A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Designing Effective Development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program - December 1999

Chapter 6

The Relationship of SAHE-Grantee Management to Features of Professional Development

So far in the chapter we have examined the features of SAHE-grantee activities, and how SAHE grantees manage and operate their professional development activities. We now look at the associations among these variables, to examine how they work together and affect each other. Exhibit 6.25 shows the relationships among the implementation and quality variables that we discuss in this chapter. (For a more detailed presentation of the results, see Appendix H.) All reported coefficients are standardized path coefficients, which represent the influence of one variable on another. The range in values for path coefficients is generally between ?1 and 1, and greater absolute values represent stronger relationships. All paths shown are statistically significant at the .05 level.

The model is designed to reflect an implied causal structure: variables on the far left are considered to be exogenous variables, or external to the system, since they are preconditions and are not manipulable (except to the extent that grants can be targeted to particular types of institutions or departments within institutions). Alignment and coordination are implementation variables that are posited to affect structural and core features of professional development activities both directly and indirectly through increased continuous-improvement efforts.

Exhibit 6.25 suggests that it is in part through coordination with districts that education departments outperform mathematics/science departments on many dimensions of professional development. Coordination with the district is associated with several structural and core features. Projects that coordinate with districts are less likely to have reform activities or activities with long time-spans, but more likely to have activities with collective participation and a greater number of contact hours. This might suggest that if an activity is coordinated with the district, it might be planned around the school year, and occur during breaks or the summer, which would require a shorter span of time, but allow more contact hours. One would also expect more collective participation, since the project director in the education department is working closely with the district, perhaps planning professional development to meet the needs of particular groups of teachers or schools.

The model also indicates that SAHE grantees that engage in coordination make greater use of continuous improvement strategies (i.e., indicators, needs assessments, and evaluation), and in turn are more likely to offer more active learning opportunities and target specific groups of teachers, perhaps in response to the needs assessments and evaluations provided by teachers. Alternatively, SAHE grantees inclined to practice coordination and continuous-improvement efforts may already be reform-minded, and thus inclined to design their activities with many active learning strategies, and to reach teachers of at-risk students.

In contrast to education departments, nonresearch/doctoral-granting institutions, NPOs, and mathematics/science departments have no positive paths, and some negative paths, to desirable characteristics of professional development. In particular, mathematics/science departments are much less likely to engage in continuous improvement strategies, and thus have projects with fewer opportunities for active learning and less targeting. Further, although our earlier analysis showed that nonresearch/doctoral-granting institutions are more likely than research institutions to align their activities with state and district standards and assessments, alignment does not prove to have any associations with continuous improvement or quality features.

Exhibit 6.25
Relationship of SAHE-grantee Management to Features of Professional Development

This selected analysis of our SAHE-grantee model illustrates the importance of coordination and continuous improvement in determining the structural and core features of professional development activities. These results suggest that the emphasis of the Title II legislation on SAHE-grantee coordination with districts is well-placed, considering the strong relationship that coordination has with the quality of professional development, and with continuous-improvement efforts. Similarly, the law?s attention to continuous-improvement efforts in the use of indicators, needs assessment, and evaluation is also well-supported by our findings. But, as reported earlier in this chapter, we do not find much evidence of coordination as is called for in the law. Greater compliance with the law might improve the overall quality of the professional development activities that SAHE grantees provide.

It would be helpful to identify the factors that facilitate coordination and continuous improvement efforts in education departments, and how these efforts translate into higher quality professional development. This information would better enable us to apply these principles and lessons to professional development provided by other departments, and by school districts and schools.

[Differences in SAHE-Grantee Projects by Institution Type and Departmental Affiliation]

[Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions]