02619760500093255

This article was downloaded by: [University of Bucharest ]On: 18 November 2014, At: 04:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

The professional development schoolas learning organizationMary M. Harris Corresponding author a & Frances van Tassell aa University of North Texas , Denton, USAPublished online: 19 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Mary M. Harris Corresponding author & Frances van Tassell (2005) Theprofessional development school as learning organization, European Journal of Teacher Education,28:2, 179-194, DOI: 10.1080/02619760500093255

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760500093255

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02619760500093255http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760500093255http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The professional development school as

learning organization

Mary M. Harris* and Frances van TassellUniversity of North Texas, Denton, USA

Many US teacher education programmes have developed learning environments in partnership

with local school districts. A professional development school (PDS) is a learning organization

formed through the collaboration of a university-based teacher education programme with its K-

12 school partners. The resulting organization focuses simultaneously on the learning of school

students and of preservice and inservice educators. This manuscript presents the PDS work of two

different teacher education programmes and their alignment with the Standards for Professional

Development Schools, published by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

The first and most important of the five PDS standards addresses the qualities of the learning

community. The contribution of the standards to the viability of the PDS learning community as

an emerging organization is discussed.

Plusieurs programmes denseignement de professeurs ont developpe un environnement

dapprentissage en conjonction avec les districts locaux decoles. Une ecole dapprentissage

(professional development school ou PDS) est une organisation denseignement creee avec la

collaboration dun professeur duniversite et des partenaires de lecole primaire et secondaire. La

nouvelle organisation a pour but le developpement des etudiants scolaires et des enseignants qui

enseignent ou qui vont enseigner. Ce document presente le travail des deux groupes PDS

differents et comment ils conforment aux standards des ecoles dapprentissage (Standards for

Professional Development Schools) publie par le conseil national pour laccreditation de

leducation des enseignants (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). Le

premier, et le plus important des cinq standards, discute les qualites de lenvironnement

dapprentissage. En plus, on considere la contribution de ces standards a la viabilite de

lenvironnement dapprentissage PDS comme organisation emergeant.

Muchos programas de preparacion para maestros en los Estados Unidos han desarrollado

ambientes de aprendizaje en conjunto con distritos escolares locales. La escuela de desarrollo

profesional (PDS) es una organizacion de aprendizaje formada a traves de la colaboracion de un

programa universitario de educacion con sus companeros de los sistemas escolares de niveles

preescolar hasta doceavo ano. La organizacion resultante se enfoca simultaneamente en el

aprendizaje de los alumnos escolares y los educadores en pre-servicio y en-servicio. Este

manuscrito presenta el trabajo de PDS (Escuela de Desarrollo Profesional) de dos diferentes

programas de preparacion para maestros y su alineamiento con los estandares para Escuelas de

*Corresponding author. Meadows Chair for Excellence in Education, University of North Texas,

College of Education, PO Box 310740, Denton, TX 76203-0740, USA. Email: mmharris@

unt.edu

European Journal of Teacher Education

Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 179194

ISSN 0261-9768 (print)/ISSN 1469-5928 (online)/05/020179-16

# 2005 Association for Teacher Education in EuropeDOI: 10.1080/02619760500093255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Desarrollo Profesional, publicado por el Consejo Nacional para la Acreditacion de Educacion para

Maestros. Lo primero y lo mas importante de los cinco estandares del PDS es que se concentra en

las cualidades de los centros de aprendizaje. La contribucion de los estandares con la viabilidad del

centro de aprendizaje del programa de preparacion para maestros como una organizacion

aflorando es discutida.

Viele Ausbildungsprogramme fur Lehrer in den USA haben Lerngemeinschaften in

Zusammenarbeit mit regionalen Schulbezirken entwickelt.Durch die Zusammenarbeit eines

Lehrerbildungsprogrammes an einer Universitat mit Partnern im Schulsystem [vom Kindergarten

bis einschliesslich 12. (Abschluss)-Klasse, K-12], entsteht eine Fach-Ausbildungs-Gruppe

(Professional Development Program, PDS). Die so entstandene Organisation konzentriert sich

gleichzeitig auf das Lernen von Schulern und der auszubildenden sowie der praktizierenden

Lehrer. Diese Untersuchung berichtet uber Erfahrungen mit einer PDS in zwei verschiedenen

Ausbildungsprogrammen fur Lehrer unter Berucksichtigung von Normen, die der Nationalrat fur

Akkreditierung fur Lehrerbildung (National Cuncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education)

veroffentlicht hat. Die erste und wichtigste der funf PDS Normen befasst sich mit den Qualitaten

der Lerngemeinschaft. Der Beitrag der Normen zur Aussagekraft der PDS Lerngemeinschaft als

einer neu entehenden Organisation wird erortert.

The professional development school as learning organization

Partnerships between institutions of higher education and pre-collegiate education

are important to teacher education. In reviewing examples of schooluniversity

partnerships in England, The Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the USA, Day

(1999) categorized such partnerships as rooted in the following three types of

activity: (i) supervision and mentoring of teacher interns; (ii) provision of

customized professional development for inservice teachers; (iii) conduct of research

or inquiry, either with leadership by university faculty or in collaboration between

school-based and university-based educators. All three of these purposes are

embraced by the professional development school (PDS), a type of schooluniversity

collaboration that has developed internationally, with examples in Canada (Fullan,

1995), Australia (Sachs, 1997), England (Hopkins et al., 1998), The Netherlands

(P. Lorist, personal communication, 27 August 2003) and the USA, where national

PDS standards established by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher

Education (NCATE, 2001) are part of the discourse of collaboration.

The American formulation of the PDS is attributed to the Holmes Group, founded

in 1986 as a reform initiative by research university deans. The Holmes founders

advanced the formation of complex, multi-purpose schooluniversity partnerships,

comparing them with the teaching hospitals of medical schools in their focus on initial

and continuing education and research. As the PDS evolved, its definition came to

include a public or state supported school dedicated to educating a challenging K-12

student population via a significant partnership with a university teacher education

programme and involvement in inquiry about teaching practice. Levine (2002)

described a PDS as a relationship between schools and universities to better prepare

teacher candidates who are of high quality and safe to practice in a climate of

180 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

increasing teacher shortage. As a learning organization, the PDS promotes student

and teacher learning, as well as an opportunity to reform education in both contexts.

In the 1990s the Holmes Group became the Holmes Partnership, symbolizing a

more inclusive membership and mission. This refocusing brought into the Holmes

fold school and community leaders who desired full partnership in the preparation of

quality teachers for Americans children and youth (University of Kentucky Educators

Network, 2004).Tomorrows schools: principles for the design of professional development

schools (Holmes Group, 1990) set six criteria for a PDS that would: (i) promote

significant teaching and learning; (ii) create learning communities for large numbers of

students; (iii) serve everybodys children, not just an elite group such as the children of

university faculty; (iv) promote professional development of educators; (v) foster

inquiry about teaching and learning; (vi) forge new types of partnerships between K-

12 and higher education. Holmes Group members, including the University of North

Dakota and the University of North Texas, featured later in this paper, were soon

engaged in actualizing such institutions, and they were not alone.

During the 1990s the major US teachers unions, the National Education

Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), encouraged

members to form partnerships with colleges of education. By 1995 interest had

grown to the extent that PDS reformers feared their efforts would be diluted by

imposters. By 2000 many American teacher education programmes claimed one or

more PDSs. Some were mere redesignations of the numerous public schools where

teacher candidates were placed for student teaching. Others were sustained,

collaborative efforts representing multiple purposes. Although some were inspired

by the Holmes Group, others followed the precepts of the National Network for

Educational Renewal (NNER), led by John Goodlad. In 1999 33 universities and

their 100 school district partners, including about 500 partner school sites, were

involved in the NNER (Clark, 1999). Positing teacher education as the framework

for education in a democracy, the NNER recognized four roles for partner schools:

(i) preservice teacher education, (ii) professional development of educators, (iii)

inquiry and (iv) school renewal.

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2004) described a

PDS as a learning organization where schools share the common goals of

maximizing the performance and achievement of students, preparing quality

teachers and other school personnel, enhancing the professional development of

novice and veteran teachers and inquiry into best practice.

In this paper we examine one of the five standards for professional development

schools that were developed by the NCATE. Our focus is on Standard I: learning

community, because of clear relevance to the theme of learning organizations. The

paper concludes with reflections on the current status of PDS standards and of PDSs

themselves.

Standards for professional development schools

Definition and delineation of quality in PDSs was sought through the release, in

October 2001, of Standards for professional development schools (NCATE, 2001). The

The professional development school as learning organization 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

standards had been field tested at 17 PDS sites and were based on a review of the

literature describing work in PDSs (see, for example, Darling-Hammond, 1994; Clark,

1999; Johnson et al., 2000) and a description of the essential characteristics of a PDS

(see, for example, Osguthorpe et al., 1995; Levine & Trachtman, 1997; Levine, 1998;

Murrell, 1998). The standards were published with descriptive commentary and with

rubrics that denote a PDS as meeting the standards at a beginning, developing,

standard or leading level. It is possible for a PDS partnership to meet the five

standards at different developmental levels and/or to return to an earlier level on one

standard or another as it deals with growth and change.

The five standards are briefly summarized below.

Standard I. Learning community

A learning community is at the heart of a PDS. This standard defines the PDS as a

learning-centered community that supports the integrated learning and development

of P-12 students, candidates, and PDS partners through inquiry-based practice

(NCATE, 2001, p. 11). A common vision of teaching and learning grounded in

research and practice guides the work of the partnership and results in improvements

in the practice of individuals and of the partnering institutions. The partner

institutions include the university, the school district and the teachers union or

professional education association(s). School and university faculty (including arts

and sciences faculty), community members and other PDS sites are important

participants in the extended learning community.

Standard II. Accountability and quality assurance

PDS partners are accountable to one another and to the public for upholding

professional standards. The partners set clear criteria for institutional and individual

participation, establish outcome goals for participants, develop assessments and use

results to examine their practice systematically. The partnership demonstrates its

impact at the local, state and national levels (NCATE, 2001).

Standard III. Collaboration

PDS partners strive to move from independent to interdependent practice through

joint work. They design roles and structures to support shared work that improves

outcomes for P-12 students, teacher candidates and school and university faculty.

Each partner contributes to the joint work (NCATE, 2001, p.15).

Standard IV. Diversity and equity

Partners and candidates develop and demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions

resulting in learning for all P-12 students. The policies and practices of the partner

institutions and their inclusion of diverse participants and learning communities are

components of this standard (NCATE, 2001).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Standard V. Structures, resources and roles

PDS partnerships use their authority and resources to establish governing structures

that support teaching and learning. The partners ensure that structures, programmes

and resource decisions support their mission, reacting and modifying roles as

necessary to achieve their goals. Communication structures link the partnering

institutions and help to inform others of their work (NCATE, 2001).

None of the PDS standards is more important than the first. Commitment to a

learning community motivates the others. Components of the learning community

standard include (i) the PDSs inclusion of multiple learners, (ii) a focus on inquiry

and learning in the direction of the work and in teaching practice, (iii) existence of a

commonly shared vision of teaching and learning grounded in research and

practitioner knowledge, (iv) service of the PDS as an instrument for change and (v)

development of an extended learning community.

In the following sections we describe two examples of PDS learning communities

that convey the nature of the American PDS work with respect to NCATE PDS

Standard 1.

Lake Agassiz professional development school

Lake Agassiz Elementary School in Grand Forks, North Dakota, is what Clark

(1999) calls a stylish PDS. Lake Agassiz, one of 12 elementary schools in Grand

Forks, serves the most ethnically diverse population in this community of 50,000,

which is 100 miles south of the Canadian border. In 1998 the school population of

500 kindergarten through sixth graders was 27% minority, with Native American as

the largest group (18%). Eligibility of the school for funds authorized through Title I

of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act is an indicator of its service

to low income families, with 74% of its children receiving free or reduced price

school lunches (Self-Study Committee, 1999). The school staff included 35 teachers

and 22 paraprofessionals who partnered with the 12 member Elementary Education

faculty of the University of North Dakota (UND).

The PDS initiative of UND and Lake Agassiz began in 1990 in response to the

work of the Holmes Group and with support from the John D. and James S. Knight

Foundations Excellence in Education programme. In the time before its formal

beginning the partnership arrived at jointly held purposes and statements of belief

(Clark, 1999). The UND elementary education programme was founded in the

progressive tradition, representing a vision that included

individualized, developmentally appropriate, and constructivist curriculum; student-

centered teaming; interdisciplinary approaches to solving real problems; use of primary

resources and the direct experiences of learners; commitment to community

involvement and to the school as a model of democracy; valuing of diversity; and

commitment to humane and holistic understandings of teaching, learning, and

evaluation. (Harris & Gates, 1997, p. 29)

In the UND teacher education conceptual document these values indicate nine goals

for teacher candidates. Through a series of summer workshops, complementary goals


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

for Lake Agassiz students were developed by the PDS partners. In both

programmes the realization of goals by teacher candidates or K-6 students came

to be assessed through portfolios. These complementary frameworks of goals and

assessments were at the heart of the other programmes developed to support

learning at the Lake Agassiz PDS.

UND is committed to preparing preservice teachers who are active learners, who

take an active role in the learning of students and who envision alternative

approaches to the dilemmas posed by practice. Lake Agassiz supports the UND

preservice programme by each year accepting twelve 16-week student teachers, an

average of 20 candidates in earlier semester-long field experiences and as many as 36

candidates involved in briefer experiences that accompany introductory courses.

These experiences exceed the state requirement of at least 200 hours of field

experience to precede a minimum of 12 weeks of full-time, unpaid student teaching

in a state accredited school with a cooperating teacher who is certified and has

completed a 3 credit hour course in the supervision of student teachers. As the only

PDS of the UND elementary education programme, Lake Agassiz strives to design

programmes that promote learning and can be replicated at other schools. Initiatives

for preservice teachers at Lake Agassiz included teacher-led seminars for candidates,

welcoming and farewell rituals, school location of university classes and a handbook

for field experience students and their mentor teachers (Bakke & Harris, 1998).

In 1992 Lake Agassiz and UND, with support from the Grand Forks Education

Association, an NEA affiliate, started an ongoing resident teacher programme. This

initiative enables three certified teachers who have never taught under contract to

practice full-time while earning masters degrees in elementary education. The

resident teachers qualify for admission to the UND Graduate School and are

selected jointly by school and university personnel. The school district pays the

salaries of the residents through a subcontract with the university, which employs

them as Graduate Service Assistants. As of 2003, 34 resident teachers had

completed the programme, and many were employed in Grand Forks schools.

A substantial contributor to the learning of the resident teachers and of preservice

candidates at Lake Agassiz is the resident supervisor, who is constantly available to

support new teachers as a colleague, mentor and friend (Johnson & Gates, 1998).

The duties of the resident supervisor include supporting the preservice programme,

coordinating professional development activities and assisting other schools in their

work with teacher education.

In 1993 the partnership began to explore an interdisciplinary curriculum in both

the K-6 and elementary education programmes. Over several years K-12 teachers

and UND faculty engaged in joint and parallel study groups, visits to other schools

and summer workshops that included consultation with national leaders in this area.

Their exploration led in many directions. The UND faculty devised assignments for

candidate development of interdisciplinary thematic units (Barrentine, 1999). A

search for models of interdisciplinary practices inclusive of fine arts led to

participation in the Metropolitan Opera Project. Through a rich construction and

production process, sixth grade students and their teachers joined a global


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

community of opera lovers (Sherwood et al., 1998). Lake Agassiz adopted a carefully

constructed annual school-wide thematic unit celebrating cultures of families. A

sixth grader observed, I learned how important it is to learn about other cultures

so that we can help one another. A fourth grader put it more directly, We are all

one family and we have to take care of one another (Fuller, 1998, p. 14). Combining

curricular innovations with experiments in extended day and extended year

programmes, Lake Agassiz teachers gained time for grade level and interdisciplinary

planning (Grinolds, 1998; Schmisek, 1998).

Changes in assessment practices led to new ways of interacting with parents about

the learning goals and progress of students. The school refined a process for parent

studentteacher goal setting that was later adopted district wide. What had once

been evening music programmes evolved into celebrations of learning, planned by

the children to convey authentic and interdisciplinary learning related to a theme

(Harris & Gates, 1997). These activities were joined by monthly family learning

nights, special reading programmes and author- and illustrator-in-the-schools

programmes (Peterson, 1998). A parent reading room, school-based health services

and other elements of full service school programming were added as the school

came to better know the needs of its community.

Lake Agassiz was one of the 17 PDS sites included in the NCATE PDS standards

field test. The visiting team found that it met the five standards, including: the

learning community expectations of a common vision; serving multiple types of

learners; a focus on inquiry into learning and practice; serving as an impetus for

change; extending the learning community to parents, to other schools and to wider

professional communities.

Before turning to developments at the University of North Texas (UNT) we

should point out the respective sizes of these two institutions and their service

regions. UND, located in a frost-belt state with a declining rural population of

650,000, enrolls approximately 11,000 students and prepares 220 new teachers

annually, half in elementary education. As the only elementary PDS, Lake Agassiz

serves some, but not all, teacher candidates and is a research and development

centre. UNT, in contrast, is located in a growing metropolitan area of 4,500,000.

The university enrolls over 31,000 students and is growing. UNT currently

graduates about 320 elementary baccalaureate candidates annually and also offers

preservice programmes at the post-baccalaureate level. When the Texas Legislature

announced in the early 1990s the goal of placing every teacher candidate in the state

in a PDS, UNT faced a substantially different challenge from that selected by UND.

University of North Texas PDS network

UNT started its PDS work in 1992 in response to the state initiative. The Texas

Legislature authorized funding for Professional Development and Technology

Centers (PDTCs) that were intended to increase the capacity of K-12 schools for

field basing the teacher education programmes offered by institutions of higher

education (Resta, 1998). Starting in one urban, one suburban and three rural school


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

districts, UNT College of Education faculty worked with school personnel to

develop intensive field experiences for candidates who were enrolled in their final

two semesters of a four year undergraduate programme (Harris & Wilhelm, 2002).

Leaders at the PDS sites were free to develop and implement curricula as they saw

fit, and new sites, urban and suburban, gradually joined the network. By 1997 UNT

had PDS clusters in 10 school districts. School people viewed the PDS programmes

as strengthening the historic commitment of UNT to teacher education. In response

to a 1996 survey conducted by UNT, school district personnel officers

recommended that all UNT candidates participate in a PDS.

This recommendation coincided with the end of state funding for PDTCs. Still,

the UNT College of Education administration called for a uniform PDS-based

curriculum for all candidates. A faculty committee (PDS Model Committee, 1998)

identified common curricula for teacher candidates at all sites and specified that

each candidate would complete two eight-week rotations or placements with

mentor teachers in each of two semesters of internship. Candidates would be placed

in school districts in cadres of 36. This number was chosen because it generated the

number of semester credit hours needed to fund the programme using financial

formulas applied by UNT. The role of PDS Coordinator was created as a UNT

faculty position responsible for organizing cadres and coordinating arrangements

with school districts. A formal PDS Agreement, signed annually by UNT and

partner districts, codifies commitments, definitions of terms and policies that are

common to all PDS sites.

The PDS Coordinator works with approximately 14 school districts that are

geographically proximate to UNT. The largest district, Dallas, serves 161,000

students. Suburban districts, including Denton, where UNT is located, are part of

the network, as also are proximate rural districts, some serving as few as 1000

students. The Dallas Independent School District (ISD) is the eighth largest school

district in the nation, and it offers a full range of urban challenges: changing

populations, an inadequate tax base and an inability to attract teachers. Districts

peripheral to the metroplex, and especially those on the north side, towards Denton,

have grown rapidly since opening of the Dallas Fort Worth Airport. Rural districts

struggle to offer students opportunities. UNT is caught between the needs of rapidly

growing neighbor districts, where candidates often aspire to teach, and the needs of

the urban districts for teachers who are well prepared to work across cultures in

assuring student learning.

The university tries to address the need for culturally competent teachers by

specifying that PDS sites in all partner districts be the most ethnically diverse schools

available, however, K-12 student diversity in partner districts varies considerably.

For example, Dallas ISD currently serves a student population that is 36% African-

American, 55% Hispanic and 8% White, with 74% of students classified as

economically disadvantaged, while Northwest ISD, which includes the suburbs

north of Fort Worth, serves a student population that is 1% African-American, 9%

Hispanic and 88% White, with 19.1% of students classified as economically

disadvantaged. For the school districts the commitment to working with UNT is


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

motivated by a desire to recruit well-prepared teachers who are already oriented to

local curricula and ways of working.

To achieve placements for an increased number of candidates in 20012002, the

PDS Coordinator enlisted partnerships with 15 school districts. A cadre of interns

spent two semesters, either autumn and spring or spring and autumn, in one district,

distributed among its PDS sites. Some districts offer placements at campuses where

virtually all the teachers are involved in the PDS. An example is Cowart Elementary

School in the Dallas ISD, which regularly rotates interns among its experienced staff.

Other, less established partnerships offer multiple campuses at which small groups of

interns are placed. Although this practice sometimes lacks the stability of Cowart, it

is unlikely to change in fast growing suburban districts that open several new schools

every year and move their experienced teachers as needed to balance newly hired

staff. Wherever they are placed, UNT interns spend two days a week at the PDS in

the first semester (Internship I) and five days a week in the second (Internship II),

working in two classrooms (rotations) that vary in grade level and match the content

area(s) of preparation of the candidates. Internship II meets the requirements of

student teaching set by the state, to include at least 12 weeks of full-time, unpaid

experience in a state-accredited school with a cooperating teacher who is

experienced and certified.

Teacher candidate learning is structured by the courses in which students are

simultaneously enrolled and by the faculty member who serves as the cadre

coordinator. In the secondary programme, a Field Experience Journal is a major

organizer for Internship I. The journal guides candidates through a series of

observations and reflections on topics that are progressive and include observing the

classroom environment, studying assessment and grading practices, working with

the Individual Education Plan of a student eligible for special education services,

interviewing an administrator and interacting with parents. Structure for elementary

Internship I experiences is provided through a handbook for interns, mentor

teachers and faculty, weekly seminars and candidate preparation of a portfolio. The

portfolio process is introduced early in the programme, with candidates asked to

document their learning to meet standards developed by the Interstate New Teacher

Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) (Council of Chief State School

Officers, 1992).

During Internship II a new role enters the learning organization. This person is the

university supervisor, often a retired teacher or principal, who visits classrooms

regularly to support and assess interns as they accept increasing responsibility for the

learning of students. Candidates are expected to assume responsibility for at least

two full weeks of teaching in each eight-week rotation. University supervisors and

mentor teachers apply a set of 33 descriptors of teaching behaviours, based on the

Texas teacher proficiencies, to their assessment of candidate teaching. These

descriptors tend to shape the discussions about teaching that occur in Internship II.

Research by UNT faculty demonstrates aspects of the effect of the PDS on

teacher candidate learning. In spring 2001 candidates assessed self-perceived

proficiency on the INTASC standards at the beginning, middle and end of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Internship II experience. Candidates in all programmes increased their self-

assessments of competence. Areas of strongest growth were consistent with local

programme themes. Scores of candidates who completed all three of the self-

assessments increased significantly (P,0.01) on all items (Harris & Wilhelm, 2002).

Cobb (2000) found that mentor teachers at one PDS site perceived that PDS-

prepared candidates were better prepared, more qualified and more confident than

non-PDS peers. Cobb (2001) followed graduates from one PDS site into their early

years of teaching. She found that graduates saw themselves as change agents and

reported their use of change-oriented practices that included student-centred

methods, use of technology, variety in instructional approaches, reflection and

continuing high expectations for students. Cowart and Rademacher (1998) asked

Grade 48 students their perceptions of candidate learning in one PDS. They found

that the children were positive about the PDS but had suggestions for the interns

about classroom management, how to motivate students and how to improve

assignments to meet the needs of diverse learners.

In related studies faculty looked at the effect of specific innovations on teacher

candidate learning. Wilhelm et al. (1996) studied the effect on candidates of an

orientation seminar designed as an urban plunge, where candidates engaged in an in-

depth orientation to the diversity aspects of the urban setting of their PDS site. They

found that at the conclusion of the plunge candidates expressed increased confidence

in their ability to plan for multicultural instruction, to evaluate instructional materials

for bias and to educate students who are English language learners.

Increased confidence was not necessarily associated with increased candidate

performance, however. For example, candidates who had completed the plunge

were not significantly more able than other candidates to classify lesson plans

according to Banks (1993) model of multicultural curricular infusion. Rademacher

et al. (1997) examined the effect of candidate application of strategies taught in a

seminar to improve the quality of assignments for diverse learners. They found that

students were more likely to complete and to perform well and that mentor teachers

were more likely to approve of carefully designed assignments that provided for

student choice and involvement in planning. Similarly, Rademacher et al. (2001)

studied the effect on intern assignments of resources provided to support the

integration of technology. The conclusions reinforced the importance of time for

implementation, selection of appropriate learning goals and assessment criteria and

open-endedness for students in teacher candidate designed, technology-based

assignments.

Mentor teachers with whom UNT PDS candidates are placed during their four

rotations typically have at least three years teaching experience. Because mentor

teachers work without compensation, it is important that they see a benefit to

working with an intern. When good communication structures are in place at the

local level, mentor teachers become co-learners in experiences provided for interns

such as those described above. Cobb (2000) studied the impact of the PDS on

mentor teacher professionalism. She found that mentor teachers were generally

positive about the PDS concept and grew more favourable in their perception over


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

the four years of PDS implementation. While few teachers reported fundamental

changes in their teaching philosophies, 85% reported they had learned innovative

teaching strategies from participation in the PDS. Tunks (2001) found improvement

over a four year period in the extent of agreement between university supervisors and

mentor teachers about candidate performance based on the Texas teacher

proficiencies. This finding suggests a growth in understanding and application of

a common understanding of teaching to candidate performance.

Opportunities for substantial mentor teacher learning have occurred when partner

districts make the financial commitment to support the enrollment of experienced

teachers in UNT masters degree programmes, which can be tailored for delivery on

site. When mentor teachers are involved in university-based coursework that supports

the learning premises of the initial programme, more advanced directed inquiry can

occur, supporting the teacher leadership that is a condition of school-wide change in a

PDS learning environment. Ongoing teacher leadership at Cowart Elementary School

has been an important factor in setting directions for school development.

The effect of the PDS on P-12 student learning is indicated by some of the

research on intern learning reported earlier. Improved assignments by teacher

candidates, their use of technology and their demonstration in portfolios of the

interaction of student learning with teacher planning attend to this priority. Still,

Cobb (2000) found that mentor teachers did not believe that the PDS intervention

had the potential to improve student achievement on annual high stakes tests

without other interventions. At Cowart Elementary School, however, there were

steady gains, from 1994 to 2000, in student attendance, attitude and performance

on state tests in reading, writing and mathematics. These results were attributed by

Cowart and Rademacher (2003) to active inclusion of the students in shaping their

learning community.

Application of the learning community elements to the UNT PDS network

suggests that each site successfully involves multiple learners, including interns,

mentor teachers, students and university faculty. Furthermore, ongoing research,

including many candidate action research projects not cited here, suggests that much

of the work is inquiry focused. Some elements are in place to promote a common

professional vision, such as the PDS agreement, handbooks and the conceptual

framework of the UNT programmes. However, there is not a strong vehicle for

shared envisioning across the network. The PDS has served as a vehicle for change in

certain schools and districts, most notably at Cowart Elementary School, where its

predominantly Hispanic students remain on solid ground academically because of a

strong, committed teaching force enabled by the PDS. Where the network currently

has its greatest impact is in the quality and longevity of the teachers prepared.

Morrows (2002) survey showed that 100% of responding personnel officers

considered UNT graduates excellent or very good compared with graduates of

other programmes. UNT candidates enter the classroom the year after graduation at

a rate of 87%, compared with a state wide mean of 66%, and 70% of the UNT

graduates remain in teaching after five years, compared with a state average of 50%

(State Board for Educator Certification, 2002).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Do professional development schools and standards matter?

In a recent handbook written to assist PDS partners in advancing their work through

use of the NCATE standards, Teitel (2003) pointed out three types of

accountability for the PDS. One refers to the responsibility of all schools to account

for the quality of their students learning. A second refers to the PDS as an

innovation and to the concomitant responsibility of involved parties to justify their

work. The third refers to the quality of inquiry into practice enabled by the PDS as a

participant in the educational research community. Teitel claims that each type of

accountability comes into bloom as a PDS is established and matures. The standards

enable description of the evolution of a PDS, inviting cross-site comparisons. So far,

however, most of the PDS research has focused on only one site or network and has

addressed questions about the PDS as an innovation.

Early research on the American PDS focused on qualities of the teacher

candidates and other professionals working in these settings. Abdal-Haqq (1998)

found support in the literature for the propositions that teacher candidates placed in

PDS settings, when compared with those placed in scattered settings, (i) utilized

more varied teaching strategies, (ii) were more reflective, (iii) had more knowledge of

school routines and practices, (iv) were more confident of their knowledge base, (v)

felt better prepared to teach linguistically and ethnically diverse learners and (vi) had

lower attrition rates after the first years of teaching. For experienced teachers he

found that the benefits to PDS participants supported by research included: (i) a

greater willingness to experiment and take risks; (ii) intellectual energy generated by

new ideas, participation in research and inquiry and interaction with others about

teaching; (iii) growth from engaging in newly developed roles; (iv) reduced isolation;

(v) a greater sense of power; (vi) an improvement in teaching practice; (vii) an

increased feeling of professionalism. The results of research conducted at UNT

support several of these findings and the descriptions of practice at Lake Agassiz/

UND, including many written by school-based professionals, exude the energy and

power of engaged PDS learners.

More recent research has focused on questions about student learning outcomes

in the PDS. In 1998 Abdul-Haqq found scant support for the proposition that

schooling in a PDS has a notable effect on student achievement, but Teitel (2003)

expressed more confidence. A review by Teitel (2001) cited a few studies that

demonstrated improved achievement for K-12 students enrolled in a PDS, and this

evidence is growing. Beyond improved scores on state-mandated tests, the PDS-

based research typically includes measures reflecting more complex understandings

of learning. With growth in the research which suggests that PDS matters, there is

increased potential for multi-partnership participation in research that attends to

higher order thinking and problem-solving in these settings.

Reality offers numerous barriers to this grand vision. Local PDS partnerships

experience peaks and valleys. Key leaders change; sources of funding whither. State,

local and national policy changes require rethinking of issues that were once

resolved. Although the UND experience shows that an excellent PDS can be

constructed with goodwill, energy and the focus of all available resources on one


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

goal, Lake Agassiz PSD is now struggling, as restricted state funding threatens key

sources of university support. UNT, a faculty committed to enabling a PDS

experience for every candidate, made that happen in spite of a lack of the leadership

required to develop a viable, multi-layered network and in spite of the lack of

continued state funding. Today, Texas teacher education faculty wonder about the

fate of their PDS-supported programmes as legislatively mandated alternative

programmes allow teacher candidates to bypass student teaching in favour of on-the-

job paid internships.

Reflecting on the progress of teacher education reform in Texas, Tipps (1998)

pointed out that every innovation in teacher education must wrestle with the

dilemmas of quality versus quantity, lack of funding and the lack of status of the

teaching profession. These dilemmas are evident at other sites (Crocco et al., 2003)

as well and at the national level. For example, NCATE, having developed national

standards for PDS through an externally funded project, chose not to mandate these

standards nor the expectation that its members sponsor a PDS as part of its national

accreditation process.

According to Pope (2002), collaboratively developed partnerships flourish in

political climates that welcome the development of unique, locally defined learning

organizations and wane when central authorities control relationships between

schools, teachers and teacher education. In spite of the increasing centralized control

of outcomes for both higher and pre-collegiate education, teacher education in

American public universities has no credible future except in partnership with the

public schools that are the employers of its graduates. The NCATE PDS standards

offer a tool for measuring the development of a PDS that is consistent with the

Holmes and NNER visions. These standards contribute to an education reform

agenda that includes the professionalization of teaching and the access of every

student to a public education of consequence. In a regulatory climate that could shift

the responsibility for teacher education in America from universities to school

districts, the viability of a negotiated partnership like PDS depends on its

understanding of learning organization. An over-reliance on university-led initial

teacher preparation in the mission and organization of a PDS distracts attention

from its equally salient functions of professional development, student learning and

inquiry. As Bredeson (2003) pointed out, a learning community must also be an

unlearning community, pruning the structures and activities that no longer fit. The

NCATE PDS standards provide a road map for partnerships of practitioners and

scholars that advance the learning of multiple actors by offering a vision of

collaboration wide and deep enough to accommodate the changing political context

of school reform.

Notes on contributors

Mary M. Harris is Meadows Chair for Excellence in Education and Professor of

Teacher Education and Administration at the University of North Texas, in

Denton. Formerly dean of the College of Education and Human Development


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

at the University of North Dakota, she served on the Design Committee for the

NCATE PDS Standards Project. Her research interests are in teacher

education, with a focus on early career development.

Frances van Tassell, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teacher

Education and Administration. She has been at the University of North Texas

for 12 years. In 20032004 she was President of the Association of Teacher

Educators and in 20042005 Chair of the University of North Texas Faculty

Senate.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998) Professional development schools: weighing the evidence (Thousand Oaks, CA,

Corwin).

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2004) Professional development schools

at a glance. Available online at: www.aacte.otg/Eric/pds_glance.htm (accessed 1 November

2004).

Bakke, J. & Harris, M. (1998) Lake Agassiz professional development school, in: M. Harris (Ed.)

Under construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND,

College of Education and Human Development), 4045.

Banks, J. A. (1993) Multicultural education: development, dimensions, and challenges, Phi Delta

Kappan, 1, 2228.

Barrentine, S. (1999) Facilitating preservice students development of thematic units, The Teacher

Educator, 34(4), 276290.

Bredeson, P. V. (2003) Designs for learning: a new architecture for professional development in schools

(Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin).

Clark, R. W. (1999) Effective professional development schools (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

Cobb, J. B. (2000) The impact of a professional development school on preservice teacher

preparation, inservice teachers professionalism, and childrens achievement, Action in

Teacher Education, 22(3), 6476.

Cobb, J. B. (2001) Graduates of professional development school programs: perceptions of the

teacher as change agent, Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 119.

Council of Chief State School Officers (1992) Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and

development: a resource for state dialogue. Available online at: www.ccsso.org/intascst.html

(accessed 7 February 2001).

Cowart, M. & Rademacher, J. A. (1998) In my opinion: what students say about professional

development schools, Teaching and Change, 6(1), 119131.

Cowart, M. & Rademacher, J. A. (2003) Turning student voice into student outcomes, in:

D. L. Wiseman & S. L. Knight (Eds) Linking schooluniversity collaboration and K-12 student

outcomes (Washington, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education), 87102.

Crocco, M. S., Faithfull, B. & Schwartz, S. (2003) Inquiring minds want to know: action research at

New York City professional development school, Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 1930.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.) (1994) Professional development schools: schools for developing a profession

(New York, Teachers College Press).

Day, C. (1999) Developing teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning (London, Falmer Press).

Fullan, M. G. (1995) The limits and potential of professional development, in: T. R. Gurskey

& M. Huberman (Eds) Professional development in education: new paradigms and practices

(New York, Teachers College Press), 253268.

Fuller, M. (1998) Diversity at Lake Agassiz School: we are all one family and we have to take care

of one another, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz

elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and Human Development),

714.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Grinolds, C. (1998) Common planning time, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence in

education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and

Human Development), 3335.

Harris, M. M. & Gates, J. S. (1997) Using standards in simultaneous renewal, Action in Teacher

Education, 19(2), 2737.

Harris, M. M. & Wilhelm, R. W. (2002) Institutional report submitted to National Council for

Accreditation of Teacher Education & State Board for Educator Certification (Denton, TX,

College of Education).

Holmes Group (1990) Tomorrows schools: principles for the design of professional development schools

(East Lansing, MI, Holmes Group).

Hopkins, D., West, M. & Ainscow, M. (1998) Improving the quality of education for all (London,

David Fulton).

Johnson, M., Brosnan, P., Cramer, D. & Dove, T. (Eds) (2000) Collaborative reform and other

improbable dreams: the challenges of professional development schools (Albany, NY, State

University of New York Press).

Johnson, S. & Gates, S. (1998) The resident teacher program, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under

construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND,

College of Education and Human Development), 7582.

Levine, M. (Ed.) (1998) Designing standards that work for professional development schools

(Washington, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education).

Levine, M. (2002) Why invest in professional development schools? Educational Leadership, 59(6),

6568.

Levine, M. & Trachtman, R. (Eds) (1997) Making professional development schools work: politics,

practice, and policy (New York, Teachers College Press).

Morrow, J. (2002) Employer survey (Denton, TX, College of Education).

Murrell, P. (1998) Like stone soup: the role of the professional development school in the renewal of urban

schools (Washington, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education).

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001) Standards for professional

development schools (Washington, NCATE).

Osguthorpe, R. T., Harris, R. C., Harris, M. F. & Black, S. (Eds) (1995) Partner schools: centers for

educational renewal (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).

PDS Model Committee (1998) Reinventing the wheel: the revision of UNTs professional development

school model to serve large numbers of teacher certification candidates (Denton, TX, College of

Education).

Peterson, L. (1998) Parent/family involvement at Lake Agassiz elementary school, in: M. Harris

(Ed.) Under construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand

Forks, ND, College of Education and Human Development), 102106.

Pope, M. (2002) Varied views of collaboration in professional development schools (review of the

book Collaborative Reform and Other Impossible (sic) Dreams), Teaching and Teacher Education,

18(8), 10511059.

Rademacher, J. A., Cowart, M., Sparks, J. & Chism, V. (1997) Planning high quality assignments

with diverse learners, Preventing School Failure, 42(1), 1215.

Rademacher, J., Tyler-Wood, T., Doclair, J. & Pemberton, J. (2001) Developing learner-centered

technology assignments with student teachers, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,

17(3), 1825.

Resta, V. K. (1998) Professional development schools as a catalyst for reform (Austin, TX, Texas State

Board for Educator Certification).

Sachs, J. (1997) Reclaiming the agenda of teacher professionalism: an Australian experience,

Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 263276.

Self-Study Committee (1999) Self study for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education professional development schools standards project (Grand Forks, ND, College of

Education and Human Development).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sherwood, C., Gregoire, D. & Iverson, D. (1998) Creating original opera at Lake Agassiz

Elementary School, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence in education at Lake

Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and Human

Development), 2128.

Schmisek, G. (1998) The extended day program, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence

in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and

Human Development), 2932.

State Board for Educator Certification (2002) Teacher attrition and employment by preparation entity.

Available online at: www.sbec.tx.us/SBECOnline/reportdatasearch/tchrattremploy.asp

(accessed 20 June 2003).

Teitel, L. (2001) How professional development schools make a difference: a review of research

(Washington, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education).

Teitel, L. (2003) The professional development school handbook: starting, sustaining, and assessing

partnerships that improve student learning (Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin).

Tipps, S. (1998) Paradox in teacher education: why things dont get better in teaching and teacher

preparation, in: F. van Tassell (Ed.) Restructuring teacher education in Texas through

professionalism, partnerships, pluralism, and performance (Dalls, TX, Texas Congress on

Educator Preparation), 5462.

Tunks, J. (2001) Unpublished study reported in Elementary Education Program Review.

Unpublished document submitted to the Association of Childhood Education International

(Denton, TX, College of Education).

University of Kentucky Educators Network (2004) Professional development school distinction.

Available online at: www.uky.edu/Education/PDS/distinction.html (accessed 1 November

2004).

Wilhelm, R. W., Cowart, M. F., Hume, L. M. & Rademacher, J. A. (1996) The effects of a

professional development school institute on preservice teachers intellectual sensitivity, The

Teacher Educator, 32(1), 4859.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ucha

rest

] a

t 04:

54 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

02619760500093255

Documents