Professional Development Schools: Are They Working
For Everyone?
The idea of offering continuing professional development to teachers
through networks with local college departments of education was not always
widely accepted.
It wasn't until the mid-1980s with the publication of Tomorrow's
Teachers by The
Holmes Group, that the concept of professional development schools
began to gain mainstream recognition as the preferred method of on-going
professional development.
Since that time, much praise has been extended to professional development
schools. Supporters credit the schools for providing a dynamic exchange
between teachers and student teachers and an opportunity for teachers
to discuss classroom experiences with peers. But recently, professional
development schools have come under closer scrutiny and criticism.
Despite the potential benefits they offer teachers, some educators see
professional development schools as inflexible and potentially removed
from teacher input. "If people go in with an idea in mind of what
the structure should look like and impose it on the k-12 schools, then
its unlikely to serve the needs of either the school or the teacher and
will lack good mechanisms for feedback," says Mary Diez, chairwoman
of the education department at Alverno College in Milwaukee. Instead she
encourages professional development schools to work jointly with educators
to develop programs that promote continued learning.
Supporters of professional development schools argue that teacher involvement
is the hallmark of these schools. According to Frank Murray, dean of the
education college of the University of Delaware, "Professional development
schools are a collaborative effort invented by the local school and the
university. There is nothing prescribed about them." Teachers must
take an active role in setting program guidelines of the professional
development schools; otherwise the programs are ineffective.
In addition to charges of inflexibility, professional development schools
have come under attack for failing to demonstrate how their programs have
led to increased student achievement. Professional development programs
that do not provide follow-up mechanisms have no accountability. Educators
are left wondering which programs work and why.
Efforts are currently under way at the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education (NCATE) to address these concerns. "There are
many places that are calling themselves professional development schools,
but they don't really meet the definition of a professional development
school," says Marsha Levine, director of the professional development
school standards project for NCATE. For the past two years, NCATE has
been working on draft standards for professional development schools.
According to Ms. Levine, "The project is designed to develop standards
working with individuals in the field to identify the characteristics
that are the most important clinical aspects of professional development
schools." NCATE plans to release the standards for comment in October
of 1997.
Instead of working with professional development schools, some school
districts have chosen to rely on alternative community networks to build
their professional development programs. Working with volunteers, community-based
organizations, and private institutions, public schools throughout the
country are creating professional development programs with increased
student performance as the main goal. In Philadelphia, the Philadelphia
Education Fund provides resources to local public schools for professional
development programs and helps educators partner with community-based
organizations. The results of these efforts have led to increased teacher
collaboration and classroom problem solving skills.
While educators continue to debate the ideal for continuing teacher
education, public schools, strapped by limited financial resources, will
experiment with various programs to find the right combination of resources
for their professional development efforts.
