Does policy influence mathematics and science teachers' participation in professional development?

Teachers College Record

Volumn 109, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1086-1122

  Desimone, Laura M ^a   Smith, Thomas M ^a   Phillips, Kristie J R ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35648933085     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Berends, M. (2000). Teacher-reported effects of New American Schools design: Exploring relationships to teacher background and school context. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 65-82.
2. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
3. Berends, M., Chun, J., Schuyler, G., Stockly, S., & Briggs, R. J. (2002). Challenges of conflicting school reforms: Effects of New American Schools in a high-poverty district. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. IV: The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ED 108 330)
5. Bingham, R., & White, S. (1993). Explaining teacher/principal differences in evaluating schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 31, 70-76.
6. Clune, W. (1998). Toward a theory of systemic reform: The case of nine NSF statewide systemic initiatives (National Institute for Science Education Research Monograph No. 16). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.
7. Cohen, D. K, & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., &Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Corcoran, T., Shields, P., & Zucker, A. (1998, March). The SSIs and professional development for teachers: Evaluation of NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program (Monograph). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
10. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 357-374.
11. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, A. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 183-204.
12. Desimone, L., Smith, T., Frisvold, D. (in press). Has NCLB improved teacher and teaching quality for disadvantaged students? In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Will standards-based reform in education help close the poverty gap? Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution.
13. Desimone, L. M. (2006). Consider the source: Response differences among teachers, principals, and districts on survey questions about their education policy environment. Educational Policy, 20, 640-676.
14. Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. S., Hayes, S., & Frisvold, D. (2005). Beyond Accountability and Average Math Scores: Relating Multiple State Education Policy Attributes to Changes in Student Achievement in Procedural Knowledge, Conceptual Understanding and Problem Solving in Mathematics. Educationl Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 5-18.
15. Desimone, L., & LeFloch, K. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 1-22.
16. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479.
17. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K, & Birman, B. (2002). Does professional development change teachers' instruction? Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-112.
18. Dutro, E., Fisk, M., Koch, R., Roop, L., & Wixson, K (2002). When state policies meet local district contexts: Standards-based professional development as a means to individual agency and collective ownership. Teachers College Record, 104, 787-811.
19. Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 96-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Alford, L. E., Freeman, D. J., Irwin, S., Schmidt, W. H., et al. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 96-124.
21. Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., Yoon, K., & Desimone, L. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38, 915-945
22. Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hamond, L., & Grissmer, D. (1988). Assessing teacher supply and demand. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
23. Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K (1997). Reports on reform from the field: District and state survey results. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Rethinking the quest for school improvement: Some findings from the DESSI study. Teachers College Record, 86, 34-54.
25. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
26. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions ofschool success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325-340.
27. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
28. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.
29. Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798.
30. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29-45.
31. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teachers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. Meyer & Associates (Eds.), Environments and organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Muncey, D. E., & McQuillan, P. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press (ED 399 345).
34. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author. Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001, January). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
35. Porter, A. C., Archbald, D., & Tyree, Jr., A. (1990). Reforming the curriculum: Will empowerment policies replace control? In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 11-36). New York: Falmer.
36. Porter, A. C., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. Grouws & T. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 96-113). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
37. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Rosenholtz, S.J. (1991). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
39. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., & Nunnery, J. (1999). Selection and evaluation of locally developed versus externally developed schoolwide programs. In G. Orfield & E. H. DeBray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts not fads in Title I reform (pp. 147-58). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project.
40. Ross, S. M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., & Buggey, T. (1997, March). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 45-71.
41. Smith, T., & Desimone, L. (2003). Do changes in patterns of participation in teachers' professional development reflect the goals of standards-based reform? Educational Horizons, 81, 119-129.
42. Smith, L. J., Maxwell, S., Lowther, D., Hacker, D., Bol, L., & Nunnery,J. (1997). Activities in schools and programs experiencing the most, and least, early implementation successes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 125-150.
43. Spillane, J. (2004). Standards deviations: How local schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Spillane, J., & Jennings, N. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 450-481.
45. Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 465-489.
46. Sweeney, J., & Pinckney, R. (1983). Faculty management: The principal's most important role. Spectrum, 1(3), 3-6.
47. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
48. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
49. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 541-552.