EVALUATION REPORT:
THE FY98 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DAYS (PDD) PROGRAM
BY CHENG ANG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
Table 1. Teacher Survey Results
Table 2. Parent/SAC Member Survey Results
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Evaluation Criteria
Appendix B: Summary of Parent and SAC Member Comments
Appendix C: Summary of Teacher Comments
Appendix D: Recommendations from the Reform Panel
This district level(1) evaluation of the Professional Development Day (PDD) Program was designed to provide information to determine the value and effectiveness of the program in FY98, and to target areas for improving the program. The PDD program allowed schools to release students two and a half hours earlier than the normal release time, one day a month, to provide professional development for teachers.
The literature on professional development showed a great need for retooling teacher's instructional skills through professional development. Although there are many approaches for making time for professional development, using PDDs is one of the more popular and practical approaches in the State of Florida.
Data were gathered from each school's PDD plan; focus groups of teachers, principals, and support personnel; and surveys of teachers, parents, and SAC members. The results were:
¨ Practical and useful instructional models and strategies that could be implemented in the classroom
¨ Strategies for dealing with diverse student languages, cultures, and behavioral problems
¨ Time for planning, collaboration and follow-up discussions on how to implement teaching strategies, and the opportunity to observe other teachers model strategies
¨ Activities that meet the needs of all teachers
¨ Networking within and across schools to share ideas and successful teaching strategies, including using expertise within and across schools to conduct PDD activities
¨ Inservice points for the activities of the PDDs
The following recommendations are based on the results of this evaluation, input from the District Reform Panel(2), and a review of the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Standards, NSDC Board Resolutions for Staff Development, and other related literature:
EVALUATION REPORT: THE FY98 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DAYS (PDD) PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this evaluation was to provide data-based information to district policy makers to help determine the value and effectiveness of the Professional Development Day (PDD) Program and to target areas for improving the process. The results in this evaluation were for the overall PDD program at the district level. Individual school results might differ from the overall district results, as some schools implemented the PDD Program differently than others. The focus of the evaluation report was the quality of implementation and value of the PDD Program to the district in FY98.
In December 1993, five schools--Rosenwald, Belle Glade, Gladeview, Washington, and Lincoln Elementary schools--applied for, and were granted on a pilot basis, waivers from the minimum length of a school day as required by Florida State Statute 228.041 (13). This waiver allowed them to dismiss their students 2.5 hours earlier than their regular dismissal time once a month. The pilot program was implemented for 18 months, starting from January 1994 to June 1995 for a total of 16 sessions. The purpose of the program was to provide time for school staff to engage in activities related to implementation of their School Improvement Plan (SIP).
As a result of this pilot program and increasing requests from schools for waivers related to the early dismissal of students to support implementation of school improvement activities, a districtwide waiver request was made to implement this program in all schools.
On August 16, 1995, the School Board approved the districtwide waiver request to release all students two and a half hours early, eight days a year. The School Board also approved the request for seven minutes of additional instructional time on the remaining 172 days. The requests were submitted to the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and subsequently approved on September 18, 1995. The Professional Development Day (PDD) Program was therefore implemented during FY96.
On June 19, 1996, the School Board again approved the districtwide requests for implementation for FY97. Subsequently, the FDOE implemented a program granting waivers for five years.
Starting in FY97, all schools in the district implemented eight PDDs during the school year (8 days * 2.5 hours = 20 hours). To compensate for the 20 hours (1200 minutes) of decreased instructional time during PDDs, an additional seven minutes were added to the remaining 172 days, resulting in no loss of instructional time (172 days * 7 minutes per day = 1204 minutes or 20 hours and 4 minutes).
The PDD program was instituted to provide an uninterrupted two and one-half hour block of time each month for teachers and other school staff to engage in activities related to implementation of their SIPs. This block of time was intended to be used for faculty and staff collaboration and planning, as well as for in-service training. The professional development activities were to be planned and coordinated by each school in collaboration with its Instructional Innovation Team and School Advisory Council and directly linked to its identified needs in the SIP.
Child care was arranged by each school as needed before each PDD. Lunches were provided to students on each PDD prior to their early release. Buses arrived two and a half hours early on the eight PDDs, and seven minutes later for other regular school days.
To provide a comprehensive understanding of professional development, literature was reviewed on the needs for professional development, barriers to professional development, making time for professional development, and characteristics of effective professional development. This literature review was not limited to use of PDDs to enhance the school improvement process. The review examined use of PDDs in a broader context of delivery models of professional development.
Needs for Professional Development
Education is essential to prepare our students and enable our community to successfully meet the challenges created by a global economy and competition in the 21st century. In order for our students to be successfully nationally and internationally, we must provide each graduate with new and high-level skills.
The SCANS report (Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills: 1991), which was a comprehensive study of American businesses and the work force conducted by the Secretary of Labor, made the following conclusions regarding education:
In order to accomplish the retooling to provide students with new sets of skills, the Nation (National Education Goals Panel), Florida (System of School Improvement and Accountability), and the School District of Palm Beach County established a system goal for professional development recognizing the critical role of professional development in sustained and systemic school and student improvement. These goals recognize that for students to reach high levels of performance, it will be necessary to alter teaching and learning. Educators must:
For educators to acquire the knowledge and skills and to provide the appropriate curriculum and instruction, substantial changes in professional development must occur. Professional development is most effective when it meets the needs of the individual educator and the needs of the school that are identified in the SIP.
Barriers to Professional Development
In the state of Florida, teachers are designated to work 196 days. One hundred and eighty of these days are committed to student instruction, six are paid holidays, and 10 days are designated for all activities related to the opening and closing of school, record keeping, parent conferences, planning, school organization, and professional development. On average, elementary school teachers in Florida receive about five days of professional development each year, while secondary teachers receive about two and a half days (Brogan, 1997).
The greatest challenge to implementing effective professional development is the lack of time (Abdal-Haqq, 1996). Compared to other countries such as Japan and Germany, teachers in the United States spend more hours per day instructing in front of classrooms and have less time available for professional development (Sparks, 1994). In general, teachers are expected to spend more time teaching and therefore have less time for lesson preparation, attending professional development activities, interacting with colleagues, researching, discussing, reflecting, assessing, digesting, trying new approaches, integrating ideas into their practice, or watching outstanding teachers demonstrate new strategies (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Sparks, 1994). The limited time teachers have is complicated by the ever changing demands on teachers to improve their subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical skills, understand cultural and psychological factors that affect student learning, and assume greater responsibilities for curriculum, assessment, outreach, governance, and interagency collaboration, since each of these has increased in amount and complexity (Cambone, 1995; Corcoran, 1995).
These demands have resulted in stress for many teachers (Bull, Buechler, Didley, & Krehbiel, 1994). Also, teachers who sacrifice their own personal time for lesson preparation or professional development often experience burn-out from trying to fulfill competing demands for their time (Abdal-Haqq, 1996).
Loss of Learning Time for Students
The reduction of student learning time over the years in the United States has been well documented (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). Most students in this country are spending about half the time in school compared to students in other post-industrial countries. In addition, many of the other countries supplement formal education with significant out-of-school learning time. To take away student learning time for teacher professional development may sacrifice the ultimate purpose of helping students learn (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994).
Belief That Attendance at Professional Development Activities Equals Professional Development
Although time for professional development is very important, many schools fall victim to the concept of 'time bound' fixed schedules. These teachers attend professional activities in a certain block of time, and are considered to have received 'professional development' regardless of the benefit or usefulness of the activities. Based on the report by the National Education Commission on Time and Learning (April, 1994), learning is not about a block of time; rather, learning is about outcomes, expectations, or standards that need to be attained regardless of time. The measurement of success for a professional development program, therefore, is not the amount of time teachers are involved in professional activities, but the attainment of outcomes, expectations, or standards.
Belief That Professional Development Is Not a Work-related Role for Educators
In recent years, because of state and national educational goals and aspirations, the expectations for teachers have increased. However, the perception of teachers' work has not changed. The public and policy makers continue to think of teachers as working only when they are with their students. Professional development is not seen as an intrinsic part of making teachers more adept and productive in the classroom (Watts & Castle, 1993). The assumption is that teachers are to deliver instruction, and that school time should not be wasted for teachers to change their practices, consult, observe colleagues, or engage in instructional and curriculum development and professional activities (McDiarmid, 1997; Castle and Watts, 1993). Typically, the public and the school administrators, as well as the teachers themselves, unfavorably view anything that takes time away from the classrooms (Cambone, 1995; Raywid, 1993).
Making Time for Professional Development
To allow for professional development time in the schools, the public is in increasing support of lengthening the school day or adding more school days in a year (Report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, April, 1994).
There are many approaches used across the country to create more time for professional development (Watts & Castle, 1993; Raywid, 1993; Purnell & Hill, 1992), each with their own advantages and disadvantages. The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) recommended that school systems devote at least 10% of their budget to staff development, and that at least 25% of an educator's work time be devoted to learning and collaboration with colleagues (NSDC Board Resolutions, 1998). Some of the approaches to make time for professional development are discussed below.
Use Substitutes or Available Personnel
One suggestion is to use substitute teachers, teaching assistants, college interns, parent volunteers, school noninstructional personnel, and administrators to cover classes while teachers are attending professional development workshops, seminars, and conferences, as well as observing other teachers teach (Watts & Castle, 1993).
Use Team-Teaching or Combined Classes
Team-teaching or combined classes for joint presentations allow a few teachers to meet for professional development at a time. For example, a few teachers in the Teaching and Learning Collaborative in Massachusetts have no teaching duties at least one day a week. This time is available to pursue professional interests or alternative roles, such as writing curriculum, conducting research, or supervising student teacher interns (Troen & Bolles, 1994).
Teachers' common planning time can be used for teachers to meet with other teachers of common interest. This gives teachers time to work on restructuring programs, interdisciplinary teams, subject area collaboration and grade level planning. The use of block scheduling can carve out even more time for professional development from the school day (Tanner, Canady, & Rettig, 1995). For example, Hackmann (1995) describes a middle school block schedule that frees one-fourth of the faculty to plan or engage in other professional work during each period of the day.
Newer technologies (e.g. Internet, video conferencing, and computer tutoring) can give teachers access to instructional resources and collegial networks (Professional Development, 1994).
Provide Professional Development Time/Day
This approach adds school time to the regular school day, and accumulates the additional time for professional development. This approach is practical and is commonly used around in the state of Florida (Joyce & Belitzky, 1997). Some districts and schools add a few minutes of class time each day, and accrue the professional development time to a few mornings or afternoons each semester. Others lengthen the school day significantly to have professional development almost every week. For example, twenty-one districts in Hawaii have created a 7-1 extended day plan where, for every seven school days that teachers work, they get a professional development (or "personal improvement") day. This plan adds 20 minutes to each school day, which adds 20 professional days per year (Hiraoka, 1994).
Districts can encourage individual firms or employees with strong educational backgrounds to work directly with individual classrooms, schools, or districts. For example, in Newton, Massachusetts, a middle school math project was developed where corporate employees with strong math and science backgrounds volunteered to teach math classes while classroom teachers attended professional development seminars (Cutler & Nisonoff, 1993). Students not only learned their subjects through the teachers' lesson plans, but were taught lessons based on the volunteers' own work in real life.
This approach involves spending money to hire more teachers, clerks and support staff. Districts can provide professional development time by extending the contract year to pay teachers for professional development, or using a longer day for the same purpose. Another approach is the use of experimental summer school programs. New teaching approaches and experiments can be tried and tested, allowing exploration and experimentation. Teachers can share their results and experiments throughout the school year (Purnell, 1992).
Work with Local Universities/Colleges
Universities and colleges can collaborate with schools to create and implement effective professional development programs. College professors can model for teachers, provide feedback, and collaborate with teachers. The collaboration between teachers and college professors allows research to be translated into practice, and practice to be connected to research (Darling-Hammond, 1994).
Characteristics of Effective Professional Development
The characteristics discussed below are a synthesis of the National Staff Development
Council (NSDC) Standards, NSDC Board Resolutions for Staff Development, and other related
literature.
Outcome Oriented and Practical
Effective professional development is outcome oriented, with immediate practical values on teaching. Most professional development, however, tends to be generic, and teaches skills with little specificity for practical usage (Brogan, 1997).
The bottom line for professional development is that professional development must shift from counting how many staff participate and whether they enjoy the session, to determining whether the system is improving student achievement (NSCD Standards for Staff Development, 1988).
Professional development must be on-going and directly related to the needs of the participants; it is not a one-shot, event-driven activity. The Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 defined professional development as "those experiences which systematically, over a sustained period of time, enable educators to acquire and apply knowledge, understanding, skills, and abilities to achieve personal, professional and organizational goals and to facilitate the learning of students." Effective professional development is ongoing; it includes training, practice, coaching, collaborating, experimenting, and feedback. Structures must be developed to provide for follow-up and support of implementation, since single training sessions with no follow-up and support are ineffective (Bull & Buechler, 1995; NSCD Standards for Staff Development, 1988).
People learn best through active involvement and through thinking about, becoming articulate about, and meaningfully applying what they have learned, followed by evaluating the success of their work (Abdal-Haqq, 1996, NSCD Standards for Staff Development, 1988). On-site staff development tends to be more effective (Joyce & Belitzky, 1997).
The NSDC recommended job-embedded learning such as peer coaching, study groups, action research, the joint planning of lessons, and participation in a network as important components of a comprehensive staff development program (NSDC Resolutions, 1988). Based on the report by Brogan (1997), incorporating peer coaching into a staff development design dramatically increases the implementation of the content of training. Without peer coaching, classroom implementation of new curricular and instructional strategies is accomplished by only about ten percent of teachers. Peer coaching generates implementation by "nearly all teachers who are at least at a regular mechanical level" (Brogan, p 43). Teachers with expertise in their own field can serve as a valuable resource for other teachers. They can observe each other, explore and experiment with new teaching strategies, and perfect their strategies.
In addition, teachers can be trained as clinical educators, supervising interns with clinical experiences grounded in state-of-the-art practices. This collaboration allows a way of simultaneously allowing teachers to work toward a higher degree or certification, as well as learning new teaching methodologies, while at the same time providing real-world teaching experiences to future teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1994).
A flexible time schedule is likely to encourage greater use of team teaching, in which groups of teachers, often from different disciplines, work together. Greater flexibility in the schedule will also make it easier for teachers to take advantage of instructional resources in the community (such as workplaces, libraries, churches, and community youth groups) and to work effectively with emerging technologies (The National Education Commission on Time and Learning, April, 1994; NSDC Resolutions, 1988).
Too often, professional development activities are carried out in isolation from the rest of what goes on in the schools. Professional development is influenced by school contextual factors such as school improvement efforts, organizational patterns, experience with change efforts, and the maturity and experience of teachers (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; NSDC Board Resolutions, 1998). Creating an effective professional development program must include the support and input of teachers that align with the school contextual factors (Brogan, 1997; McDiarmid, 1995).
Many schools provide a block of professional development time with "one shoe fits all" activities intending to reach the general population of teachers. The content of most of these professional activities is usually generic and introductory and all teachers are required to attend the activities regardless of their background or proficiency. However, teachers learn at different rates, and have different experiences and levels of knowledge (Brogan, 1997). Professional development must build on individual differences (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; NSCD Standards for Staff Development, 1988), as teachers learn in different ways and at different rates (adapted from the second recommendation of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, April, 1994).
Effective staff development must be based on the targeted needs of the students (Joyce & Belitzky, 1997).
Plan for Professional Development
The NSDC recommended that evaluating the effectiveness of staff development begin in
planning for staff development (NSDC Resolutions, 1988). The creation of a professional
development plan for and by all teachers at the school level provides for purposeful
professional activities. The plan includes (1) the assessment of needs to identify
strengths and weaknesses, (2) input from various groups, (3) a focus that promotes the
improvement of student achievement as defined in the school improvement plan, and (4) a
means of collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on the impact on each school (Florida's
System of School Improvement and Accountability). In addition, Kentucky's school
improvement process includes (1) information from individual professional growth plans in
the formation and prioritization of goals, (2) experiences designed to address stages of
development that relate directly to identified goals, and (3) a means of collecting and
analyzing data on the impact of the training on individuals, schools, and districts
(Kentucky Education Association, 1993).
Technology Oriented
Technology can transform professional development by personalizing the needs of individual teachers, improving the effectiveness of existing time, and making more time available, since learning is not limited to school time (the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, April, 1994). The NSDC recommended devoting at least 30% of the technology budget to teacher development and initiating teacher learning simultaneously with purchase of the technology (NSDC Board Resolutions, 1998).
Some of the current technologies include using the Internet for instructional resources, using electronic mail and bulletin boards to enable teachers to share information and solve problems with colleagues at any time and to conference with fellow teachers of similar interest. The Internet format enables teachers to participate when it is convenient for them. In addition, Internet conferencing enables teachers to connect to different sites without spending time and money on travel (Fine, 1994).
Based on the literature review, there is a great need for professional development. However, there are also many barriers to implementing professional development, mainly the way time is used or conceived. There are many approaches for making time for professional development. Some approaches require additional human or financial resources and others require reconfiguring the time during the school day.
It is clear that effective professional development has certain essential characteristics which include being outcome oriented, collaborative, and integrated with school improvement. The approach used by the School District of Palm Beach County, the PDDs, is one of the more common and practical approaches used in other districts in Florida.
Based on the program goal and evaluation criteria (see Appendix A) as established by the Department of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability (DREA), the evaluation design addressed three phases of evaluation: program implementation, program progress, and program outcomes. For each phase, evaluation questions were formulated.
As part of the evaluation design, issues and concerns about the PDDs were discussed with the School District of Palm Beach County Reform Panel, representing teachers, principals, parents, and community members. The purpose of the discussion was to ensure that the evaluation design took into account issues and questions of interest from various stakeholders, and collected data to address them.
The following data were collected:
Teachers: Four elementary, two middle, and two high schools were randomly selected. The teachers represented different grade levels and subject areas.
Principals: Principals (eight elementary, four middle, and three high schools) were randomly selected for the focus group.
Support Personnel: A focus group of two transportation, two cafeteria, two police, two safety patrol, two day-care, and four other school-level support personnel was conducted.
The results in this report are summarized for the overall PDD program at the district level. Individual school results will be provided to the schools.
1. Was there a careful, thoughtful, and well conceived PDD plan of activities at each school?
Most of the PDD plans received by DREA were lists of PDD activities. About half of the lists of activities reflected a careful, thoughtful, and well conceived overall PDD plan. About half of the PDD plans were focused on activities that were related to each other and to SIP. The other half had activities that were not related to one another. Most did not specify the outcomes expected of teachers as a result of participation.
A few middle school principals commented that it was hard for them to have a focus, and activities were planned on an "as needed" basis. The majority of elementary schools chose topics related to improving reading, writing, or math. Workshops were also offered in Activities to Integrate Math and Science (AIMS), Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills/Fourth edition (CTBS/4), Instructional Technology (e.g., CCC), Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), classroom management, and conflict resolution. The PDD programs at critically low performing schools were more focused on student achievement, while the focus in other schools was more diversified.
Many of the PDD plans received by DREA were not for the whole year, and the PDD activities were being added/modified throughout the year. Most schools had one activity per PDD for the entire teaching staff without taking into consideration the different needs of teachers who might be teaching in subject areas or grade levels unrelated to the activity.
2. Were all activities conducted during the PDD Program directly related to the objectives of the School Improvement Plan (SIP)?
Most of the elementary schools selected activities for their PDDs that specifically related to the objectives of their SIP, while a small proportion did not. The secondary schools seemed to deviate more from their SIP objectives when choosing activities for their PDDs. A few principals expressed that not all activities were limited to SIP objectives, as some activities were based on the specific needs of the teachers.
As shown in Table 1, about 91% of the elementary school teachers, 77% of the middle school teachers, and 75% of the high school teachers surveyed agreed (i.e., either agreed or strongly agreed) that the activities of the PDD Program at their schools were focused on the School Improvement Plan (SIP) and addressed their school's instructional goals and objectives.
3. To what extent was the implementation of the PDDs smooth and efficient?
As shown in Table 1, about 90% of the elementary school teachers, 79% of the middle school teachers, and 81% of the high school teachers surveyed agreed that the PDD Program at their school was well organized and ran smoothly, while 81% of the elementary school teachers, 66% of the middle school teachers, and 71% of the high school teachers surveyed agreed that their schools used the 2 ½ hour block of time efficiently. The results showed that the implementation of the PDD at the elementary schools was carried out more smoothly and efficiently than at the middle or high school levels.
From time to time, many schools had problems finding qualified people to deliver inservice. Teachers did not know who to contact for resources, and there was no clearinghouse of presenters. Also, many schools had difficulty rescheduling on short notice in the event of presenter cancellation. In a few high schools, scheduling of the extra curricular activities on the PDDs was a problem, as early-dismissed students had difficulty coming back to school for the extra-curricular activities after the PDD Program. Some schools also experienced problems with a small number of parents who picked up their children too early or too late during the PDDs.
4. To what extent was the cafeteria service a problem during the PDDs?
Serving lunch was a problem in many schools, especially at middle schools where the school day started at 9 a.m., and lunch started at 10 a.m. In addition, across all schools, the overall revenue for the cafeteria on the PDDs fell by up to 45% when compared to non-PDDs. This is because lunch was usually served earlier and fewer students were eating lunch, or students had less time for lunch and purchased few ala-carte items.
Teacher Involvement in the PDD Program
1. Did teachers understand the purpose of the PDD Program?
As shown in Table 1, about 89% of the elementary school teachers, 80% of the middle school teachers, and 79% of the high school teachers surveyed agreed that they understood the purpose of the PDDs.
2. Were teachers involved in the decision for the topics/activities of the PDDs?
As shown in Table 1, 53% of the elementary school teachers, 44% of the middle school teachers, and 45% of the high school teachers surveyed agreed that they participated in the decision for the topics/activities of the PDD Program. From both teacher focus group and survey comments, teachers generally would like more activities that they viewed as meeting their needs.
3. Were teachers involved in the PDD activities?
As shown in Table 1, about 86% of the elementary school teachers, 66% of the middle school teachers, and 50% of the high school teachers responded that most of their school's teachers attended the PDD activities. About 80% of elementary, 60% of middle, and 44% of high schools teachers responded that most of the teachers who attended the PDD activities attended for the entire session. The results showed that the attendance of teachers, as perceived by teachers, might indicate a lack of school wide commitment to professional development on PDDs, especially at the middle and high schools.
4. How do teachers select the type of PDD activities to attend?
As shown in Table 1, 29% of the elementary school teachers, 43% of the middle school teachers, and 58% of the high school teachers surveyed agreed that they could choose which activity to attend during the PDDs. A few teachers commented that they were forced to attend activities unrelated to their teaching, or that they were forced to attend workshops that they have heard 'over and over'.
1. To what extent did the PDD activities address instructional resources, strategies, and needs of the teachers?
As shown in Table 1, a higher percentage of elementary school teachers than middle or high school teachers agreed that the PDD programs addressed the availability of instructional resources, designing instruction, assessing student learning, creating an environment of respect and rapport in the class, and using different instructional techniques or sharing instructional ideas and techniques with other teachers.
A large proportion of teachers commented that there were too many workshops and too few planning sessions. Teachers felt they had no time to digest, implement, or have follow-up discussions on how to implement teaching strategies gained in training sessions.
Teachers disliked sessions that were theoretical. They wanted something practical and useful that could be implemented in the classroom. They felt that many workshops were not useful and a few were repetitious. They wanted more motivational speakers, school improvement plan strategies, and modeling of teaching strategies. They also wanted to learn how to deal with issues such as diverse student languages, cultures, and behavioral problems.
Some of the problems expressed by teachers were that workshops for PDDs did not have a focus, and were a chaotic mismatch of different subjects. Teachers wanted to know the agenda in advance, and wanted to receive inservice points for activities attended.
2. To what extent did teachers share or collaborate on teaching strategies as a result of the PDD activities?
As shown in Table 1, about 81% of the elementary and 68% of the middle and high school teachers agreed that the PDD Program at their schools addressed sharing instructional ideas and techniques with other teachers. However, from teachers' survey comments as well as focus group interviews, a large proportion of the teachers did not have the time nor the opportunity to collaborate or share ideas on a regular basis, and almost all did not have the opportunity to observe other teachers teach. Teachers commented that they needed more time/opportunity to share ideas, plan together, observe each other teach, have hands-on experiences, and network with each other. They preferred grade-level or cross grade-level subject-specific collaboration on how to teach better, as well as to use the expertise within the school when appropriate. A few suggested across-school collaboration.
A few principals commented that there was less collaboration among teachers at the middle and high school levels, and collaboration, if any, usually required a great deal of 'push' from the administrators.
3. To what extent is there follow-up and monitoring of the PDDs?
As shown in Table 1, 57% of the elementary, 39% of the middle, and 38% of the high school teachers agreed that instructional strategies learned during the PDD programs were monitored. About 74% of the elementary school teachers, 59% of the middle school teachers, and 57% of the high school teachers surveyed agreed that the instructional strategies learned from the PDDs were supported when they needed help.
Many schools' PDD Programs had one session for all teachers, and there was no follow-up or feedback from teachers about the usefulness of the session or any form of evaluation.
4. To what extent were teachers more successful in their teaching?
As shown in Table 1, 58% of the elementary, 44% of the middle, and 41% of the high school teachers agreed that they were more successful in their teaching because of the PDD Program.
From teacher focus groups and survey comments, a moderate proportion of the teachers commented that the workshops they attended had very little, if any, effect on their instructional delivery or planning. They would have preferred alternate staff development activities with grade or across-grade group planning meetings to share ideas or strategies. They also commented that they would like teachers to plan the PDD Program instead of the administrators.
5. To what extent did the PDD programs provide teachers with valuable opportunities for professional growth?
As shown in Table 1, about 75% of the elementary school teachers, 59% of the middle school teachers, and 60% of the high school teachers agreed that the PDD programs provided them with valuable opportunities for professional growth.
6. To what extent were teachers satisfied with the PDDs?
As shown in Table 1, 55% of the elementary, 44% of the middle, and 46% of the high school teachers agreed that they were satisfied with the PDD Program and would like it to continue as it was. About 41% of the elementary, 52% of the middle, and 48% of the high school teachers agreed that they were not satisfied with the program and would like to modify it. About 20% of the elementary, 30% of the middle, and 32% of the high school teachers agreed that they would like to discontinue the PDD Program.
A large proportion of the teachers would like a full-day instead of a half-day PDD Program, largely because students were not motivated to learn during the morning hours of the PDDs. However, because of the minimum number of school days required by the state, implementing four full-days of PDD program a year would not be possible under the current state law.
1. Were parents comfortable with the operations of the PDD Program?
Table 2 shows the results of the parent/SAC survey (390 parents and 1048 SAC members returned the surveys). About 77% of the School Advisory Council (SAC) members and 14% of the parents surveyed agreed that they were informed at the beginning of the school year about the PDD Program at their child's school. However, after the beginning of the school year, about 75% of the parents and 45% of the SAC members agreed that they were regularly made aware of the PDD Program.
About 24% of the parents and 52% of the SAC Members surveyed agreed that they were informed on how the PDD Program would improve their child's education. Also, about 30% of the parents and 59% of the SAC Members surveyed agreed that the PDD Program helped their child academically. About 34% of the parents and 69% of the SAC members agreed that the PDD Program helped their child's teachers improve their instruction.
Overall, about one-third of the parents agreed that the PDD program was of any value for their child or their child's teacher. In addition, about one-third of the parents and two-third of the SAC members approved of the current PDD Program.
A summary of parent and SAC members comments can be found in Appendix B. Of the 476 parents/SAC members who responded with comments (about one third of the survey respondents), about 17% of them said that the program was a "waste of time", about 30% asked for more information about the program, and 10% thought that the PDD program was a good program. About 19% of the parents/SAC members wanted four full days instead of the eight half days.
Of the parents/SAC members who commented that the program was an inconvenience, four factors were cited by parents as the major problems for having PDDs: lack of child-care, problem with transportation, lack of learning during the morning hours of the PDDs, and early lunches.
2. Were parents satisfied with the safety of their children during the PDDs?
About 81% of the parents and 16% of the SAC members agreed that they have difficulty in finding an adult to supervise their children during the PDDs.
Schools that have after-school care said that there was a large ratio of children to adults in their after care on PDDs. Staffing for school-age child care was a problem, and many staff personnel were not available. At many schools, teacher aides and instructional aides had to supervise students and could not attend the PDD activities.
Approximately 16% of the parents/SAC members commented that child-care was a problem for them. A few schools did not provide child care, and working parents had to find other means of providing care for their children. A few parents commented that they had to take personal or vacation days to care for their children during the PDDs. A few teachers and non-instructional support personnel commented that some parents would not pick up their children during the PDDs, and some parents did not want to pay for child care during the PDDs.
Also, across schools, there was no consistent district policy about charging parents for child-care. Some schools charged, while others did not.
According to the noninstructional support personnel focus group comments, a few store owners complained about kids "hanging out" during the PDDs, and a few gangs congregated during this time.
3. Were parents satisfied with their children's transportation during the PDDs?
Although the District provided the regularly scheduled transportation services to all schools, 46% of the parents and 71% of the SAC members surveyed agreed that their child had transportation to come home on PDDs. A few parents commented that they had to take time out of their workday to provide the necessary transportation for their children on these days.
Because of the PDD dismissal time changes, about one-third (36 of 117) of the traffic speed limits warning lights near the schools were not operational at the time of the PDDs. Also, many crossing guards were not available during the early-dismissal hour of the PDDs.
1. To what extent did meaningful student learning occur during the morning hours prior to the PDD activities?
About 66% of the elementary, 42% of the middle, and 43% of the high school teachers agreed that students were as motivated to learn during the PDD mornings as during any other school mornings. Teachers indicated that student learning during the morning hours of the PDDs was a major problem, and this was especially true in middle and high schools where teachers commented that students were not as motivated to learn and 'took it easy' during those days.
Approximately 18% of the parents surveyed indicated they believed little learning occurred on the PDDs because of shortened classroom learning time. Many of the parents commented that PDDs were wasted days, children watched movies on those days, and lunch was served too early. A few parents even commented that it was a waste of time and effort to transport their children to school.
Even at a few schools where teachers felt meaningful learning was taking place during the morning hours of the PDD, teachers felt that lunch and transportation were taking up too much time. For example, in some middle and high schools, lunch had to be served at 10:00 a.m. through at 11:30 a.m., and some schools took 45 minutes just to get all students to the bus. A few teachers also commented that, in some secondary schools, each period was less than 30 minutes, and little learning could take place within that short time.
2. Were the number of students who were absent during the PDDs different from other normal school days?
As can be seen in Table 3, the number of students who were absent during PDD days was much higher than during normal school days. According to parent survey comments, a few parents felt that it was a waste of time for students to go to school.
3. Are there any changes in student performance as a result of the PDD program?
From FY95 (before the PDD Program was implemented) through FY98, the district overall Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills/fourth edition math and reading median scores stayed about the same, showing no substantial changes in student achievement.
1. To what extent has the overall school climate and the school decision making process improved?
According to principals, the schools have a better process for decision making, input and interaction, and school staff gets a better chance to share ideas because of the 2 ½ hour block of time. In addition, they felt that teachers have the opportunity for in-house staff presentations which provides for a feeling of professionalism and a sense of value. Principals felt that it was a block of time for teachers to interact, a chance to build upon different programs with multiple segments, and above all, an opportunity for teachers to receive inservice. However, the district survey of School-Center Personnel Involvement in Decision Making and School Effectiveness Questionaire (School Climate Survey) did not show improvement from FY95 (before the PDD Program was implemented) through FY98.
In general, principals felt that, as a result of the PDDs, the overall school climate and the school decision making process in their schools have improved, but teachers did not share the same feeling. Teachers did not feel the overall school climate and the school decision making process in their schools have changed.
Based on the literature review, there is a great need for retooling instructional skills through professional development. Although there are many approaches for making time for professional development, adjusting the school schedule for Professional Development Days (PDDs), the approach used by the School District of Palm Beach County, is one of the more popular and practical approaches used in the state of Florida.
The purpose of this evaluation was to provide data-based information to district policy makers to help determine the value and effectiveness of the PDD Program and to target areas for improving the process. The results in this evaluation were for the overall PDD program at the district level. Individual school results might differ from the overall district results, as some schools implemented the PDD Program differently than others.
The PDD Program was implemented districtwide during FY96. The program allowed schools to release students two and a half hours earlier than the normal release time, one day a month, to provide professional development. The focus of the evaluation report was the quality of implementation and value of the PDD Program to the district in FY98. Data were gathered using each school's PDD plan of activities, focus groups for teachers, principals, and support personnel, and surveys for teachers, parents, and SAC members.
Most of the PDD plans reviewed were lists of PDD activities. About half of the PDD plans were focused on activities that were related to each other and to the objectives of the School Improvement Plan (SIP), while about half had activities that were not related to one another. Most of the plans did not specify the outcomes expected of teachers. Most of the elementary schools selected topics for their PDDs that specifically related to their SIP. The secondary schools deviated more from their SIP goals when choosing the topics for their PDDs.
A large proportion of teachers felt that there were too many workshops on PDDs. Teachers felt they had no time to plan or to digest, implement, or have follow-up discussions on how to implement teaching strategies. A large proportion of the teachers did not have the time nor the opportunity to collaborate or share ideas on a regular basis, and most did not have the opportunity to observe instructional modeling during the PDDs. About 58% of the elementary, 44% of the middle, and 41% of the high school teachers agreed that they were more successful in their teaching because of the PDD Program.
Many PDD Programs had one session for all teachers, and there was no follow-up or feedback from teachers about the usefulness of the session. A large proportion of the teachers felt the instructional strategies learned during the PDD programs were not monitored. From time to time, many schools had problems finding qualified people to deliver inservice for the PDDs.
For schools that had after-school care, staffing was a problem. There was a large ratio of children to adults during the PDDs. At many schools, teacher aides and instructional aides had to supervise students and could not attend the PDD activities. Some schools also experienced problems with a small number of parents who picked up their children too early or too late during the PDDs.
Serving student lunch on the PDDs was an issue, especially in middle schools because of the short duration between the time the school started and the time of dismissal.
Attendance and Student Learning
A large proportion of the teachers who commented reported that students lacked motivation to learn during the PDD morning hours. Student absences were higher during the PDDs than on non-PDDs. A large proportion of the parents surveyed did not feel the PDD Program was benefitting either their children or their children's teachers. The CTBS/4 results did not indicate that student performance changed meaningfully after the implementation of the PDD program.
Although most of the parents surveyed were aware of the PDDs at their child's school, they were not aware of the details or purposes of the activities. A large proportion of the parents wanted more information about the PDD Program. Overall, about one-third of the parents agreed that the PDD program was of any value to their child or their child's teacher, and about one-third approved of the current PDD Program. Four factors were cited by parents as major problems on PDDs: lack of child care, problems with transportation, lack of learning during the morning hours of the PDDs, and early lunches. A few working parents had to take time out of their workday to provide the necessary transportation and child care for their children on PDDs.
According to principals, the PDD program provided for a better interaction between administrators and teachers, and more time for teachers to interact with one another. However, the district survey of School-Center Personnel Involvement in Decision Making and School Effectiveness Questionaire (School Climate Survey) did not show improvement from FY95 (before the PDD Program was implemented) through FY98.
In general, principals felt that the overall school climate and the school decision making process in their schools have improved as a result of the PDDs. However, teachers did not share the same feeling. Teachers did not feel the overall school climate and the school decision making process in their schools have changed.
Generally, principals and teachers liked the idea of the PDD. However, about half of the elementary school teachers and less than half of the middle and high school teachers felt that they were more successful in their teaching because of the PDD Program. Many teachers wanted the program to be modified. Some suggestions from teachers for modifications (which are similar to some of the successful professional development characteristics found in the literature) are as follows:
The recommendations based on the results of this evaluation, input from the District Reform Panel(3), and a review of the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Standards, NSDC Board Resolutions for Staff Development, and other related literature are as follows:
Based on the findings of this evaluation and recommendations, action plans were developed by the program contact. Table 4 shows the action plans and time line of implementation as developed by the program contact. The implementation of each component of the action plans is the responsibility of the program contact and those cited in the action plans.
Abdal-Haqq, Ismat (1996). Making time for teacher professional development (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 259).
Brogan, Frank (Sept, 1997). Creating a Staff Development System: Report on the Florida Staff Development Evaluation Study.
Bull, B., Buechler, M., Didley, S., & Krehbiel, L. (1994). Professional development and teacher time: principles, guidelines, and policy options for Indiana. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center, Indiana University, School of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384 112).
Cambone, J. (1995) . Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College Record, 96(3) , 512-43 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 505 811).
Corcoran, T. C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384 600).
Cutler, Ada Beth & Nisonoff R (1993, March). Buying time for teachers' professional development. Educational Leadership, pp. 34-37.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed) (1994). Professional Development Schools: Schools for Developing a Profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fine, C. S. (1992). Evaluation Report of the Chicago Area Writing Project (SAWP) Online.
Hackmann, D. G. (1995). Ten guidelines for implementing block scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53(3) , 24-27.
Hiraoka, Leona (May, 1994). Time for training. NEA Today.
Joyce, B. and Belitzky, A. (1997). Creating a Staff Development System: Report on the Florida Staff Development Evaluation Study. Florida Department of Education.
Kentucky Education Association, & Appalachia Educational Laboratory. (1993). Finding time for school reform: Obstacles and answers (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 181) Frankfort, KY: Author.
McDiarmid, G. (1997, March). Teachers Planning Professional Development in a Reform Context: The Case of Kentucky. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning NECTL (1994). Prisoners of time. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 115) Washington, DC: Author.
National Staff Development Council. (1998, June 20) NSDC Standards [Online]. Retrieved July 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nsdc.org/standards.html
National Staff Development Council. (1998, June 20) NSDC Board Resolutions for Staff Development [Online]. Retrieved July 20, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nsdc.org/standards.html
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1994). Professional Development: Changing Ties. Policy Briefs, Report 4. Oak Brook, IL: Author (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 618).
Purnell, Susanna & Hill, Paul (1992). Time for reform. Time-Creation Devices, Section III.
Raywid, M. A. (1993) . Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 30-34. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 468 684).
Shelton, M. & Jones, M. (1996). Staff Development that Works: A Tail of Four T's.
Sparks, Dennis (1994). Time for Learning: A View from the Natural Level. Policy Briefs Paper, Report 4: pp. 7.
Sklarz, David (1991). Keep Teachers on Their Toes with These 10 Retraining Tips. The Executive Educator.
Tanner, B., Canady, R. L., & Rettig, R. L. (1995). Scheduling time to maximize staff development opportunities. Journal of Staff Development, 16(4): 14-19 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 522 303).
The SCANS report (1991). Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.
Troen, V., & Bolles, K. (1994). Two teachers examine the power of teacher leadership. In D. R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as Leaders: Perspectives on the Professional Development of Teachers pp. 275-86: Bloomington, IN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 283)
Watts, G.D., & Castle, S. (1993). Finding time for professional development: The time dilemma in school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappa 75(1), pp. 306-310 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 474 291).
Table 1. Teacher Survey Results
|
Teacher Survey Questions |
Percent Strongly Agreed and Agreed |
Percent Strongly Disagreed and Disagreed |
||||||||
Elem (N=2737) |
Mid (N=1069) |
High (N=1282) |
Alt (N=216) |
All (N=5361) |
Elem (N=2737) |
Mid (N=1069) |
High (N=1282) |
Alt (N=216) |
All (N=5361) |
|
| The PDD Program at my school is well organized and runs smoothly. | 90% |
79% |
81% |
88% |
86% |
9% |
19% |
17% |
8% |
13% |
| The PDD Program at my school uses the 2 1/2 hour block of time efficiently. | 81% |
66% |
71% |
80% |
75% |
18% |
32% |
27% |
16% |
23% |
| The activities of the PDD Program at my school are focused on the School Improvement Plan. | 91% |
77% |
75% |
82% |
84% |
6% |
16% |
17% |
12% |
11% |
| The activities of the PDD Program at my school provide me with valuable opportunities for professional growth. | 75% |
59% |
60% |
74% |
68% |
23% |
38% |
37% |
23% |
29% |
| The PDD Program at my school addressed my school's instructional goals and objectives. | 91% |
76% |
75% |
85% |
84% |
6% |
19% |
17% |
11% |
12% |
| The PDD Program at my school addressed the availability of instructional resources. | 79% |
65% |
66% |
79% |
73% |
16% |
30% |
28% |
16% |
22% |
| The PDD Program at my school addressed designing my instruction. | 72% |
53% |
54% |
63% |
63% |
23% |
40% |
38% |
27% |
30% |
| The PDD Program at my school addressed assessing student learning. | 80% |
58% |
55% |
67% |
69% |
17% |
36% |
38% |
25% |
26% |
| The PDD Program at my school addressed creating an environment of respect and rapport in my class. | 69% |
56% |
55% |
73% |
63% |
24% |
37% |
37% |
19% |
29% |
| The PDD Program at my school addressed using different instructional techniques. | 83% |
69% |
68% |
79% |
77% |
14% |
25% |
27% |
14% |
19% |
| The PDD Program at my school addressed sharing instructional ideas and techniques with other teachers. | 81% |
68% |
68% |
75% |
75% |
16% |
26% |
26% |
20% |
21% |
| I am more successful in my teaching because of the PDD Program. | 58% |
44% |
41% |
61% |
51% |
34% |
48% |
49% |
26% |
40% |
| I understand the purpose of the PDDs. | 89% |
80% |
79% |
86% |
84% |
8% |
16% |
16% |
7% |
12% |
| I participate in the decision making for the topics/activities of the PDD Program. | 53% |
44% |
45% |
64% |
50% |
40% |
47% |
47% |
27% |
43% |
| I am able to choose which activity to attend during the PDDs. | 29% |
43% |
58% |
56% |
40% |
63% |
51% |
38% |
36% |
54% |
| My implementation of the instructional strategies learned from the PDDs is monitored. | 57% |
39% |
38% |
51% |
48% |
31% |
45% |
45% |
28% |
37% |
| My implementation of the instructional strategies learned from the PDDs is supported. | 74% |
59% |
57% |
69% |
67% |
16% |
27% |
26% |
14% |
20% |
| Students are as motivated to learn during the PDD mornings as any other school mornings. | 66% |
42% |
43% |
59% |
56% |
29% |
52% |
50% |
30% |
39% |
| I am satisfied with the PDD Program at my school and would like it to continue as it is. | 55% |
44% |
46% |
60% |
51% |
39% |
51% |
48% |
32% |
44% |
| I am not satisfied with the PDD Program at my school and would like to modify the program. | 41% |
52% |
48% |
36% |
45% |
50% |
38% |
41% |
53% |
45% |
| I would like to discontinue the PDD Program. | 20% |
30% |
32% |
24% |
25% |
69% |
59% |
55% |
65% |
63% |
Table 2. Parent/SAC Member Survey Results
Parent/SAC Survey Questions |
Percent Strongly Agreed and Agreed |
Percent Strongly Disagreed and Disagreed |
||
Random Parent (N=390) |
SAC (N=1048) |
Random Parent (N=390) |
SAC (N=1048) |
|
| At the beginning of the school year, my child's school informed me that there would be a Professional Development Day Program. | 14% |
77% |
3% |
6% |
| I am regularly made aware of the topics of the Professional Development Day Program at my child's school. | 75% |
45% |
16% |
38% |
| I was informed on how the Professional Development Day Program would improve my child's education. | 24% |
52% |
68% |
31% |
| I believe that the Professional Development Day Program helps my child academically. | 30% |
59% |
62% |
14% |
| I believe that the Professional Development Day Program helps my child's teachers improve their instruction. | 34% |
69% |
37% |
7% |
| My child has transportation to come home on Professional Development Days. | 46% |
71% |
22% |
7% |
| I have difficulty in finding an adult to supervise my child on the Professional Development Days. | 81% |
16% |
13% |
56% |
| I approve of the current Professional Development Day Program. | 30% |
67% |
62% |
22% |
Table 3. FY98 Number of Daily Absences on Professional Development days (PDDs) Compared to Non-PDDs by Grade Level, Types of Schools and Total
Grade |
9/18 Abs |
Sept6 Abs |
10/22 Abs |
Oct6 Abs |
11/18 Abs |
Nov 6 Abs |
1/15 Abs |
Jan6 Abs |
2/11 Abs |
Feb6 Abs |
3/17 Abs |
March6Abs |
Average of PDDs |
Ave7 of Month |
Ave8 of 9/1-3/31 |
| PK | 249 |
184 |
286 |
225 |
332 |
287 |
332 |
305 |
386 |
328 |
346 |
316 |
322 |
274 |
278 |
| KG | 957 |
535 |
1,038 |
578 |
1,151 |
703 |
1,192 |
757 |
1,208 |
755 |
1,088 |
733 |
1,106 |
677 |
704 |
| 1 | 887 |
512 |
1,028 |
543 |
1,124 |
666 |
1,103 |
696 |
1,105 |
699 |
1,014 |
665 |
1,044 |
630 |
661 |
| 2 | 802 |
465 |
899 |
508 |
1,028 |
613 |
1,009 |
651 |
988 |
623 |
1,000 |
642 |
954 |
584 |
609 |
| 3 | 732 |
447 |
849 |
472 |
967 |
594 |
1,007 |
615 |
972 |
609 |
996 |
598 |
921 |
556 |
572 |
| 4 | 680 |
396 |
784 |
448 |
922 |
567 |
935 |
597 |
925 |
576 |
971 |
581 |
870 |
528 |
551 |
| 5 | 597 |
385 |
752 |
431 |
852 |
557 |
931 |
574 |
887 |
597 |
1,206 |
597 |
871 |
523 |
546 |
| Elem. | 4,894 |
2,899 |
5,632 |
3,203 |
6,361 |
3,992 |
6,535 |
4,189 |
6,487 |
4,173 |
6,643 |
4,143 |
6,092 |
3,766 |
3,892 |
| 6 | 695 |
538 |
865 |
652 |
1,044 |
808 |
1,098 |
756 |
1,200 |
819 |
1,255 |
863 |
1,026 |
739 |
751 |
| 7 | 822 |
637 |
1,048 |
751 |
1,236 |
920 |
1,318 |
857 |
1,355 |
941 |
1,496 |
975 |
1,212 |
847 |
873 |
| 8 | 791 |
593 |
1,020 |
708 |
1,269 |
907 |
1,305 |
835 |
1,373 |
936 |
1,499 |
955 |
1,209 |
822 |
850 |
| Middle | 2,310 |
1,774 |
2,924 |
2,101 |
3,566 |
2,622 |
3,702 |
2,438 |
3,910 |
2,698 |
4,244 |
2,795 |
3,443 |
2,405 |
2,487 |
| 9 | 1,129 |
1,082 |
1,563 |
1,320 |
1,779 |
1,555 |
1,437 |
1,314 |
1,930 |
1,668 |
1,831 |
1,597 |
1,612 |
1,423 |
1,454 |
| 10 | 722 |
770 |
1,113 |
954 |
1,315 |
1,135 |
971 |
931 |
1,388 |
1,213 |
1,347 |
1,170 |
1,143 |
1,029 |
1,048 |
| 11 | 449 |
469 |
577 |
529 |
764 |
693 |
613 |
609 |
830 |
806 |
805 |
747 |
673 |
642 |
648 |
| 12 | 334 |
357 |
423 |
409 |
559 |
586 |
431 |
504 |
541 |
651 |
551 |
582 |
473 |
515 |
521 |
| High | 2,614 |
2,688 |
3,681 |
3,203 |
4,430 |
3,973 |
3,453 |
3,363 |
4,697 |
4,340 |
4,529 |
4,104 |
3,901 |
3,612 |
3,673 |
| Sec | 4,963 |
4,456 |
6,620 |
5,290 |
7,973 |
6,607 |
7,119 |
5,802 |
8,625 |
7,023 |
8,780 |
6,869 |
7,347 |
6,008 |
6,148 |
| Total | 9,787 |
7,369 |
12,242 |
8,543 |
14,394 |
10,542 |
13,654 |
9,952 |
15,112 |
11,197 |
15,361 |
11,024 |
13,425 |
9,771 |
10,099 |
Note. Ave of Month refers to the average of PDD months and Ave of 9/1-3/31 refers the daily average absences from September 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998, including PDDs.
Table 4. School Improvement/Professional Development Days Program Recommendations, Action Plan, and Time Line
| RECOMMENDATIONS | ACTION TO BE TAKEN | PERSON RESPONSIB. | PROJECT. DATE |
| RECOMMENDATION 1: Continue the PDD Program in FY99 to support achievement of school improvement goals. Reduce the number of PDDs from eight days to six days. |
Develop a comprehensive district-level
Professional Development Plan with the PDD Program as an integral part of that plan. Implement the PDD Program on the following dates in FY99: September 17th Thursday, October 28th Wednesday, November 17th Tuesday, February 10th Wednesday, March 9th Tuesday, and April 28th Wednesday Notify the District Departments of the PDD dates. Notify the local agencies (e.g., sheriff's office, Palm Tram, Tri-Rail) of the PDD dates. Notify the school personnel (e.g., faculty and staff, food service, custodial service, and para-professionals) of the PDD dates. |
Cheryl Alligood, Bettye Roth, Connie Gregory Connie Gregory Cheryl Alligood, Connie Gregory Bob Douglas Principals, Connie Gregory |
September, 98 August, 1998
July, 1998 August, 1998 August, 1998 |
| RECOMMENDATION 2: Communicate to the parents/guardians at the beginning and during the school year regarding the purpose, dates and times of the PDDs. |
Rename Professional Development Day Program to
School Improvement/ Professional Development Day Program. Advertise in local newspapers the 1998-1999 PDD dates and release times for elementary, middle, and high schools. Re-advertise in local newspapers the 1998-1999 PDD dates and release times for elementary, middle, and high schools two days prior to each PDD. Provide an addendum to the School Improvement Handbook with parents/guardians communication strategies and sample products, which may include: Newsletters Flyers Mailed notices Automated Telephone System Provide schools with a statement of purpose for the PDD and a commitment to quality student instruction on the PDDs. Provide parents/guardians with a description of student instructional program on PDDs (to ensure better student attendance on PDDs), and an explanation of professional development activities as related to improving student learning, and the date and time of the PDDs. |
Connie Gregory Bob Douglas
Bob Douglas Connie Gregory
Cheryl Alligood Connie Gregory Principals
|
August, 1998 August, 1998
August, 1998 September, 1998
September, 1998
September, 1998 |
| RECOMMENDATION 3: Develop districtwide guidelines and resources for PDD activities, develop best practices for professional development, and develop best practices for student instructional time during the morning hours of the PDDs. |
Develop and distribute to schools
PDD guidelines in the following areas: Extra curricular activities, charges for child
care, articulation between schools, inservice points, inclusion of PPD plan in the SIP,
acceptable PDD activities, time for parent communication related to instructional program,
and trading two half PDDs for one teacher planning day with staff approval. Develop and distribute resources for PDD activities as follows: Clearing house of presenters, topics, activities, and best practices, as well as training workshops for principals and PDD Program planners on best practices and criteria for planning and monitoring the PDD program Develop and distribute best practices for effective student instructional time during the morning hours of the PDDs. Develop and distribute to schools criteria for planning and monitoring PDD program. Provide training to Area Executive Directors, principals, and PDD program planners on PDD guidelines, best practices, and the criteria for planning and monitoring the PDD. |
Connie Gregory
Cheryl Alligood Connie Gregory (more to be assigned) Connie Gregory
Connie Gregory Cheryl Alligood, Connie Gregory |
August, 1998
August, 1998
August, 1998
August, 1998 September, 1998, April, 1999 |
| RECOMMENDATION 4:
Schools develop a focused and comprehensive PDD plan that relates to the objectives of the School Improvement Plan (SIP), but with the subject and/or level of the teaching staff in mind. |
Develop a timeline for schools to submit PDD
plans. Have schools develop and submit PDD plans that address the following: a variety of activities such as training, sharing, collaborating, modeling, planning, and practicing that has a unified focus related to SIP objectives activities that address the subject area (e.g., fine arts or special education), as well as the grade-level needs of the teachers the relevant student achievement and school survey data, including the teacher FY98 PDD survey results and comments for each school the changes it expects of teachers as a result of participation in the PDD activities the professional development needs of the teachers alternative PDD activities in the event the planned activity is canceled child care, lunch scheduling, and related transportation needs on PDDs |
Connie Gregory
Principals Faculty |
August, 1998
October, 1998 (In FY2000, this will be included in the SIP to be submitted in July 1999) |
| RECOMMENDATION 5: Establish a system of monitoring the PDD Program at each school, and the changes expected of teachers from PDD activities. For example, the district may require that each school submits a PDD Progress Report to the Area Executive Director or School Advisory Council at the end of each semester. |
Establish a system of monitoring and
supporting the PDD Program at each school, and the changes expected of teachers from PDD
activities. The system of monitoring must minimally include the following: PDD activities have a focus directly related to the SIP objectives child-care needs of parents/guardians during the PDD activities are addressed student attendance on the PDDs is improved teacher attendance at the PDD activities is monitored by schools teacher implementation of new knowledge and skills learned in PDDs is monitored performance of students relative to the PDD focus is monitored by schools design and delivery of an effective instructional program on PDDs is accomplished Principals provide quarterly PDD progress reports to Area Executive Directors and SAC with copies to School Improvement Department. |
Area Executive Directors, Principals, Cheryl
Alligood, Connie Gregory
Principals |
October, 1998
Quarterly |
| PROGRAM CONTACT: Connie Gregory APPROVED - SUPERVISOR OF PROGRAM CONTACT: Cheryl Alligood |
|||
Appendix A: Evaluation Criteria
From the study of established evaluation methods, six essential evaluative criteria, stated as generic evaluation questions, guide the program evaluation design. Question 1 addresses the need for the program, questions 2, 3, and 4 address the quality of the program's implementation, question 5 addresses program monitoring, and question 6 addresses program effectiveness. Taken together, the answers to these generic evaluation questions address the value of the program to the district. They are as follows:
Appendix B: Summary of Parent and SAC Member Comments
A total of 476 comments were reviewed based on the Survey administered to randomly selected parents and SAC members.
Approximately 17% of parents/SAC Members surveyed said that the program was a "waste of time." A few of these parents surveyed commented "please discontinue" or "please stop" the program altogether. Many of the parents stated that the children watch a lot of videos on these days. A few parents commented that their children (and teachers) saw the PDD as a "goof-off" day.
Approximately 30% asked for more information about the program. Of these people, five of the parents had never even heard of the program at all. Most of the parents requested more information pertaining to scheduling of PDDs, dates, and topics. Several of them requested data on effectiveness of workshops and whether they actually improved their children's academic achievement.
About 20% of the parents/SACs Members commented that they preferred four full days to eight half-day PDDs.
About 10% of the parents/SAC Members commented that the PDD program was a good program. These parents favored anything that could improve their childrens' educations. A few parents commented that they enjoyed spending these afternoons with their children.
Of the parents who commented that the program was an inconvenience, the four factors cited were lack of child care, transportation, the shortened classroom time, and the early lunches. A few schools did not provide child care during PDDs. As a result, many parents surveyed had to use personal days or vacation days to care for their children on these days. A few working parents had to take time out of their workday to provide the necessary transportation and childcare for their children on these days.
Appendix C: Summary of Teacher Comments
A total of about 900 comments were reviewed based on the Survey administered to teachers.
Approximately 16% of the teacher comments indicated that the PDD Program was very useful, while about the same percentage stated that the PDD Program was a waste of time, that they disliked the program, that the program was not beneficial, and that they would like to discontinue the program.
Approximately 13% of the teachers who commented would like more activities that would meet their needs. About 21% of the teachers want to work in cooperative groups and have more time for planning. About 16% of the teachers commented that they would like full day instead of half-day PDDs.
Other comments included poor attendance of students, students were not motivated to learn during the morning hours of the PDDs, and too many repeats of the same workshops.
Appendix D: Recommendations from the Reform Panel
September Thursday 17th
October Wednesday 28th
November Tuesday 17th
February Wednesday 10th
March Tuesday 9th
April Wednesday 28th
1. Individual school results might differ from the overall district results, as some schools implemented the PDD Program differently than others.
2. The exact recommendations from the Reform Panel are found in Appendix D.
3. The exact recommendations from the reform panel are found in Appendix D.
4. For the rest of this report, PDD refers to School Improvement/Professional Development Day (SI/PDD).
5. Starting with the FY2000 SIP, the PDD plan will be submitted by each school as part of the SIP.
6. Refers to the monthly daily average absences without the PDD.
7. The average of PDD months.
8. The daily average absences from September 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998, including PDDs.