Meet the Promise of Content Standards

7/31/2019 Meet the Promise of Content Standards

1/44

Jll Kll

Meet theproMise ocontentstandards:

Proessionallearningrequired

A Learning Forward Initiative


2/44

Learning Forward

504 S. Locust St.Oxord, OH 45056513-523-6029800-727-7288Fax: 513-523-0638E-mail: [email protected]

Author and project director: Joellen KillionEditor: racy CrowDesigner: Brian DeepLearning Forward, 2012. All rights reserved.

Killion, J. (2012).Meet the promise o content standards: Proessionallearning required. Oxord, OH: Learning Forward.

Meet the proMise o content standards: Proessional learning required
mailto:office%40learningforward.org?subject=http://www.learningforward.org/http://www.learningforward.org/mailto:office%40learningforward.org?subject=


3/44

Learning Forwards ransorming Proessional Learning to PrepareCollege- and Career-Ready Students: Implementing the Common Coreis amultidimensional initiative ocused on developing a comprehensive sys-tem o proessional learning that spans the distance rom the statehouse

to the classroom. Te project will reorm policy and practice and ap-ply innovative technology solutions to support and enhance proessionallearning. With an immediate ocus on implementing Common CoreState Standards and new assessments, the initiative provides resourcesand tools to assist states, districts, and schools in providing eective pro-essional learning or current and uture education reorms.

Tis work is supported by Sandler Foundation, the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation, and MetLie Foundation. Learn more atwww.learningorward.org/advancing/implementingthecommoncore.cm.

http://www.learningforward.org/advancing/implementingthecommoncore.cfmhttp://www.learningforward.org/advancing/implementingthecommoncore.cfm


4/44



5/44

1

Meet the proMise of content standards: Professional learning required

J

orge walked slowly toward the ront door o JacksonMiddle School or the rst day o school. It was his

ourth school since he began school as a third grader.Te bell rang, and along with nearly a thousand oth-

ers, Jorge began another school year. He knew he hopedhe would t in, do okay in his classes, and stay out otrouble. He hoped his teachers would be helpul. So ar,his experience didnt give him much hope.

He walked down the long hallway, up the stairs, and into Mr.Schultzs homeroom. Schultz greeted him with a hearty welcome andinvited Jorge to choose a seat. Soon the room lled with the noisy pres-

ence o 27 other 7th graders.Mr. Schultz called the group o students to attention and beganto tell them that middle school would be both un and challenging.My mission as your advisor, said Schultz, is to be sure that everysingle one o you nishes school ready or a career or college, whicheveryou choose. I expect every one o you to get nothing less than a B inevery class. I your grades are lower, I will personally tutor and supportyou until the grade comes up. Tis didnt sound like what other teach-ers had said to Jorge beore.

Mr. Schultz asked students to write down what they wanted toaccomplish in 7th grade and to prepare to read it aloud. Panic struck

Jorge. Write and read aloud. Soon everyone would realize how muchhe struggled with English. Ater about ve minutes, Mr. Schultz an-nounced it was time to begin. He indicated that goals change over timeso students could change theirs i necessary. He also said they wereresponsible or helping one another achieve their goals so they were tolisten careully to the goals other students wrote. Lastly, he said, stu-dents would be accountable or their goals and that he expected themto report in at least every three weeks about how they were meetingtheir goals.

Next, in a complete surprise, Mr. Schultz repeated what he saidin broken Spanish. He them invited Jesmilla to share her goals in espa-ol. Jorge, whose eyes were already wide open, looked across the roomas Jesmilla stood and read her goals in Spanish and then repeated themin English. Mr. Schultz took notes, smiled at Jesmilla encouragingly,and assured her that her goals were both loty and doable i she com-mitted to work hard this year. Next Schultz called Jorge. With somehesitation, Jorge stood, as Jesmilla had, and read his goals in English.Mr. Schultz nodded, smiled, and responded in Spanish congratulating


6/44


2

him or using English and letting him know that is was okay to speakin Spanish wherever he wanted. I might not understand you at rst,however, i you help me, Ill be able to understand everything you said.

My Spanish is not as good as your English. I hope I can learn romyou.

Richard Schultz was a 20-year veteran teacher o social studies.Over the length o his career, students in his school were increasinglymore diverse than they had been when he began in the school. Te pre-vious year, the state required all school districts to implement the newstate college- and career-ready academic standards. Most o Schultzscolleagues in the social studies department were shocked to learn thatthey would be expected to embed more literacy into their curriculumand instruction especially since social studies was not a tested subject.

Teir surprise was coupled with rustration when the new educatoreectiveness system was introduced and student perormance on stateassessments, even in subjects not tested in the past, would be a portiono the criteria or each teachers perormance review.

During the summer beore the ocial implementation, Schul-tz participated in curriculum remodeling, seven days o proessionallearning to experience rsthand the changes in classroom curriculumand instruction that included time or teachers to work to plan severalunits using the new curriculum. Schultz chose to work on the team oteachers who ocused on meeting the needs o ELL students. One othe key principles underlying the work o Schultzs team was meeting

students on a personal level. Tey created ormative assessments, units,lessons, and adaptations to other teams products. Tey screened printand electronic resources to select instructional resources that wouldmeet various levels o language prociency. Tey particularly stressedacademic language or social studies and developed a list o key con-cept terms they wanted all students to master or reading and writingabout social studies.

Schultz, like Jorge, elt apprehensive about what was ahead orthe school year because so much was new and so much o it high-stakeschange, or him and his students. Schultz was comorted in know-ing he would have opportunities during weekly collaborative learningteams and monthly districtwide learning teams to learn with his col-leagues as they revamped what they developed in the summer, addedmore lessons, units, and assessments, shared samples o student work,and continued to expand their knowledge, skills, and practices relatedto the new academic content standards and the requisite instructionalshits. He wanted to use his own experience to create the same level ocomort or his students as they started a new school year, one in whichthey too aced a good deal o change.


7/44

3


Jorges and Schultzs stories play out inschools nationwide. Meeting the uniqueand diverse needs o students challengeseducators daily. And, the demand or

improvement increases at the same pace.Enormous eorts are underway in schoolsystems and state agencies across the coun-try to design and implement multiple, high-stakes changes in educator eectiveness sys-tems, college- and career-ready standards,and assessments. Tese changes bring both

anticipation or promising results or all stu-dents and anxiety about implementing suchproound change in such a short time. Alongwith broad-based support or these changesare debates in schoolhouses and statehous-es about the scope, speed, and costs o thechanges.

From this landscape emerges a strongconsensus about the importance o eective,well-prepared educators who have signicant

roles in the success o each reorm eort. Nearly every conversation orpresentation about implementing college- and career-ready standards,educator eectiveness systems, or new assessment systems quickly co-alesces on this one premise: Te success o these initiatives depends onthe capacity o educators, particularly teachers and principals, who areully responsible or implementing them as a routine part o their dailywork.

Policy makers, decision makers, elected ocials, and educatorsthemselves agree that ull implementation o the college- and career-ready standards, resulting new curricula, new assessments, and educa-tor eectiveness systems requires extensive proessional learning. It is

clear that these changes cannot wait or a new generation o teachersand school administrators to emerge rom teacher and principal prepa-ration programs. eachers and principals who are employed in schoolsneed intensive and ongoing proessional learning to develop and re-


8/44


9/44

5


development, create research-based standards or proessional develop-

ment, use teacher evaluation and student achievement data to ocusindividual proessional development, and establish systems to incentiv-ize proessional development (Grossman, 2009). Te National Associa-tion o State Boards o Education (2011) asserts, For the transition [tocollege- and career ready standards] to be successul, both horizontaland vertical alignment between education entities must occur. Currentteachers must receive extensive proessional development on the Com-mon Core standards, curricular materials, and strategies on teachingthese standards that now require students to delve deeper and developcritical thinking and analytical skills that previous standards did notadequately address. As an initial step, states have been holding educator

academies, training sessions, and other inormation sessions through-out their states to inorm current teachers about the new standards.Continuous proessional learning must occur or all teachers on how toeectively teach the contents o the Common Core to diverse learnersto provide students with the knowledge and skills to be successul uponhigh school graduation (p. 18). All o the high-perorming countrieshave not only developed high academic standards and matching as-sessments, as well as rst-rate curriculum to which the assessments arealigned, but they have also worked very hard to develop a high qualityteaching orce, concludes Marc ucker (2012). It will not matter what

the mathematics standards or students are i many o their teacherscannot meet them. It will not matter what our writing standards arei many o our teachers cannot themselves write well. It will avail usnothing i we require our students to reason well, to be really good atsynthesizing inormation rom many sources in a creative way and toanalyze complex data and come up with an original solution, but wehave ailed to make sure that their teachers can do these things. Imple-menting the standards cannot simply mean inorming teachers aboutwhat the designers o the standards intended or providing them withvideos o teachers teaching the standards well. I that is what it endsup meaning, we can expect very little rom the implementation o the

Common Core State Standards.Tis call or extensive, high-quality proessional learning comes

at a time when teachers report a decline in opportunities or proes-


10/44


6

sional learning; time available or collaborating and planning with

peers is minimal; teachers are challenged by less job security and senseo satisaction; and they have ewer resources, programs, and servicesto access to support them (MetLie, 2012). In the extensive teachersurveyPrimary Sources: 2012, most teachers indicate that they are notready to implement the Common Core. While a majority o teachers(78%) are aware o the Common Core State Standards, many do notyet eel prepared to teach to these new standards (p. 18). Tey espe-

cially note a strong need or proessionallearning ocused on what the new stan-dards require, how to teach aspects o thestandards that are new to them, and how

to address the needs o their diverse stu-dents, especially English language learnersand students with disabilities. eacherstell us they need more tangible learningresources like instructional materials, in-cluding workbooks, technology, sotwareprograms, textbooks, and mixed me-dia content in classrooms, and many saythey need teacher training to help themlearn best practices and master strategies

to dierentiate their teaching practices toinstruct and engage students in the bestpossible ways (Scholastic & Bill & Me-linda Gates Foundation, p. 50). eachersalso indicate that proessional learning has

a strong or very strong impact on improving student achievement. Inaddition, teachers call or supportive school leaders. Over 90% o therespondents indicated that supportive leadership has a strong impact onstudent achievement and teacher retention. Both principals and teach-ers have extensive learning needs.

Te importance o eective proessional learning is evident in

successul reorm eorts. In study ater study o schools or school sys-tems that have made substantive improvements, proessional learningemerges as one o several core actors contributing to success (Bryk,Sebring, & Allensworth, 2010; Silva, 2008; Charles A. Dana Center,2009). Te quality o an education system, state Sir Michael Barber

It will avail us nothing

i we require our studentsto reason well, to be reallygood at synthesizing inor-mation rom many sourcesin a creative way and to ana-lyze complex data and comeup with an original solution,but we have ailed to make

sure that their teachers cando these things.


11/44

7


and Mona Mourshed, cannot exceed the quality o its teachers (2007,

p. 16). Without continuous learning o those who work in them, sys-tems cannot learn and improve. A decade ago, Richard Elmore wroteabout the move to new standards:

With increased accountability, American schools and thepeople who work in them are being asked to do something newto engage in systematic, continuous improvement in the qualityo the educational experience o students and to subject them-selves to the discipline o measuring their success by the metrico students academic perormance. Most people who currentlywork in public schools werent hired to do this work, nor have

they been adequately prepared to do it either by their proessionaleducation or by their prior experience in schools. Schools, as or-ganizations, arent designed as places where people are expectedto engage in sustained improvement o their practice, where theyare supported in this improvement, or where they are expected tosubject their practice to the scrutiny o peers or the discipline oevaluations based on student achievement. Educators in schoolswith the most severe perormance problems ace truly challeng-ing conditions, or which their prior training and experience havenot prepared themextreme poverty, unprecedented culturaland language diversity and unstable amily and community pat-

terns (2002, p. 2).

Tese words ring as true today as they did in 2002. Te advan-tage in 2012 is that researchers and educators have coalesced around acommon understanding about eective proessional learning that ema-nates rom research and evidence-based practices. oday, unlike a de-cade ago, educators are equipped with a deeper understanding o whatdistinguishes eective proessional learning that results in changes inteacher practices and student achievement rom less eective orms.Educators know that past practices o proessional learning will do littleto prepare them to meet the demands o new initiatives. Tey can look

at common practices o episodic educator learning, such as one-size-ts-all, short-term workshops that happen away rom schools withoutschool-based ollow-up support and they understand the related paucityo evidence about the impact o proessional learning on practice orstudent achievement.


12/44


8

Nearly two decades ago, Judith Warren Little (1993) suggested

that the traditional, training model o proessional learning so muchin practice then and still today, was based on the wrong assumptionthat a discrete, clearly dened body o knowledge and skills could betranserred rom trainer to teacher. While we have research-based evi-dence about what constitutes eective teaching practices and are arbetter able to identiy them in practice, the mere transer o knowl-edge and skills is inadequate to address the complexity o the task oteaching, especially the teaching essential to bring all students to highacademic standards. She called then or a variety o approaches thatreached well beyond training to help teachers understand the dicultyand complexity o implementing new practices. She also questioned

whether externally developed solutions would produce results in everyclassroom.

As educators and policy and decision makers ace the challengeo providing proessional learning to ensure ull implementation o thechanges in content standards, assessment, and educator evaluation,they need to look back over past eorts in training and developmentto realize that those practices will not achieve the deep transormationin classrooms and schools nationwide. Te challenge now is to imple-ment what educators know about eective proessional learning so thatthe promise o Common Core State Standards, new assessments, and

educator eectiveness systems can be realized.Schools, school systems, and state agencies must look anew attheir approach to proessional learning and ask some dicult questionsabout what drives their decisions about proessional learning.

Are we structuring proessional learning as we currently are be-cause it allows us to say we have provided proessional learningor do we have condence that our current approach and theoryo change is a research-based pathway to deep transormation ineducator practice leading to increased student achievement?

o what degree does our proessional learning establish a long-term plan or continuous learning, ongoing renement o educa-tor practice, classroom- and school-based support to move rom


13/44

9


knowing about to ull and rened implementation o Com-

mon Core State Standards to provide each student equitable op-portunity or academic success?

How will we use proessional learning and proessional collabora-tion to reduce variance in opportunity to learn rom classroom toclassroom, school to school, district to district, and state to state?

How does our current proessional learning contribute to build-ing a school culture o collective responsibility and shared ac-countability or student achievement?

How does our current proessional learning system address eq-

uity or student and educator learning through resource alloca-tion, design o proessional learning, and high expectations andsupport or implementation o learning?

How does our current or emerging educator eectiveness systemintegrate proessional learning supports to strengthen individualteachers at various career stages and with dierentiated needsand to support school and district goals and program implemen-tation?Current state and district approaches to proessional learning

vary widely. Most can be best described as awareness. While these e-

orts establish the oundational knowledge, knowledge building allsar short o providing the extensive and transormative proessionallearning required or ull implementation o the new standards andassessments. Research conrms that little will change with awarenessbuilding alone. Moving new learning to practice with delity and reg-ularity, according to Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers (2002), requiresve dimensions o proessional learningtheory building, demonstra-tion, low-risk practice, eedback, and coaching.

With the timeline narrowing or ull implementation, the degreeo change expected substantial, and the pace o implementation eorts

accelerating, schools, districts, and states must move quickly and de-cisively beyond awareness building into practice changing proessionallearning to prepare and support educators or the transormation.


14/44


10

assumPtions about eectiveProessional learning

A

number o principles underlie the callor proessional learning as a driver or

ull implementation o Common CoreState Standards, new assessments, andeducator eectiveness systems.

cg qu lg. Change meansthat people think and act dierently. Forchange to occur, people need inormation,skills, and dispositions to sustain their eort,and consistent practices that align with theintended change. Implementation o Com-mon Core State Standards, new assessments,

and new evaluation systems require signi-cant learning. For teachers alone, the newcontent standards require more extensive use o certain, less amiliarinstructional practices; deep content knowledge; multiple strategies orormative assessment; extensive inusion o technology to personalizelearning; and expanded ways to access and use resources. Te tablebelow provides a summary o how instruction will change with imple-mentation o Common Core.

Content standards and new assessments necessitate dierentkinds o learning experiences and environments or students. In a re-cent study, William Schmidt o Michigan State University reported on

how prepared teachers eel to address the topics included in the newmathematics standards. Te range is about 50% o elementary teachers,about 60% o middle school teachers, and about 70% o high schoolteachers report eeling prepared to meet the new standards. Yet paral-lel ndings send up some alarms. Eighty percent o teachers nd the


15/44

11


iul p cll cmm c

egl Lgug a/Ly Mm

b xp y

y x.

w

p.

b kw p

y xp

-p x.

c p

w

.

i pxy

w -

x p w

- -y y.

dp fy

p p y.

u x w

x y -

w.

dp p

pp p ppp ppy

w .

W

k pp .

appy p w

y .

sy y

p .

exp y

p.

Adapted rom http://engageny.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/instructional_shifts.pdf.
http://engageny.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/instructional_shifts.pdfhttp://engageny.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/instructional_shifts.pdfhttp://engageny.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/instructional_shifts.pdf


16/44


12

Common Core math standards pretty much the same as what they

currently teach and only one ourth would drop a topic rom their cur-rent classroom curriculum i a topic appears at a dierent grade level inthe new standards (Schmidt, 2012). Tese ndings suggest that class-room practices may not change to the degree necessary to ully imple-ment the new standards i the perception exists that they are similar toexisting curriculum. In an analysis o state standards, Schmidt identi-ed a wide-range alignment (66%-83%) with existing state standards.

Te standards ocus on students construction o new under-standing and application o that understanding in authentic situations.eachers will need to employ instructional strategies that integratecritical and creative thinking, collaboration, problem solving, research

and inquiry skills, and presentation or demonstration skills. Tese in-structional practices are not a routine part o all classrooms currently.o create dynamic, engaging, high-level learning or students, teach-ers expertise must expand well beyond basic content knowledge andpedagogy. As teachers make the shit to integrate more instructionalpractices and learning tasks that engage students in constructing andapplying learning, they will benet rom clear expectations about thedegree o implementation, rm understanding o what it means to im-plement these instructional practices, and intensive proessional learn-ing that includes modeling and coaching with constructive eedback.

Schmidt (2012) acknowledges that the relationship between standardsand student achievement is infuenced by three actors, one o which isproessional development sponsored or authorized by states.

Principals too need to understand the instructional practicesaligned with the Common Core standards as well as be prepared tomanage the change process, communicate expectations, build supportsystems that dierentiate support, monitor and measure implementa-tion and results, execute air and reliable evaluations, provide appro-priate interventions, and realign resources. Central oce leaders needsimilar change management competencies in addition to expertise ininstruction, assessment, curriculum, communication with multiple

stakeholders, monitoring and evaluation implementation and results,and providing dierentiated support to schools.


17/44

13


s v v l lg. Over the last 10

years, multiple studies provide a solid oundation o the attributes oeective proessional learning (Blank & de las Alas, 2009; Blank, de lasAlas, & Smith, 2008; Borko, 2004; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, &Birman, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Jac-quith, Mindich, Wei, & Darling-Hammond, 2010; Putnam & Borko,2000; Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009; Wei, Darling-Ham-mond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Wei, Darling-Ham-mond, & Adamson, 2010; Yoon, Duncan, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007).

Te attributes o eective proessional learning are summarized inthe Standards or Proessional Learning, a consensus document basedon this body o research and developed through the collaboration o 20proessional associations and more than 15 experts in the eld o proes-sional learning (Learning Forward, 2011). Te standards highlight theseven core characteristics o proessional learning that results in changesin educator practice and student achievement. Te standards are the es-sential elements o proessional learning that unction in synergy to en-able educators to increase their eectiveness and student learning. All el-ements are essential to realize the ull potential o educator proessionallearning. Te Standards or Proessional Learning describe the attributeso eective proessional learning to guide the decisions and practices oall persons with responsibility to und, regulate, manage, conceive, orga-

nize, implement, and evaluate proessional learning (p. 14).pl lg mull u. Proes-sional learning serves three distinct unctions: to improve individualperormance; to improve school perormance; and to implement newinitiatives. In an analysis o the unctions o proessional learning, Mi-chael Garet, Meredith Ludwig, Kwang Yoon, Andrew Wayne, BeatriceBirman, and Andrew Milanowski (2011) ramed a conceptual modelor proessional learning building on earlier work by Rowan, Correnti,Miller, & Camburn (2009) that identies three purposes or proes-sional learning. Each purpose has a distinct role in a comprehensive

approach to proessional learning, yet oten are imbalanced in practice,resourced dierently, and clearly produce uneven results. Full imple-


18/44


14

mentation o any major initiative requires a delicate balance o all threepurposes as a part o a comprehensive system o proessional learning.How a district or state balances its approach to these purposes will

likely infuence the results they achieve.Individual teacher eectiveness. Improving individual perormance isone approach to proessional learning. It is the core o most states edu-cator eectiveness systems. Tis strategic approach places particularemphasis on aligning PD with the teacher evaluation and compensa-tion system. . . Tis strategic approach requires evaluating the strengthsand weaknesses o the perormance o individual teachers, identiyingPD opportunities to address weaknesses or build on strengths, andmonitoring the results to determine whether expected improvementsoccur (Garet et al., 2011, p. 16). Alone, this approach is insucient to

achieve implementation o new initiatives in an eective and ecientmanner.

School capacity building. o improve a whole school requires a cohe-sive, collaborative eort o the sta within the school. A second ap-proach a district may include in its overall strategy or PD is to ocusPD activities at the school level. Tis strategic PD approach stressesimproving each schools capacity to use data to identiy areas o weak-ness and to build each schools capacity to provide schoolwide supportto improve perormance in identied areas. Te approach requires theschool to be active in the development and use o data and to be a part-

ner with the district, working within the overall district plan or PDand improvement (Garet et al., 21). Individual eorts many contributeto urther ragmentation and either derail eorts to achieve schoolwidegoals or substantially slow down the process.

Program implementation. A third strategy or deploying PD empha-sizes the role o PD in supporting the implementation o specic cur-ricula, instructional approaches, school reorm programs, assessments,or technologies. . . From this perspective, the ocus is on instructionalor curricular materials being implemented district or schoolwide andon the instructional strategies underlying these materials, under the

assumption that the materials will support improved student achieve-ment. In this approach, PD is a strategy designed to acilitate high qual-ity and consistent implementation o the adopted programs, curricula,or materials across adopting schools and teachers within the schools(Garet et al., p. 24). Implementing innovation requires a systemwide


19/44

15


eort to achieve ull and aithul use o the innovation. Without a sys-temwide approach to proessional learning, inequities in opportunityto learn and inconsistency in practice are likely to emerge.

cmmm quy u u ll u. Toseresponsible or proessional learning must consider the learning needso students as the primary driver or proessional learning. While ed-ucators in high-poverty schools and districts tend to have more op-portunity or proessional learning (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree,Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adam-son, 2010), the kind o proessional learning they experience is unda-mentally dierent. It is oten more traditional in the orm o coursesor workshops requently away rom school, provided by external agen-cies, and includes less opportunity or collaborative, inormal learning

among peers. For all students to achieve college- and career-readiness,more proessional learning and the resources to support it will be need-ed in some schools and districts and or some educators who work withstudents who are English language learners, have special needs, or haveacademic challenges.

ev l lg bl-

y. Individual educators, school and district leaders, regionaland state education agencies, institutes o higher education,ederal government, private and public oundation, and non-prot and or-prot education organization share responsibil-ity or eective proessional learning. Practices o proessionallearning vary widely when authority and responsibility areundened. o minimize inequity in quality, access to, andresults rom proessional learning, educators and other gov-erning agencies must collaborate to advocate, implement,and monitor the quality and results o proessional learning.Fundamentally, i proessional learning is to be a signicantlever in implementing Common Core State Standards, newassessments, and educator eectiveness systems, it is essentialthat policy and practice align with research about eectiveproessional learning. Educators must also take an active role

in monitoring proessional learning, advocating standards orquality, and demanding results in student achievement, notmerely in satisaction with the learning experience. Tis be-comes both a practice and ethics challenge to participants,managers, and providers o proessional learning.


20/44


16

eective Proessional learning

F

or nearly two decades, the consen-sus has been building about eectiveproessional learning. wo resourcesprovide summaries o these attributes.

Te rst is Learning Forwards denitiono proessional learning that acknowledgesthat proessional learning includes bothormal and job-embedded components andis closely tied to the expected outcomes orstudent learning. Te second resource is Standards or ProessionalLearning. Both oer guidance to schools, school systems, and stateagencies on shaping a comprehensive system o proessional learning.

Proessional development, in the consensus view, should be de-

signed to develop the capacity o teachers to work collectively on prob-lems o practice, within their own schools and with practitioners inother settings, as much as to support the knowledge and skill develop-ment o individual educators. Tis view derives rom the assumptionthat learning is essentially a collaborative, rather than an individualactivityand that the essential purpose o proessional developmentshould be the improvement o schools and school systems, not just theimprovement o the individuals who work in them (Elmore, p. 8).

df l lg. Te denition provides struc-ture to job-embedded proessional learning by dening the process

o continuous improvement that serves as the basis or the work incommunities o practice or proessional learning communities withinschools. Te denition also recognizes that, while the school is theprimary center o learning, added support or school-based learningcomes rom external agencies, requently state departments o educa-tion in the case o Common Core.


21/44

17


Proessional development osters collective responsibility or improved stu-dent perormance and must be comprised o proessional learning that:

is aligned with rigorous state student academic achievement standards as

well as related local educational agency and school improvement goals; is conducted among educators at the school and acilitated by well-pre-

pared school principals and/or school-based proessional developmentcoaches, mentors, master teachers, or other teacher leaders;

primarily occurs several times per week among established teamso teachers, principals, and other instructional sta members wherethe teams o educators engage in a continuous cycle o improvementthat

- evaluates student, teacher, and school learning needs through a thor-ough review o data on teacher and student perormance;

- denes a clear set o educator learning goals based on the rigorousanalysis o the data;

- achieves the educator learning goals identied in subsection (A)(3)(ii) by implementing coherent, sustained, and evidenced-based learn-ing strategies, such as lesson study and the development o orma-tive assessments, that improve instructional eectiveness and studentachievement;

- provides job-embedded coaching or other orms o assistance to sup-port the transer o new knowledge and skills to the classroom;

- regularly assesses the eectiveness o the proessional development inachieving identied learning goals, improving teaching, and assistingall students in meeting challenging state academic achievement stan-dards;

- inorms ongoing improvements in teaching and student learning; and

- that may be supported by external assistance.

Te process outlined in (A) may be supported by activities such as courses,workshops, institutes, networks, and conerences that:

must address the learning goals and objectives established or proessional

development by educators at the school level; advance the ongoing school-based proessional development; and

are provided by or-prot and nonprot entities outside the school suchas universities, education service agencies, technical assistance providers,networks o content-area specialists, and other education organizationsand associations.

proessionaLdeVeLopMent

The term

proessional

development

means a

comprehensive,

sustained,

and intensive

approach to

improving

teachers and

principals

efectiveness in

raising student

achievement


22/44


18

Te denition highlights the importance o school-based proes-

sional learning ocused on teaching and learning aligned with studentcontent standards. School-based proessional learning promotes greaterconsistency in instruction, taps the expertise within schools, contrib-utes to vertical alignment o a curriculum, and oers sustained sup-port over time or continued renement o instruction that leads toincreased student achievement.

Little doubt exists that Common Core State Standards and theirnew assessments call or a dramatic shit in instruction and will requireextensive work in content development and content-specic pedagogy,as well as pedagogical content knowledge, understanding how studentslearn a discipline. o provide such extensive proessional learning,

school systems and state education agencies need to build a compre-hensive system o proessional learning that addresses both externallydriven proessional learning as well as substantive job-embedded learn-ing to support application o new learning in practice. In addition,implementation o educator eectiveness systems call or individuallyocused proessional learning to address educators unique learningneeds. Districts and state agencies need to establish policy, practices,and support systems to assist leaders to build and implement systemswith adequate resources, ensure that resources and quality systems areequitably distributed, monitor them or quality and results, and ensure

continuous improvement o the proessional learning system.s l lg. Just as the Common CoreState Standards establish rigorous expectations or the learning o allstudents and dene the expected outcomes, the Standards or Proes-sional Learning describe what eective learning or educators lookslike and what its core components are. Standards provide guidance orplanning, implementing, and evaluating proessional learning. Revisedin 2011, the standards have guided proessional learning since theywere rst introduced in 1994. Nearly 35 states adopted or adapted thestandards. Te standards provide indicators o quality to help both a-

cilitators o proessional learning, those who manage it, and those whoengage in it advocate and implement eective practice.


23/44

19


Lg cmmuProessional learning that increases educator eectiveness and results orall students occurs within learning communities committed to continuousimprovement, collective responsibility, and goal alignment.

Proessional learning that intends to change practice and increasestudent achievement occurs within communities o learners who sharegoals aligned with the school and school system and aligned with statepriorities. Community members engage in collaborative learning to in-orm the shared work that is requently a part o the community. Teycreate a culture o collaboration and collective responsibility that holds

all members o the community responsible or the success o all stu-dents represented by the community members.


24/44


20

L

Proessional learning that increases educator eectiveness and results or allstudents requires skillul leaders who develop capacity, advocate, and createsupport systems or proessional learning.

Leaders matter. Conditions in which proessional learning occursmatter. Leaders shape the conditions within their schools and schoolsystems. Tey both model and advocate eective proessional learningand the conditions in which it exists. Tey take an active role in sup-porting learning and in developing the capacity o teachers to acilitateproessional learning among their peers. Leaders have a undamentalresponsibility to provide intellectual stimulation and rigorous learning

experiences or their sta (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,2004). Leaders, both administrators and teacher leaders, are vital to thesuccess o continuous improvement.

ru

Proessional learning that increases educator eectiveness and results or allstudents requires prioritizing, monitoring, and coordinating resources oreducator learning.

Few educators agree that there are adequate resources (time, sta,

technology, unding, and materials) or proessional learning. Elmore(2002) writes,

[Te] discipline o improvement requires major changes inthe way schools and school systems manage the resourcesthey already have: the time o teachers and administrators;the practices refected in existing stang patterns; admin-istrative overhead; and, the resources already being spent,largely ineectively, on proessional developmentbeorewe can tell how much additional money is needed to en-gage in large-scale improvement. Tis is more than a low-

level accounting exercise; it is undamental to the entireprocess o improvement. Adding money to a system thatdoesnt know how to manage its own resources eectively


25/44

21


means that the new money will be spent the same way as

the old money (p. 31).

Both states and school systems can take immediate action to im-prove resources or proessional learning by analyzing what resourcesare available, assessing how the available resources are used, and re-aligning those resources to support high-priority areas.

d

Proessional learning that increases educator eectiveness and results or allstudents uses a variety o sources and types o student, educator, and system

data to plan, assess, and evaluate proessional learning.Data drive the content and inorm the measurement o proes-

sional learning. Data about students, teachers, principals, and systemsinorm decisions about the purpose and content o proessional learn-ing. When proessional learning starts with an analysis o data aboutstudents and educators, it will more closely meet the unique needs oeducators and their students by personalizing learning or individualand teams o educators. Data also provide evidence o progress andeects o proessional learning. Formative and summative evaluationo proessional learning osters continuous improvement to strengthenresults.

Lg dg

Proessional learning that increases educator eectiveness and results orall students integrates theories, research, and models o human learning toachieve its intended outcomes.

Te instructional shits called or in Common Core State Stan-dards require a dierent kind o proessional learningone that im-merses educators in learning experiences that mirror what they areexpected to create or their students. oo inrequently, the design o

learning or adults ails to consider its intended outcomes, the learningpreerences o adult learners, and the conditions in which their learningoccurs. oo much proessional learning depends on one-size-ts-all,short-term, pull-out, knowledge-ocused, expert-led learning experi-


26/44


22

ences such as workshops or courses taught with one or two instruc-

tional methodologies. Tese learning experiences leave educators tomanage independently the harder part o the learning processtrans-erring the knowledge to practice within their workplaces. Learningcannot be bound by the length o a workshop or course. It is a continu-ous process o examining data, setting goals, identiying learning oci,engaging in learning, implementing the learning, analyzing the resultso implementation, evaluating the learning process, and repeating thecycle again multiple times within a single school year. Engaging in thiscycle o continuous learning at school, in collaborative teams, ocusedon student learning is increasingly proving to be an eective approachto proessional learning (Saunders, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 2009).

School-based learning is enhanced when paired with periodic exter-nally driven proessional learning that aligns with the identied needso students and educators. Eective proessional learning incorporatesboth macro learning, learning ocused on knowledge and skills acqui-sition, and micro learning, learning emerging rom application andrefection on practice (Curry & Killion, 2009).

imlm

Proessional learning that increases educator eectiveness and results or all

students applies research on change and sustains support or implementa-tion o proessional learning or long-term change.

Participating in proessional learning has traditionally meant at-tending a learning event oten outside the school or outside the schoolday. oday, evidence-based practice and research recognize that learn-ing continues through implementation and renement o practice. Alltoo oten, though, the support or implementation, a signicant parto the learning process, is absent. Proessional learning only produceseects in educator practice and student learning when the learning isully and accurately implemented into routine practice. Yet, despite


27/44

23


nearly three decades o research to the contrary (Joyce & Showers,

2002; Hall & Hord, 2011), proessional learning is viewed as a serieso learning events rather than a system o continuous learning thatincludes substantial support or implementation with constructiveeedback to rene and strengthen practice. Without implementationsupport, educators may have insucient knowledge and will to solveproblems o practices and will resort to what they know and nd com-ortable.

oum

Proessional learning that increases educator eectiveness and results or allstudents aligns its outcomes with educator perormance and student cur-riculum standards.

When proessional learning is disconnected rom the goals oschool systems, schools, and educators it has little opportunity to im-prove results. Aligning the outcomes o proessional learning with theoutcomes expected or students and educators and weaving strong co-herence into the system through this alignment means that eorts areall ocused on the same end resultseective educators and success-ul students. What constitutes an eective educator is dened in stateand district educator eectiveness systems, states licensure standards,

and national model standards such as InASC and ISLLC. Proes-sional learning becomes the vehicle or supporting educators in meet-ing these standards early in their career and in extending and reningpractice throughout their career to achieve high levels o perormanceand advance along career pathways. Yet, proessional learning cannotbe ocused only on educator perormance standards. It must developcapacity or educators to use the knowledge, skills, and dispositionsto support students in achieving college- and career-ready standards.Te seamlessness o a ully integrated system o proessional learningweaves both student and educators standards into a coherent whole.


28/44


24

Standards, Kaye Tompson Peters, a veteran St. Paul,

Minnesota teacher, writes about her experience in pro-essional learning and how it shited her view aboutCommon Core. She joined a district work team to besure the standards did no harm. Te team o teach-ers began with what is called a gap analysis wherewe compared the standards we had been governed byto the new standards. Te group o teachers met overthe summer to decide how we would sequence whatwere initially called products required by the Com-mon Core (narrative, literary, argumentative, andinormative essays and research and media projects)

and to begin writing sample lesson plans. We tetheredthe standards to the products and created supportingunits that ensured all o the standards were addressed.. . We disagreed and debated over how much weightto give to inormational text and whether literarynon-ction, such as memoir, counted as non-ctionunder the new guidelines. (Peters, 2012, March 19)

Peters continues the description o her learningprocess. She participated in a conerence session thenext all led by David Coleman, an oten-criticized

writer o the ELA standards. Coleman led a groupo teachers through an exploration o two poems thattrumped any previous workshop experience I haveknown. It was a masterul example o the power otext-based learning. He did not tell anyone what any-thing meant. He asked us to think. . . []hat ater-noon in November, he had a room o 100+ educatorsjoyully explicating Dylan Tomas and learning roma poem they thought they knew. Science teachersjoined in to help us understand the signicance o the

light imagery. It was a perect moment where teach-ers experienced the joy o learning, the experience wehope to bring to every child (2012, March 20).

Tese examples demonstrate many eatures oeective proessional learning. eachers were active-ly engaged in the learning rom experts ocused onimplementing the Common Core standards in their

ev l lg

wo real-lie examples o proessional learning

described here weave together some o the elements oeective proessional learning described above. Teseexamples demonstrate proessional learning moveswell beyond knowing about to implementing ul-ly, where leaders provide ongoing support to teachersto support them in implementing the standards. Teproessional learning blends a combination o expert-led and teacher-driven proessional learning.

cllbv wk w

cmm c

Mark Baumgartner, director o proessional is-sues or the Cleveland eachers Union, writes in a blogabout how the Cleveland Metropolitan School Dis-trict and the Cleveland eachers Union approachedproessional learning or Common Core State Stan-dards. Tey made a decision to integrate CommonCore into all the existing training to help teachersunderstand that Common Core was not somethingadded on to their existing work, but rather what they

would do as their normal work. Secondly, they ap-proached support or teachers in grade-level bands toocus on developing understanding and supportingimplementation. Te rst band o grades to imple-ment Common Core was K-2. eachers o these gradesexperienced a combination o ormal training duringthe school day, collaborative work in teams to planinstructional units, ongoing proessional learning toaddress challenges, and instructional coaching. In ad-dition, the same group o teachers worked together

to revise the districts scope and sequence to integrateCommon Core standards. In addition, working to-gether, the schools union chapter chair and principalidentied an advocate who received additional train-ing to serve as an in-house expert to provide peer sup-port (Baumgartner, 2012).

An avowed skeptic o Common Core State


29/44

25


classrooms rather than just understanding how the

standards dier rom earlier ones. In addition, theyhad a substantial role in leading their own learning.Tey met in small groups over time to translate theirlearning into instructional units, ormative assess-ments, student assignments, and other instructionalresources to support student learning. In addition,they refected on the use o these newly developedresources. Most importantly, they experienced intel-lectual stimulation and instructional practices thatmodeled what they were expected to practice in theirclassrooms.

Kuky c L

nwk

o build capacity or implementing its CoreAcademic Standards, Kentucky, the rst state toadopt the Common Core State Standards, establishedContent Leadership Networks organized by regionsand disciplines, and district leadership teams to ocuson implementation at the school and classroom level.

Each network becomes a proessional learning com-munity ocused on developing its own content andpedagogical expertise and the leadership skills nec-essary to work within their districts and schools tosupport implementation o Kentucky Core AcademicStandards and the state-adopted characteristics ohighly eective teaching and learning. Networks orschool and district leaders are also in place to supportthe crucial work o change management. Networksaddress their own regional implementation needs and

support the establishment o district leadership teamsthat provide districtwide planning and implementa-tion support in each o Kentuckys 174 school dis-tricts. As specied in Unbridled Learning, KentuckysSenate Bill 1, the Leadership Networks are designedto implement the changes specied in the bill to en-sure that more students are college- and career-readyand prepared or the uture. Te purpose o the Lead-

ership Networks is Every school district in the Com-

monwealth o Kentucky has a knowledgeable andcohesive leadership team that guides the proessionallearning and practice o all administrators, teachers,and sta so that every student experiences highly e-ective teaching, learning, and assessment practicesin every classroom, every day (Kentucky Legisla-ture, 2009). Leadership Networks in their third othree years ocus on our pillars to successul imple-mentation: Kentuckys Core Academic Standards;assessment literacy; characteristics o highly eectiveteaching and learning; and leadership. By engaging in

statewide and regional meetings, Leadership Networkmembers build their own and their colleagues exper-tise related to the standards, assessment, and instruc-tion, and share their learning throughout their regionand state through state-supported web resources.

Kentucky is also the demonstration state orLearning Forwards ransorming Proessional Learn-ing to Prepare College- and Career- Ready Students:Implementing the Common Core. Working in part-nership with six Critical Friend States (Georgia, Illi-

nois, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Utah, and Wash-ington) Kentucky is constructing a comprehensivesystem o proessional learning that weaves togetherpolicy and practice to support implementation oCommon Core standards, as well as uture initiativesthat depend on eective proessional learning or theirsuccess. Learning Forward, working with its primarypartner, Council o Chie State School Ocers, andsecondary partners American

Association o College o eacher Education,National Governors Association, and National Asso-

ciation o State Boards o Education, is acilitating astatewide policy review on proessional learning, a re-view o all state-supported initiatives that include pro-essional learning, a nancial review o proessionallearning investments, and creating a comprehensivesystem o proessional to support teaching, leading,and student learning. Te work is supported with


30/44


26

grants rom the Sandler Foundation and the Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation.Kentucky is leveraging Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation unding to support to development otasks, modules, and courses to share across schoolsand districts within Kentucky. In collaboration withColorado, Georgia, and Louisiana, and built on thepremise that with the Common Core o Standards,many things now become possible. Because states willbe working rom the same core, we can create broad-based sharing o what works but, at the same time,provide local fexibility to decide how best to teach

the core (Phillips & Wong, 2010). In the Collabora-tives, teachers are developing their capacity and theinstructional resources necessary to implement moreengaging, problem-ocused, and collaborative learn-ing activities that ocus on reaching beyond answer-getting in math and incorporate productive struggle,inquiry-based instruction, group discussion and criti-cal reasoning. In literacy teachers engage in using tasktemplates that engage students in rigorous learningand integrate higher order thinking across the disci-

plines. In Collaborative proessional learning, teach-

ers learn with peers how to design instruction andlearning tasks aligned with the Common Core anddesign or study ormative assessment tasks or tasktemplates designed to promote learning. Tey thentry the tasks in their classrooms and return with sam-ples o student work and notes about their challenges,successes, questions, and refections. By engaging inauthentic classroom-ocused work in collaborativesettings and using authentic student work, teachersacquire knowledge and skills, analyze their practice,generate instruction and assessment, and evaluate

their progress to determine uture learning needs.Kentuckys intentional eorts to work at the

classroom and school levels with teacher leaders, atthe district levels with leadership teams, at the re-gional level with content networks, and at the statelevel with its ocus on a comprehensive system give itsignicant leverage to provide a system o proessionallearning accompanied by added classroom resourcesto prepare all its students or college and careers whenthey leave high school.


31/44

27


recommendations or action

l g

Establish guidelines or and monitor proessional learning orchanges in educator practice and student achievement or allproessional learning provided as a part o ederally unded ini-tiatives.

Provide incentives to states demonstrating eective proessionallearning that results in student achievement.

Invest in rigorous research on proessional learning to strengthenthe elds knowledge and inorm practice.

Use multiple communication vehicles to disseminate inorma-

tion about the role o proessional learning in improving educatoreectiveness and student achievement.

Use equity as a criterion or distribution o ederal resources orproessional learning.

s u g

Establish clear goals ocused on student success to build strongalignment among regional agencies, higher education, communi-

ty colleges, technical schools, early childhood, and K-12 schools.


32/44


28

Establish a comprehensive system or proessional learning that

includes:- A statewide vision and denition or proessional learning that

aligns with research and evidence-based practice;- Clear lines o authority and responsibility among stakeholders;- Standards or quality and expectations or results o proes-

sional learning to govern school system and school proessionallearning;

- Indicators and measures o quality to monitor the quality andresults o state, school system, school, and partner or vendorproessional learning; and

- An analysis o current policies and practices to identiy rag-

mentation and inconsistencies, current expenditures in proes-sional learning, equity o access to proessional learning sys-tems, and evidence o eectiveness.

Set guidelines or adequacy o resources, including unding, time,technology, sta, and materials, to support proessional learningand sustaining resources or continuous improvement that ensureequitable distribution o resources

Build the communities understanding and appreciation or theimportance o proessional learning as a core unction o eective

schools and student achievement.

Use ormative and summative evaluation to monitor and improveaccess to and the quality and results o proessional learning.

Link educator, student, and proessional learning data systems tostrengthen their coherence and interdependence.

Align school and district accountability, licensure, relicensure,educator eectiveness, and proessional learning policies into aseamless system ocused on improving student achievement.

Coordinate purchasing, access to, and quality control o resourc-es to support proessional learning statewide including technol-ogy solutions, not-or-prot and or-prot vendor services, andpartner agencies such as higher education institutes and regionalagencies.


33/44

29


Ensure equity o access to and quality o proessional learning by

equitably distributing state resources to ensure each student haseective educators throughout their school experience.

Support the development o academies to develop school leaders,teacher leaders, and coaches to lead change and support school-based proessional learning.

sl ym

Create a comprehensive system o proessional learning or all

employees with particular emphasis on teachers and school lead-ers that includes:- A clear vision or proessional learning;- Standards or eective proessional learning;- Resources or proessional learning (time, nding, sta, tech-

nology, and materials);- System to monitor and evaluate the eectiveness and results o

proessional learning;- Balance among three key purposes o proessional learning

individually ocused, school, and program implementation;and

- Policies that align proessional learning with district prioritiesand sustain and protect resources or proessional learning tosupport ull implementation.

Provide resources to support schoolwide, team, and individualproessional learning by:- Creating a school day schedule that permits regular collabora-

tion among peers multiple times per week; and- Providing classroom and team-based support or transerring

proessional learning into practice and constructive eedbackto rene and sustain practice.

Develop skillul acilitators to support school-based and team-based proessional learning.


34/44


30

Coordinate purchasing, use o, and equitable access to resources

to support eective schoolwide, team, and individual proession-al learning, including technology solutions.

Collect and use data about the eectiveness and results o proes-sional learning to make ongoing improvements in practice.

Provide proessional learning or principals, teacher leaders, andschool coaches to lead change and support eective proessionallearning within their schools.

sl

Provide resources to support schoolwide, team, and individualproessional learning by:- Creating a school-day schedule that permits regular collabora-

tion among peers multiple times per week; and- Providing classroom and team-based support or transerring

proessional learning into practice and constructive eedbackto rene and sustain practice.

Identiy skillul acilitators to support teams in collaborativelearning.

Monitor and evaluate the quality and results o individual, team,and schoolwide proessional learning.

Align individual, team, and schoolwide proessional learningwith school and district goals or student achievement.

Create the culture and structures to support collaborativelearning.

Align the eorts o school resource personnel such as coaches,literacy specialists, ELL specialists, etc., to support high-priority

student learning needs by developing the capacity o teachers tomeet those needs within regular classrooms and including schoolresource personnel on learning teams.


35/44

31


Collect and use data about the eectiveness and results o proes-

sional learning to make ongoing improvements in practice.

ivul

Commit to career-long continuous learning as a proessionalresponsibility and career progression to meet the needs o eachstudent.

Engage actively with colleagues to construct knowledge, acquireskills, rene practice, and examine dispositions.

Demonstrate collective responsibility or the success o each stu-dent by learning with and rom colleagues, sharing and receivingconstructive eedback, engaging with colleagues in collaborativeinquiry to rene individual and peer perormance, refecting onindividual and collective perormance, and challenging onesown and colleagues assumptions that create barriers to sharingresponsibility and accountability or the success o all students.

exl

External partners include regional agencies, higher education institu-tions, vendors, and other providers o proessional learning.

Consult districts and schools to identiy needed support.

Demonstrate how products and services align with college- andcareer-ready standards, district-adopted curricula, state assess-ments, and educator eectiveness system.

Provide services aligned directly to a schools or school districtsidentied student achievement and educator learning needs.

Use data rom clients to monitor and evaluate the quality andeects o proessional learning.


36/44


32

challenges to eectiveProessional learning

Te challenges to ensuring eective proessionallearning may seem daunting, yet most can beovercome.

pv vlu l l-

g. Federal, state, school systems, schools,and external agencies struggle with the roleo proessional learning in student achieve-ment. Frequently embedded in state policy asa means to relicensure, it becomes a compli-ance process o collecting enough hours oseat time to meet a state policy to maintaina license to practice. Choice o learning op-tions typically is the individual educatorsto make. When viewed as a school improve-ment process, proessional learning ocused on the knowledge, skills,practices, and dispositions educators need to implement the denedimprovement eorts. As such, they may be viewed as irrelevant to indi-vidual educators who may or may not be responsible or the improve-ment eorts.

Tese dichotomous perceptions are at odds with one another andcreate tensions about who makes decisions about and governs proes-sional learning. Yet states are now beginning to question their policiesin each area and to explore perormance-based proessional learning,

based on school, team, and individual proessional learning plans thatalign with school and school system goals. Eliminating the dichotomyand ocusing proessional learning, especially that unded with schooland school system resources, on the goals o the school and schoolsystem will strengthen the value o proessional learning as means toschool improvement, educator eectiveness, and student achievement.


37/44

33


tm ug. Chie among the challenges requently identi-

ed are unding and time. Yet too many schools and school systemshave overcome these challenges by revamping the school-day sched-ule and the annual calendar to provide time or proessional learningwithin teachers contract days to hold this challenge high on the listo diculties. Substantial unding, especially rom ederal and stateprograms and rom private and public external sources such as ounda-tions, makes it dicult to cite lack o money. More equitable distribu-tion o resources, especially to educators who work with underservedstudents, can improve opportunity and access to highly eective pro-essional learning. Also needed is a better system or communicatingand sharing successul examples o time and resource use that others

may analyze to establish their own solutions.Perhaps the real challenge is identiying the appropriate use o

existing resources including time, unding, sta, technology to alignproessional learning with high-priority student and educator learningneeds. oo oten proessional learning is viewed as a cost rather thanan investment. When woven deeply into the abric o all systems thatsupport student learning and when it meets standards o quality, it isan essential unction to improve student learning. Proessional learn-ing becomes indispensible when it produces results; results require theinvestment o resources.

Blg u l lg. Another requentchallenge is balancing individual, school, and program proessionallearning. Tis challenge will grow even more dicult to address withthe implementation o educator eectiveness systems that integrate in-dividually ocused proessional learning as a core part o the system.Virginia Richardson (2003) acknowledges the importance o a collec-tive approach or program implementation, yet acknowledges that otheroutcomes o proessional learning may require dierent approaches. Inreality, nearly every individual learning need is shared by others withinthat individuals sphere o infuence. And, perhaps the most expedi-

ent way to strengthen individual perormance is through collaborativesupport within a team o peers in which all members o the learningcommunity benet rom the individuals learning. Trough individualand collective accountability, all members o the community benetrom the learning acquired by any one member. Tis process builds asocial architecture o accountability and responsibility, increases the so-cial capital, and strengthens the results or students in every members


38/44


34

classroom (Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009). No amount o individual

proessional learning will accomplish ull implementation o CommonCore State Standards, the resulting new curricula, new assessments, orull and air implementation o educator eectiveness systems. Teseprogrammatic changes require an artul blend o macro and microlearning at the system, school, team, and individual level to achieveecient and eective successul implementation.

evlug v ul. How to monitor and mea-sure the eectiveness o proessional learning eludes those responsibleor it. Yet, evaluation processes, tools, and strategies exist that haventbeen rigorously applied. Oten identied as a challenge, evaluating the

quality and eects o proessional learning has been ignored in prac-tice because it requires eort and resource investment. Schools, schoolsystems, state and ederal agencies, and external partners can no longercomplain that this orm o evaluation cant be done. Rather they mustcommit to this key step and establish a manageable system o programevaluation as they balance their eorts and resources and use provenevaluation methodologies and tools to improve accountability, quality,decision making, and results.

L l lg. Knowing who has authorityand responsibility or proessional learning is oten unclear. Te good

news is that many stakeholders share responsibility or eective pro-essional learning and student achievement; the bad news is that whoholds responsibility and accountability or which aspects is requentlyunclear, typically leaving no one with either responsibility or account-ability. Yet, gaining clarity about responsibility and accountability willopen the door to stronger alignment between proessional learning andhigh-priority student learning needs, better use o resources, strongerconditions to support learning and implementation o learning, andultimately better results. Preparing those who are responsible to un-derstand what eective proessional learning is, manage individual andsystem change, and monitor quality and results is an important part oestablishing clear accountability and responsibility.


39/44

35


conclusion

Richard Elmore, examining the transition to standards-based edu-cation, asserted, Change, as it has been conceived and carriedout in the past, is not an option in responding to these problems.Large scale, sustained, and continuous improvement is the path

out o these problems. . . In short, we must undamentally redesignschools as places where both adults and young people learn (Elmore,2000, p. 35).

With multiple signicant changes acing them, educators andpolicy and decision makers stand at a perilous precipice looking aheadat what they want to accomplish. Te choices they make about how toprepare and support educators or implementation may restrict themrom achieving the results they desire. As a key lever or moving or-ward and achieving success, proessional learning must change. Edu-cators can no longer rely on the practices employed in the past andthe goodwill o voluntary learners. Indeed, educators have abundantinormation about what to do in proessional learning. Now they needthe courage to leave what is convenient and step into the messier worko deep transormation, requently accompanied by emotional, physi-

cal, and cognitive dissonance, to provide all students the learning op-portunities necessary to leave pre-K-12 education ready or success incollege and careers.

Te promise o college- and career-ready standards, educator e-ectiveness systems, and new assessments o student learning dependon the capacity o educators to ully implement them. Past eorts atschool reorm have let gaping holes in student learning, despite theenormous investment in improvement eorts. Students today cannotwait or a new generation o better-prepared educators to acilitate theirlearning. Te only vehicle available to all schools and school systems

is proessional learning or educators currently in service and thosewho are entering the proession. Yet proessional learning as it has been


40/44


36

practiced too requently in the past cannot meet the demands to pre-

pare and support all educators to their learning.oday we know that student achievement depends on continuous

and collaborative proessional learning, intimately linked to educatorand student standards, driven by data about students and educators,and system perormance, guided by strong leaders, designed to supportactive engagement and to model the instructional and leadership prac-tices expected o educators, sustained over time to achieve ull imple-mentation, and supported by sucient resources to realize results. omeet the promise o proessional learning, educators, policy makers,decision makers, elected ocials, and community members must shareresponsibility or its eectiveness and results.


41/44

37


reerencesAmerican Federation of Teachers. (2011, May 19).Recommendations o the AF Ad Hoc Committee onstandards rollout. Washington, DC: Author.

Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007, September).How the worlds best-perorming school systems comeout on top. New York: McKinsey & Co.

Baumgartner, M. (2012, April 2). CommonCore PD In practice at Cleveland MetropolitanSchool district (Blog post). Available atwww.ecs-commoncore.org/?p=527

Blank, R., & de las Alas, N. (2009).Eects oteacher proessional development on gains in studentachievement: How meta analysis provides scientifcevidence useul to education leaders. Washington, DC:Council o Chie State School Ocers.

Blank, R., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008).Does teacher proessional development have eectson teaching and learning?: Analysis o EvaluationFindings rom Programs or Mathematics and Scienceeachers in 14 states. Washington, DC; Council oChie State School Ocers.

Borko, H. (2004, November). Proessionaldevelopment and teacher learning: Mapping theterrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Bryk, A., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E. (2010).Organizing schools or improvement: Lessons romChicago. Chicago: University o Chicago Press.

Charles A. Dana Center. (1999).Hope or urbaneducation: A study o nine high-poverty, high-perorming elementary schools. Austin, X: Author.

Curry, M. & Killion, J. (2009, Winter). Slicing thelayers o learning: Proessional learning communitiesll the gaps as educators put new knowledge intopractice.JSD, 30(1), 56-62.

Desimone, L. (2009, April). Improving impact oteachers proessional development: oward betterconceptualizations and measures. EducationalResearcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet. M., Yoon, K., &Birman, B. (2002, Summer). Eects o proessionaldevelopment on teacher instruction: Results rom athree-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.

Elmore, R. (2000).Building a new structureor school leadership. Washington, DC: AlbertShanker Institute.

Elmore, R. (2002).Bridging the gap betweenstandards and achievement: Te imperative orproessional development in education. Washington,DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Garet, M.S., Ludwig, M., Yoon, K., Wayne, A.,Birman, B., & Milanowski, A. (2011).Makingproessional development more strategic: A conceptualmodel or district decisionmakers. Paper presented atAERA, April 2011. New Orleans, LA.
http://www.ecs-commoncore.org/?p=527http://www.ecs-commoncore.org/?p=527http://www.ecs-commoncore.org/?p=527http://www.ecs-commoncore.org/?p=527


42/44


38

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B.,

& Yoon, K. (2001, Winter). What makes eectiveproessional development eective? Results rom anational sample o teachers.American EducationalResearch Journal, 38(4), 914-45.

Grossman, T. (2009, October 26). Statepolicies to improve teacher proessional development.Washington, DC: NGA Center or Best Practices.

Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (2011).Implementingchange: Patterns, principles, and potholes(3rd ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Jackson, C.K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009).eaching students and teaching each other: Teimportance o peer learning or teachers. NBERWorking Paper Series.

Jacquith, A., Mindich, D., & Darling-Hammond,L. (2010). eacher proessional learning in the UnitedStates: Case studies o state policies and practices.echnical Report. Oxord, OH: Learning Forward.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002).Studentachievement through sta development, (3rd edition).Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Kentucky Legislature, Senate Bill 1 (2009).

Learning Forward. (2011).Standards orproessional learning. Oxord, OH: Author.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., &Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership infuencesstudent learning. New York: Te

Wallace Foundation.

Little, J.W. (1993, Summer). eachers proessional

development in a climate o educational reorm.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2),129-151.

MetLife. (2011).Te MetLie survey o the Americanteacher: eachers, parents, and the economy. NewYork: Author.

National Association of State Boards ofEducation. (2011).Gearing up: Creating a systemicapproach to teacher eectiveness. Te report o

the NASBE Study Group on teacher preparation,retention, evaluation, and compensation. Arlington,VA: Author.

Peters, K.T. (2012, March 19). Opinion: A journeytoward core competencies. win Cities Daily Planet.

Peters, K.T. (2012,March 20). Opinion: Arrival atcore competencies. win Cities Daily Planet.

Philips, V. & Wong, C. (2010, February). yingtogether the common core o standards, instruction,

and assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 37-42.

Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000, January). Whatdo new views o knowing and thinking have to sayabout research on teacher learning? EducationalResearcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Richardson, V. (2003, January). Te dilemma oproessional development: owards high-qualityteaching and learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5),401-406.


43/44

39


Rowan, B., Correnti, R., Miller, R. J., &

Camburn, E. (2009). School improvement bydesign: Lessons rom a study o comprehensiveschool reorm designs. In B. Schnieder & G. Sykes(Eds.), Handbook o Education Policy Research.London: aylor & Francis.

Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N., & Gallimore,R. (2009, December). Increasing achievement byocusing grade-level teams on improving classroomlearning: A prospective, quasi-experimental studyo itle I schools.American Educational Research

Journal, 46(4), 10061033.

Schmidt, W. (2012, April 19).Common CoreState Standards or mathematics. Presentation atImplementing the Common Core Network oCouncil o Chie State School Ocers, Atlanta, GA.

Scholastic & the Bill & Melinda GatesFoundation. (2012).Primary sources: 2012:Americas teachers on the teaching proession. NewYork: Scholastic.

Silva, E. (2008).Te Benwood plan: A lesson incomprehensive teacher reorm. Washington, D.C.:Education Sector.

Tucker, M. (2012, May 15). Implementing theCommon Core top perormer standards. (Blog post).Available at http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_perormers/2012/05/implementing_the_common_core_state_standards.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2.

Van Roekel, D. (2011, December 8).Leading

the proession: NEAs three-point plan or reorm.Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Adamson,F. (2010). Proessional development in the UnitedStates: rends and challenges. echnical report.Oxord, OH: NSDC.

Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree,A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).Proessional learning in the learning proessional: A

status report on teacher development in the UnitedStates and Abroad. echnical report. Oxord,OH: NSDC

Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., &Shapley, K. (2007).Reviewing the evidence onhow teacher proessional development aects studentachievement. Washington, DC: United StatesDepartment o Education, Institute o EducationSciences, National Center or Education Evaluationand Regional Assistance, Regional Education

Laboratories Southwest.U.S. Department of Education. (2010).College- and career-ready standards and assessments.Washington, DC: Author.
http://%20http//blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/05/implementing_the_common_core_state_standards.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2http://%20http//blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/05/implementing_the_common_core_state_standards.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2http://%20http//blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/05/implementing_the_common_core_state_standards.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2http://%20http//blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/05/implementing_the_common_core_state_standards.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2http://%20http//blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/05/implementing_the_common_core_state_standards.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2http://%20http//blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/05/implementing_the_common_core_state_standards.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2


44/44

Documents

Meet the Promise of Content Standards