EDUCATION AND THE LAW: TEACHERS RIGHT TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PAID FOR BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

EDUCATION AND THE LAW: TEACHERS RIGHT TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PAID FOR BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

Professional development for teachers in the United States includes the ongoing learning opportunities. It is increasingly vital for professional development be made available to teachers, and other education personnel, through their school districts. Integrating new technology in the classroom, increase in population of students, and meeting academic standards and goals are but a few of the problems that schools today face (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Rebora, 2004).

Traditionally it has been provided to teachers through school in-service workshops. In its classical conception, the school or district provides an outside consultant or curriculum expert. The consultants will a one-time training seminar on a staff-development day. The topics varies from a garden-variety pedagogic to subject-area topic. Professional literature has routinely lamented this kind of approach to professional development. This is because this type of approach fails to appreciate the complexity of teachers’ work. Also, it lacks coherence and continuity; it also misconceives the way adults learn best (Little, 1994; Miles, 1995; Rebora, 2004).

As early as 1990, a steady stream of commentary and research has advocated for an alternative workshop model for the professional development. The preferred approach is one that is more active and where the teachers can interact and exchange ideas (Rebora, 2004).

The proponent of this “consensus view” of professional development highlights the need for collaborative learning contexts, teacher research and inquiry, engagement in practical tasks of instruction and assessment, exploration of relevant subject matter, and consistent feedback and follow-up activities. These recommendations for training seminars are often outweighed by flexible but purposeful menu of teacher networks, study groups, partnerships with universities, peer reviews, online-learning activities, and curriculum-development projects (Little, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1998; Smylie et al, 2001; National Staff Development Council, 2001; Rebora, 2004).

In some recent studies, the consensus view on professional development can be effective. In a 2000 study by the National Staff Development Council, it showed that in the eight award-winning professional-development program public schools that they studied, the professional-development programs were characterized by collaborative structures, diverse and extensive professional-learning opportunities, and an emphasis on accountability and student results (West Ed, 2000; Rebora, 2004).

The Consortium of Chicago School Research in 2001, found that professional-development characterized by “sustained coherent study; collaborative learning; time for classroom experimentation; and follow-up” had significant effect on the way teachers practice instruction. It also identified a reciprocal relationship between strong professional-development and the school’s “orientation toward innovation,” this suggests that the two feed off each other (Smylie et al, 2001; Rebora, 2004).

In the longitudinal study by the U.S. Department of Education in 2000, it tracked the experiences of teachers participating in activities that were financed by the Federal Eisenhower Professional Development Program. It found that professional development that is focused on higher-order teaching strategies increases teachers’ use of strategies. An example of this is the use of problems that has no obvious solutions. That particular case was what the study found. Collaborative format, teachers’ participation of the same grade, subject or school, active learning for teachers, and professional-development that was consistent with teachers’ goals and other activities, increases the use of strategy among teachers (Porter et al, 2000; Rebora, 2004).

These studies offer little support in the generalized curricula that was often associated with workshop model. The studies suggest that professional development is most successful when activities exposes the teachers to contents that helps deepen and contextualize their knowledge on their subject-area and prepares them to respond to individual student needs (Rebora, 2004). Other studies show the relationship between students’ achievement in school to the professional-development program of teachers.

The Educational Testing Service, in 2000, study the effective teacher practices. The study linked higher student test scores in math with teachers’ professional-development training in higher-order thinking skills. An example of this activity is devising strategies to solve different types of problems. The same study observed similar jump in science-test scores with students whose teachers had professional-development training in hands-on laboratory skills. The study also suggests that there is minimal or negative effect on student scores whose teachers’ had undergone an interdisciplinary training (Wenglinsky, 2000; Rebora, 2004).

In an evaluative study in 1998 of professional-development programs in math and science, found that training programs that shows teachers how students learn in a subject has greater effect on student learning than those programs that prescribes sets of teaching behaviors. Also, the first training program enables teachers to continue developing and refining their own practices (Kennedy, 1998; Rebora, 2004).

A 2000 professional-development guide for reading teachers that was adopted by the Learning First Alliance advocates an extensive, specialized regimen of subject-area training. The guide asserts that the reading acquisition of students is worthy of intensive focus in a long-range professional development with the aid of training sessions. The training sessions should be supported by readings that will explain to teachers the psychological, linguistic, and educational reasons for the recommended practices. The goal of this program is to give teachers a deeper knowledge that is necessary the diverse and changing needs of students (Learning First Alliance, 2000; Rebora, 2004).

In general, for high-caliber professional-development programs to take root, experts emphasize the importance of strong and engaged instructional leadership on the part of the school principal. The studies also stress the need for innovative and coordinated management of funding and teachers’ time. And they call on governments and school systems to provide greater financial and administrative support (Smylie et al, 2000; West Ed, 2000; Wenglinsky, 2000; Porter et al, 2000; Rebora, 2004). In a much broader view, some commentators point the need for thorough examination of school policies and practices to identify embedded elements in the school culture and infrastructure that stand in the way of changes in professional-development (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995; Smylie et al, 2000; Rebora, 2004).

Through these studies, it can be seen that a better training program can enhance the teachers’ ability and skill in giving instruction and making the students learn more than what they use to learn. It can also be observed that not only the students are getting better in school, the teachers given a better understanding of how students think, are better able in thinking of ways on how to approach a subject for different groups of students.

These programs should be made available to all schools and district. It is important that teachers be aided in developing their teaching skills in order for them to teach well. Also, these programs can build the teachers’ self-esteem and not be easily intimidated by students who think that they know more than the teachers.

It should be noted that not all teachers are given the same opportunity to broaden their knowledge of the subject that they are teaching. As an analogy, in businesses the capitalist need to research and develop his products so that his customers will always be satisfied. In education, the capitalist is the government, the customers are the students, and the products are the teachers. If the teachers were not developed to suit what the students are looking for to encourage them to study harder, then the business would die. Education would not be out-of-business, but if the information given by teachers and the way they deliver it would not change, then there would be no researchers or politicians or doctors in the future, because what the students know may not make they qualify for a college education.

As there are pros to these programs there are also cons. Although there are only a few cons that are being considered. One of the cons is that if the program continues, teachers would have to rethink the way they are teaching presently. They may be forced to teach in ways that even them as students never experienced. They may be forced to construct new classroom roles and not expect much from students (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995).

Another is that, although these programs are better than before. Teachers would need time to adjust to these propositions of changing the way they instruct. This means that schools will have to provide occasions for teachers to reflect and practice on their new way of teaching. Also, the teachers must be willing to fashion new knowledge and beliefs about content, pedagogy, and learners (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995).

This kind of professional development signals the departure from “pre-service” or “in-service” training. It would create new images of what, when, and how teachers learn. These new images would require a corresponding shift from policies to develop schools’ and teachers’ capacity to be responsible for student learning (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995).

What teachers are asking for may not seem too much for them. But the budget needed by schools and districts to provide them with these programs are hard to find. The programs itself should be updated from time to time; this is to provide teachers the latest developments in researchers about student learning. And to be able to do that, the districts would have to have lots of funds that the local government may not be able to provide.

The changed curriculum and pedagogy of professional development will require new policies that will foster new structures and institutional arrangements for teachers’ learning. And at the same time, school administrators need to undertake a strategic assessment of existing policies to be able to determine if the current policies are still compatible to the vision of learning that is constructed by teachers and students who has the vision of professional development as a lifelong activity (Lieberman, 1995; Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995).

There are a lot of things to be changed before the professional development program for teachers is implemented in full swing. New policies should cover the issue about incentives to teachers that undergo the training programs. If the current policies do cover this, incentives may be counterproductive or nonexistent.

The government will not be able to implement a nationwide Professional Development Program for teachers in a snap. The current policies have to be amended, the budget prepared, and of course, the teachers themselves has to prepare. Also, the necessary school materials that will be used by students must be prepared way in advance to cover all states. Currently, the good professional development trainings are provided only to certain school districts. And the schools would have to apply for it to be able to get a grant for the program.

In every program, a mission is set. The mission of a program is the basis whether a program is successful or not. It gives barriers on what and what not to cover in a program. For the professional development program, its mission is to prepare and support educators to help all students achieve to high standards of learning and development (West Ed, 2000).

There are a number of principles to be identified if professional development is effective. These are (West Ed, 2000):

-           Focuses on teachers as central student learning, yet includes all other members of the school community;

-                      Focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement;

-                      Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and others in the school community;

-                      Reflects best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership;

-                      Enables teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and other essential elements in teaching to high standards;

-                      Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of schools;

-                      Is planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate that development;

-                      Is driven by a coherent long-term plan;

-                      Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and student learning; and this assessment guides subsequent professional development efforts.

The National Awards Program for Model Professional Development honors school for their comprehensive efforts to increase teacher and student learning through professional development. But the awards program serves another purpose. The awards program also promotes the successful efforts as models that other can learn from.

Recently, states have been revising their statutes to accommodate the professional development program. An example is Missouri, in Chapter 160 Section 160.530 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (2003), it states that: “in order to be eligible for state aid distributed pursuant to section 163.031, RSMo, a school district shall allocate one percent of money received pursuant to section 163.031, RSMo, exclusive of categorical add-ons, to the professional development committee in any fiscal year as specified by this subsection” (Revised Statues of Missouri, 2003).

The programs that the schools provide for their teachers are their own. But since there is the National Awards Program for Model Professional Development. Schools must be excited since, the prestige of being one of the best public school in the whole of the United States could b theirs. And that is not only for the pride of the school and teachers, the pride that it can deliver can stay on the face of the school principal or district superintendent. Because it may only happen once in their career that the school that they are leading covets the title of being the best school.

            It is important that the way teachers teach be reformed or improved. It is important because the way students learn vary from year to year. Students this year may be able to catch up with the way teachers teach today, but students next year being taught the same way may not be able to catch up with the lessons. The problem is not how the teachers teach; the problem is the diversity of the way students learns. If the teachers learn to understand this there may be a better chance that students will be able to absorb what they are being taught.

            The government should be able to see this, and that they should be able to find ways on how to resolve this problem. The Professional Development Program is a good way of making teachers learn how students behave while learning. But, this program is better if the program incorporates learning with hands-on activities for teachers. This way they can be able to devise different ways of approaching a single problem that was posed to them by students. Another is that they themselves will be able to learn new things, things that they were not able to learn when they were in school.

            The Department of Education should try to also devise different ways on how to teach teachers the new lessons that they will be tackling in class. Curriculum development is also important. It is important such that new researches can be incorporated in the lessons taught in classes. “What is a fact today may not be fact tomorrow.” This quotation should be applied to curriculum development.

 

Reference:

 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. Cited in Education Issues A-Z. (2004). Professional Development. Maryland: Education Week.

 

Little, J. W. (1994). Teachers Professional Development in a Climate of Education Reform. U. S. A.: U. S. Department of Education. Cited in Rebora, Anthony. (2004). Professional Development. Maryland: Education Week.

 

Miles, M. B. (1995). Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Cited in Rebora, Anthony. (2004). Professional Development. Maryland: Education Week.

 

Rebora, Anthony. (2004). Professional Development. Maryland: Education Week.

 

Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan. Cited in Rebora, Anthony. (2004).  Professional Development. Maryland: Education Week.

 

Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan.

 

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher Learning That Supports Learning. Washington, D.C.: Educational Leadership.

 

Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Measuring Progress Toward Equity in Science and Mathematics Education. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

—. (2000). Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide. Washington, D.C.: Learning First Alliance.

 

—. (2001). Teacher Preparation and Professional Development: 2000. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

 

Porter, A. C. et al. (2000).  Does Professional Development Change Teaching Practice? Results from a Three-Year Study. Washington, D.C.: Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education.

 

Smylie, M.A. et al. (2001). Teacher Professional Development in Chicago: Supporting Effective Practice. Illinois: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

 

Wenglinsky, H. (2000).  How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back Into Discussions of Teacher Quality. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

 

—. (2000). Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools With Model Professional Development. San Francisco, California: WestEd.

 

—. (2001). Standards for Staff Development. Oxford, Ohio: National Standards for Staff Development.

 

Lieberman, Ann. (1995). Practices that Support Teacher Development: Transforming Conceptions of Professional Learning. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan.

 

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com