Teacher participation in content-focused professional development & the role of state policy

Teachers College Record

Volumn 113, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 2586-2621

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

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858852480     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. American Federation of Teachers (2001). Making standards matter 2001: A fifty-state report on efforts to implement a standards-based system. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teachereducation. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
3. 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.
4. Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5. 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.
6. Berends, M., & Caret, M. (2002). In (re) search of evidence-based school practices: Possibilities for integrating nationally representative surveys and randomized field trials to inform educational policy. Peabody journal of Education, 77(4), 28-59.
7. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol IV: The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ED 108 330).
8. Bruk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S., & Easton, J. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9. Bybee, R. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2003). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-332.
11. Center on Education Policy (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington DC: Center on Education Policy.
12. Chatterji, M. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountability initiative: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 345-386 (Pubitemid 36116591)
13. 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.
14. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
15. Cohen, D. K. (1995, December). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17, 31 (EJ 519 251). (Pubitemid 126006011)
16. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. Lass (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
17. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
18. Cook, T. D. (1999). Considering the major arguments against random assignment: An analysis of the intellectual culture surrounding evaluation in American schools of education. Paper presented at the Harvard faculty seminar on experiments in education. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
19. Cook, T. D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C, & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer's school development program in Prince George's County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 543-597.
20. Cook, T. D., Murphy, R., & Hunt, D. (2000). Comer's school development program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 535-597. (Pubitemid 33220290)
21. Corcoran, T. B. (1997, February). Evaluating systemic reform. Prepared for Teacher Enhancement Electronic Community Hall Retrieved from http://teech. Tec.edu/papers/papers/Corcoran. htm
22. Corcoran, T. B., 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.
23. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of whole school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 357-374. (Pubitemid 33214202)
24. Datnow, A., & Stringfield, A. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 183-204.
25. Desimone, L. (2002a). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479. (Pubitemid 36121905)
26. Desimone, L. (2002b). What makes comprehensive school reform successful. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479. (Pubitemid 36121905)
27. Desimone, L. (2006). Consider the source: Response differences among teachers, principals and districts on survey questions about their education policy environment. Educational Policy, 20(4), 640-676. (Pubitemid 44147684)
28. Desimone, L., Birman, B., Porter, A., Garet, M., & Suk Yoon, K. (2003). Improving teachers' in-service professional development in mathematics and science: The role of postsecondary institutions. Educational Policy, 17(5), pp. 613-649. (Pubitemid 37496353)
29. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M S., & Suk Yoon, K. (2002, October). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College Record 104(7), 1265-1312.
30. Desimone, L., Smith, T., Frisvold, D. (2007). Has NCLB improved teacher and teaching quality for disadvantaged students? In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons for "No Child Left Behind" (pp. 89-119). Washington, D. C: Brookings Institution.
31. Desimone, L., Smith, T., 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. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 5-18. (Pubitemid 41826125)
32. Desimone, L., Smith, T, & Phillips, K. (2007). Does policy influence mathematics and science teachers' participation in professional development? Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1086-1122.
33. Desimone, L., Smith, T, & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who need sustained, contentfocused professional development getting it? An administrator's dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 179-215. (Pubitemid 43319797)
34. Doolitde, F., Herlihy, C, & Snipes, J. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement New York: MDRC for the Council of Great City Schools.
35. 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.
36. Education Week. (2000). Quality counts 2000: Building blocks for success. Education Week, 19 (17). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc00/
37. 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.
38. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C., Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance based reform in education (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
39. Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching learning, & school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Evertson, C. M. & Harris, A. H. (1999). Support for managing learning-centered classrooms: The classroom organization and management program. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management paradigm (pp. 59-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
41. Finn, C., Jr., & Petrilli, M. (2000). The state of state standards. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
42. Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., & Schatschneider, C. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
43. Freiberg, H. J., Stein, T. A., & Haung, S. (1995). The effects of classroom management intervention on student achievement in inner-city elementary school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1, 33-66.
44. Fullan, M. (2001). Leadingin a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45. 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. (Pubitemid 33590046)
46. Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 502-541.
47. Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hammond, L., & Grissmer, D. (1988). Assessing teacher supply and demand. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
48. Hannaway, J., & Kimball, K. (1997). Reports on reform from the field: District and state survey results. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
49. Hanushek, E. & Raymond, M. (2004). The effective school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of European Economic Association, 2(2), 406-415.
50. Herman, J., & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learning: Another look. Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
51. 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.
52. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798. (Pubitemid 126322732)
56. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57. Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and continuing challenges. CPRE Research Report Series, RR-41. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
58. Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. Furhrman (Ed.), From the capilol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
59. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teachers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60. Mirel, J. (1994, Fall). School reform unplugged: The Bensenville New American School project, 1991-93. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 481-518.
61. Mosteller, F. & Boruch, R.. Eds. (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 150-178). Washington, DC: Brookings.
62. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 77-78 (EJ 449 894).
63. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author.
64. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for the teaching of school mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
65. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
66. Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001, January). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
67. Porter, A. (1994). National standards and school improvement in the 1990s: Issues and promise. American Journal of Education, 102, 421-449.
68. Porter, A. C. (2002, October). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
69. Porter, A. C, & Brophy, J. E. (1988). Good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 75-84.
70. Porter, A. C, & Smithson, J. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states; One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 60-80). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
71. Porter, A. C., Archibald, 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.
72. 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.
73. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993, October). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
74. Purkey, S. C, & Smidi, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
75. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76. Rech, J., Hartzell, J., & Stephens, L. (1993). Comparisons of mathematical competencies and attitudes of elementary education majors with established norms of a general college population. School Science and Mathematics, 93(3), 141-145.
77. Resnick, L. B. (2006). Making accountability really count. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 33-37. (Pubitemid 43388359)
78. Romberg, X., Zarinnia, E., & Williams, S. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers' perceptions. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education.
79. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., & Nunnery, J. (1999). Selection and evaluation of locally developed versus externally developed schoolwide programs. In G. Orfield & E. H. De Bray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools: Facts not fads in Title I reform (pp. 147-58). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project.
80. 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. (Pubitemid 127490965)
81. Schmidt, W. H., & Prawat, R. S. (1999, Spring). What does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study tell us about where to draw the line in the top-down versus bottom-up debate? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 85-91.
82. Schonemann, P. H. (1990). Facts, fictions, and common-sense about factors and components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 53-59.
83. Schwille, J., Porter, A., Alford, L., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Irwin, S., & Schmidt, W. (1988). State policy and the control of curriculum decisions. Educational Policy, 2(1), 29-50.
84. Sebring, P. B., & Bruk, A. S. (2000, February). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.
85. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
86. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman 8c B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
87. Smith, T. M. (2006). How do state-level induction and standers-based reform policies affect induction experiences and turnover among new teachers? American fournal of Education, 113, 273-309.
88. 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.
89. Spillane, J. (1996). School district matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy, Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
90. Spillane, J., & Jennings, N. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 450-481.
91. Spillane. J., & Louis, K. (2002). School improvement processes and practices. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 83-104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
92. Steiger. J. H. (1990). Some additional thoughts on components, factors, and factor indeterminacy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 41-45.
93. Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 465-489.
94. Timar, T. (1989, December). The politics of school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(4), 165-175.
95. Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. O. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers' explicit beliefs about multiplication and division. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 79-96.
96. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The "grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
97. United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (1999). The NAEP 1996 Technical Report. NCES 1999-452. N. L. Allen, J. E. Carlson, & C. A. Zelenak. Washington, DC: Author.
98. United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2002). Schools and staffing survey: 1999-2000. Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools. NCES 2002-213. K. J. Gruber, S. D. Wiley, S. P. Broughman, B. A. Strizek, & M. Burian-Fitzgerald. Washington, DC: Author.
99. Velicer, W. F. & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor-analysis: Some further observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 89-95.
100. Webb, N. L., & Romberg, T. A. (1994). Reforming mathematics education in America's cities: The urban mathematics collaborative project. New York: Teachers College Press.
101. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
102. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality (Policy Information Center Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
103. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 70(12), 1-31.
104. Whitehurst, G. (2002, February 28). Statement before subcommittee on education reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U. S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.