An Integrative Exploration of the Professional Development Schools Model of Teacher Training

Allan Okech, East Carolina University

Abstract
There has been a steady increase in the documentation of the planning, implementation, growth, and impacts of Professional Development Schools (PDS) since the inception of this model of teacher training in the 1990s. Much of these literatures appropriately focused on the planning, implementation and growth aspects of Professional Development Schools since this model of teacher training was still in its adolescence. But the PDS model of teacher training has now matured enough to allow for the evaluation of its impacts on teacher training. And researchers have increasingly been documenting the effectiveness of PDSs. Some of these research studies on PDS impacts have been poorly designed or have offered mere anecdotal evidence in support of the investigators claims. Yet other studies have suggested that the PDS model of teacher training is effective and superior to traditional teacher training. Studies claiming PDS training superiority suggest that PDSs impact student achievement above and beyond traditional teacher training while offering increased professional development and research opportunities to both teacher-trainees and the constituent college of education faculty.  This paper qualitatively integrates and examines the available literature on the significant aspects of planning, implementing, growing, and assessing the impacts of Professional Development Schools. The paper concludes with a synopsis of the literature indicating that PDS training provides added benefits to traditional teacher training.

While there is research documenting the planning, implementing and growth of PDSs, fewer of these studies discuss the effectiveness of PDSs. Studies on the planning, implementation and growth of PDSs generally agree on the intricate synergy required of the participants (professional education schools - colleges of education - and P - 12 schools) for the success of such a project. Beyond these, the available research on PDS impacts is either poorly designed or offers mere anecdotal evidence in support of the investigators claims (Ross, 1995). However, some well designed studies and analyses are beginning to emerge in support of the added benefits of the PDS model of teacher training above and beyond the traditional model of teacher training.

PDSs are an outgrowth of the Holmes Group's (1990) report, "Tomorrows Schools" which proposed a new kind of paradigm for teacher training. The Holmes Group defined and distinguished the PDS from other teacher preparation models thus: By "Professional Development School" we do not mean just a laboratory school for university research, or a demonstration school. Nor do we mean just a clinical setting for preparing students and intern teachers. Rather, we mean all of these together: a school for the development of novice professionals, for continuing development of experienced professionals, and for the research and development of the teaching profession. (p. 1)

Operationalized, PDSs are collaborative partnerships made up of one or more colleges or departments of education at universities and one or more school districts although some PDSs include teachers unions and human service agencies as partners. Abdal-Haqq (1998) reported that there are more than 1,035 P-12 schools that have been designated as PDSs in 47 states of the U.S.A. Several of the eleven universities in the University of North Carolina (UNC) system have formed partnerships with local schools to develop Professional Development Schools.

The four missions articulated for PDSs are the preparation of new teachers, faculty development, inquiry directed at the improvement of practice, and enhanced student achievement. The draft standards for PDSs, developed by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008), identify three major commitments shared by PDSs: "(1) an environment which integrates adult and children's learning; (2) parity for university and school partners on all issues of practice and policy in the PDS; and, (3) the simultaneousrenewal of the school and the university" (Levine, 1998, p. 193).

Throughout the literature on the development and growth of PDSs, several themes emerged as essential to the successful planning, implementation, and growth of a PDS. One such major theme mentioned in many of the articles was trust. Mason (1995) illustrated the issue of trust thus: Establishing a partnership between a school and a university is not unlike a dance. Both parties arrive on the d4ance floor with many tacit questions. What type of dance is this? How formal? Who will lead? What moves should I make? Will my partner be able to follow? Will I be able to follow? How good a dancer is my partner? How good am I? The nature of the relationship between public schools and universities is such that the very idea of joining forces in pursuit of common aims will raise significant issues of trust, competence and mutual reward. Trust was characterized by questions of what will be done, whom will it benefit, what does the university have to offer the site school and what does the site school have to offer the university? Most of the articles indicated that this was the initial hurdle for prospective PDS partners.

The second challenge to establishing a successful PDS partnership as unanimously identified in the literature was time. Perceptions of how time is structured inform participants regarding the priorities of the institutions. Goodlad (1993) noted that it is unrealistic to expect schoolteachers to engage in inquiry and teacher education without making adjustments in their schedules and time commitments. Otherwise, PDSs become burdensome to teachers. The challenges identified as time restraints for the site schoolteacher incidentally apply to university faculty as well.

Reward was another challenge identified in the research as affecting the development of PDSs. Book (1996) discussed that rewards for K-l2 faculty might involve time-release to prepare for and perform the work involved in the partnership in addition to evidence that the PDS activities provide enriching experiences for children. Since the reward structures of most universities emphasize productivity in terms of publications, the collaborative nature of PDSs along with the large amount of work involved for university faculty without clear reward schedules is a challenge to be managed. However, significant opportunities for research for university faculty exist within the PDS collaborative.

And as with most professional activities, Valli, Cooper, and Frankes (1997) posit that most PDSs do not have permanent budget allocations within school or university budgets and are instead supported with grant funds. Without permanently allocated funds, strains begin to appear in the functioning of the PDS. While PDSs require huge financial and human resource investments, Canales (2001) noted that these investments are worth the effort.

Regarding PDS outcome impacts on pre-service educators, a study by Fountain (1997) compared the AT&T Teach for Tomorrow group of PDS graduates with non-PDS trained educators on their change in attitude toward urban teaching. PDS trained educators did better in working collaboratively with fellow teachers, building learning communities, teaching ethnically diverse students, believing that urban students can learn, and understanding resiliency and how environmental factors influence teaching in an urban classroom. Higher retention rates for PDS trained teachers were likewise reported by Fleener (1999). Fleener further reported positive effects in retention for PDS trained minority and female educators.

Positive outcome impacts for experienced educators within the PDS have also been documented. Shroyer, Wright, and Ramey-Gassert (1996) report that experienced science teachers who participated in the particular PDS collaborative they investigated evidenced significant increases in the use of hands-on inquiry approaches, attitude toward science, and sense of efficacy in teaching science.

Although empirical studies documenting positive impacts for the main goal of PDSs, the support of student learning, are still very few, Wiseman and Cooner (1996), among others, provide findings of great gains in writing scores on state achievement tests based on a "writing buddies" program in the PDS they investigated.

In conclusion, almost all the eight hundred articles on the PDS model of teacher training agreed that the pursuit of educational innovation through the PDS model was a worthwhile endeavor despite the challenges posed by the leadership and structural merging of university and public school cultures. There was also the general agreement within the literature that more research needs to be done before definitive answers regarding the benefits of PDS model are known.

Further, there was concern in the literature some programs that claim to be PDSs may in fact be PDSs only on paper. As such, some of the research findings on the PDS model need to be examined in light of the foregoing concern. Additionally, the equity or diversity agenda of the Professional Development Schools was questioned in some of the literature.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools. What do we know? What do we need to know? How do we find out? Who do we tell? Paper presented at the National Professional Development School Conference, Towson University, Towson, MD.

Book, C. L. (1996). Professional development schools. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 194-210). New York: Macmillan.

Canales, J. (2001). Field - based teacher preparation: Is it worth the financial and human resource investment? Unpublished manuscript, Texas A & M University - Corpus Christi, Texas.

Fleener, C. (1999, February). Teacher attrition: Do PDS programs make a difference. Paper presented at the Distinguished Dissertation in Education Award Winner, Association of Teacher Educators Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Fountain, C. A. (1997, February). Collaborative agenda for change: Examining the impact of urban professional development schools on urban interns and beginning teachers. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Phoenix, AZ.

Goodlad, J. (1993). School - university partnerships. Educational Policy, 7, 24-39. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional  development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Levine, M. (1998). Appendix: Draft standards for professional development schools. In M. Levine (ed.), Designing standards that work for professional development schools (pp. 193-210). Washington, DC: National council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Mason, T. C. (1995). Reflections on the first year of a school/university partnership. Teacher Education and Practice, 11(2), 71-81.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). Standards for professional development schools. Washington, DC: NCATE.

Ross, J. A. (1995). Professional development schools: Prospects for institutionalization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 195-201.

Shroyer, G., Wright, E., & Ramey-Gassert, L. (1996). An innovative model for collaborative reform in elementary school science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(3), 151-168.

Valli, L., Cooper, D., & Frankes, L. (1997). Professional development schools and equity: A critical analysis of rhetoric and research. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review  of research in education (pp. 251-304). Washington, DC: American Educational  Research Association.

Wiseman, D. L., & Cooner, D. (1996). Discovering the power of collaboration: The impact of a school-university partnership on teaching. Teacher Education and Practice, 12(1), 18-28.