xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20019999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00223
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 9, no. 26 (July 26, 2001).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c July 26, 2001
Negotiated learning : union contracts and teacher professional development / Paul V. Bredeson.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 9issue 26series Year mods:caption 20012001Month July7Day 2626mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2001-07-26
1 of 24 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 9 Number 26July 26, 2001ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2001, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .Negotiated Learning: Union Contracts and Teacher Pr ofessional Development Paul V. Bredeson University of Wisconsin-MadisonAbstractIn this article, I report the results of an investi gation that examined the impact of teacher union contracts on the developmen t of professional learning communities in schools. There are three pr imary sources of data used in the study: 1) 100 written teacher union con tract documents; 2) structured interview data from 21 educators (school superintendents, principals, directors of staff development, and tea cher union representatives; and 3) focus group interview data from educational leaders in schools. The analysis and discussion foc us on five areas related to teacher professional development with im plications for policy and practice: explicit language covering opportunities for teaching learning in their work; governance and decision making structures that is, specific provisions covering wages, hours, and conditions of employment; the description of legitimate and sponsored activities for the professional development of teachers; and the resources supporting the on-going professional growth of teachers. The f indings indicate that rethinking, restructuring, and organizational re-cu lturing in schools are
2 of 24initial expressions of a new unionism that has the potential to lead to the development of more powerful professional learning communities in schools. Introduction Among educational policy makers, researchers, and practitioners, there is an emerging consensus that teacher professional develo pment is vitally important to educational reform as we approach the next millenni um. In fact, it seems trite to assert that teacher professional development is critically important to school improvement focussed on enhanced student learning outcomes. Nev ertheless, there continues to be a need to communicate the importance of continuous le arning and development for educators, individually and collectively, to people in and out of schools. Without clearly articulated and documented evidence of its overall contribution to school success, professional development can easily become the vict im of capricious budget cutting, or worse, be relegated to the scrap heap of educationa l fads and ephemeral educational elixirs. The link between teacher professional development and union contracts is one that has been forged over decades of collective bar gaining between teachers' associations and local school boards. Â“After all, unions are pot entially powerful collaborators because they negotiate the allocation of time in school and define a teacher's official duty day and psychological work role relationshipsÂ” (Kerchner, K oppich, & Weeres, 1997 p. 173). In additional to traditional areas of bargaining (wage s, hours, and conditions of employment), recent school reforms and new politica l realities have forced teachers and school boards to re-examine their contractual relat ionships. Though there are many dimensions of teacher union activities supporting teacher learning in classrooms, schools, and beyond, this s tudy focuses only on written teacher contracts and their administration. I was particula rly interested in knowing if the language in teacher union contracts stated explicit ly, or reflected indirectly, the importance that schools, administrators, and teache rs placed on professional development. The purpose of this study was to exami ne teacher union contracts and the impact of these agreements on teacher learning. The following questions guided the study. First, to what degree is teacher professiona l development explicitly addressed in the language of local collective bargaining agreeme nts between school boards and teachers' unions? Second, in what way(s), if any, d oes contract language covering wages, hours, and conditions of employment influence teach ing learning and teachers' capacity to improve their practice? Third, according to teac hers and administrators, what aspects of contracts and their administration affect teache r learning and professional growth?Background Teacher Professional Development Even the casual reader of educational reform repor ts, legislative mandates, and contemporary educational literature would soon disc over one common themeÂ—teacher professional development is critical to systemic ed ucational reform and school improvement focussed on enhancing learning outcomes for all children in public education. These include calls to: create stable, h igh quality sources of professional development for teachers (What matters most: Teaching for America's future 1996 );
3 of 24incorporate teachers' learning into the fabric of t eachers' daily life (Bredeson, in press ; Tomorrow's Schools of Education, 1995; Teachers tak e charge of their learning 1996 ); establish professional development as a central com ponent of state and local educational reform (Houghton & Goren, 1995; Darling-Hammond & S ykes, 1999; Johansson & Bredeson, 1999); transform professional development to meet urgent educational needs (Corcoran, 1995; Porter, Smithson, & Osthoff, 1994) ; consider alternatives to traditional training models of staff development (Little, 1993; Sparks, 1994); deal more directly with issues of racism and inequity in schools (Weis sglass, 1997); develop practices that support new conceptions of teaching, learning, and schooling (Lieberman, 1995; LoucksHorsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1999; Hawl ey and Valli, 1999); effect behavioral change and improved practice (Osterman a nd Kottkamp, 1993; Guskey, 1995); and break the mold to classroom practices th rough new professional development practices (McLaughlin & Oberman, 1996). There is a large body of evidence that identifies design principles for effective, high quality professional development. Developing g uidelines for the design, delivery, and evaluation of outcomes is an important first st ep in the development of professional learning cultures in schools. Examples of these gui delines can be found in the Standards for Staff Development (NSDC, 1995; AFT, 1995; Darling-Hammond & McLaughl in, 1995; and DarlingHammond & Sykes, 1999). The Nati onal Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (NPEAT, 1998), for e xample, identified eight design principles based on current research and best pract ices in schools. The most effective professional development: Focuses on analyses of student learning, especially the examination of differences between actual student learning outcomes and goals and standards for student learning 1. Involves teachers identifying their own needs and d eveloping learning experiences to meet those needs 2. Is school-based and embedded in teachers' daily wor k 3. Is organized around collaborative problem-solving 4. Is continuous and on-going with follow-up and suppo rt for further learning 5. Incorporates evaluation of multiple sources of data detailing student learning and teacher instructional practices 6. Provides opportunities for teacher to link the theo ry that underlies knowledge and skills they are learning 7. Is connected to a comprehensive change process focu sed on improved student learning. (NPEAT, 1998) 8. Developing lists of design principles is important but identifying them is generally much easier than implementing them effect ively. The hard work comes in putting the design principles into practice with re al people in the dynamic and complex environments of schools. Teacher union contracts pr ovide an important lens for examining the organizational structures and dynamic s of teacher professional development and work.Defining the concept of professional development The term professional development, ubiquitous in cu rrent literature, is often used interchangeably with such terms as staff developmen t, in-service, skills training, and continuing education. I believe there are meaningfu l distinctions among these terms as well as conceptual limitations. To avoid confusion and to clarify the concept of teacher
4 of 24professional development, I have developed a defini tion grounded in research and current literature cited above. Professional develo pment refers to learning opportunities that engage teachers' creative and reflective capacities to strengthen their practice In this conceptualization, my intention is to highligh t three critical dimensions of professional development. First, professional devel opment has to do with learning opportunities. These may be formal or informal, ind ividual or group, and be delivered in dozens of different ways. The important dimension, often assumed but not explicitly stated by many writers and practitioners, is that l earning, not the activity, is the focus of professional development experiences. Thus, learnin g opportunities are not narrowly limited to discrete activities, events, or days on the school calendar. Second, if learning opportunities are designed to make a difference in the way(s) teachers think about their work and practice what they know, the learning oppo rtunities must engage teachers' creative and reflective capacities. By this I mean these learning opportunities tap into teachers' natural inclination to reflect on, person alize, and transform new knowledge and skills in ways that fit their personal style as wel l as the context of their work. Osterman and Kottkamp (1993) describe the relationship betwe en reflection and professional development. Â“Reflective practice is viewed as a me ans by which practitioners can develop a greater level of self-awareness about the nature and impact of their performance, an awareness that creates opportunitie s for professional growth and developmentÂ” (p. 19). The third component of this d efinition is to strengthen teachers' practice. Billions of dollars are spent each year o n professional development in the United States (NCTAF, 1996). This investment is mad e primarily because taxpayers, policy makers, and practitioners believe learning o pportunities that engage teachers' creative and reflective capacities will deepen teac hers' understanding of their work and ultimately lead to improved teaching practices that benefit children in schools. Teacher Unions and Professional Development Â“Teaching has become the most unionized occupation in the United States, and local contracts now create a complex systems of rul es that regulate labor-management relationsÂ” (Sykes, 1999, p. 240). The legacy of industrial unionism As the size of schools and school districts in the United States grew over the past century and ha lf, primarily as the result of massive consolidation of school districts, it seemed only n atural that the education sector would look to other sectors, business and industry in par ticular, for organizational models and principles that could be used in managing increasin gly complex school systems. Based on principles of scientific management, educational decision making became much more centralized with, Â“power and authority accrued to s chool district headquarters (and, not incidentally, was lodged firmly in the hands of adm inistrators)Â” (Koppich and Kerchner, 1999, pp. 317-318). So it was only natural that as teachers experienced and began to examine their formal working relationships with loc al school districts, they too looked to industrial examples for guidance. Â“Thus, both the A FT and NEA modeled their operation on the unions that had served American fa ctory workers so well in the post-World War II periodÂ” (p. 317). Early on in the developing relationship among teachers, school boards, administrators the parties met and conferred on issues of interest to teachers in what Kerchner and Mitchell (1988) ch aracterized as first generation unionism. From this first generation of unionism, w e now have 34 states with collective bargaining laws that govern the relationship betwee n teachers and their school districts. By the late 1950s the formal relationship between t eachers and school districts entered a
5 of 24second generation of unionism steeped in Â“good fait hÂ” collective bargaining where wages, hours, and conditions of employment became t he focus of teachers' interests through the written contract and management (e.g., school boards and administrators) retained control of policy and operational decision s in education. Â“This presumed bifurcation of union-management interests is reinfo rced by the statutorily restricted scope of bargaining. State laws define those issues about which union and management can bargaining and those that are excluded from neg otiationsÂ” (Koppich and Kerchner, p. 318). Various change forces and challenges in education over the past half century moved teachers and school districts from first gene ration unionism to second generation unionism characterized by distributive negotiations where, Â“Bargaining is about dividing up the spoilsÂ—money, rights, powerÂ—and carrying the m awayÂ” (p. 319). Recently, educational reform initiatives accompanied by incre asing demands for school district/teacher accountability for student learnin g outcomes have moved teachers' unions and school districts to rethink the traditio nal boundaries on their working relationships codified in collective bargaining agr eements. In addition there are a number of exciting, substantive changes in teacher education and professional development that challenge teacher unions, administ rators, and local school districts to rethink their relationship to professional developm ent (Kerchner et al., 1997). Linda Darling-Hammond (1998) argues for research t hat more closely examines connections between educational reform and teacher professional development. Â“To build lasting support for change, research about su ccessful professional development initiatives needs to be translated into policies th at will penetrate widely and comprehensively. These would include policies that influence school finance, salaries and incentives, preparation, recruitment, and reten tion of wellqualified teachersÂ” (p. 13). Most likely, the translation of this research will be formalized in policies and practices that are closest to teachers and their wo rk. These clearly include local collective bargaining agreements between school boa rds and teachers unions as well as a wide variety of side agreements, school/policy manu als, and other written documents governing these relationships. New Unionism So what does this new unionism look like? To begi n, there is substantial evidence that teacher unions have long been involved in socializing and supporting teachers in local school district. Â“Teac hers' organizations participate in teacher socialization through a variety of means. F irst, they help set many of the terms for teachers' work and learning in the larger distr ict through collective bargaining, including the scope of legitimate teaching activiti es within and beyond the school day, the nature of and expectations for leadership posit ions, participation in decision-making, and opportunities for professional developmentÂ” (Ba scia, 1999, p. 12). She makes the case that in school systems where teachers do not r eceive sufficient support for their teaching, teachers' organizations through a wide va riety of supporting activities and structures are, Â“increasingly are filling in the ga ps resulting from educational policies that assume unrealistically simplistic, technical v ies of teaching and policy implementationÂ” (p.3). More formally, there are at least three general st rategies teachers' unions and school districts have employed to move toward more collaborative bargaining in which unions and management are seeking common ground to deal with issues of mutual interest and benefit. Â“The parties treat each other as professionals and consciously consider the issues that are important to both and the trade-offs each side can accept. It is this conception of negotiations that has given rise to locally based union reformsÂ”
6 of 24(Koppich and Kerchner, 1999, p. 319). These include : 1) joint committees that, Â“expand the portfolio of the negotiated agreement and move substantive discussions of education policy and practice beyond the legally restricted s cope of bargaining;Â” 2) trust agreements Â“legally binding bilateral accords that sit outsi de the collectively bargained contract;Â” and 3) waivers specific provisions or requests that allow school districts and teachers' unions to request relief from specific pr ovisions or parts of the existing collective bargaining agreement (p. 320). Despite the promise of these locally based efforts, Koppich and Kerchner (1999) view these as mere tinkering at the margins of trad itional unionism that, Â“no matter how faithfully conducted and thoughtfully executed, hav e failed to move unions and districts much beyond the education reform starting gateÂ” (p. 321). They argue that, Â“Teacher unions have organized teachers' economic lives and brought stability to working conditions. Now they have an opportunity to lead th e transformation of education by embracing a new set of first principles of unionism : organizing around quality, organizing around schools, and organizing a flexibl e teacher labor marketÂ” (p. 321). Though there are a number of positive aspects of t he new spirit of unionism around issues of educational reform and teacher lea rning and growth, there are critics especially when the results in public policy tend t o be limited to bilateral agreements between teacher unions and school districts. For ex ample, Cibulka (1999) points out how conservative critics argue that teacher unions already have an inordinate amount of influence in schools and that their highly vested s pecial interests may turn negotiated policies and agreements into documents that, Â“run p ublic schools for their own benefit and inculcate their own valuesÂ” (p. 173). Joseph Mu rphy (1999) describes the impact of new unionism and compacts on consumers of public ed ucation. Â“Public sector unions in particular are key instruments in the growth of bur eaus and concomitant subordination of consumer interests to the objectives of the empl oyees themselves. Ramsey (1987) concludes that when the economic influence of union s is combined with political muscle, public sector unions have considerable 'abi lity to tax the rest of society'[p. 97]Â” (p. 411). Finally, Joel Spring (1993) advises cauti on in the expansion of language in teacher union contracts to include such non-economi c policy matters as professional development. He argues that expanding union contrac t language into such areas as professional development may have unintended negati ve consequences. For example, union influence in noneconomic areas often reduces public control, limits administrator influence (especially that of principals), results in overly formal and complex governance and practices around teacher development and may negatively influence district and school decisions about resource alloca tions and educational policy by supporting the interests of teachers over those of students and the community. MethodsData collection To address the research questions, I collected and examined three sources of data: 1) written collective bargaining agreements; 2) int erview data (n=21) from superintendents, principals, directors of staff dev elopment, state teacher association administrators, and teacher union presidents; and 3 ) focus group interview data. Collective Bargaining Agreements There are 427 local school districts in the state, each with a negotiated master agreement betw een the local school board and teachers' association. Teachers are represented by local affiliates of the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. School districts ranged
7 of 24in size from 101,000 students to fewer than 100. Gi ven this range and because I believed school district size may significantly influence th e history, content, and administration of contracts, I used a stratified random sampling proc edure consisting of four strata to select 100 school districts. Because small town and rural school districts represent over 62% of all school districts in the state, I wanted to make sure that adequate samples of suburban, small city, and urban districts' contract s were represented in the study. Accordingly, I defined the four strata for the sele ction of contracts based on total student enrollment for the district. Group 1 (2501 101,00 0); Group 2 (1001-2500); Group 3 (501-1000) ; and Group 4 (500 or fewer students). U sing a random numbers table, 25 districts were selected from each of the four group s. The equal Â“NÂ” per strata does over represent surburban, small city, and urban district s in this predominantly rural state. This sampling strategy does introduce a possible source of bias. However, if anything, the sampling strategy under estimates the generally tra ditional unionism in the state and was viewed as an acceptable trade-off to assure adequat e samples of contracts in surburban, small city, and urban school districts. Next I collected copies of the latest negotiated c ontract for each of the identified school districts. It is important to note that at t he time these contracts were collected and analyzed not all contracts had been renegotiated. B ecause of state imposed revenue caps on local school districts limiting salary and fring e benefit for teachers, a number of local collective bargaining agreements had remained unset tled. However, because the primary issue contributing to various impasses between scho ol boards and teacher unions was salary, provisions related to teacher professional development generally were not affected. Even though a number of districts were op erating under expired contracts, all contracts examined during this study were the exist ing legal agreements that governed wages, hours, and conditions employment for teacher s. Structured Interviews The second phase of data collection consisted of 21 structured interviews with superintendents (n=5), p rincipals (n=5), teacher union representatives (n=4), directors of instruction (n= 5), and staff development specialists (n=2). First, I identified criteria for the selecti on of informants. These included 1) expertise and experience in teacher professional de velopment; 2) leadership position held in the organization; 3) employment in district s representing diversity in size, student characteristics, and location (rural, subur ban, and urban); and 4) employees in districts with exemplary professional development p ractices supported in contract language. Key informants were identified using coll eague nomination and purposive sampling. Using names of individuals identified by teacher union representatives, teachers, principals, and other administrators, I u sed the four criteria to select the 21 respondents. Based on initial analysis of written contracts, an interview protocol was developed to gather more detailed information on th e influence of specific contract language and provisions teacher professional develo pment in local districts, to describe in detail issues around contract implementation and professional development, and to ask respondents to describe any changes they may ha ve experienced in teacher unionism and opportunities for professional growth and learn ing in their schools/districts. All interviews were taped and transcribed for anal ysis. To build trustworthiness in the data, written transcripts were returned to i nterviewees for review and editing if needed. Each respondent was asked to review the tra nscripts and to make any changes that he/she thought were necessary for purposes of clarity or intent. In general their corrections were editorial in nature. Several respo ndents, upon seeing their responses in writing, wrote back that they were somewhat surpris ed, and in a few cases embarrassed,
8 of 24about the lack of clarity in their interview respon ses. However, neither offered clarification in their corrected transcripts. To enhance credibility, after the first two phases of data collection and initial analyses of written contracts and interview data, I conducted a focus group interview with a second set of key informants (n=5) that incl uded an assistant superintendent of a large urban district, an urban middle school princi pal, a director of research and professional development for a state teachers' asso ciation, a special education teacher, and a teacher/union representative. Using a prelimi nary set of organizers from these data, the purpose of the group interview process wa s to check initial categorizations of data against the experiences and insights of practi tioners, to gain a better understanding of issues and their implications, and to identify a ny areas not adequately addressed in the examination of union contracts and teacher professi onal development. Data Analysis Data analysis consisted of two parallel activities. First, a content analysis of 100 written collective bargaining agreements was comple ted. The analysis focussed on an examination of such areas as specific references to professional development, structures and decision making governing teacher development a nd learning, types of professional development activities legitimized in contracts, an d resources available to support professional development. For the purposes of this study, content analysis focussed exclusively on the formal written contracts that go verned teacher work and professional development. To begin the content analysis, I looked for any la nguage referring to teacher learning opportunities and professional development This included such terms as in service, staff development, training, conferences, and study leaves. This initial phase of analysis runs counter to my conceptual definition o f professional development detailed in the background section of this paper. Having sai d that, this is my conceptualization of professional developmentÂ—not necessarily the one co mmonly used in schools and enumerated in written contacts. Also, teachers, adm inistrators, and school boards members often use a variety of terms interchangeabl y when they refer to the concepts of teacher learning and professional development. For me, it was important to start with the language that currently existed in written collecti ve bargaining agreements and in practitioners' ordinary professional discourse. For interview data I used a constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to code data and identify themes. Individual and group interview data complemented th e document analysis by providing details and examples of how various contract provis ions affected the context of teachers' daily work and their professional learning.Limitations Focusing on written collective bargaining agreement s alone has limitations. For example, there is more to negotiated agreements bet ween teachers and school boards than what is written explicitly in contracts. Trust agreements, waivers, joint committee work, and district and school policy manuals are ex amples of other written documents that describe and affect these teacher union/school district relationships. Collection and analysis of these documents were beyond the scope o f this investigation. To mitigate the negative aspects of this limitation, I believe the collection of interview data was helpful. A second limitation concerns the selection of inter viewees. Though great care was taken to define and select a substantively representative sample of teachers, administrations, and union representatives, there is always the poss ibility that the sample does not
9 of 24adequately represent all parties to teacher/school district collective bargaining agreements. Notably absent from the interview sampl e are school board members. Though important to the negotiation of contracts, t he study focussed on existing written contracts and their administration which in most sc hool districts is left to teachers and administrators in schools. Findings I use four organizers to present detailed descript ions of the links between and implications of union contract language and teacher professional development. These are 1) contract language and points of leverage; 2) the inclusion of professional development in written contracts; 3) the governance of teacher professional development; and 4) changing the professional development paradigm: ret hinking, restructuring, and reculturing.Contract Language and Points of Leverage Despite the rhetoric in educational reform reports that teacher professional development is critical to school improvement and r eform efforts, explicit language on professional development is notably absent in appro ximately three fourths of the contracts examined. Using the widest possible net t o capture any language and/or activities related to teacher professional growth a nd development, only 28 of the 100 contracts examined contained any direct reference t o teacher professional development. Of these 28, only 3 linked professional development to district goals and priorities. The finding that teacher contracts are generally silent on professional development should not be surprising since it is not a mandatory subje ct of collective bargaining. Only recently have examples of localized reform efforts, waivers and trust agreements, affecting the contractual relationship between teac hers and school districts emerged. Yet it is difficult to imagine how language covering wa ges, hours, and conditions of employment would be unrelated to teacher profession al development. In general, even teacher collective bargaining agreements with expli cit language governing teacher professional development tended to remain narrative museums reflecting a legacy of conflict, mutual mistrust, legalism, and top-down h ierarchies of control over teachers rather than expressions of a new unionism. The foll owing are examples of explicit contract provisions describing teacher professional development primarily under the direct control of administrators. The parties agree to establish an In-Service Educat ional Staff Development Committee composed of a representative appointed by the Association from each school and no more than an equal number of represen tatives appointed by the Superintendent of Schools. The Committee shall assu me the responsibility for the planning and conducting of the inservice and staf f development programs for the professional teaching staff, subject to the directi on and control of the Superintendent. Teachers must fulfill twenty-two and one-half (22 1 /2) hours of staff development each year. The District may direct up to seven and one-half (7 1/2) hours of specific staff development for designated teachers or groups of teachers. As required by [... Law], there shall be a regular and continuing in-service program which shall be formulated by a standing com mittee composed of administration and faculty members.
10 of 24 In a few districts the teachers' union and school board have negotiated language, in accords or waivers, that recognizes teachers' re sponsibility and control over their own growth and development. The parties to this ACCORD recognize the importance of individual growth and development of professional educators and the growt h and recognition of teaching as a profession. Professional educators are respons ible for continued professional growth through participation in staff development a ctivities, formal academic study, and personal enrichment in their teaching fi eld and in education in general. Acknowledgment is made of the need for professional growth and the consistent need for all teachers to continue their formal stud ies and other related professional activities toward an improved and up-to-date qualit y instruction. It is also recognized that professionalism is an individual de cision for teachers and, therefore, there is no credit requirement within in any specific time period. Teachers are encouraged to continue their professio nal growth at their discretion. Collective bargaining for teachers has been a part of state statutes since 1959. Reflecting what Kerchner described as second genera tion unionism, the emphasis in the early days of teacher collective bargaining centere d on increasing salaries, broadening benefits, and salary equity. With regard to salary equity, unions sought to eliminate capricious, unilateral school board decisions aroun d teacher pay and benefits. What's clear in an examination of these written contracts is the legacy of these early bargaining days when two important principles around teacher c ompensation and career advancement were established. The first was the est ablishment of a legal process for negotiating teacher pay. The second was the develop ment of a salary schedule that recognized years of teaching experience and advance d educational training as criteria for salary increases. The latter is particularly import ant. Even during years when increases in base salary were small, teachers could still increa se their salaries through professional training and the accumulation of credits or the com pletion of an advanced degree. Thus, linking salary increases to advanced training provi ded an extra incentive supporting on-going professional development for teachers. Thi s typifies the type of win-win compromise often negotiated by two parties during c ollective bargaining. Advanced training became the solution to satisfy teachers' d emand for higher salaries and school boards' desire to have highly qualified and better trained teachers. Leverage Points in Teacher Contracts. Notwithstanding the silence surrounding teacher pr ofessional development in most union contracts, there are a number of negotia ted provisions, leverage points, that directly affect teacher learning in the work place. For example, extra contract days, designated in-service days and times on school cale ndars, hiring new staff, the orientation of probationary teachers, teacher evalu ation procedures, credits for recertification, and extended contracts are leverag e points in contracts that support teachers' professional development. Interview respo ndents described how various provisions covering teachers' hours and work days a t times limited what principals and their professional staffs were permitted to do cont ractually, especially as they worked to develop standards-based school reform. Many of these limitations must be viewed within th e context of broader political issues at the state level. In particular, the tensi on described by interviewees most often reflected teachers' frustration with currently stat e-imposed caps on teachers' salaries and fringe benefits. To control costs in education, in 1994 the legislature instituted a revenue
11 of 24cap of 3.8 % of the previous year's budget on all l ocal school districts. The only way a school district could exceed the revenue cap was to go to a public referendum asking to exceed the cap. In effect, teachers' salaries were severely limited. Cost controls have also influenced teachers' prefe rences and choices of professional development opportunities as well as i ts design, delivery and content. With severe limits on their salaries, teachers tend to v iew advancement on the salary schedule through rapid accumulation of graduate credits as o ne of the only ways to increase their salaries significantly. Interestingly, this strateg y by teachers has implications for calculating the total cost of professional developm ent. When salary increases due to advanced training are included as costs in annual p rofessional development budgets, the percentage of the total budget used to support on-g oing professional learning increases dramatically. Additionally, since the revenue caps are on the total budget, savings in the budget must come from other expenditures. Analyses of written contracts and interview data indicated that the resources used to support p rofessional development activities typically fund a vast collection of fragmented, ind ividualized experiences with little evidence of a systemic focus on district or buildin g goals. A second leverage point in contracts influencing t eacher professional development is in the area of teacher leaves. Besid es sick leaves and those leaves for emergencies, family and extenuating circumstances, 72% of the contracts contained provisions for professional leaves, study leaves (3 6%), and personal or sabbatical leaves (52%). In most cases, these leaves were unpaid. Les s than a third of these contracts required teachers to return to the district after t he leave. Only 13 districts provided any financial support for professional leaves. The foll owing language illustrates clearly how this provision in the contract supports teacher dev elopment. Extended Leaves of Absence: Advanced StudyPurpose: The underlying philosophy of the leave is to increase the quality of teaching and to gain enriching and broadening exper ience by professional study and research in areas that will promote the e mployee's teaching ability. Major consideration must be given to the b enefits which will accrue to the pupils and to the community through the indi vidual teacher's personal growth. In 77 contracts, extra days and extended contracts were another important leverage point that supported teacher professional growth and development. Administrators, school board members, and teachers agree that school success and improvement require on-going training and developme nt opportunities for teachers. However, teachers' work days provide little time fo r extensive training or for school improvement work. Thus, extra paid days/hours and e xtended contracts for summer work have become critical to meeting the training n eeds of teachers and professional work beyond the classroom. Aligning district curric ulum to new, statemandated curriculum standards and tests, the introduction of new technologies, sundry educational reform initiatives, and more diverse students popul ations, to name a few areas, all require more teacher training. Analysis of school calendars attached to these con tracts provides evidence that districts recognize the importance of time needed f or teacher professional development. This includes inservice days, early release and lat e starts, and teacher convention days. Ostensibly these times and days have been set aside for teacher inservice throughout the year. Most districts have 1-2 days per year while a few have schedules with weekly early release giving teachers 2 hours for joint work, pla nning, and professional development.
12 of 24At first glance, the number of days and times sugge st that districts through negotiations have taken seriously the call to provide more time for teacher professional development. However, on closer examination it appears that in m any districts the days set aside for teacher in-service and development opportunities ha ve been hijacked. For example, administrators often convert these days, especially those scheduled the first day of the year, into extended faculty meetings to cover distr ict/school business. These days are what Bredeson and Johansson (1999) refer to as Â“inf ormation showersÂ” where the focus is on the dissemination of information, not teacher learning and growth. Similarly, teachers wanting and needing more time pirate inser vice days and times to work alone to set up their rooms at the beginning of the school y ear, to complete grades at the end of quarters and semesters, and to clean out their room s for summer breaks. A fourth important leverage point in written contr acts is in the area of supervision and evaluation. In 21 contracts, teachers and schoo l boards had created alternatives to traditional classroom observations and written eval uations of Â“stand-upÂ” teaching performance. In these districts, teachers who compl eted their probationary years, usually 1-3 years, could choose a self-designed professiona l improvement/growth plan as an alternative to traditional evaluation. In cooperati on with principals and supervisors, teachers submitted professional growth plans and go als that became the primary basis for their written performance evaluation required b y law once every three years. The Inclusion of Professional Development in Contra cts Given the small number of contracts that contained explicit language on teacher professional development (28%), it was important to ask respondents their views on whether or not contracts should contain such provis ions. Twenty of the 21 interviewees and all of the focus group interviewees (5) agreed that teacher professional development should be part of union contracts. First, opportuni ties for teacher learning in school and beyond are linked to wages, hours, and conditions o f employment, all mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. To these respond ents putting explicit language in contracts about professional growth and development in contracts was needed to send a powerful substantive and symbolic message to the wh ole school community. The general agreement among respondents that langu age on professional development needed to be put in contracts was not s een as a silver bullet to improve the design, delivery, and outcomes of teacher professio nal development in schools. As one principal put it, Â“I mean it's probably ok, what we have in here, but...umm.... I think when you can establish the right the culture in a g iven school and school district, these things get taken care of ....ah.... far beyond the letter of what's in the contract.Â” Another principal added, that the improvement in learning o pportunities for teachers in schools needs more than just a line or two in the contract. Establishing strong norms and beliefs about on-going professional learning in order to im prove student learning was not something, however, that could be easily specified in contract language. Â“I think it [is a matter of being] pertinent to their [teachers'] rea lity.Â” Â“And I think how you just embed that in the everyday work, just spills over so natu rally, so that these don't even get looked at us requirements.Â” The respondents agreed that teacher professional development should be included in negotiated agreem ents. They also believed that the key to successful staff development for teachers wa s instilling the belief that the time and effort put into the learning activities would d irectly benefit their practice and improve student learning. They believed putting lan guage in contracts would help to highlight the importance of teacher learning to sch ool improvement and student learning.
13 of 24 The consensus to include professional development in contracts was not without some notes of caution. For example, some respondent s worried that teacher growth and development might fall into grievance processes and thereby be rendered ineffective. Others worried that by specifying professional deve lopment in the contract some school boards and teachers' unions might bargain away what should be a professional responsibility and attitude among teachers, not for ced compliance to the strict letter of the contract. One director of instruction cautioned Â“What you have to be careful of is not to use that and end up reducing it [professiona l development] to, like the lowest ..... lowest common denominator.Â” Another respondent echo ed the idea that if teacher professional growth and development described in co ntracts became overly prescriptive, such as traditional district in-service, there woul d be much less flexibility and fewer opportunities for teacher learning in school and be yond the teaching day. In assessing the benefits of putting explicit language on profession al development in contracts, these educators also acknowledged the potential downside if contract language resulted in narrow, prescriptive provisions. Such provisions wo uld likely lead to minimalism and mere compliance rather than fostering possibilities for professional learning; this would be worse than what many districts/schools already h ad. Governance of teacher professional development Analysis of the contracts and interview data revea led that professional development for teachers continues to be topdown and primarily controlled and driven by administrators. Only 3 of the 100 district contr acts examined stipulated a full-time coordinator for professional development. For mid-s ize and larger districts, staff development fell under the general job duties of cu rriculum directors and assistant superintendents. In smaller districts, the superint endent controlled the budget and was seen as the gatekeeper for professional development Regardless of district size, school principals were most often viewed as the person pri marily responsible for professional development. Further examination of contracts indic ated that only 17 districts had formalized in contract language district staff/prof essional development committees composed of teachers and administrators. Given the general absence of professional development language in contracts this may not be s urprising. Yet, even in contracts where extra pay for extra duties was described, sta ff development committee work or membership was not included. In general, the lack of voice for teachers in deci sions around their professional growth and development has resulted in a type of de pendency. As a middle school principal opined, teachers continue to think others administrators in the district, will tell them what to do. Thus, there is a fair amount of cy nicism about the value of traditional professional development in districts. One principa l saw this type of dependency as professionally debilitating because it has resulted in some teachers not even being able to imagine what it might be like to be responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating their own professional growth. Principal s believe they have primary responsibility for teacher professional development but in a supportive role not a controlling or limiting one. Principals believed th ey had the responsibility and ability to garner the resources, time, money, space, expertise and other resources to support what teachers needed to enhance their learning and perfo rmance. Principals saw their primary responsibility as helping teachers, individually an d collectively, keep their eyes on the big picture. The principal's role was to help align individual and collective teacher needs and interests with school priorities and goals.
14 of 24Changing the professional development paradigm: Ret hinking, Restructuring, and Reculturing When asked to think about changes they had experie nced in the past 10 years in the area of teacher professional development, the r espondents' comments were a mix of optimism and disappointment. Each respondent could point to specific examples of positive changes in their schools and districts in the area of teacher learning and professional growth on the job. However, most were also concerned that traditional obstacles remained, many seemingly intractable. To improve opportunities for teacher professional development, these educators identifie d three broad areas of change that need to occur concurrently. The first is rethinking the current professional development paradigm. The second is restructuring the design, delivery, content, context and expectations for outcomes of teachers' professional development. The third is reculturing schools and communities in ways that create and nu rture opportunities for on-going, job-embedded teacher growth and professio nal development. Rethinking the professional development of teachers Changing the paradigm of teacher professional development requires fundament al shifts in the ways teachers, administrators, and community members think about i ts nature, purposes, and goals. To begin, respondents agreed that professional develop ment should not be seen as an add-on to teachers' work but rather an essential pa rt of what teachers do as professionals. Because training and development are essential to t eachers' professional practice, the resources that support them should not be easy targ ets for budgetary cuts during fiscally tight times. The constellation of formal and inform al opportunities for teachers to learn and to improve their professional craft is crucial to school improvement and student success. Thus, in-service, staff development traini ng, teacher networks, and collaborative inquiry are not just about teachers, they are linked tightly to and aligned with school goals and student learning. The ways in which teachers and others talk about t eacher professional development also requires some re-thinking. When in -service days or early releases are described as Â“time-offÂ” or Â“wastes of timeÂ” from te achers' real work, e.g., direct contact with children, such expressions communicate the lim itations and persistence of the traditional professional development paradigm. Teac her professional development is legitimate work even when it occurs during the scho ol day. Staff development is Â“time onÂ” not Â“time off.Â” Another change in thinking is conceptualizing on-g oing learning and development as a professional responsibility. Conti nuous learning is an essential part of one's professional practice, not just a scheduled e vent or an activity to simply attend and endure. The artificial separation of teaching pract ice and teacher growth and development has contributed to the latter. To impro ve what they do and how they do it, reflective teachers rely on their daily teaching ex periences to learn more about their practice. Traditional school structures and culture s, especially self-contained classrooms, have unfortunately tended to reinforce teacher isol ation and individualism so that the benefits of reflective practices remain limited to a few individuals rather than becoming part of organizational learning and improvement. In addition, the objectification of professional development as something Â“out thereÂ” h as promoted a type of dependency in teachers often leaving them voiceless in plannin g, implementing, resourcing, and evaluating their own learning. Â“It's completely for eign to them [teachers] because they've really had no opportunity to ever have any input on anything.Â” So teachers wait to see,
15 of 24Â“What's the principal or learning coordinator going to tell us to do? What is the district telling us we have to do today?Â” (Middle school pri ncipal). Though teachers clearly have preferences and know what would be most helpful to them in the classroom, traditional designs and delivery of teacher professional develo pment in schools often reinforce a dependency model in which teachers cede responsibil ity for their own growth and development to others: most often superintendents, principals, and staff development personnel. Rethinking teacher professional development also m eans reconsidering the Â“one size fits allÂ” training and inservice activities co mmon in many school districts. In complex school systems there are occasions for syst em-wide informational sessions and inservice programs. The key issue is whether or not these types of activities dominate staff development activities in schools. Because th ese activities are easier to plan, more economical, and more easily controllable, districts frequently default to Â“one size fits allÂ” sessions. Undifferentiated training sessions r arely provide learning opportunities that engage individual teachers' creative and refle ctive capacities to strengthen their practice. Restructuring the professional development of teach ers Â“We haven't admitted that we're going to have to blow the thing up in order t o get real fundamental professional development in the system.Â” Either metaphorically o r concretely, changes in thinking about teacher professional development need to be a ccompanied by fundamental changes in the structures that support it, includin g provisions in contracts. For example, respondents described how schools and their operati ons need to be reconfigured to permit more time within the school day for teacher learning. As one respondent said, Â“A couple of things are happening that I think damage our opportunities to really change things in a significant way. One is the issue of th e structure of the school day, the school week, and the school year. There is no collaborativ e time structure in our work. And, teachers are too isolated in their work. That we ha ve to really redesign the system in a way that guarantees that the time is there for coll aboration; and I don't think this society is willing to pay for that, and that's been our big problemÂ” (Professional Association Representative). The issue of restructuring time, w ith a focus on the use of time and its impact on conditions of employment, has important i mplications for collective bargaining and opportunities for teacher learning w ithin contract days. Time was described by respondents as the most important stru ctural factor that needed to be addressed in order to change the current profession al development paradigm. In a few written contracts there are appended waivers and si deagreement that supported changes in the use and structure of time in the teacher's w ork day. The interview data provided ample evidence that a number of schools and distric ts were using collaborative informal agreements, between administrators and teachers, to address teacher learning in newly configured time-frames. This includes such practice s as 1) providing teachers extended contract days over the summer; 2) extra pay for com mittee work that is beyond ordinary teacher work expectations; 3) hiring substitute tea chers, both permanent and temporary, so that teachers have time during their the school day to meet and work together; 4) early releases and late starts for students; 5) scheduled staff development days; 6) creative use of class time through block and flexible scheduling ; and 7) banking time, e.g. increasing class periods and school days several minutes a day to bank time for future release times. According to these educators, even when time is av ailable there may not be a place in the building for teachers to meet and work Outdated buildings, the proliferation of programs and specialities to support students be yond the classroom, and overcrowded schools often leave teachers in hallways or other c ramped spaces, hardly optimal
16 of 24conditions for professional learning. Clearly this is less of a problem when students are released, but if professional development is to be embedded in teacher work, creating learning spaces for teachers is an important part o f restructuring schools. Providing physical space for teacher learning in schools also sends a powerful symbolic message about the importance of continuous growth and devel opment in schools. Conferences rooms, office space, work rooms, labs, and basic co mmunication tools (computers, telephones, and fax machines) are minimal requireme nts for any professional, yet these tools are scarce in most schools. Additionally, the lack of these basic resources to support teacher engagement, reflection, and growth reinforces norms of privacy, isolation, and dependency that threaten the develop ment of an authentic professional learning community. The reallocation of resources to support new conce ptualizations and practices in teacher professional development is also an importa nt element in restructuring. In some districts, teachers and administrators have creativ ely knitted together a mix of local, state, federal, and private monies to support profe ssional development and school change processes. In others, however, the patchwork of traditional development programs and activities, and the budget lines to su pport them, are not clearly aligned with district/school funding priorities. Because of revenues caps in the state, most districts are actively seeking external grants to s upport staff development for teachers. In some districts, it is unimportant what the focus or goal of the funding agency is. They become Â“Christmas tree districtsÂ” where teachers, a dministrators, and school boards willingly subordinate local priorities and goals fo r high profile programs that send extra dollars to support teacher development and training opportunities. When the typical three-year funding cycle ends, so does the initiati ve. The district then reinvents itself in order to respond to new criteria described in anoth er request for proposal (RFP). New state mandates, especially the newly adopted m odel academic standards linked to legislated testing of all students, have intensified change efforts and completely dominated staff development and in-service training across the state. A union representative from one suburban district noted, co mpliance with these state mandates, especially activities focussed on curriculum alignm ent and organizing for testing in four core areas, is robbing teachers and their schools a nd districts of what little time, energy, and resources that had already been set aside for p rofessional development. Selecting and hiring teachers with a professional orientation toward their own growth and development was cited by principals and superintendents as an important structural piece that supported teacher professiona l development. The administrators believed one of their primary responsibilities was to establish criteria and develop processes that enabled their districts/schools to i dentify and hire candidates who viewed continuous growth and development as an essential p art of their professional work and one for which teachers took responsibility. Restructuring the delivery of teacher professional development is also critical to changing the current paradigm. Long dominated by wo rkshops and fragmented inservice meetings, new forms of professional develop ment have emerged with Â“a much deeper and more sophisticated focus on instruction. Â” The idea of Â“one size fits allÂ” is fading away. In districts with leading edge practic es, teacher professional development tends to be more localized, more centered on indivi dual teacher needs, carried out in interactive and participative settings, and is on-g oing and long-range in focus as opposed to one-shot presentations and events. Such practice s are beginning to break down teacher isolation and build learning communities among prof essionals seeking to improve their practice, not simply acquiring a few Â“nuggets of kn owledgeÂ” for easy transfer to classroom teaching. Teachers and principals are att empting to redesign the school
17 of 24Â“Culture, climate...ah...the way we structure our i nteractions, so that it's supporting people's learning everyday.Â” Reculturing teacher professional development. Â“It's not in the culture of our district to have the union talking about profession al growth and development. The way of talking about it is through compensationÂ” ( Elem entary principal). Rethinking and restructuring teacher professional development are part of the larger process of reculturing schools and communities to support teac her learning. As the preceding quote indicates, the values, beliefs, and practices that define the current culture of teacher professional development may be anything but profes sional. For example, teacher isolation, work days with little or no time for pro fessional development, administrator dominated planning and decision making, and fragmen ted staff development and training activities typify the current culture. Â“Th e system needs to be redesigned for teachers to really become active learners. Our stru cture does not facilitate that.Â” (Teacher union representative). Typically, teacher work has been defined as standing up in front of and working directly with children. Working dire ctly with children is difficult to argue against since teaching children is the primar y mission of schools. The reculturing efforts described by these respondents are meant to enhance teachers' work with students by recognizing and incorporating teacher profession al development Â“ as professional workÂ” and Â“at workÂ”. In recultured professional lea rning communities, staff in-service and training days are not days off, they're days on The ways in which teachers and others talk about teacher staff development are exp ressions of reculturing that communicate important values, norms, and practices that characterize high quality, professionally oriented schools focussed on student success. The ways in which school boards and teacher unions address teacher professional development in collective bargaining also help to d efine the culture. With nearly three-fourths of the contracts silent on teacher pr ofessional development, developing new professional learning cultures will not come ea sily. The baggage of traditional unionism, collective bargaining experiences, and gr ievance arbitration in schools has left both parties, teachers and school board, nervous ab out asking the other to dance. As one union representative put it, Â“Nobody knows how to b ehave.Â” Learning how to Â“behaveÂ” requires trust between parties to negotiate agreeme nts. In districts where new professional development cultures have emerged, val ues, norms, and practices are simply embedded, Â“In the everyday work, [and] just spills over naturally, so that these don't even get looked at as requirements. I think w hen you can establish the right culture in a given school and school district, these things get taken care of..ah.. far beyond the letter of what's in the contractÂ” (Elementary Princ ipal). Establishing norms of trust requires time and experiences that build on joint c ommitment and efforts among teachers, their unions, administrators, school boar d members, and the community. To date, in only a small number of districts have teac hers and school boards redefined and renormed their formal contractual relationship. Conclusion There are numerous challenges confronting stakehol ders in public education at the end of twentieth century. Among these is whethe r teachers and local school boards will be collaborators or combatants as they confron t a seemingly endless array of problems. Perhaps one way to build a bridge to Â“new unionismÂ” and leave behind the baggage of adversarial collective bargaining is thr ough the development of professional learning communities in schools. Successfully negot iating the uncharted terrain of these
18 of 24learning communities for students and teachers requ ires good will, trust, and the commitment of teachers, administrators, and school boards to work together. Leadership is critically important to the directio n and designs for new unionism and the growth of professional learning communities in schools. Though not exclusively, much of the move toward new unionism will come thro ugh formal contract bargaining, as well as policy initiatives, side agreements, and negotiation of daily work in schools. The risks involved, the creativity required, and th e mechanics of living these newly forged relationships among school boards, administr ators, teachers, and the people they serve require leadership at all levelsÂ—policy makin g, contract bargaining, administration, and teaching and learning in classr ooms. Issues surrounding teacher professional development, the focus of this study, will be important ones as teachers, school boards, and other key educational stakeholde rs renegotiate formal and informal relationships in schools. As the findings in this study indicate, shifts in thinking, structures, and organizational cultures are the initial expressions of new unionism and the development of teacher professional learning communities. These data indicate that most school districts in this state are still at the proverbial Â“starting gateÂ” of new unionism. Local experiments are beginning to emerge. However, the t ransformation to what Koppich and Kerchner (1999) describe as new unionism centered a round such organizers as quality, localism, and flexibility in the teacher labor mark et remain distant. The movement toward a new generation of unionism and professiona l relationships in schools, though slow, continues to advance. The findings from this study on union contracts and teacher professional development suggest a number of areas in which teacher unions and school boards can initiate this collaborative venture, tho ugh the legacy of second generation unionism is deeply rooted in school districts acros s the state. First, the language used to describe teachers' pro fessional development and their work is important. Based on the beliefs of responde nts in this study, highlighting the importance of professional learning in negotiated a greements has both symbolic and substantive power. However, contract provisions and explicit language are not substitutes for actions and practices embedded in t he daily work of teachers, principals, and others that nurture and support authentic profe ssional learning communities. Second, the current professional development paradi gm is not anyone's the fault. It's the result of a shared history. There are a few example s of joint committees, trust agreements, and waivers, developing at what Koppich and Kerchner (1999) call the margins of union transformation. However, I believe these early experiences within schools and districts in the area of teacher profes sional development provide opportunities for trust and confidence to develop a mong educational stakeholders and parties to collective bargaining agreements. It is on these experiences that dramatic changes in unionism and teacher professional develo pment in schools will occur. Creating professional learning communities that su pport and encourage teacher professional growth and development over a career w ill require fundamental shifts in the current paradigm of teacher professional developmen t. Concurrently three streams of change, that resonate with the principles of the mo st effective professional development practices need to be negotiated between teachers an d local school districts. First, changing the professional development paradigm requ ires rethinking and revisioning the design, delivery, content, and outcomes of teacher professional development. Rethinking teacher professional development requires the colla boration and voice of teachers, school board members, administrators, and community members. Rethinking teacher professional development and reframing it in teache r contracts is not just an issue between teachers unions and school boards. It is a public issue requiring the input and
19 of 24understanding of all educational stakeholders. A se cond stream of change is restructuring teacher professional development. Thi s restructuring requires a new architecture expressed in collaborative, negotiated agreements that creatively reconfigure time, space, resources, and materials to provide le arning spaces for teachers in their work and beyond. Finally, a third stream of change is reculturing schools and teacher professional development. Reculturing begins with v aluing teacher learning and understanding its link to high quality schools and student achievement. Teacher unions and school boards through their collaborative effor ts, not confrontational relations, can help students, parents, and other community members understand the importance of teacher growth and development and its link to scho ol/district goals. ReferencesAmerican Federation of Teachers (1995). Professiona l Development Guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.Bascia, N. (1994). Unions in teachers' professional lives: Social, in tellectual, and practical concerns New York: Teachers College Press. Bascia, N. (1999). The other side of the equation: Professional development and the organizational capacity of teacher unions. Paper pr esented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Montre al, Canada. Bredeson, P.V. (In press). Teacher learning as work and at work. Journal of In-Service Education 26(1). Bredeson, P.V. & Johansson, O. (1999). Leadership f or learning: The school principal's role in teacher professional development. Paper pre sented at the Annual Meeting of the British Educational Management and Administration S ociety in Manchester, England. Cibulka, J.G. (1999). Ideological lenses for interp reting political and economic changes affecting schooling. Chapter in The Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (Eds.) J. Murphy & K.S. Louis. San Francisco: Jos sey-Bass Publishers. Corcoran, T.C. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide of state policy makers Washington, DC: National Governors' Association. Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (Eds.) (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Guskey, T.R. (1995). Professional development in ed ucation: In search of the optimal mix. Chapter in Professional development in education: New paradigm s and practices (Eds.) T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman. New York: Teacher s College Press. Hawley, W.D. & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. Chapter in Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of po licy and practice Linda Darling-Hammond & Gary Sykes (Eds.) San Fra ncisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Houghton, M & Goren, P. (1995). Professional development for educators: New state
20 of 24priorities and models Washington, DC: National Governors' Association. Johansson, O. & Bredeson, P. (1999) Â”Value Orchestr ation by the Policy Community: Reality and MythÂ”, in Begley, P. (ed.) Values and Educational Leadership New York: SUNY Press.Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Sta ndards for School Leaders (1996). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Offic ers. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development New York: Longman. Kerchner, C.T. & Mitchell, D.E. (1988). The changing idea of a teachers' union London: The Falmer Press. Kerchner, C.T., Koppich, J.E., Weeres, J.G. (1997). United Mind Workers San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Koppich, J.E. & Kerchner, C.T. (1999). Organizing t he other half of teaching. Chapter in Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (Eds.) Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teache r professional development. Phi Delta Kappan 591604. Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' professional develop ment in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15(2), 129-151. Louck-Horsely, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles K.E. (1999). Designing professional development for teachers of science an d mathematics Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.McLaughlin, M.W. & Oberman, I. (1996). Teacher learning: New policies and practices New York: Teachers College Press. Murphy, J. (1999). New consumerism: Evolving market dynamics in the institutional dimension of schooling. Chapter in The Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (Eds.) J. Murphy & K.S. Louis. San Francisco: Jos sey-Bass Publishers. The National Commission on Teaching and America's F uture (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. The National Foundation for the Improvement of Educ ation (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning Washington, DC: The National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.National Partnership for Excellence and Accountabil ity in Teaching (1998). Improving Professional Development: Eight Research-based Prin ciples. (http://www.npeat.org; 202-4630771)
21 of 24National Staff Development Council. (1995). Standards for staff development: High School Edition Oxford, OH: Author. Osterman, K. F. & Kottkamp. R.B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving schooling through professional development Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Porter, A.C., Smithson, J., & Osthoff, E. (1994). S tandard setting as a strategy for upgrading high school mathematics and science. In R .F. Elmore & S. H. Furman (Eds.). The governance of curriculum: The 1994 ASCD Yearboo k Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff develo pment. Education Week 42. Spring, J. (1993). Conflict of interests: The politics of American edu cation. New York: Longman Publishing Group. Sykes, G. (1999). The "new professionalism" in educ ation: An appraisal. Chapter in The Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (Eds.) J. Murphy & K.S. Louis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Weissglass, J. (1997). Deepening our dialogue about equity. Educational Leadership 54 (7), 78-81.About the AuthorPaul V. BredesonSchool of EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonEmail: email@example.com Paul V. Bredeson is a Professor of Educational Adm inistration at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he teaches courses in Professional Development and Organizational Learning Instructional Leadership and School Improvement and Research Methods Prior to his appointment on the faculty in 1991, Professor Bredeson was a Professor at Pennsylvania State University an d also served as the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania School Study Council f rom 1985-1991. Professor Bredeson also served three years as a Professor of Education al Leadership at Ohio University. Prior to entering higher education, Dr. Bredeson wa s a high school principal and high school Spanish teacher in Wisconsin and Connecticut respectively. Professor Bredeson received his B.A. (Spanish) from Northern Illinois University. He earned his M.A. (Spanish) and his Ph.D. (Educational Administration ) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He also completed graduate work at the Universities of Connecticut and Barcelona. Over the past 19 years, Professor Bredeson's research has centered on alternative conceptions of leadership, especially in regard to school principals. Grounded in his professional work exper iences as a Spanish teacher, high school principal, project director for bilingual ad ministrator training, and Executive
22 of 24 Director of a research consortium for public school s in Pennsylvania, his research has two major strands. The first strand focuses on the impact of alternative conceptualizations of leadership on the work of sch ool principals and professional development in education. The second is educational leaders' cognition, as expressed through metaphoric thinking and its impact on exper t thinking, problem solving processes, and leadership behaviors. His recent boo k co-authored with Ann W. Hart, The Principalship: A Theory of Professional Learning an d Practice is used in graduate educational leadership and policy programs across t he United States, Canada, Australia, Russia, and Sweden. Professor Bredeson has served a s President of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Presid ent of the University Council for Educational Administration, a Member of the Nationa l Policy Board for Educational Administration, and as a Technical Advisor to the I nterstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium for the development and assessment of na tional standards for school leaders. In 1990 Professor Bredeson received the Jack A. Cul bertson Award given to one recipient nationally as recognition for outstanding contributions to the field of educational leadership and policy studies. Dr. Bred eson is an International Faculty Associate at Ume University in Sweden and a member of the Teaching Academy at the University of Wisconsin. He currently serves on the editorial boards for several scholarly journals and remains active in professional associa tions nationally and internationally serving as a reviewer, member of governing boards, and invited presenter in United States, Europe, Australia, China, and South America Copyright 2001 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. C obb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University
23 of 24 Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisÂ—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young UniversityEPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico email@example.com Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.firstname.lastname@example.org Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAV Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGS
24 of 24 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.comJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica firstname.lastname@example.org Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu