Professional development schools (PDSs) are partnerships formed by teacher education programs and preK–12 schools intent on sharing responsibility for the preparation of new teachers, the development of experienced faculty members, and the improvement of practice—all with the goal of enhancing student achievement. Like their medical counterparts in teaching hospitals, professional development school partners believe that by sharing responsibility for crucial functions, they can improve education outcomes for teachers and students.
Approximately 30 percent of the 525 colleges and universities accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) report being involved in professional development school partnerships. Many teacher education programs partner with more than one preK–12 school. Some institutions have completely redesigned their teacher education programs around professional development schools; others place only a fraction of their teacher candidates in professional development school sites.
NCATE conducted a multiyear project to develop and test standards for professional development schools (Levine, 2001; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001a, 2001b), selecting a representative group of professional development schools to test the standards in the field. What we learned from these field tests, together with recent studies of the effectiveness of professional development schools, suggests that preK–12 schools and universities would be wise to consider investing in professional development school partnerships.
Learning at the Core
Student and teacher learning needs are at the center of the professional development school. Student learning defines the professional development school's curriculum and the direction of research and inquiry for teacher candidates and school and university faculty alike. Professional development schools take teacher learning seriously by providing seminars, problem-solving groups, and mini-courses that focus on student work, student needs, teacher reflection and inquiry, and skills development. Such schools also socialize teacher candidates into a culture of inquiry and collegiality.
A Focus on Clinical Preparation
Professional development schools increase student and teacher learning by emphasizing the clinical component of a teacher's preparation, which practicing teachers most often cite as the crucial element of preservice education. Ironically, clinical teacher preparation—called a practicum or student teaching—is often the least predictable part of teacher preparation. When it's good, it can be very, very good—but when it's bad, it can be horrid. Student teaching assignments typically last for 8–12 weeks, during which a university faculty member, who usually has ultimate responsibility for, but little contact with, the student teacher, devises the agenda for the experience. Program coordinators and principals may select supervising teachers for the wrong reasons and often spend little or no time preparing them for their role.
By contrast, professional development schools provide in-depth, long-term clinical experiences for teacher candidates. Supervising teachers and university faculty members share mentoring responsibility for the student teachers. During long-term internships, teacher candidates become a part of the school faculty. They observe other teachers, participate in whole-school activities, and function as junior faculty members.
Full-year internships may be a component of four- or five-year teacher education programs, as they are for students at Towson University (Maryland) or the University of Cincinnati. At Kansas State University (Manhattan), all teacher candidates have intensive professional development school experiences. Long-term internships also may be the central focus of a yearlong master's degree program, as at the University of Colorado (Denver) and the University of South Carolina (Columbia).
Research: Effects on Learning
What does the research say about the effectiveness of professional development schools to increase student and teacher learning? A longitudinal study compared test scores of low-income, minority students in a Michigan professional development school partnership with statewide test scores and scores from one of the state's most affluent school districts (Pine, 2000). Researchers found that, over an eight-year period, professional development school students' test scores in math, science, and reading met or exceeded state averages and averages in the more affluent district. Data collected in a professional development school in Waco, Texas, also showed gains in student test scores over time (Proctor, 1999).
A RAND study assessed the impact of partnerships between West Virginia University (Morgantown) and professional development schools (Gill & Hove, 2000). Researchers examined student outcomes and test scores in the partnership schools and compared them with nonpartnership schools in participating counties; students' scores in the partnership schools were consistently higher. A Texas study used both student test scores and observation data to document the impact of professional development schools on student outcomes (Houston, Hollis, Clay, Ligons, & Roff, 1999). Students in professional development school classrooms had more time on task, were more consistently on task, and frequently worked in small groups. They also showed greater test score gains than they had before their schools became professional development schools.
Research also indicates that teacher candidates learn better in professional development schools than in traditional teacher preparation programs. In a review of recent research on professional development schools, Teitel (2001) reported on several studies using trained observers in carefully controlled protocols that indicated clear benefits to teacher candidates and new teachers in professional development schools. For example, a Kansas study used observations and other evaluation techniques—including an instrument developed at the Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation—to compare student teachers prepared in professional development schools with those prepared in traditional teacher education programs. Professional development school—trained candidates were, on average, rated competent, whereas their traditionally prepared peers consistently were rated lower—between novice and advanced beginner (Shroyer, Wright, Kerr, & Weamer, 1996).
Drawing on data from a consortium of four universities and three school districts, a Texas study contrasted professional development school teacher candidates and traditionally trained teacher candidates on several measures, including test scores on ExCET, the Texas test for new teachers, and classroom observations to identify indicators associated with effective teaching (Houston et al., 1999). On all measures, the professional development school candidates outperformed the traditionally prepared candidates.
Additional Benefits of Pooling Resources
Professional development school partnerships pool the knowledge, skills, and resources of higher education institutions and preK–12 schools and bring them to bear collectively on teacher preparation and development and student learning. School faculty members bring their knowledge of practice to the partnership; university faculty members bring their research knowledge and inquiry skills. In addition to promoting student and teacher learning, this pooling of resources holds promise for improving education in preK–12 schools and universities in a number of ways.
Reforming school and university. Both the University of North Dakota (Grand Forks) and Lake Agassiz Elementary School use portfolios and other forms of authentic assessment for learners. The Hillcrest Professional Development School is a collaborative effort of Baylor University (Waco, Texas) and Waco Independent School District to close the literacy gap among bilingual elementary students from low-income homes in the Waco area. Professional development school partnerships in Louisville, Kentucky, integrate teacher candidates into high school instruction teams working in small groups on special learning needs. University of North Florida (Jackson-ville) teacher candidates help reshape the instructional program in local professional development elementary schools. Kansas State University developed new math and science courses for all students—not just education students—as a result of the professional development school partnership. Towson University reorganized its preservice course offerings on the basis of professional development school work: Professors deliver the restructured, four-semester professional sequence—based on the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards—at the professional development school site.
Taking on new roles and new work. In professional development partnerships with the University of Colorado (Denver), school faculty members can become Teachers in Residence at the university. They coteach courses, help supervise teacher candidates, and pursue their own professional development. In professional development partnerships between the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis) and Minneapolis area schools, newly licensed teachers may serve in one-year resident positions. They have reduced teaching loads, earn reduced salaries (commensurate with their responsibilities), and continue to develop their skills with the support of mentor teachers, university faculty members, and the professional development school coordinator.
University faculty members involved with professional development schools may spend much of their time working with colleagues in the school, supervising teacher candidates, and offering courses on-site. Professional development school partners can provide rewards and incentives for candidates and faculty members who take on new roles, and these institutions should reorganize to support new roles and new work.
Reducing pupil-teacher ratios. As teacher candidates become fully integrated into instructional teams, they take on responsibilities commensurate with their experience and can lighten the load for supervising teachers. For example, two teacher candidates working for a full year in internships with a mentor teacher can effectively reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in a classroom from 24:1 to 8:1.
Addressing the teacher shortage. The realities of teaching can overwhelm minimally prepared teacher candidates. Professional development schools bring strong candidates into schools to collaborate with experienced mentor teachers on instructional teams. Candidates do not have full teaching responsibility, and they and their mentors have time to address the candidates' learning needs. A Texas study looked at almost 2,000 teacher candidates who entered teaching after 1993 (Fleener, 1999). Approximately half the candidates had graduated from professional development school programs; the rest were graduates of traditional teacher preparation programs. The attrition rate of the professional development school graduates was one-third that of the graduates of traditional programs. Of particular interest is the fact that the difference in attrition between traditional program and professional development school graduates was greatest for Hispanic students and for males.
Meeting student needs while simultaneously improving teacher quality and addressing the teacher shortage would be the education equivalent of hitting a home run. How do educators hit that home run? By restructuring schools to provide teacher candidates with authentic learning opportunities that ensure high-quality education for their students. By reallocating school district funds—to provide stipends to intern candidates and new professional development options for teachers, for example. By rethinking state-level funding of preK–12 and teacher education programs. It won't be easy, but we already know that easy doesn't work. Educators and policymakers should take a long, hard look at professional development schools because they may well be an investment that's worth making.
