PD a glaring omission in Race to the Top funding criteria
August 20 2009 by 
Hayes Mizell
Last month, the U.S. Department of Education published its proposed " priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria" for the Race to the Top Fund. The Department will use the Fund's approximately $4.3 billion to encourage and reward states that are implementing significant public education reforms. States will compete for the funds by demonstrating their progress in (1) implementing standards and assessments, (2) improving teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher distribution, (3) improving collection and use of data, and (4) supporting struggling schools. (NSDC has submitted a letter in response to the Department's requirements and criteria.)
Among its many detailed selection criteria, the Department devotes one section to "using data to improve instruction." It proposes to judge applications based on the extent to which states " increase the use of instructional improvement systems... that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with the information they need to inform and improve their instructional practices, decision making, and overall effectiveness."
ﾠ
The Department seems to have made two faulty assumptions: (a) improved data systems, in and of themselves, will result in improved instruction, and (b) educators currently have the knowledge and skills they need to use data to improve instruction. Unfortunately, the proposed requirements do not mention professional development. States applying for Race To The Top funds do not have to demonstrate that they, or their school systems, are engaging educators in professional development experiences that increase their understanding and effective use of data.
ﾠ
Experience has repeatedly demonstrated that unprepared educators are ineffective educators. Better data that meet educators' real-world needs and are more timely and readily accessible is important, but that is not enough. Educators must want to use the data and know exactly how to use it to improve their instruction. Both will not occur without sustained, high quality professional development. If states, local school systems, and the Department of Education ignore that fact, their best intentions to produce better data will have little impact on the quality and results of classroom instruction.
Hayes Mizell is NSDC's Distinguished Senior Fellow.
Posted in Hayes Mizell | 
4 comments
Aug 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Although it is true that the proposed guidelines for funding under Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds program and the Race to the Top program do not highlight teacher professional development as a key part of possible state approaches to responding to each of the four ARRA assurances, there are, nevertheless, a number of important opportunities for states to include teacher professional development as part of their planned responses to the four assurances. Note, for example, that prposed Race to Top requirements call for state plans to implement new standards and assessments. I think that it is reasonable to assume that state plans in both areas could and should include comprehensive, long-term professional development for teachers. Similarly, requirements for responding to the assurance related to turning around low-performing schools leave open the possibility of including professional development to prepare staff for these transitions in state plans. It seems to me that the fact that these and other provisions including in various ARRA funding streams recognize the need for a variety of supports to assist educators in changing practices means that state and local leaders and staff who recognize the potential payoffs from high-quality professional development need to aggressively market their ideas as state and local planning efforts move forward.
Taking a step or back from these issues, I would also suggest that the fact that drafters of the proposed guidance and regulations have not focused on teacher professional development should make all of us in the field ask ourselves why not. Perhaps it is because we have not done a consistently good job of providing solid empically sound evidence of the specific ways in which teacher professional development makes substantial contributions to improving professional practice and, consequently improving student learning.
Aug 24, 2009 at 7:12 AM
Bruce,
We may have not done a good job of providing evidence for PD, but neither have they provided much evidence that what RttT requires is effective either. It is just their favored ideology.
Aug 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Tom,
I would not label requirements for internationally benchmarked standards, comprehensive long-term data systems, rigorous performance appraisal systems, and clear reporting to the public as ideology. In my view, a fair amount of what is called for has not really been tried yet, hence it would be difficult to have an empirical base. One could, therefore, characterize the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program and Race to the Top as very expensive hypothesis-testing. Having said this, the fact remains that we in the field have not done a good job of providng consistently solid and compelling empirical evidence of the impact of professional development on professional practice or student learning.
Aug 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I propose another hypothesis for testing, then: What might happen if more teachers had access to sustained, job-embedded, consistent professional professional [intentional redundancy] development guided not just by top-down concerns such as federal and state mandates and assessments or administrative urgencies but by teacher-identified urgencies and needs as well, and if that PD was accompanied by data collection to provide the empirical evidence you're suggesting? Perhaps this type of professional development does not have a long history in education, but professional development in general does. Why should we not expect similar success in education? If teachers can not benefit from this type of learning, then what hope do we have for students in the traditional educational setting? So many initiatives appear to be seeking ways to go around teachers in order to improve student achievement, or at least, they give teachers comparatively short shrift. Not mentioning professional development explicitly in these initiatives, then, should not be so quickly excused.