the direction of smaller class size but the results have been inconclusive and costly due to the fact that other initiatives were launched simultaneously and it was difficult to tease out the long term effects on student achievement (www.2.ed.gov/pubs/).

In summary, the literature is fraught with assumptions and some evidence regarding class size effects, none of which are conclusive. Policymakers will need to carefully examine and weigh the pros and cons of such issues as: costs related to creating new facilities for classroom space, recruitment of highly qualified teachers, implementation of rigorous curriculum, teaching methodologies, considering the timing of implementation, determining threshold of class sizes, and the years of student exposure to small class size, all seemingly related and necessary to effect improvement in long term student achievement. This being a daunting undertaking, other options toward improving student achievement will also need scrutiny to include teaching reform, test-based accountability, teacher incentives, professional development, staff-evaluation practices, school choice, to name a few, as quite possibly more cost effective means to achieve the same end which is irrefutably labor-market success.

References

1. American Educational Research Association: www.aera.net

2. Links to research on the benefits of smaller class size: www.classsizematters.org

3. National Bureau of Economic Research: www.nber.org

4. Research on the Academic Effects of Small Class Size: www.2.ed.gov/pubs/

5. Konstantopoulus, S. & Chum, V. (2009). “What are the Long-Term Effects of Small Classes on the Achievement Gap? Evidence from the Lasting Benefits Study”. American Journal of Education.

6. Wisconsin Department of Public Education: www.dpi.state.wi.us/sage/index.html

Curriculum Mapping

Curriculum maps serve many purposes: aligning curriculum to written standards, developing integrated units, providing a baseline for the curriculum review and renewal process, identifying the staff development needs, and providing communication amongst the teachers (accesslibrary.com). By aligning curriculum to the written standards, the curriculum map will assist the district with meeting those standards more efficiently. Curriculum maps will assist teachers with planning lessons and integrating units because the curriculum lays out timelines for what subject matter is supposed to be taught throughout the year. Using the curriculum map as a baseline allows the district to evaluate it and improve it periodically. When implementing the curriculum map, staff and administrators can identify and seek improvement for areas of weakness. Curriculum mapping will prompt communication and collaboration among the teachers, since they will all follow the same timeline, and with the community.

Creating a curriculum map is a seven step process: data collection, individual reviews, small group reviews, large group comparisons, identify immediate revisions needed and create suitable timetable, identify areas needing further research and a suitable timetable, and planning the next review session (educationworld.com). The first step in curriculum mapping is data collection: core skills, content taught, assessments used, and progress made. Individual teachers would need to review each map and give feedback in small groups. Larger groups would then meet to review the feedback from the small groups. The curriculum team must then remedy the areas that need immediate attention and plan long-term for the areas where more data is needed. However, the process cannot stop there; curriculum mapping is an on-going work of progress.

There is a variety of templates for curriculum maps, but they all have three main areas in common: the essential questions, skills, and assessment. In order to develop a curriculum map that will be effectively implemented through lessons, the map-makers need to develop the curriculum map with the following considerations (tnellen.com): Essential Questions: highlighting key concepts, relating questions to skills, logical sequence, engaging the learners, open-ended, realistic time-frames and levels, appropriate number of questions, and non-repetitious. Skills: written with action verbs, linked to the essential questions, level-matching, and cross-curricular skills. Assessment: detailing the assessment, evaluating specific skills, reflect essential questions, level-appropriate, show evidence of progress: growth or regression.

Curriculum mapping results in shortening meeting time due to focusing on details, providing real data on assessment and skills, assisting teachers with planning, reinforcing value, and providing a tool for communicating with the parents, staff, administrators, decision-makers, grant providers, government officials, and other community members (leasttern.com).

Curriculum mapping has some downfalls. It is a time-consuming task. It lacks clearly defined goals. There is a variety of curriculum map templates and vocabulary, which makes curriculum maps inconsistent across the board. If developed without consideration and input from the staff, it would be difficult to implement, making it more useful for the map-makers (leasttern.com).

Many districts are already set up in favor of developing and utilizing a curriculum map (leasttern.com). Districts that have curriculum guides and classes that are laid-out in themed units and learning objectives are on the right track for curriculum mapping. Evaluation checklists and activity archives also aid in the process of starting a curriculum map. Also weekly planning meetings could be used in the processes of collecting data for the development process map and reviewing the curriculum map for the renewal and improvement process.

accesslibrary.com

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-112211344/curriculum-mapping-building-collaboration.html

educationworld.com

http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/virtualwkshp/virtualwkshp004.shtml

leasttern.com

http://www.leasttern.com/workshops/Mapping/WhatIsCurricMapping.ppt.pdf

tnellen.com

http://www.tnellen.com/alt/curr_maps.html

Race to the Top

On July 24, 2009, President Barack Obama introduced a new program to fund education by saying, “America will not succeed in the 21^st century unless we do a far better job of educating our sons and daughters… And the race starts today. I am issuing a challenge to our nation’s governors and school boards, principals and teachers, businesses and non-profits, parents and students: if you set and enforce rigorous and challenging standards and assessments; if you put outstanding teachers at the front of the classroom; if you turn around failing schools – your state can win a Race to the Top grant that will not only help students outcompete workers around the world, but let them fulfill their God-given potential,” (Fact Sheet: The Race to the Top | The White House). The Race to the Top focused on five major areas of improvement: standards and assessments, effective teachers, accurate data-driven instruction, turning around struggling schools, and promoting reform in education. This “race” was designed to be conducted in two phases, evaluating states with a point system. In order for states to earn the points needed to stay in the “race,” they would have to comply with various reforms set by the program, such as adopting standards for kindergarten through twelfth grade. The program was designed to provide $4.35 billion in funding for education: $4 billion for statewide reform grants and $350 million for collaboration of states to improve assessments (ed.gov).

Overall, the Race to the Top program has provided funding for education “that will directly impact 13.6 million students, and 980,000 teachers in 25,000 schools,” (ed.gov). At the conclusion of phase one, awards were presented based on the state’s portion of the federal population of children aged 5-17. However, only four states were eligible for the largest awards and the majority of the first phase applicants were not expected to receive any award at all (Wikipedia). In the beginning of March 2009, fifteen states and the District of Columbia were identified as the phase one finalists. Later that month, the winners of phase one were announced: Tennessee, receiving $500 million, and Delaware, receiving $100 million. In August 2010, nine states and the District of Columbia were named winners of phase two (ed.gov / Wikipedia). Each winning state of phase two was provided a budget not to exceed: District of Columbia ($75 million), Florida ($700 million), Georgia ($400 million), Hawaii ($75 million), Maryland ($250 million), Massachusetts ($250 million), New York ($700 million), North Carolina ($400 million), Ohio ($400 million), and Rhode Island ($75 million) (ed.gov).

Some faults were found with the practices and policies of the Race to the Top funding program. States could choose not to participate. Teacher unions fought the federal government’s involvement. More rigorous practices than those set by the program were not always accepted. There is concern that the practices being pushed by the program have not been proven effective, or have even failed in the past (Wikipedia).

The Race to the Top program has prompted 46 states and the District of Columbia to make reforms to better education. The District of Columbia and 35 other states adopted the standards identified by the program to better prepare students for college and careers focusing on reading and math. Laws and policies to better education were changed in 34 states (ed.gov).

There has been a great deal of reform throughout the nation due to Race to the Top. However, there have also been some oversights. It is so important that teachers reach out to all students, but this program did not reach all the states. Several states made the efforts and did improve, yet they did not receive funding. It seems to be a vicious cycle: reform is required in order to receive funding through the Race to the Top; however funding is needed to make reform.

U.S. Department of Education (Race to the Top)

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/nine-states-and-district-columbia-win-second-round-race-top-grants

The White House (Race to the Top)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top

Wikipedia (Race to the Top)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top

Blog: The Year-Round Schools Debate

Year-Round Schools, which are also known as a modified school year or balanced school year, is the rearrangement of the traditional school calendar to provide more continuous learning throughout the school year instead of having a long summer break. Students in the modified school year still receive the same amount of instructional time as those on the traditional calendar. According to the National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE,2000), the number of year-round schools in the US has increased from over 400 in the late 1980’s to 2,880 during the 1999-2000 school year and nearly 2.2 million students enrolled in more than 3,000 K-12 schools during the 2005-2006 school year (Gerard, 2007). Because of this growing trend, we need to make sure that the changes are educationally beneficial and in the best interest of students, families, teachers and administrators.
PROS for Year-Round Schools
The main positive advantage of Year-Round schools is that the schedule improves academic outcomes and increases student achievement. This is accomplished because it eliminates or reduces summer learning loss which is when student forget information that was taught before the summer break. Additionally, teachers do not have to spend a month to review what the students forgot because no break on the modified schedule is longer than 8 weeks. According to Cooper et al., (1996), summer learning loss is most dramatic for students from less advantaged backgrounds and “at risk” students who appear to benefit from a more balanced school year. Secondly, Year-Round Schools can also accommodate students who are falling behind by giving them the opportunity to participate in intercession which is a time to provide remediation or enrichment during the breaks.
Another benefit for Year-Round Schools is greater satisfaction among parents, students, teachers and even schools as a whole. Regarding students and teachers, there are more positive attitudes towards schooling, less burn out and less stress when there are shorter breakers more frequently. Additionally, absenteeism is reduced by both students and teachers which is instrumental in improving academic achievement. Administrators favor this schedule despite some workload and organizational challenges (Winter, 2005). Parents are generally positive about this schedule because it limits the need for long term child care and they can avoid expensive summer camp costs. Lastly, the move to year-round schooling often is a catalyst for other changes, in curriculum, staff development and parent support which can improve the school system (MGlynn, 2002).
The third main benefit for year round schools is that it is better suited for societies’ needs today. To ease overcrowding and save money, a multi-track schedule is used which divides the teachers and students into tracks. At any one time, there is always at least one track on vacation or intersession so they are able to handle more students than the building is capable of (Gerard, 2007). Lastly, global completion is something our society needs to think about as we lag behind other countries. By increasing academic learning time (time on task) in the classroom, we may increase the ability to produce skills that employees need to work in a global competitive economy (Cuban, 2008).
CONS for Year-Round Schools
Opponents of the modified schedule make the point that just changing the schedule has little increased educational value (Winter, 401). Multiple studies have found no differences in achievement between students in year-round and traditional schools (McMillen, 2005). Additionally, in relation to the traditional school year, the modified schedule is relatively unexplored. There has not been enough research and evaluation of these programs to really conclude if they are more beneficial. Lastly, a study by “Time to Learn” shows approximately 21 % of schools abandoned the Year-Round School calendar from 1995 to 2000 (McGlynn, 2002).
The second disadvantage of Year-Round schools is that the schedule could negatively impact students, teachers and parents. Without a long summer break children may not be likely to attend summer camp, where they learn valuable skills and learn to socialize with peers. Teenagers depend on the summer break to earn money and learn work-place skills so they can prepare for their future. For teachers, the year round calendar involves a tracking system so that teacher would have to perform four beginning of the year reviews instead of one. This could be intimidating and stressful especially considering the lack of preparation time for the next academic year when there is no long summer break. For parents, if their kids are in different tracks it could be difficult to coordinated vacations/schedules and could potentially cause a split within the school community (Winter, 2005).
Overall, we can see that there are both positive and negative aspects of the Year-Round Schools. Changes must be educationally beneficial and the students need to be our first concern when determining which program to use so that we increase their chances for success.