Teachers' Continuing Professional Development

at the University of Washington

Context -- Issues -- Directions

College of Education

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington

October, 1997

The Issues

What role should the UW College of Education play in teachers' continuing professional development? This is a timely question, and an important one. When we think of teacher education as part of our mission, we usually focus on pre-service programs. When we have thought about in-service, or continuing professional education, we have concentrated on the graduate (typically masters) programs we provide; occasionally, we have offered workshops or special summer sessions. But the power of these programs to reach practicing teachers has been eroded in recent years for a number of reasons: more and more teachers enter the field with a masters degree already in hand; the "clock hours" provided by districts or ESDs are a cheaper and more readily accessible alternative for many teachers; more agencies and organizations now provide in-service programs than was the case a few years ago; the state has proposed a new model for "Professional" (now "Continuing") teacher certification that may significantly change what teachers need to know and do; there is an increasing interest among faculty in other academic departments of the UW to be involved with teachers' in-service development; and there are new formats for instruction (distance learning, Internet-based courses) that would require revision of our existing practices.

The combined impact of these factors makes this an opportune time to re-think what we might do for teachers' continuing professional development. In particular, we need to face the possibility that our existing masters degree programs will become less attractive to teachers as a vehicle for continuing professional development. We also need to realize that our work of educating teachers takes place in an increasingly competitive marketplace, and that our own long-term position may depend on a rethinking of how we go about that work for those teachers already working in the field.

How we address these issues may well have implications that go beyond in-service programs themselves. To the extent that we make teachers' continuing professional development a focus of our work, we may also need to address how we define faculty workload, how we organize our existing graduate programs, how we articulate pre-service with in-service offerings, and how we coordinate both with our graduate program.

The rest of this report includes information that may be useful to us as we think about teachers' continuing professional development: a brief review of literature; a summary of activities by local, peer and other highly regarded schools and colleges of education; demographic information about the state's teachers, and about enrollment trends in our masters and summer programs; descriptions of the State Board of Education's new model for teacher certification; reflections by some of our own faculty on teachers' continuing professional education; questions raised by new delivery methods; and other issues, including some suggested directions for further work.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. What should we do regarding teachers' continuing professional development?

What the Literature Says

The literature on teachers' continuing professional development suggests a number of "best practices" that we should think about and likely incorporate in our own programs. Briefly, these include:

• The necessity of treating in-service professional growth as a process that continues over time, and needs regular and long-term support by both districts and collaborating university faculty if it is to be productive. (This stands in contrast to the approach frequently used in the past of offering "one-shot" workshops of a few hours on a particular theme).
• The value of encouraging teachers to work in groups, and to form professional networks to exchange information about their school and their work.
• The value to teachers of having opportunities to carefully reflect on their practice, and of their being given the chance and the encouragement to do so.
• The power of reaching teachers where they work -- that is, in sites that are at or near their own schools.
• The centrality of treating teachers as colleagues, and involving them in the process of their own development, rather than immersing them in programs that they themselves characterize as "set and get," "sit and stew," etc.
• The importance of viewing professional development as a part of the larger process of institutional and organizational change that must accompany any school reform effort.
• Mirroring the recent national growth of concern about standards and student performance, newer approaches to teachers' in-service education now seek to link it with changes in student learning or in the functioning of the school organization. Some recent studies and position papers on staff development emphasize that its goals should be to improve student, staff, and organizational performance, so the critical evaluation is whether student learning has benefited.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. What would a program based on these principles look like?

2. What resources would we need, and where would they come from?

As we think about our own programs of continuing professional development for teachers, it may help to have in mind what is happening at other institutions. To narrow down the field, I chose to examine teacher in-service programs at four groups of institutions: (1) The schools, colleges, and departments of education rated in the "Top Ten" by US News and World Report's annual survey (1997) of colleges and universities; (2) Programs at the UW's "peer" institutions (note that, while the universities involved may be considered "peers" of the UW by the state's HEC Board, we might not consider the colleges of education at these institutions to be comparable to our own); (3) The public and private institutions in our local region (Puget Sound), including both public and private colleges and universities; and (4) Other institutions concerned directly with schooling -- the school districts, ESDs, unions, and OSPI. The account that follows is necessarily somewhat impressionistic, based as it is on a review of publicly available catalogues, documents, web sites, and telephone interviews, rather than actual visits to sites and conversations with teachers and faculty involved. Nonetheless, it is a starting place.

"Top Ten" Schools and Colleges of Education

The US News & World Report 1997 "top ten" ranking includes the schools or colleges of education at the following institutions: (1) Columbia University -- Teachers College; (2) Stanford University; (3) UC Berkeley; (4) Harvard University; (5) UCLA; (6) University of Wisconsin -- Madison; (7) Ohio State University -- Columbus; (8) University of Michigan -- Ann Arbor; (9) University of Minnesota -- Twin Cities; (10) Vanderbilt University -- Peabody College.

A few common threads stand out among the diverse institutional patterns for teachers' continuing professional development at these institutions: (1) There is a desire in many places to link the public schools, the wider university community, and the school or college of education. Berkeley, Ohio State, and Minnesota all have programs of this sort. (2) In many programs teachers come together in cohorts or small groups for intensive work, whether during a summer or over an academic year -- Teachers College, Stanford, UCLA, and Vanderbilt all structure at least some of their programs in this way. Otherwise, there are relatively few commonalties -- some programs are offered exclusively through the College of Education, some via an extension agency, some via independent units; some work is structured as course work, some as special institutes, and some as collaborative research with faculty; some programs are tightly integrated, some are simply collections of course work.

UW's Peer Institutions

The list of universities designated as "comparison institutions" by the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) includes the following schools: University of Arizona; University of California-Davis; University of California-Irvine; University of California-Los Angeles; University of California-San Diego; University of Cincinnati-Main Campus; Cornell University, Statutory Colleges; University of Florida; University of Hawaii-Manoa; University of Illinois-Chicago; University of Iowa; University of Kentucky; University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; Michigan State University; University of Minnesota-Twin Cities; University of Missouri-Columbia; University of New Mexico-Main Campus; University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; Ohio State University; University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus; Texas A & M-Main Campus; University of Utah; University of Virginia-Main Campus; University of Wisconsin-Madison. There is some duplication with the USN&WR "top ten" list; non-duplicated institutions are surveyed here.

In a few cases, and similar to what is the case at some of the "top ten," our peer institutions also offer what appear to be comprehensive university-wide programs that include teachers' in-service development as a part of the program: The University of Illinois at Chicago Circle offers a number of outreach services for teachers under the Great Cities Program, and Cornell's efforts under the Rural Schools program are similarly organized. But generally, what happens at the schools on this list is even more varied than at those on the "top ten" list. All have graduate programs available for teachers, and cite these as an important avenue for continuing professional development.

A number of the institutions (Cornell, Hawaii, Michigan State, North Carolina) offer programs aimed at educational reform, assessment, and continuing education. North Carolina's outreach effort brings all the University's efforts for continuing education under a single umbrella, the Center for Educational Leadership. Virginia offers an interactive electronic forum on educational policy, as well as the Thomas Jefferson Center, where "design" provides a linking theme for several programs. At Illinois--Chicago Circle, the Office of Continuing Education and Public Service consults with faculty interested in experimenting with novel course formats

Almost as striking as the variety of programs among these institutions is the absence of other elements: There are no major programs of in-service teacher development being offered on-line; there are relatively few mentions of the ways in which universities and partner schools or professional development schools might jointly offer programs; and there are only a few cases where there is significant integration among the college of education and other parts of the university.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. Would it make sense for us to have a university-wide umbrella organization to include our own efforts toward continuing professional development for teachers with those originating in other parts of the UW? What could be its theme?

2. Are there ways we can capitalize on interactive technologies that would be distinctive yet still attractive to teachers?

The Competition: Local Colleges and Universities, Districts, ESDs, Unions

Our competition is not doing things that are radically different from what we are doing. However, they are doing them cheaper, more flexibly, and with greater awareness of the local market. A survey conducted by UW Educational Outreach shows that most of the private and public institutions in our vicinity are offering a mix of specific interest classes, endorsement courses, certification programs, and masters-level programs that is not largely different from our own. Costs, however, vary considerably -- Seattle University and Seattle Pacific University are able and willing to arrange courses that are made available for "clock hour" credit at minimal cost (e.g., $35 per course; "clock hours" are the way OSPI currently accounts for teachers' satisfaction of in-service continuing education requirements. Under current OSPI regulations, all teachers must complete 150 clock hours of in-service course work every 5 years to maintain a Continuing Certificate. This will change in so-far undefined ways under the new model of "Residency" and "Professional" Certificates proposed by the SBE).

Most school districts clearly find it easier and quicker to arrange in-service offerings for college credit by approaching one of our local competitors than they would by approaching us. One district coordinator said, "SPU is more user-friendly. When we want to offer an in-service course for credit, we can do it all here. We just hand them [the teacher who will be the instructor] an application to become adjunct faculty, and that's it." In that particular district, 95% of in-service courses are offered for SPU credit.

There is also considerable evidence that local private colleges and universities are more attuned to the market of what districts perceive teachers to need. At the moment, that need is clearly identified as assessment. The requirements of state-level reform, tougher standards, and new assessment criteria (e.g., the recent public discussion of fourth-grade math test results, based on new standards) have created a boom in demand for workshops on assessment.

One notable exception to the local pattern is Heritage Online, an electronic extension service affiliated with Antioch University. Courses are offered via the Internet and World Wide Web, with instructors coming from institutions around the country.

Our competition locally consists not merely of other institutions of higher education. Increasingly, school districts themselves are offering comprehensive schedules of in-service classes, many with credit (as noted above) arranged through one of the nearby private colleges or universities. The larger districts especially seem to have moved aggressively in this area, with smaller districts left to piggy-back on their larger neighbors, or to rely on the services of the ESDs. Other local competitors include the Educational Service Districts (ESDs), which provide in-service support for smaller districts, and the WEA, which itself offers a program of staff development courses and opportunities.

We should not assume, however, that all of these organizations are happily collaborating to make a profit at our expense. In fact, there are considerable tensions among them over issues such as cross-accessibility of courses, invading a rival's "turf," how costs are to be reimbursed, etc. Suffice it to say that the market is not a unified one for either consumers or suppliers of in-service programs for teachers.

A further complication for us is that state policy as to the distribution of Student Learning Grant ("SLG") moneys favors decisions by local schools, teachers, and principals, over those by OSPI, ESDs, or even districts. The "pass through" of large amounts of SLG money directly to schools has radically decentralized the market for in-service courses in the state, and most schools appear to have no trouble deciding how to use those funds. It also seems clear that a large portion of those funds at the moment are going for courses, workshops, and other experiences in assessment.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. What is the UW's distinctive role and mission for teachers' continuing professional development, considering the current profile and activities of other institutions of higher education in the Puget Sound region?

2. What can we do to make access to our programs for teachers more "user friendly"?

Demographics of the Teaching Profession

Several factors at the state level are relevant to designing programs for teachers' continuing professional development. Many of these are simply demographic. To make even a rough estimate of the demand for particular kinds of courses or programs, it would be helpful to know such things as:

• The number of new teachers entering the profession each year
• Of entering teachers, the proportions of those entering with MIT/MAT degrees and with baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate degrees (a very rough calculation from OSPI data suggests that about 73% of initial certificates from Washington institutions come with a BA/BS degree, and 27% with a masters, though interpreting these figures is difficult given the fact that only a little more than half [57%] of first certificates are awarded to those applying from within the state; the rest go to applicants who come from out of state.)
• The proportion of teachers already in the field who hold masters degrees
• The number of non-masters-degreed teachers who opt to accumulate credits toward a masters
• The number of non-masters-degreed teachers who opt to accumulate only clock-hour credits
• Preferences for particular kinds of programs among those teachers who opt for programmatically based in-service development (including preferences for such things as time of offering, duration, intensity, etc.)
• The number of teachers leaving the profession each year
• Of those leaving, the proportions due to retirement, early retirement, and other reasons
• Projected demand for teachers in various parts of the state, at various points in the future

Only a few parts of this set of data are available easily at present, and some are not regularly coded by OSPI from reports they receive, making access almost impossible. There has been no comprehensive study of teacher supply and demand in the state for a number of years. Various aspects of teacher demographics are covered in reports regularly put together by OSPI. But if we want to make informed decisions about future trends and therefore future demand for various kinds of educational programs, we may need to collect and analyze more detailed information ourselves.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. How can we estimate future demand for types of courses, programs, in-service professional development opportunities, given likely shifts in regional teacher demographics?

Proposed New Certification Patterns

A further factor affecting our thinking about new programs for teachers' continuing professional development is the new model of certification now being proposed by OSPI. The new model is currently a proposed pattern and field tests are being conducted by a number of consortia (higher education institutions, school districts, and professional associations) in the state. The model has several key provisions that will affect our discussions about in-service, as well as pre-service, development for teachers:

• The current certificate categories of "Initial" and "Continuing" are to be replaced by two new categories, "Residency" and "Professional"; the new model for certification is scheduled to go into effect August 31, 2000.
• The new certificates are to be performance-based, requiring educators to demonstrate "positive impact on student learning"; they are thus a part of the wider state effort to implement a system based on state learning goals and Essential Academic Learning Requirements ("EALRs").
• Candidates for the Professional Certificate will need to have: completed successfully two years of public school teaching; demonstrated competency in 3 standards and 18 criteria; received 2 endorsements; and completed an approved Professional Certificate program collaboratively developed by a college/university and its PEAB.

The last of these elements, the Professional Certificate program, is supposed to be an Individualized Professional Growth Plan (IPGP), jointly defined by the candidate, the candidate's district, a college/university, and an "authorized agency" (typically the local union affiliate, but possibly a statewide professional group, a specialty area professional association, or an ESD). Whether this new pattern can be implemented on a large scale is the subject of field tests that are now under way. The higher education institutions collaborating on the field tests include: UW-Tacoma, WSU, WWU, Seattle Pacific, and Seattle University. The specific structure of the field tests, and the arrangements among the agencies collaborating in running them, were approved by the SBE in February, 1997, and so the tests will be going on during the 1997-98 academic year.

The new model makes our work more complicated, for it forces us to examine the relationship among existing pre-service programs, the state's structure of essential learnings (and associated teacher performance standards and criteria), the ways in which degrees are (or might be) linked with certification at either the "Residency" or "Professional" levels, and resulting implications for teachers' continuing professional development. Many aspects of these issues are still not clear. Ron Butchart, former head of the UW-Tacoma education program, suggests that the new model may offer an active incentive for pre-service teachers to focus on baccalaureate or post-BA programs, as opposed to masters-level programs, for the initial certificate, since much of the work that will be required for the Professional Certificate may duplicate what is currently being offered in MAT/MIT programs. This, however, is speculation at the moment; the comparable test at WWU does not yet seem to have raised similar questions.

A large question being considered by all the participants in the field tests is the practicality of required "individualized" plans for all teachers; most of those interviewed for this report suggested that some degree of standardization is likely inevitable as districts and higher education institutions seek to economize the time and effort of all involved in putting together such programs. A further uncertainty is the still-undefined process by which the Professional Certificate, which is to be valid only for seven years, is to be renewed. Current OSPI documents state only that "Prior to August 31, 2000, the SBE will establish renewal requirements for the Professional Certificate."

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. How can any program for in-service development that we create address the new state model for certification, at both the "Residency" and "Professional" levels?

2. What are the implications of the "Professional" certificate and the IPGP for our existing masters degree programs?

3. How should we incorporate the State's new standards and criteria for student performance ("EALRs") in any new continuing teacher education programs?

What Faculty in the College of Education See as Important

As part of this study, I spoke with a number of faculty from the College of Education, and with others from around the UW with a particular interest in teachers' continuing professional development. In these conversations, I asked about models and approaches to in-service education for teachers that might be interesting for us to consider; I also asked about faculty workload, continuing professional education vs. pre-service teacher preparation, the incentives that would make faculty involvement in new programs or new approaches more likely, the ways in which we are organized as a college, and the possibility/desirability of using new approaches such as Internet- or Web-based courses or programs. In an admittedly subjective reading of these interview results, several points stand out:

• Whatever the College and the UW does should be distinctive and should capitalize on our unique position within the state; we shouldn't try simply to copy the approaches, topics, and practices that have been successful for our competitors. Our mission to conceive of and carry out practically useful research, for example, should be a central consideration in whatever new programs we design, and thus should also involve our graduate students and become part of our graduate programs.
• We should consider novel approaches, such as working collaboratively with entire districts or schools, rather than merely continuing to offer one-shot courses and degree programs for teachers. At the same time, we should not merely "sell our souls" to districts, ESDs, professional associations, or OSPI merely for the sake of generating revenue. We need to balance entrepreneurial creativity and innovation with our strengths in posing central questions.
• We should try to base any new efforts for continuing professional development on the same kinds of notions and assumptions that we incorporated in our recently revised pre-service program (the value of reflective practice, collaborative endeavor/networks/professional "learning communities," shared efforts at improvement of professional practice). Teachers who come to our programs should feel that they are welcomed as colleagues, not being coerced into participation or being "done to." (Implementing this in practice also obviously requires the collaboration on similar grounds of districts and agencies.)
• Whatever we do should not "create a monster" of new requirements, demands, and expectations, either for ourselves as faculty, or for our students (the teachers we would try to attract). Given the reward structure within academe, the varying interests of faculty, and the range of other missions of the UW, we will need to think carefully and work hard to create a culture that makes teachers' continuing professional development a strong, shared priority.
• We should also aim at developing a "shared intentionality" with the activities and priorities of OSPI, WEA, and other relevant organizations. This becomes especially important in an environment where the local union organizations have an increasingly strong voice in determining how teacher in-service moneys (particularly state SLG funds) will be spent.

Faculty Suggestions for Program Development

Our own faculty also suggested some specific possibilities that could be tried. These include:

• A cohort-based program focused on teacher leadership, with meetings throughout the year and an intensive summer institute (modeled somewhat like our current Danforth Program for school administrators). Such a program would have the added value of creating a distinct network with strong ties to our institution.
• Programs that are based in our existing pre-service Partner Schools, that capitalize on using their faculty as adjuncts in our programs, and that make a greater effort to involve our own pre-service graduates as students for continuing education.
• Programs offered physically on-site in schools, or at a number of locations within districts, to make it easier for teachers to attend (this priority was echoed by many of those responsible for in-service education at the district level).
• Programs that involve other parts of the UW (e.g., Schools of Nursing, Public Affairs, Social Work, Public Health)
• Programs that adopt the very successful approach used by Educational Outreach in their many professionally oriented "certificate" programs in such fields as software development, industrial training, and film and video production. These programs offer a collection of courses mostly taught by adjunct faculty (although "vetted" and approved by regular UW academic units), and leading to a "certificate" that is merely an affirmation from the UW that the student has indeed taken a collection of courses. The current structure of endorsements for educators offers a somewhat comparable model, one that we might use in creative ways with some thought. (The new UW Instructional Technology endorsement program discussed earlier provides one such example.)
• Programs that focus on "training the trainers," and which use our faculty as resources, as opposed to trying ourselves to service all the teachers in our region, could be a more cost-effective approach, if we could figure out how to do it right (but: there could be major pitfalls here in such areas as assessment training, given the conceptual vacuum in which such programs would need to be established)
• The current state interest in and focus on assessment offers both opportunities and pitfalls. We could easily get very involved in offering workshops and courses on this theme, but need to fine-tune these so as to make them useful, appropriate, well-grounded.
• Other topical focuses that were mentioned by a number of people include management and discipline, special education, and civic education.
• Programs for teachers that allow them considerable leeway in self-defining the content, issues, and approaches for study, that result in real products, and that meet some well-defined and commonly understood standards for accountability.
• Seek to make the College of Education the intellectual center for a range of school-improvement and teacher continuing education programs from around the UW; bring to campus major speakers that can address issues, and feature their presentations for both UW faculty and local teachers. The College to become "the place where interesting questions about teaching and learning get raised for the UW as a whole."
• Coordinate whatever programs we develop with other major initiatives that will affect educational practice around the state and nation; e.g.: the major Work-Force Training and School Accountability programs now under way through OSPI and other agencies.
• Consider carefully the cost and other financial aspects of whatever programs we develop. While we may not be able to compete with other local competitors on price alone, we can likely do more to make ourselves attractive (in terms of costs, benefits, accessibility, and "user friendliness") to at least some portion of teachers.

As part of this effort to imagine new areas of activity, we surveyed the College of Education Visiting Day Committee. At the time of writing, we had received replies from 5 of the 10 members of the committee. Responses showed several concerns: a desire for the UW to move into new areas, provide new kinds of programs based on imaginative thinking and application of research to practice; a desire for the academic resources (in academic departments) of the UW to be more readily available to teachers; a preference for practically oriented programs, including such currently topical areas as assessment and its links to curriculum and instruction, use of technology, and the implications of diversity for our democratic society (including the problems arising for schools at the intersection of student rights, parental rights, interest group desires, and general societal needs).

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. What should we take as the principal focus for our in-service efforts?

2. How can we link the unique research mission of the UW (including our own research efforts) with in-service development for teachers?

3. How can we create programs that will be relevant, attractive, cost-effective, and interesting for ourselves and our audiences?

Our Existing Degree Programs for Teachers

Our own masters degree programs have shrunk over the past five years.

The data show that enrollments for all four Areas in the College of Education declined from 254 masters program students in Autumn Quarter, 1992, to 190 in Autumn Quarter, 1996. This represents a 25% decrease. (TEP masters students are excluded here, since they are working at the pre-service, not in-service level). Applications also decreased, although not by as much -- from 191 applications in 1992 to 162 in 1996, or a 15% decrease. Overall, our masters degree programs today are about three-quarters the size they were as recently as 1992.

The decline was not uniform across the College. In Curriculum and Instruction, the Area that we might expect to be affected most directly by any shift in teachers' demand for in-service programs, enrollments over this period declined from 115 to 61 (a decrease of almost 47%), and applications declined from 52 to 31 (a decrease of 40%).

Summer Quarter enrollments in the College of Education have declined similarly since 1992. Enrollment shrank during the 1992-1997 period from 638 to 313, a drop of over 50%.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. How should we think about our existing masters degree programs in the context of developing new approaches for teachers' continuing professional education?

Initiatives Under Way in other Parts of the UW Community

We need to realize that we in the College of Education are not alone in having an interest in teachers' continuing professional development. This has been especially true since the arrival on campus of Pres. Richard McCormick in September, 1995, and his enthusiastic support for new programs to link the UW with K-12 education (for example, his support of the In-Service day offered collaboratively with Seattle Public Schools in October, 1996). In January, 1997, McCormick hosted a dinner for a number of persons from around the UW -- College of Education and elsewhere -- who have an interest in educational outreach programs. Among those from other parts of the UW who attended were Prof. Ed Lazowska, chair of Computer Science, Prof. Leroy Hood, chair of Molecular Biotechnology and originator of several successful and widely publicized science education partnership programs; Prof. Lillian McDermott, Physics, head of summer physics programs for teachers; and Louis Fox, Assistant Vice-Provost and Pres. McCormick's principal liaison to the public school community.

Another example of a cross-campus effort at in-service program development for teachers is seen in the new Instructional Technology Endorsement Program, created in rudimentary form last Spring and offered initially during the Summer of 1997 under the auspices of UWired (Christine Murakami), with support from Computer Science (Ed Lazowska) and The Provost's Office (Louis Fox). The program is conceived of as a sequence of one-credit brief offerings, linked by work on a single large project and with opportunities for reflective practice. It was Ed Lazowska who took the notion of the IT endorsement and re-imagined it as something that many if not all teachers could and should see as desirable.

In Educational Outreach (formerly UW Extension and Summer Quarter), there are a number of programs under way that have been successful over the years. Academic Programs for Teachers coordinates a number of summer and other offerings in which academic departments of the UW outside the College of Education have been active. (Rosemary Sheffield directs the APT program).

As we think about whatever programs of continuing professional education for teachers we want to offer, we will also have to decide how we want to organize ourselves to offer them. Our approach in the past has been to rely on Educational Outreach, and this may well be the most cost-effective way to proceed in the near term -- there is an infrastructure there that it would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate for staging courses, creating and distributing publicity materials, and so forth. However, for the longer term, we also need to realize that there are other parts of the UW (notably the College of Engineering, the School of Law, and the Medical School) which handle much of their continuing education efforts on their own. The College of Engineering provides an especially interesting case, for they have created an extensive structure of advisory boards on which they rely for advice as to the content and format of needed continuing education programs.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. What can we do to initiate a university-wide partnership program in support of teachers' continuing professional growth and the improvement of learning opportunities for students in Washington state schools?

Program Costs and Teachers' Time

A further element that will be essential for us to examine is the costs of any program for teachers' continuing professional development that we may design. Central here are such questions as how we can attract teachers to a program in an environment in which their time is increasingly "bought and paid for" by their district, in which they have less and less discretion over how to use their time, and in which the presence of SLG and other local funds have dramatically altered the old picture of teachers as having much spare time and as willing to participate without extra remuneration in programs of in-service education.

In today's markets, many teachers have become accustomed to being reimbursed by their schools or districts at relatively high rates (e.g., nearly $200 per day in some cases) for participating in in-service programs.

In this sort of environment, it becomes difficult to persuade teachers to attend a course or program which they will have to pay for themselves, or in which (as is the case with many NSF-funded programs) they will be offered a stipend of "only" $50 per day.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. How can we address in our own program the new financial realities and expectations of teachers' in-service development?

2. Are there alternative sources of funding that would help us to offer more attractive programs (including teacher stipends)?

3. How should our program take into account the increasingly common situation in which teachers have less and less free time during the summers?

Technology, Distance Education, and New Delivery Models

We should also pay attention to the possibilities for program support and outreach that are offered by new technologies -- distance education, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. While there has been a great deal of interest generally in the use of these new approaches for higher education (e.g., the regional efforts currently under way to create the Western Governors' University, a wholly distance-learning institution), their use in teacher education has so far been less widespread.

None of those interviewed for this study felt that distance or Internet courses would be popular among teachers in and of themselves. Several suggested that "teaching is a people-oriented activity," and that therefore it would be difficult to attract teachers to a professional development program if there were to be no human contact or opportunity for face-to-face interaction during the program. Nonetheless, there was some enthusiasm for trying out such approaches as ways to link participants in a program during times when the group is not actually together. Internet-based discussion groups and electronic "chat groups" could provide ways to link program participants in a new kind of professional "community of practice."

Among the programs for teachers operating in our region at the moment, on Heritage Online makes a concerted attempt to provide for on-line course work. The experience of the USWest-WEA Learning Space project, one explicitly focused on the improvement of teachers' skills in working with technology, may also be useful for us to examine.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. What might an Internet or Web based program for teachers look like? What would the optimum mix be of electronic-, distance-, and face-to-face course or program elements?

2. Are there particular topics or areas in which these approaches would be more useful or productive? Which?

Scenarios

The point of this report was not to solve a problem, or even to present alternative solutions. Nonetheless, there are a number of ways that it may help us to think about these questions and we would be remiss not to point them out here.

1. The possibility of doing nothing.

We can continue to do what we have always done -- offer graduate (masters) level programs as the principal avenue by which we accommodate teachers' needs for continuing professional development, supplemented by the occasional summer special programs or the occasional faculty workshop during the year. While this may be satisfactory at the moment, it offers us little hope for the future viability of our masters program as a major institutional or fiscal justification for our presence on the UW campus. As Louis Fox notes, "This University expects more of you."

2. Initiate some experiments.

If we want to experiment with new approaches to teachers' continuing education,. we obviously need to have specific topics, approaches and models in view. Some of the particular topics that appear most interesting have been noted above (assessment; the links among assessment, curriculum, and instruction; teacher leadership; use of technology; special education). Approaches to program definition clearly would include collaborative approaches, with teachers (or teams or cohorts of teachers) playing a major role in program definition. The important thing is to be doing something.

3. Consider the level of collaboration we want to pursue.

Do we want to work collaboratively with other parts of the UW? With one or a number of districts? With ESDs? With OSPI, WEA, or other agencies or associations? If we do, how will we organize ourselves to do that? Would it make sense (as some of our peer institutions have) to establish some sort of "umbrella" organization for the University as a whole, to develop and coordinate outreach experiences? If we did so, what would be its structure, and what role would the College of Education play in it? What sort of theme for its work would be appropriate for our region and its problems?

4. And don't forget the local context!

The effort to develop and implement new in-service programs for teachers will likely also require us to hold a serious discussion about our workload and how we are organized as a college. We currently define our work in terms of courses (or, on an occasional ad hoc basis, course "chunks" or replacements), which is for us a familiar form of mental accounting. But many of the programs suggested here would be structured differently, and lead to forms of involvement other than traditional courses -- working with schools or districts intensively over a quarter or year, offering an intensive institute during the summer that extends over into academic years on both sides, monitoring regularly an electronic discussion group connected with a project, or preparing materials that will be used by teachers taking a course via distance learning. We will need to think about these issues carefully as we consider new approaches.

Imaginings

How are we to begin to think about these complex issues? Imagining new programs, or new approaches is not easy, and this report explicitly did not set out to suggest what should be done, but rather to lay out the case for action. Nonetheless, one cannot work and think about this sort of problem without generating some ideas. I set these forth below only as examples and images, not as particular programmatic recommendations.

Summer workshop with preparation throughout the year

A faculty member offers a week-long summer workshop on a particular theme (standards, assessment, diversity, technology, special needs students, or some combination of these). The year before (and perhaps the year after), s/he travels to three different local districts (visiting each once per month) and meets with those enrolled in the course. Course discussions go on by e-mail throughout the year. Developing and managing the program takes the place of one of the faculty member's courses during the regular academic year.

Site-based program for trainers

A school or a district contracts with the College to develop a local cadre of specialist-trainers on a particular theme (see above). The program meets in a school one afternoon per week, and draws teachers from other schools in the district. Two faculty members take that as half of their regular teaching assignment for the year.

Cohort-based program on teacher leadership

A group of faculty create a cohort-based program for a small cadre of "teacher-leaders," who are jointly identified with participation by Partner Schools. They agree to work on projects related to reform efforts in their schools, enlist other teachers, and come periodically to campus for special programs during the academic year. In the summer, there is an intensive seminar for them on campus, in which faculty from other parts of the UW join. The program continues for several years, with a number of teacher participating for multi-year periods.

Degree offered via distance education

The College makes arrangements with a consortium of districts to offer a full masters degree program via distance learning, with opportunities for teachers to gather in groups at schools in the districts, come to campus for intensive workshops during the summer, and work on relevant projects. Several faculty members design materials, coordinate activities, and organize the summer workshops.

Implications

Any one of these options suggests larger issues of college organization and the structure of our degree programs that we would need to consider. Creating new programs that do not extend us in too many new directions would require thoughtful planning, and perhaps some consolidation among existing courses or programs. If there are ways of reconfiguring ourselves to meet this new challenge (as we did, for example, in redesigning our initial teacher certification program), we should think about them as part of the package.

An Initiative "Distinctively for Seattle"?

Given the interest that has grown up recently in the UW community around the issue of K-12 teachers' continuing professional development, and the apparently high level of enthusiasm for joint activities and partnerships that we continue to see among our audiences of practitioners, it may make sense to consider a broad, university-based initiative. Such a program, perhaps modeled after the Berkeley Pledge or the University of Illinois -Chicago Great Cities Program, could accomplish several goals; it could:

• Bring together faculty from the College of Education with faculty from other parts of the UW.
• Provide an umbrella for varied activities, giving us a way to think about them jointly and allowing them to be linked together in the public eye.
• Allow us to join with other major initiatives undertaken by local civic and municipal groups, such as the new Forward Seattle program (Seattle Times, August 31, 1997).
• Offer a distinctive theme that would be attractive both locally and nationally, something that could capitalize on the specifics of the region (Pacific Rim?), its economy (science, technology, and "high tech"?), or its environment ("Cascadia"?)

Doing this would require close interaction with our colleagues in other parts of the University, as well as careful consultation with outside publics (schools, districts, the unions, OSPI, relevant local groups concerned about educational issues). It would also require a level of coordination among the UW's activities and programs that does not currently exist. There would be some costs in terms of slightly reduced autonomy for individual faculty, but considerable gains in terms of the unified face that the UW could present to the public on these questions.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

1. What are the implications of a new professional development program for teachers on the work and organization of the UW College of Education?

2. Would it be valuable to develop a broad theme for a program of teachers' continuing professional development? If so, what and how?

3. How should we decide what a program would look like, and how should we organize ourselves to bring it into being?

 

Feedback on this report is welcome! Please send replies to:

Steve Kerr

Professor, College of Education

115 Miller Hall Box 353600

UofW Seattle, WA 98195

(206) 543-1847

stkerr@u.washington.edu

Back to Kerr's Home Page