Selected Findings

This E.D. Tabs report presents key findings from the 2000 survey on teacher professional development and training.⁴ To provide a national profile of teacher quality in public schools, selected findings on important indicators of teacher preparation and qualifications are organized into three sections: (1) teacher education; (2) teacher participation in formal professional development and activities related to teaching; and (3) teachers' feelings of preparedness for the classroom. A fourth section focuses on selected comparisons between the 1998 and 2000 survey data.

Teacher Education

One measure of teacher education is the type of degree held, including advanced degrees. Findings from the 2000 survey indicate that:

• Virtually all public school teachers had a bachelor's degree, and 45 percent held a master"s degree (table 1). One percent held either a doctorate or some other degree, and 18 percent reported having other certificates.

• Newer teachers were less likely than more experienced teachers to report having a master"s degree, ranging from 20 percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience to 54 percent of teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience (table 1).

• The proportion of teachers with a master's degree differed by school enrollment size and locale. Teachers in small schools were less likely than those in large schools to hold a master's degree (40 versus 49 percent; table 1).⁵ Teachers in rural/small town schools were less likely than those in schools located in central cities and urban fringes/large towns to report having a master's degree (39 percent versus 46 and 47 percent, respectively).

• The proportion of teachers with a master's degree was 42 percent for schools with the highest poverty concentration (75 percent or more of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) and 48 percent in schools with the lowest poverty concentration (less than 35 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; table 1). These differences are not statistically significant because of large standard errors surrounding estimates of teachers with master's degrees broken out by categories of poverty concentration.

Teacher Professional Development and Collaboration

Formal professional development and collaboration with other teachers are key mechanisms for providing teachers with ongoing training opportunities (Henke, Chen, and Geis 2000; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future 1996; Sprinthall, Reiman, and Theis-Sprinthall 1996). Formal professional development, typically consisting of school and district staff development programs, however, has been criticized for being short term and lacking in continuity and adequate follow up (Fullan with Stiegelbauer 1991). This criticism was partially supported by past data indicating that formal professional development typically lasts for the equivalent of 1 day (Lewis et al. 1999; Mullens et al. 1996).

The 2000 survey on teacher professional development and training asked about teacher participation in formal professional development, the duration of professional development training, and the perceived impact of professional development on teaching. In addition, the survey asked about the extent to which formal professional development in which teachers participated was linked to or followed up by various school-based programs and activities.

Participation in Formal Professional Development

Public school teachers surveyed in 2000 were asked about their participation in professional development that focused on 10 content areas: state or district curriculum and performance standards, integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught, in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment, new methods of teaching, student performance assessment, encouraging parent and community involvement, classroom management, and addressing various needs of special student populations (i.e., students with disabilities, those from diverse cultural backgrounds, and those with limited English proficiency). Findings from the 2000 survey indicate that:

• Public school teachers were most likely to have participated in professional development that focused on state or district curriculum and performance standards (80 percent; table 2). This was followed by professional development on integration of educational technology into the grade or subject taught (74 percent), in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment (72 percent), implementing new methods of teaching (72 percent), and student performance assessment (62 percent).

• Teachers were less likely to have participated in professional development that focused on addressing the needs of students with disabilities (49 percent), encouraging parent and community involvement (46 percent), classroom management, including student discipline (45 percent), and addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (41 percent; table 2). The professional development area in which teachers were least likely to participate was addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency (26 percent).⁶

• For all but one content area of professional development, teachers typically reported that they had spent 1 to 8 hours or the equivalent of 1 day or less on the activity during the 12 months preceding the survey (table 2). Moreover, teachers were least likely to spend more than 32 hours on professional development for each content area examined. For example, of the teachers who participated in professional development on the integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught, 61 percent spent 1 to 8 hours, 28 percent spent 9 to 32 hours, and 11 percent spent more than 32 hours on professional development in that content area. In-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment was the only area of professional development in which participation typically lasted more than 8 hours.

• More experienced teachers were less likely than newer teachers to have participated in professional development on classroom management, ranging from 39 percent of teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience to 63 percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience (table 3). Moreover, very experienced teachers (with 10 or more years of teaching experience) were less likely than less experienced teachers to participate in professional development that focused on in-depth study in the main teaching assignment and new methods of teaching. Teaching experience did not make a difference to teachers" participation in any of the other professional development activities examined in the survey.

• Public school teachers in schools with the highest poverty concentration were more likely than those who taught in schools with the lowest poverty concentration to report that they participated in professional development programs on 4 of the 10 content areas examined in the survey-in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment, classroom management, addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency (table 3).

• Public school teachers in schools with the highest concentration of minority students were more likely than teachers who taught in schools with the lowest concentration of minority students to report that they participated in professional development programs that were relevant to students who may have special needs-students from diverse cultural backgrounds and those with limited English proficiency (table 3).

Continuity and Relevance of Professional Development

A core argument against formal professional development as commonly practiced is that the programs are not likely to have lasting effects unless they are designed to provide continuity between what teachers learn and what goes on in the classroom (Fullan with Steigelbauer 1991). To address issues of linkages and continuity in professional development improvement activities, the survey asked about the extent to which professional development was linked to other program activities at the school, followed by school administration support in applying what the teacher had learned, followed by needed follow-up sessions or additional training, and followed by school activities in which the teacher helped other teachers put the new ideas to use. These analyses are restricted to public school teachers who participated in at least one professional development activity examined in the survey (99 percent).⁷ The 2000 survey findings show that:

• Of the public school teachers who participated in any of the professional development activities examined in the survey, 18 percent indicated that their professional development was linked to other program improvement activities at their school to a great extent, 38 percent reported it was linked to a moderate extent, and 29 percent indicated it was linked to a small extent (Table 4). Fifteen percent indicated that their professional development was not linked to other program activities at the school.

• The proportion of teachers reporting that their professional development was followed by related school-based activities to a great extent ranged from 10 percent for activities in which the teachers helped others to put new ideas to use to 15 percent for school administration support in applying what the teachers had learned (Table 4).

• About one-fourth of teachers (24 percent) indicated that their professional development was not followed by school administration support in applying what they had learned. Thirtytwo percent reported no follow-up sessions or additional training, and 35 percent indicated that their professional development was not followed by school activities in which they help other teachers put new ideas to use (Table 4).

Perceived Impact of Professional Development

In the 2000 survey, public school teachers were asked to assess the extent to which participation in professional development programs in a specific content area improved their teaching. These data were analyzed to determine whether teachers' perceptions of the impact of professional development were related to (1) the amount of time spent in professional development activities, and (2) linkages and follow-up activities for professional development in which teachers had participated. Findings from the 2000 survey indicate that:

• The proportion of teachers who participated in professional development in a specific content area who believed it improved their teaching a lot ranged from 12 percent for programs on encouraging parent and community involvement to 27 percent for in-depth study in the subject area of their main teaching assignment (Table 5). The proportion of teachers who felt that professional development did not improve their teaching at all ranged from 2 percent for programs on in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment to 11 percent for programs on encouraging parent and community involvement, and those on state or district curriculum and performance standards.

• The number of hours teachers spent in professional development activities was related to the extent to which they believed that participation improved their teaching (Table 6). For every content area, teachers who participated for more than 8 hours were more likely than those who spent 1 to 8 hours to report that it improved their teaching a lot. For example, 33 percent of teachers who spent more than 8 hours in professional development on new methods of teaching reported that their participation in the program improved their teaching a lot, compared with 11 percent of the teachers who spent 1 to 8 hours on that activity.

• Teachers' assessment of the impact of professional development on teaching was related to the extent to which they felt that their professional development was linked to other program activities at the school (Table 7). For every content area, teachers who reported that their professional development was linked to other program activities at their school to a large or moderate extent were more likely than those who felt that it was linked to a small extent or not at all to report that participation improved their teaching a lot or moderately.

• For every professional development activity examined in the survey, the extent to which teachers felt that participation in the activity improved their teaching depended on whether that activity was followed by various school-based activities (Table 7). For example, teachers who reported that their professional development was followed by needed follow-up sessions or additional training to a large or moderate extent were more likely than those who felt it was followed up to a small extent or not at all to report that participation in professional development on the integration of educational technology improved their teaching a lot or moderately (72 versus 54 percent).

Teacher Collaboration

Collaboration with other teachers may revolve around joint work (e.g., team teaching and mentoring) and teacher networks (e.g., school-to-school and school-university partnerships). These networks can be powerful learning mechanisms for teachers to share subject and pedagogical knowledge across classrooms and schools (Lieberman and Grolnick 1996; Little 1993). In 2000, teachers were asked about their participation in the following activities during the 12 months preceding the survey: regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, networking with teachers outside the school, common planning period for team teachers, individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest professionally, mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship, and being mentored by another teacher. Teachers were also asked about the frequency with which they participated in each activity, and the extent to which they believed that participation improved their teaching. The 2000 survey findings indicate that:

• The most frequently attended collaborative activity among public school teachers was regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers (69 percent; Table 8). This activity was followed by networking with teachers outside their school (62 percent), a common planning period for team teachers (53 percent), and individual or collaborative research on a topic of professional interest (52 percent). Teachers were least likely to mentor another teacher in a formal relationship (26 percent) or to be mentored by another teacher (23 percent).

• The activities that teachers were more likely to report participating in were not necessarily the activities that they participated in most regularly, that is, once a week (Table 8). For example, while 62 percent of teachers participated in networking with teachers outside their school, 10 percent of them actually participated in the activity at least once a week. In contrast, while 26 percent of teachers participated in mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship, 44 percent of them did so at least once a week.

• The proportion of teachers who felt that participation in various teaching-related activities improved their teaching a lot ranged from 18 percent for mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship to 37 percent for being mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship (Table 9). The proportion of teachers who felt that participation did not improve their teaching at all ranged from 2 percent for individual or collaborative research to 10 percent for mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship.

• Frequency of participation in a collaborative activity was generally positively related to teachers' beliefs about the extent to which the activity improved their classroom teaching (Table 10). For example, teachers who engaged in regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers at least once a week were more likely to believe that participation had improved their teaching a lot (45 percent), compared with teachers who participated two to three times a month (23 percent), once a month (15 percent), or a few times a year (7 percent).

Teachers' Feelings of Preparedness

To explore the extent to which teachers might be prepared for new and ongoing challenges in the classroom, the 2000 survey asked about how prepared teachers felt for the overall demands of their teaching assignments. Teachers were also asked about how prepared they felt for specific classroom activities: maintaining order and discipline in the classroom, implementing new methods of teaching, implementing state or district curriculum and performance standards, using student performance assessment, and integrating educational technology into the grade or subject taught. Moreover, teachers were asked about their preparedness to address the needs of special student populations (i.e., students from diverse cultural backgrounds, those with disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency).⁸ The 2000 survey data indicate that:

• Sixty-one percent of public school teachers felt very well prepared to meet the overall demands of their teaching assignments (Table 11). Thirty-five percent felt moderately well prepared, and 4 percent felt somewhat well prepared.

• The classroom activity for which teachers most often reported feeling very well prepared was maintaining order and discipline in the classroom; 71 percent indicated that they felt very well prepared for this activity (Table 11). Teachers were less likely to report feeling very well prepared to implement new methods of teaching (45 percent) or implement state or district curriculum (44 percent). This was followed by the proportion of teachers who reported feeling very well prepared to use student performance assessment (37 percent), address the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (32 percent), and integrate educational technology in the grade or subject taught.

• Among teachers who taught students with special needs (students with limited English proficiency and those with disabilities), relatively few felt very well prepared to address those students' needs (Table 11). For example, 27 percent of teachers who taught students with limited English proficiency indicated that they felt very well prepared to address the needs of those students, 33 percent felt moderately well prepared, 28 percent felt somewhat well prepared, and 12 percent indicated that they were not prepared at all to address those students' needs.

• For all but one classroom activity examined in the survey, the proportion of teachers who reported feeling very well prepared differed by years of teaching experience (Table 12). For example, newer teachers were less likely than more experienced teachers to report that they felt very well prepared to maintain order and discipline in the classroom, ranging from 51 percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience to 77 percent of teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience. The exception was integrating educational technology into the grade or subject taught.

Teacher preparedness incorporates what the teacher brings to the classroom from preservice training and on-the-job learning. Therefore, the extent to which public school teachers felt prepared for the classroom was examined against (1) the amount of time spent on professional development activities, (2) the extent to which professional development in which teachers participated was linked to development programs and follow-up activities at the school, and (3) whether teachers participated in collaborative activities related to teaching. Results of the 2000 survey indicate that:

• The extent to which teachers felt very well prepared to meet most classroom demands varied with the amount of time spent in recent professional development in that activity (Table 13). For example, teachers who spent over 8 hours in professional development on student performance assessment were more likely than those who spent 1 to 8 hours or those who did not participate at all to indicate that they felt very well prepared to meet the classroom requirement (46 percent versus 37 and 32 percent, respectively). This pattern held for all but two classroom requirements-classroom management and state or district curriculum and performance standards.

• Among teachers who did not participate in professional development on the integration of educational technology into the grade or subject taught, 22 percent indicated that they felt very well prepared and 17 percent said they did not feel prepared at all for this classroom activity (Table 13). Similarly, among teachers who did not participate in any professional development on addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency, 20 percent indicated that they felt very well prepared and 19 percent did not feel prepared at all for the activity.

• The likelihood of teachers reporting that they felt very well prepared to meet the overall demands of their classroom assignments was related to the extent to which professional development was linked to other program improvements and follow-up activities at the school (Table 14). This relationship held for every program improvement and follow-up activity examined in the survey. For example, teachers who indicated that their professional development was linked to other program improvements at the school to a large or moderate extent were more likely to report feeling very well prepared to meet the overall demands of their classroom assignments, compared with teachers whose professional development was linked to a small extent or not at all (65 versus 56 percent).

• For three collaborative activities related to teaching-regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, networking with teachers outside the school, and mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship-the proportion of teachers who felt very well prepared for the overall demands of their classroom assignments differed by whether the teacher participated in the activity (Table 15). For example, teachers who engaged in regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers were more likely than those who did not participate in the activity to indicate that they felt very well prepared for the overall demands of their teaching assignments (63 versus 57 percent).

Selected Comparisons With the 1998 Survey

The 2000 survey was designed to provide trend data that would allow an examination of changes in teacher education and professional development. To analyze possible changes since 1998, data from the two surveys were compared along two dimensions-teacher participation in professional development and collaborative activities, and teachers' feelings of preparedness.

These findings are presented in a separate section because comparisons are based on a subset of teachers from the 2000 study that is similar to the teachers sampled for the 1998 survey. For these analyses, the 2000 survey sample was restricted to regular full-time public school teachers in grades 1 through 12 whose main teaching assignment was in English, math, social studies, foreign languages, or science, or who taught in a self-contained classroom. Part-time, itinerant, and substitute teachers were excluded, as were "pull-out" teachers and those whose main teaching assignment was not a core subject area (see appendix A for details).

Teacher Professional Development and Collaboration

Comparisons between 1998 and 2000 are presented for regular full-time public school teachers who participated in professional development that focused on seven topics that were comparable across the surveys: state or district curriculum and performance standards, integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught, new methods of teaching, in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment, student performance assessment, addressing the needs of students with disabilities, and classroom management, including student discipline. Comparisons between 1998 and 2000 are also presented for teachers who reported that they participated in six activities related to teaching: regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, networking with teachers outside the school, common planning period for team teachers, individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest professionally, mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship, and being mentored by another teacher.

• The proportion of regular full-time teachers indicating that they participated in professional development was lower in 2000 than 1998 for three of the seven content areas that were comparable across years-new methods of teaching (73 versus 77 percent), student performance assessment (62 versus 67 percent), and classroom management, including student discipline (43 versus 49 percent; Table 16).

• In 1998 and 2000, teacher participation in professional development was likely to be short term, typically lasting for 1 to 8 hours (Table 16). For example, in both years, 62 percent of the teachers spent 1 to 8 hours while 38 percent spent more than 8 hours on professional development that focused on the integration of technology in the grade or subject taught. The one exception was professional development programs on in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment; teacher participation in these programs was relatively long term, typically lasting more than 8 hours.

• Teachers in 2000 were less likely than those in 1998 to participate in two of the six activities related to teaching-regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers (71 versus 81 percent) and common planning period for team teachers (56 versus 62 percent; Table 17). However, a higher proportion of teachers reported being mentored by another teacher in 2000 than in 1998 (22 versus 19 percent).

Teachers' Feelings of Preparedness

Comparisons between 1998 and 2000 are presented for regular full-time public school teachers who reported the extent to which they felt prepared to meet the following classroom demands: maintaining order and discipline in the classroom, implementing new methods of teaching, implementing state or district curriculum and performance standards, using student performance assessment, addressing the needs of students with disabilities, and integrating educational technology into the grade or subject taught.

• In 1998 and 2000, regular full-time public school teachers most often reported that they felt very well prepared to maintain order and discipline in the classroom (Table 18). In both years, teachers were least likely to report feeling very well prepared to integrate educational technology in the grade or subject taught (20 and 27 percent, respectively) and address the needs of students with disabilities (21 and 29 percent, respectively).

• For all but one classroom activity examined in the surveys, regular full-time public school teachers in 2000 were more likely than those in 1998 to report that they felt very well prepared to meet the requirement (Table 18). The exception is maintaining order and discipline in the classroom; for both years, a similarly high proportion of teachers (71 and 72 percent) felt very well prepared for this classroom demand.

⁴ E.D. Tabs are typically a collection of tabular summaries whose sole purpose is to make relevant data available to the public within a relatively short time period. The structure of the report includes highlights of selected findings and tables.

⁵ Small schools are defined as having enrollments of less than 500, medium-sized schools have enrollments of 500 to 999, and large schools have 1,000 or more students.

⁶The estimate for teacher participation in professional development on addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency was based on all public teachers rather than teachers who taught students with those needs.

⁷It is important to note that it might not be reasonable to expect the school to follow up on teacher participation in professional development activities that are initiated by teachers themselves.

⁸ The analyses for teachers' feelings of preparedness to address the needs of students with disabilities and the needs of students with limited English proficiency, respectively, were based on subsets of teachers who taught students with those special needs at the school.

Top