Professional development schools.

Professional development schools (PDSs) improve the education of preservice and inservice teachers by providing opportunities to examine teaching and learning and by encouraging school and university collaboration (Abdala-Haqq, 1). PDSs operate as clinical sites where university personnel, classroom teachers and school administrators collaborate, and offer guidance and field experience to preservice teachers. Such schools also offer classroom teachers opportunities for research and recognition as clinical professionals.

The Clinical School Clearinghouse has profiled over 125 PDSs associated with 43 colleges and universities (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 1992). While data about these programs are just emerging, existing case studies allow us to examine the validity of common assumptions about the PDS.

Assumption 1: Professional development schools provide new models of teacher education.

Case studies of PDS programs highlight model characteristics for teacher education. For example, student teaching calendars can change according to school site, a PDS can determine the number of preservice students to be served and university faculty can teach courses at field sites. In some cases, college courses are team-taught by university and clinical faculty. Teachers are involved in student admission, and preservice teachers are assigned to cohort groups in the school. Responsibilities shift from university personnel to classroom teachers, and more university coursework is provided (Barnett & Catoe, 1994; Grossman, 1994; Lemlech, Hertzog-Foliart & Hackl, 1994; Lythcott & Schwartz, 1994; Miller & Silvernail, 1994; Snyder, 1994; Whitford, 1994).

Assumption 2: Professional development schools provide teacher renewal and development.

One survey shows that 75 percent of PDS programs provide inservice training for teachers (AACTE, 1992). PDS programs allow students to take on clinical roles, which encourage professional reflection and collegiality. Some teachers have noted that their PDS participation sometimes kept them from feeling isolated (Lythcott & Schwartz, 1994; Miller & Silvernail, 1994; Sandholtz et al., 1995). Teachers emerge as leaders, ready to assume instructional responsibilities.

Assumption 3. Professional development schools encourage, enhance or otherwise provide for school innovation, change and/ or renewal.

Case studies show evidence of school innovation. In one school, for example, the administration restructured the education program in accordance with outcomes-based education, although the university partner did not agree with the goal (Grossman, 1994). Integrated education and problem solving also were incorporated in classes (Grossman, 1994). In another school, teachers experimented with block schedules to implement cooperative learning, developed teams to serve students who needed help and examined different assessment models. University science faculty assumed half-time teaching positions in science classes to provide expert support for classroom teachers (Whitford, 1994). At another site, assessment, integration of subjects and development of materials were changed (Lemlech, Hertzog-Foliart & Hackl, 1994). Although some school administrators participated in PDS programs only to facilitate specific changes in their programs, other groups developed the PDS identity and set goals.

Assumption 4: Research will be conducted in schools by teachers and other professionals.

Over half (62.3 percent) of the programs in the survey provided opportunities for on-site research (AACTE, 1992). Specific examples are found in sites where cooperative learning was examined (Snyder, 1994). The fact remains, however, that those engaged in PDS work are often too busy to study the process (Loadman, Zimpher, Cramer & Westhaven, 1995; Sandholtz et al., 1995; Zimpher, 1994).

Assumption 5: The school culture will change.

The emergence of the teacher's voice and identity was a common theme in case studies (Anderson, 1993; Lythcott & Schwartz, 1994; Miller & Silvemail, 1994). PDS teachers develop professional confidence and self-recognition. Preservice teachers, too, are viewed as active participants in these programs (Grossman, 1994; Lythcott & Schwartz, 1994). A survey indicates that 50 percent of the teachers participating in PDS had been granted release time from teaching and 16.6 percent were given reduced course loads (AACTE, 1992). At some sites, however, clinical or joint school/college teaching appointments separate PDS participants from other teachers. These arrangements may create barriers (Barnett & Catoe, 1994; Lemlech, Hertzog-Foliart & Hackl, 1994; Zimpher, 1994).

Assumption 6: Experiences in "real schools" will encourage interaction with diverse learners in different contexts.

The AACTE survey shows that PDS sites do not replicate the traditional laboratory school model, but instead offer preservice teachers experience with diverse student populations. Partnerships among schools, colleges, community organizations and corporations to fund changes in education may have influenced this innovative PDS model.

Assumption 7: Internships for beginning teachers will prevent teacher dropout.

While internships in PDS programs have developed over the past five to seven years, the data on intern teacher success, as determined by initial and continued employment, needs to be examined.

Assumption 8: Schools and universities will be restructured.

One survey indicated that nearly 80 percent of practicing teachers were involved in making decisions about organizational/ structural changes within their schools (AACTE, 1992). Site-based course opportunities suggest that some restructuring is necessary, if only to accommodate the varied schedules of university and school personnel. At some sites, one or two university faculty collaborate with PDS faculty to develop schedules, deal with logistics, make assignments and develop a school/university dialogue, while the classroom teachers engage in clinical roles with student teachers. As teacher education moves away from the university toward PDS, the roles of various players will change.

Professional development schools recognize the role of classroom teachers in teacher education. Teacher education students, classroom teachers, school and university faculty and community partners can all collaborate to achieve the common goal of improved education and professional development.

References

Abdal-Haqq. (1991). The nature of professional development schools. ERIC Digest 894, ED 316 548. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1992). Professional development schools: A directory of projects in the United States. Washington, DC: Anderson, C. R. (Ed.). (1993). Voices of change: A report of the clinical schools project. Washington, DC. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Barnett, B., & Catoe, S. (1994). Creating professional development schools: Policy and practice in South Carolina's PDS initiatives. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools. New York; Teachers College Press. Grossman, P. (1994). In pursuit of a dual agenda: Creating a middle level professional development school. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Lemlech, J., Hertzog-Foliart, H., & Hackl, A. (1994). The Los Angeles professional practice school: A study of mutual impact. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Loadman, W., Zimpher, N. R., Cramer, D., & Westhaven, L. (1995, February). Creating a model for the assessment of professional development schools. Paper presented at the 75th annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Detroit, MI. Lythcott, J., & Schwartz, F. (1994). Professional development in action: An idea with visiting rights. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Miller, L., & Silvernail, D. (1994). Wells Junior High School: Evolution of a professional development school. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Robinson, S., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Change for collaboration and collaboration for change: Transforming teaching through school-university partnerships. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Sandholtz, J. H., Harper, C., Kraig, G., Pace, R., Pearson, K., & Porter, L. (1995, February). From rough cut to polished gem: Creating and refining a professional development school. Paper presented at the 75th annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Detroit, MI. Snyder, J. (1994). Perils and potentials: A tale of two professional development schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Whitford, B. (1994) Permission, persistence, and resistance: Linking high school restructuring with teacher education reform. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Zimpher, N. (1994) Professional development schools: Ready, fire, aim! ATE Newsletter, 28(2), 4.