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 c20029999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00276
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 28 (May 31, 2002).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c May 31, 2002
Elm Street School : a case study of professional development expenditures / H. Alix Gallagher.
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 10issue 28series Year mods:caption 20022002Month May5Day 3131mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-05-31
1 of 31 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 28May 31, 2002ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2002, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES .Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. 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 .Elm Street School: A Case Study of Professional Development Expenditur es H. Alix Gallagher Consortium for Policy Research in Education University of Wisconsin-MadisonCitation: Gallagher, H. A. (2002, May 31). Elm Stre et School: A case study of professional development expenditures. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (28). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n28.html.AbstractThis article addresses the question of how much is spent on teachers' professional development. A review of the literatu re finds two problems that have frequently led to inaccurate estimates of professional development spending: 1) the accounting codes that are used in many studies provide little description of spending, and 2) studies generally focus on district or state expenditures for profess ional development, but do not collect data on school-level spending. Thes e problems are compounded by the fact that studies define professi onal development
2 of 31spending differently, and thus it is difficult to c ompare findings across studies. In an effort to begin to address this pro blem, this study utilizes a detailed cost structure to analyze both district an d school site expenditures on professional development across cos t categories. The study found that school-level expenditures were a s ignificant source of professional development for teachers. This has im plications for the methodologies used to estimate current professional development expenditures and what level of expenditures would b e necessary to generate dramatic improvements in student achieveme nt. In a climate of standards-based reform, schools are being called upon to assure that all students achieve to high standards. While most exp erts agree that extensive staff development will be necessary to improve instructio n so this goal can be realized (Birman et al., 2000; Corcoran, 1995; Hertert, 1997 ; Killeen, Monk and Plecki, 2000; Little, 1993), few studies have identified effectiv e professional development and even fewer have documented the professional development costs associated with implementing powerful, focused reform. This articl e shows how building knowledge about the level and structure of professional devel opment spending necessary to achieve the goals of standards-based reform requires three changes in research design. First, a methodology needs to be developed that improves on traditional data used to identify spending. Second, it is necessary to have an analy tical framework to understand the types of spending on professional development. Finally, it is important to accurately estimate the professional development resources available at schools, which are frequently the focus of standards-based reform and which can make decisions to augment or decrease the professional development resources available to teachers. This case study extends a methodology developed by Hawley-Miles (Miles et al., 1999; Miles and Hornbeck, 2000) and her colleagues to col lect district-level data on professional development spending to the school lev el and analyzes that data using the professional development cost structure developed b y Odden, Archibald, Fermanich and Gallagher (2001). This case study was part of a la rger research project that examined several urban districts' spending on instructional improvement. It is an early step of a broader research program that seeks to determine th e level of professional development spending and spending strategies that will lead to improved teaching and higher student achievement. This case highlights Elm Street Scho ol, a K-8 school in a large urban district in the Mid-West that used professional dev elopment as an integral part of a coordinated schoolwide reform. Professional develop ment is defined here as any activity intended to build teacher knowledge, skills and cla ssroom instructional expertise. This includes, for example, workshops, teacher coaching, work with consultants, and the cost of teacher time to participate in activities design ed to lead to professional growth; since this case study examines district and school expend itures, it does not cover activities that have no cost for the district or school (for exampl e, course-taking paid for by teachers). This case study seeks to answer three questions: 1) What is Elm Street's strategy for improving student achievement? 2) How does professi onal development support this strategy? 3) How does Elm Street allocate resources for professional development? In an attempt to answer these questions, prior research o n professional development costs was reviewed. The first section provides an overview o f the findings, along with an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of those studies. The analysis leads to an explanation of
3 of 31the methodology used to understand Elm Street's res ource allocation. Next, Elm Street's educational strategy is explained in light of its d istrict context. Finally, Elm Street's professional development spending is examined in te rms of funding sources and the Odden et al. (2001) cost structure.1. Prior ResearchThis section discusses eight studies on professiona l development spending. Taken as a whole, these studies highlight three important issu es in this area of research: One common source of data is fiscal accounting code s. Studies that rely on this data source generally do not have detailed descript ive information about the nature of the professional development that was purchased. Other studies have sought to avoid this problem by using alternate data sources and focusing on the type of professional development provided to teachers. The se studies have generally lacked detailed information about professional deve lopment spending. Researchers have used different analytical categori es when reporting on professional development spending. As a result, it is difficult to make accurate comparisons across studies. Most studies have focused on spending at the distri ct level. Few, if any, studies provide information about the professional developm ent resources available at the school level. Since schools can be the locus of mu ch decision-making about professional development, the lack of knowledge abo ut school-level professional development spending may lead to inaccurate estimat es of professional development resources available to teachers. The studies reviewed in this section place the curr ent case study in the research context by highlighting methodological issues and also show ing what is currently known about professional development spending.In one of the first major studies on the costs of p rofessional development, Little et al. (1987) used interviews, surveys and state documents to analyze professional development spending in California in terms of school, district regional, and state expenditures for participants' time and for the cost of providing th e professional development activity. This is a landmark study because of its focused ana lysis on the quality of professional development and because it attempted a comprehensiv e analysis of professional development spending. The authors found that, on av erage, professional development spending equaled approximately 5% of the total clas sroom costs (or $4,379 per staff member; $6,880 in 2000 dollars). The analysis provides a good large-scale picture of professional development spending. However, the estimates include the cost of two item s that make them problematic: uncompensated teacher time (worth an estimated 60 c ents for every dollar spent by the district on professional development); and lane sal ary increases resulting from credits earned through professional development activities (estimated as 61% of total staff development costs). These two items dramatically i ncrease the estimated expenditures, yet uncompensated teacher time is not a direct cost More importantly, salary increases are a legal part of teacher contracts and could not be reallocated to professional development strategies. Classifying these expendit ures as professional development expenses is not useful for an analysis like the pre sent one, which is focused on the actual
4 of 31dollars available for professional development at t he school site. With the present value of semester credits and uncompensated teacher time excluded from the analysis, Little et al. found that professional development accounted f or around 1.4% of total classroom expenditures (or $1,229 per staff member; $1,931 in 2000 dollars). It is also important to note that although Little gathered data on "investm ent in school-based staff development," she found comparatively few of these expenditures. Since the report does not include survey instruments and interview protoc ols, it is unclear if such spending was not found because she did not look for school-level discretionary spending or if schools lacked sufficient control over their own budgets to provide professional development. Little's use of non-budgetary documents allowed her to avoid some of the difficulties that arose in many other studies on professional develop ment expenditures, which utilized budgets as the sole data source. As Chambers (1999) has argued, since accounting codes track resources only by source and expenditure cate gories created for fiscal accounting purposes, they do not provide meaningful informatio n about many types of expenditures and their results. The lack of descriptive data in typical fiscal accounting systems created difficulties in several studies of professional dev elopment spending. One study that encountered this difficulty was Hert ert's (1997) multi-district analysis of professional development spending. Hertert attempt ed to use district budget data to estimate state and district professional developmen t expenditures, evaluate the connections between spending and improvements in st udent performances, and suggest ways of reallocating resources to the most effectiv e types of professional development. She originally approached 60 districts for particip ation, however only 16 kept the data necessary for a basic cost estimate. Of those, non e were able to furnish information that would allow her to address the second and third que stions in her study. Hertert was able to analyze professional development spending across six categories: professional development office, district conferences/workshops, nondistrict conferences/workshops, inservice training days, university/college coursew ork, sabbaticals, and temporary assignments. The analysis showed significant varia tion in districts' professional development spending, ranging from 1.7%-7.6% of net operating expenditures, with an average of 3.6% across districts. The spending lev el was equivalent to an average of 6.8% of the cost of teacher salaries, including ben efits. From this she estimated that per teacher spending would be equivalent to $3385 if th e district paid its average teacher $50,000 including benefits ($3,825 in 2000 dollars) Her study is most important, however, from a methodological perspective because it highlights how accounting mechanisms hamper research on professional developm ent spending and the connection to educational outputs, which were the unanswerable parts of Hertert's original question. Killeen, Monk and Plecki (2000) also attempted to u nderstand districts' spending on professional development but chose to use two major national datasets, the Census Bureau's Survey of Local Government Finances: Schoo l District Finances (F-33), and NCES's Common Core of Data-Longitudinal File to pro duce nationally generalizable results. The study analyzed expenditures categoriz ed as 'instructional staff support,' which provided the nearest approximation to profess ional development. Unfortunately, in one dataset this category also included items su ch as library, television, audio-visual, and computer-assisted instruction, which are not pr ofessional development. Further, much central office instructional support is also s upervisory activities, which do not fit into a general definition of professional developme nt. In conjunction with Hertert's work, this study clearly shows some of the challenges of attempting to quantify professional
5 of 31development spending in districts and schools using the data available in current fiscal accounting systems.Killeen, Monk and Plecki (2000) found that district spending for professional development ranged from 1.27-8.10% of total general district expenditures, with the average district spending 2.76% percent of its budg et for professional development. While this range may seem large, most states' avera ge district spending on professional development was between 2-5.2%, with only six state s averaging below 2% and only Kentucky averaging above 5.2%. The average per pup il expenditure on professional development across states was $192 ($223 in 2000 do llars). Other studies have discussed professional developme nt costs but have focused more on describing and analyzing the nature, and extent of professional development opportunities. Garet et al. (1999) conducted a maj or study of professional development under the Eisenhower program, a federal math and sc ience education initiative under Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Eisenhower funding sought to improve students' math and science achievement thro ugh teacher training. Garet et al. conducted a nationally representative survey of tea chers participating in the Eisenhower Professional Development Program to determine the c haracteristics of effective professional development, which they defined as pro fessional development that leads to changes in teacher knowledge and practice that prod uced increases in student achievement. They found that effective professiona l development has six main features: form (professional development should be school-bas ed and job embedded); 1. duration (long-term and ongoing professional develo pment is better); 2. collective participation (it is beneficial to have groups of teachers from the same school or department share the professional develop ment experience); 3. content focus (teaching strategies should be combin ed with enhanced content knowledge of what is being taught); 4. active learning (opportunities for teachers to beco me engaged in their own learning are important); 5. coherence (professional development should be align ed with state standards, assessments, teachers' goals and school and distric t context). 6. They found that few teachers participated in highly effective professional development and that one of the main reasons was the higher cos t. While districts spent an average of $185 per teacher ($197 in 2000 dollars) on typical professional development under the Eisenhower program, they found that exemplary proje cts in the Eisenhower Program spent approximately $512 per teacher ($529 in 2000 dollars) to provide effective professional development. The increased cost was t ypically for providing professional development of longer duration, and frequently incl uded more active and embedded learning than the workshops that characterize tradi tional professional development. Though the study provides very useful information o n the features of effective professional development, there is little explanati on of how these costs were determined, which limits the usefulness and generalizability of the cost estimates. Furthermore, the estimate is for professional development in only on e subject area, and must, therefore, be seen as a probable underestimate of the overall cos t of professional development. In their study of professional development in New Y ork City's District 2, Elmore and Burney (1997) found that the district spent approxi mately $1,300 per teacher ($1,427 in 2000 dollars) on professional development, or 3% of the district's operating budget.
6 of 31 Elmore and Burney provide more detail than most on how the money is spent, by dividing overall spending into four categories: tea cher compensation, contracted services, professional development lab, and materials. Yet t hey do not provide enough detail to analyze the expenditures in terms of how money was spent within those broad categories. For example, it is impossible to deter mine how much teacher compensation spending was for stipends for teachers attending pr ofessional development activities as opposed to the cost of substitutes to provide teach ers release time. Additionally, one might want to know within contracted services, how much was spent on one-time workshops as opposed to ongoing coaching. Since ot her components of the ongoing study in District 2 demonstrate positive outcomes f rom the district's strategy, it would be very useful to have a systematic cost methodology s o that District 2's spending on various professional development strategies could be compar ed to other districts. Miller, Lord and Dorney (1994) presented a cross-ca se analysis of professional development in four districts. They used districtlevel interviews, principal interviews, and teacher interviews to build an in-depth underst anding not available through analyzing budget data alone. However, they only presented a rough estimate of the percentages of spending on professional development. For example, in analyzing salary costs, they estimated that 15% of principals' time was a profes sional development cost, yet provided no explanation for how they arrived at this estimat e. Their results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Miller, Lord and Dorney's Estimates of Professional Development SpendingDistrictCost per Regular Classroom Teacher at time of the study (in2000 dollars) Cost as a Percentage of Operating Budget Large$ 3,529 ($4,462)2.3%Large$ 1,755 ($2,219)1.8%Medium$ 2,706 ($3,421)2.0%Small$ 3,528 ($4,461)2.8% They broke down this spending into six categories: baseline (staff development office); district and school-level staff development salary; materials and services, travel, consultants, and miscellaneous; substitutes; extern ally funded programs; and personal contributions. These categories add little to our k nowledge about how money is spent and since they did not explain in detail how these were derived and did not analyze the spending categories within externally funded progra ms, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons to other studies.Miles (Miles et al., 1999; Miles and Hornbeck, 2000 ) presented a more detailed approach to tracking districts' professional development spe nding. In a study of Boston's professional development spending, Miles, et al. (1 999) analyzed professional development spending in light of two key concerns: 1) how closely professional development resources were aligned with the distric t's improvement plan; and 2) how well they matched the National Partnership for Exce llence and Accountability in
7 of 31Teaching (NPEAT) principles for effective professio nal development. They began by collecting budget data from all sources, and tentat ively coding this data by district role (e.g. professional development, accountability, cur riculum development and support), function (e.g. salary, stipend), and source (federa l, state, local, private). They then interviewed heads of all relevant district departme nts to determine what activities were related to professional development. This allowed them to include costs, such as the salary for staff who designed professional developm ent, that are not included in some analyses. Their interviews also enabled them to ga ther data on: The sources of professional development funds; The type of professional development activities pur chased (e.g. consultant, staff salary, etc.); The topic of professional development activities; The locus of control for the professional developme nt funds; The percentage of time district personnel spent on developing or providing professional development. These data gave Miles et al. a refined understandin g of Boston's professional development spending that enabled them to analyze s pending by type, topic, control and source. They determined that the district spent ov er $23 million per year ($4,894 per teacher and principal; $5,170 in 2000 dollars) on p rofessional development, or 3.8% of their total budget. Furthermore, by comparing this spending to district goals and NPEAT's principles for effective professional devel opment, Miles et al. were able to make recommendations for how Boston could reallocat e resources to improve the effectiveness of their spending.In later work, Miles and Hornbeck (2000) expanded o n this methodology to compare spending on professional development across four ur ban districts and the broader concept of instructional and school support across two of t hose districts. Their definition of instructional and school support included all activ ities undertaken on the part of a school district to support high quality instruction: profe ssional development, accountability, curriculum development and support, special program monitoring and compliance, information systems, district student services and community outreach. These were included to the degree that they supported instruct ional improvement. For example, spending on information systems that allows schools to better analyze student performance data and tailor reform to specific need s would be considered instructional support; information systems spending that went to monitor student attendance would not be included. Miles and Hornbeck used interviews wi th department heads and other key personnel to determine how much each department spe nt on instructional support, and combined the data to learn how much the districts s pent on professional development and instructional support.They found that there was substantial variation acr oss the districts in terms of the overall level of professional development spending as well as how money was spent. The districts spent between 2.4%-4.3% of their operatin g budget on professional development, not including the cost of contracted i nservice training days. When these were included, the range was 2.4%-5.9% of the distr ict operating budget, or from $2,010-$6,628 per teacher ($2,078-$7,002 in 2000 do llars). Additionally, district spending was frequently fragmented across many depa rtments rather than focused on the districts' highest priority areas. Finally, distri ct spending differed by strategy. While some districts invested heavily in workshops or sub sidizing university course-taking,
8 of 31others spent a higher proportion on stipends for te achers to take on responsibilities outside of traditional teaching.While Miles' studies provided significant detail on district costs and strategies, they did not trace district expenditures to the school level In districts that have decentralized school funding, the school general fund budget, as well as any other budgets controlled at the school level, could be an additional source of professional development spending. By extending Miles' methodology to include a school-le vel analysis, this case study of Elm Street provides a more complete picture of the reso urces used at a given school. As can be seen, past studies on the costs of profes sional development have struggled with at least one, and usually more than one, of the fol lowing issues: The study provided information about professional d evelopment activities but provided little information about costs; The study identified costs, but lacked rich data on the nature of the professional development activities, or data on the different ca tegories of expenditures that comprise total costs; The study identified costs, but did not use a syste matic methodology that enables comparisons to other research; The study had no data on how schools supplemented o r reduced district-level professional development resources available to tea chers. The first problem has created an overall scarcity o f information about professional development expenditures and costs. The second is quite pervasive in the literature because analyses of school and district spending ha ve typically tracked resources from source to accounting code expenditure, which provid es little information on the nature of the professional development spending. The lack of a systematic methodology for identifying costs is even more problematic because of the first two problems: since few studies provide a desirable level of detail on both strategies and expenditures on professional development, it would be highly benefi cial to be able to make meaningful comparisons across studies.Finally, the majority of studies have analyzed district spending on professional development, since districts have traditionally bee n thought of as the source of most staff development resources. Schools, however, are incre asingly playing a prominent role in supporting instructional improvement. They serve as the site of many of the more innovative professional development strategies, lik e on-site coaching and peer mentoring, which are more likely to have the characteristics o f effective professional development identified in Garet, et al. (1999). Many schools also have control over at least a portion of their budget and are allocating some of these re sources to professional development. Conversely, they can also choose to disregard recom mendations for spending money on professional development instead purchasing somethi ng else, thus reducing professional development spending. For these reasons it is nece ssary to include school-level professional development expenditures in the analys is of how professional development resources can be used to improve instruction and st udent learning. This study addresses these issues.2. FrameworkBased on prior research, the following goals were s et for the study: to develop a
9 of 31 methodology that would provide a good estimate of t he total professional development expenditures at the school site and information on the nature of professional development activities; to use a systematic framework for analy zing professional development costs. This case study builds on Elmore and Burney's (1997 ), Miller, Lord and Dorney's (1994), and Miles' (Miles et al., 1999; Miles and Hornbeck, 2000; Miles, 2001) methodologies, but takes them a step further by tracking district spending on professional development to the school site, collecting data on school-level ex penditures for professional development and analyzing expenditures in terms of a clearly ar ticulated cost structure. Even though the resource picture at Elm Street is quite complex the methodology outlined below made it possible to develop an in-depth understandi ng of the sources and deployment of professional development resources at Elm Street. The next section explains the cost structure that was used to analyze professional dev elopment resources from both levels. In a review of literature on the costs of professio nal development, Odden, et al. (2001) built on the Garet et al. (1999) and Elmore and Bur ney (1997) studies (among others) to create a systematic framework for analyzing the cos ts of professional development. Looking across these existing studies they identifi ed six types of school and district professional development expenditures: 1) teacher t ime, 2) training and coaching, 3) administration, 4) materials, equipment and facilit ies, 5) travel and transportation, and 6) tuition and conference fees. This cost structure p rovides a way to identify, calculate and analyze the professional development resources that districts and schools make available to teachers at a given school site. Table 2 presen ts the Odden, et al. (2001) cost structure, which is used in the remainder of the article to id entify and analyze professional development expenditures at Elm Street. For a more detailed explanation of the elements of the cost structure and a general example of how to calculate expenditures see Odden, et al. (2001).As will be seen in this case study, the cost elemen ts provide a meaningful level of detail on how money is spent for professional development at the district and school level. It covers all expenses necessary to produce and carry out a broad range of professional development activities. The usefulness of this sor t of framework for making comparisons across studies becomes most apparent when analyzing the studies by Miller, Lord and Dorney (1994), Miles, et al. (1999) and Miles and H ornbeck (2000). Although these studies use somewhat similar methodologies, it is d ifficult to draw conclusions across studies about the level and effectiveness of profes sional development spending without a shared analytic framework. The next section explai ns how data were collected for this study. Table 2 A Cost Structure for Professional DevelopmentCost ElementIngredientHow Cost is Calculated Teacher Time Used for Professional Development Time within the regular contract:-when students are not present before or 1. teachers' hourly salary times the number of student free hours used forpd 1.
10 of 31 after school or onscheduled in-service days, half days or early release days-planning timeTime Outside the regular day/year: 2. -time after school or on weekends 3. -release time provided by substitutes 4. the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used tocover the teachers' class during planning time used for pd 2. the stipends or additional pay based on their hourly rate that teachers receiveto compensate them for their time 3. substitute wages 4. Training and Coaching Training-salaries for district trainers 1. -outside consultants who provide training; may be part of CSRDCoaching 2. -salaries for district coaches including on-site facilitators 3. -outside consultants who provide coaching; may be part of CSRD 4. sum of trainer salaries 1. consultant fees or comprehensive school design contract fees 2. sum of coach and facilitator salaries 3. consultant fees or comprehensive school design contract fees 4. Administration of Professional Development Salaries 1. Overhead 2. Salary for administrators of professional development programs times theproportion of their time spent administering theprograms 1.
11 of 31 Overhead or supplies necessary to administer programs 2. Materials, Equipment and Facilities Used for ProfessionalDevelopment Materials 1. Equipment 2. Facilities 3. materials for pd, including the cost of classroom materialsrequired for CSRDs 1. equipment needed for pd activities 2. rental or other costs for facilities used for professionaldevelopment 3. Travel and Transportation for ProfessionalDevelopment Travel 1. Transportation 2. Costs of travel to off-site pd development activities 1. Costs of transportation within the district for professionaldevelopment 2. Tuition and Conference Fees Tuition 1. Conference Fees 2. Tuition payments or reimbursement for university-based pd 1. Fees for conferences related to pd 2.3. MethodologyThe data collection for this study began in conjunc tion with Miles' (2001) multi-district analysis of expenditures on instructional improveme nt. First data were collected on instructional and school support at the district le vel. As in Miles' earlier work, instructional and school support was defined as all district supports for high-quality instruction, including professional development. T he analysis began with the entire district general fund budget as well as those from all other public and private sources of funding for the district. Line items such as trans portation costs, which were clearly unrelated to instructional improvement, were elimin ated. The remainder of the analysis had six main steps:
12 of 31a) District-level interviews were used to develop a n understanding of which expenditures were related to instructional and scho ol support and to code spending in all departments within the various categories of instructional support: professional development, accountability, curriculu m development and support, special program monitoring and compliance, informat ion systems, district student services and community outreach. Interviews were c onducted with the people in charge of many departmental and categorical budgets including: quality improvement, career in teaching, administration, cu rriculum & assessment, magnet, vocational education, accountability, teach er leadership, professional development, Title I, Title II, and special educati on, among others. The interviews provided data on which district initiatives support ed instructional and school support, the type of spending each related line ite m represented, and the percentage of salary costs for relevant individuals that shoul d be considered instructional and school support. b) At this point, the focus narrowed to those expen ditures within instructional and school support that had been defined as professiona l development. This included, for example, district literacy coaches, stipends pa id by the district for lead teachers, the costs of comprehensive school reform design con tracts, salary costs for those coordinating professional development, consultant f ees, materials costs, and the district's professional development center. The an alysis includes the cost of teacher time within and outside of the regular contract. I n this case, it did not include teacher inservice days, since the district has none As explained earlier, the cost of salary advancements due to professional development credits and the cost of uncompensated teacher time were not included. c) For each line item, several types of data were c ollected: the description, source, control (e.g. district, school), type (e.g. consult ant fee, stipends), topic (e.g. literacy, standards), form of delivery (e.g. school-based coa ching, workshop). With this level of detail, it was possible to sort data accor ding to general initiative (e.g. literacy, standards, teacher leadership) as well as by cost element (teacher time, training and coaching, administration, materials, e quipment and facilities, travel and transportation, and tuition and conference fees ). d) Professional development costs from all district budgets were then allocated, where possible, to the school level. The cost of e ach initiative was divided by participating schools based on the staff and overhe ad costs in one of three ways: By participating schoolÂ—for example, if twenty scho ols participated in a literacy program, the overhead costs for the entire coaching program would be split evenly amongst the twenty schools. If, wi thin that program, five schools shared a literacy coach, each school was 'c harged' for 1/5 of that coach's salary. By pupil at each participating schoolÂ—for example, one initiative provided a block grant to participating schools based on stude nt enrollment. The number of pupils at each participating school was m ultiplied by the per pupil funding formula to determine the resource level at the school; By participating teacherÂ—for example if the distric t offered an after school workshop that cost $1,000 to produce and five teach ers attended, each of their schools would be 'charged' $200.The precise method for doing this for each initiati ve is explained in a later section.
13 of 31e) Once district-level spending was tracked to the schools, resources from the site budget and categorical programs were analyzed. Lin e item budgets were available for both the school general fund and Title I (the f ederal grant that provides supplemental educational funding for low-income stu dents) budgets. For Title VI (the federal class size reduction initiative), Obey -Porter (the federal comprehensive school reform demonstration project), Literacy Toda y (a state literacy initiative) and TechNow (a state technology initiative) only to tal allocations were available. All of these sources were added to the district inf ormation to generate a preliminary estimate of resources controlled by the school. Th e next step ascertained how much of these resources were used for professional development. f) Using the data collected in the earlier steps, p reliminary and follow-up phone interviews were conducted with the principal to ver ify information, identify how categorical dollars were used and determine how the school allocated discretionary dollars for professional development at the school site. The interviews also provided an understanding of the school's education al strategy and how resources were deployed to achieve school goals. At all stag es, data was gathered by cost structure elements. These data provided three types of information: Qua litative information on the school's goals and strategies; A comprehensive resource use picture; Descriptive data that enabled this analysis to move beyond accounting codes to an understanding of the professional development strategies and their cost.The combination of these three types of data makes it possible to present professional development spending at Elm Street School utilizing the cost structure developed by Odden, et al. (2001). Additionally, as becomes app arent in the next section, these allow for a transparent explanation of how cost estimates were developed. Finally, this methodology and cost structure makes it possible to overcome the barriers typical accounting practices create to understanding the re lationship between professional development and educational strategies. 4. District And School ContextElm Street School is in the Cincinnati Public Schoo ls, a moderately large, urban district in the midwest. In the mid 1990s the district had relatively low achievement, but has made a significant attempt to generate improvements by focusing on school accountability, coordinated reform, teacher leaders hip, and instructional improvement. Cincinnati's accountability system categorizes scho ols into five performance categories, the lowest of which can trigger 'redesign,' the dis trict's school reconstitution plan. Redesign schools receive a new principal, who hires lead teachers. Together they select a new staff, who are required to implement the compre hensive school reform model chosen by the school's redesign committee (made up of four members chosen by the district and four members chosen by the teachers' union). Cinci nnati has also supported the adoption of comprehensive school reform models in many schoo ls in the district that are not redesign schools.Cincinnati has several other strategies for improve ment in addition to comprehensive school reform. The district has invested significa ntly in teacher leadership through its shared decision-making and lead teacher programs. A dditionally, the district provides ongoing teacher coaching on literacy and aligning i nstruction to standards for schools that
14 of 31participate in either of these initiatives. Furthe rmore, the district provides mentors for new and struggling teachers, and hosts teacher-inte rns from a local university. Finally, the district contracts with an independent staff de velopment agency to provide workshops and training for teachers on topics that the distri ct identifies as important for instructional improvement. Cincinnati's initiatives have made sig nificant district resources available to school sites undertaking reform, and have focused s chools' efforts on raising student achievement to the district's standards.In the 2000-2001 school year, Elm Street School had approximately 400 students in grades K-8, almost all of whom qualified for free a nd reduced lunch; 20% of the students participated in special education. Additionally, t he student body was highly mobile, with about a 50% student turnover rate during the course of the school year. In 1998, Elm Street chose to implement Expeditionary Learning Ou tward Bound [ELOB] to improve student performance, even though it was not a redes ign school. ELOB is a comprehensive school reform design that utilizes au thentic, integrated instructional units to support students' academic skills and personal g rowth. For the past three years, ELOB has provided significant professional development f or the staff so that they can meet the goals of the model. In addition to ELOB, Elm Street has created a multi -faceted literacy model with the assistance of an outside consultant. The model was designed to mesh with ELOB, and has been reviewed by ELOB consultants. It has seve ral components: Two assessment programs (one of which is computer-based) to determ ine student reading level, with corresponding reading materials at each student's l evel; 90-minute literacy blocks; Four instructional assistants to work with teachers on l iteracy and provide small group instruction; One-on-one reading tutoring offered by teachers and teacher-interns for struggling students in the six weeks leading up to state testing. Elm Street has also made several structural changes to provide individual attention to help students succeed in their academic program. Th e first of these changes is reduced class size. Elm Street has 25.6 FTE teachers, crea ting an overall student to teacher ratio of less than 16:1. Class sizes are reduced in the elementary grades to the following levels: Kindergarten: 13 to 1; Elementary: 15-17 to 1; 7th and 8th grade: 24 to 1. The smaller classes in the elementary grades facilitate s teachers' use of developmentally appropriate practices. Additionally, teachers were organized into three teams (K-3, 4-6, and 7-8 grade) to facilitate collaborative work. E lm Street also used looping and multi-age classes so that students and teachers cou ld spend several years working together. Finally, the school has changed the allocation of t ime throughout the school day to provide teachers with at least 75 minutes a week of guaranteed common planning time. Students are in school from 7:30-1:45 daily. Under the old schedule, teachers were required to be in school from 7:15-2:15 daily; now the teacher day begins daily at 7:30. Since the teacher day starts 15 minutes later, 75 m inutes of teacher contract time is accumulated each week and used for meetings on Wedn esday afternoon, when teachers remain until 3:30. This provides teams with 75 min utes of common planning time each week, which were typically used for work on ELOB cu rriculum development. The principal noted that the combination of these s trategies provides a "seamless" education for students. Students have opportunitie s to build close relationships with teachers, receive instruction tailored to their ind ividual needs, and participate in authentic
15 of 31learning activities. To support this instructional program, Elm Street invested a significant amount of money in professional develop ment, much of which focused on implementing ELOB, the literacy model or aligning i nstruction to standards. The next section outlines the various sources of professiona l development spending at Elm Street.5. Sources of Professional Development Spending at Elm StreetElm Street received federal, state, local and priva te funding. The school site had significant control over the budgets from some sour ces, whereas other available resources were controlled at the district level. Unlike earl ier studies that focused on data from one level, this case study tracks district and school e xpenditures on professional development from federal, state, local and private sources. Gi ven the complexity of the data, it is useful to think of two categories of professional d evelopment spending that provide professional development resources to Elm Street: District spending on the infrastructure to support professional development (such as the salaries of central office administrators of professional development programs, clerical support, equipment, and supplies ) and on professional development activities and programming that are pro vided to school staff. This category can further be divided into two groups: 1. a. Trackable funds: some district spending on profe ssional development can be reasonably tracked to the schools that receive t he direct benefit of the resources. Of district spending on professional de velopment, $7.4 million dollars (approximately 73%) of district spending fe ll into this category. This includes spending on district-funded coaches that w ork with schools on instructional improvement, mentors for new teachers courses provided by the district professional development academy and f unds earmarked for adoption of CSRD's. This article provides signific ant detail on this category of spending; b. Untrackable funds: some district spending on pro fessional development occurs in a manner such that it is not possible to track which schools receive the direct benefit of the resources. Of district s pending on professional development, $2.7 million dollars (or 27%) fell int o this category. It was not allocated to the school level for one of the fo llowing reasons: Spending was designed to build individual or distri ct-level rather than school-level capacity (for example district support for individuals to pursue National Board certification) and so could n ot be accurately tracked to a given school; Funds were controlled by neither the district or sc hool (for example, the contractually mandated, union-controlled profes sional development fund); Spending was too fragmented to be accurately alloca ted to the school level; While funding was allocated for professional develo pment, the dollars had not yet been spent. For these reasons it was not possible to accurate ly allocate this district spending to the school level. The other category of professional development spen ding at Elm Street includes all school-initiated professional development activitie s funded from schools' own discretionary budgets. This would include a school 's use of Title I money to hire a 2.
16 of 31 facilitator or coach to provide teachers training a nd support in implementing a CSRD, structuring planning time to provide teachers time within the school day for professional development, or using the school's gen eral fund budget for materials or travel expenses for professional development. The upcoming sections explain the sources of tracka ble district-level and school-level professional development resources at Elm Street.District-Level Support for Professional Development at Elm Street Elm Street participated in most of Cincinnati's pro fessional development initiatives, including literacy coaching, standards coaching, te acher leadership, teacher mentoring, and the teacher intern program. Individual staff m embers also took courses on various topics offered by the district. Table 3 lists the district initiatives in which Elm Street participated, the strategy used for allocating the cost to Elm Street, and the cost estimate of the resources Elm Street received. All estimate s include the cost of fringe benefits where applicable.Table 3 District-Level Professional Development at Elm Stre et InitiativeAllocation MethodDistrict-wide Expenditure per Initiative Elm Street Resource Estimate Teacher Leadership Teacher stipends allocated per teacher to participating schools;other initiative costs allocated evenly across participatingschools $1,195,963$25,999 Staff Development Agency Courses Agency costs allocated proportionally across schools based on prior year course-takingpatterns $942,950$22,960 Standards Alignment Coaching Costs allocated to participating schools based on coach's salary $414,348$15,936 Teacher Intern Program Salary and stipend costs allocated to participating schools $219,475$15,190 Literacy CoachesCosts allocated to participating schools based on coach's salary $405,674$ 9,998 Peer MentoringCosts allocated across schools based on number of newhires/intervention teachers at each school $632,746$ 6,004
17 of 31 Eisenhower Math and Science Workshops Allocated proportionally across schools based on teacherparticipation in courses $343,371$ 1,576 Total District-controlled Professional Development resources at Elm Street: $97,663 In sum, the district provided Elm Street's teachers with an average of $3,815 in professional development resources ($97,663 25.6 teachers = $3,815). As previous research has shown (Miles & Hornbeck, ( 2000); Miles, et al., (1999); Elmore & Burney (1997); Hertert, 1997; Miller & Lord, (199 4)), districts utilize multiple sources of funding for professional development. Cincinnat i is no exception. As Table 4 shows, Cincinnati used federal programs, state and local t ax revenues and private donations to fund professional development.Table 4 Sources of District-Level Professional Development at Elm StreetInitiativeFederalState/LocalPrivateTotalTeacher Leadership $ 25,999 $ 25,999 Staff Development Agency Courses $ 5,419$ 17,5 41 $ 22,960 Standards Alignment Coaching $ 8,653$ 4,590 $ 2,693 $ 15,936 Teacher Intern Program $ 15,190 $ 15,190 Literacy Coaches $ 9,998 $ 9,998Peer Mentoring $ 6,004 $ 6,004Eisenhower Math and Science Workshops $ 1,576 $ 1,576Total $15,648 $ 79,322 $ 2,693 $ 97,663 Source Percentage of Total 16%81%3%100% As Table 4 shows, federal dollars support 16% of th e district-level professional development spending at Elm Street. One significan t source of federal funding in Cincinnati is Title I, the federal compensatory edu cation program. The federal government recommends that 2.5% of Title I money be used for professional development. Cincinnati used some of their Title I money to fund staff development agency courses and standards alignment coaching at Elm Street. Title II, also known as the Eisenhower Program, provides funding for profes sional development in math and science. Cincinnati used this funding to sponsor s everal district workshops in which individual teachers at Elm Street chose to particip ate.
18 of 31The largest source of dollars for Cincinnati's prof essional development initiatives were state and local funds, which provide 81% of the dis trict-level professional development resources at Elm Street. Finally, the district res ources used at Elm Street were supplemented slightly by private donations, which w ere added to federal, state and local funding for the standards initiative.School-Controlled Support for Professional Developm ent at Elm Street At the school level, Elm Street utilizes funding fr om federal, state and local, and private sources for professional development. Elm Street w as awarded $75,000 grant from the Obey-Porter program, a federal program that support s the implementation of comprehensive school reform designs. All Obey-Port er funds were spent on implementing ELOB, which is considered here to be a form of professional development. Since Obey-Porter grants are applied for by individual schools, this is an excellent example of how school-level actions can i ncrease the resources available for professional development in the school.Elm Street also participated in the federal Title I program. The school received $293,150 in Title I funding for the 2000-2001 school year, b ut spent none of this for professional development even though the federal guidelines reco mmended spending 2.5% for professional development. In contrast to the ObeyPorter example, this shows how school discretion can be used to reduce professiona l development spending at a school. This decision should be seen in light of an overall context of significant professional development expenditures at Elm Street, and distric t-level use of Title I funds for professional development.Cincinnati distributes funding for Literacy Today, a state program designed to improve literacy instruction. Even though the literacy pro gram carries no professional development requirements, Elm Street spent $8,000 ( of the $30,000 at its disposal) to provide substitutes so teachers could participate i n literacy professional development. Cincinnati also participated in TechNow, a state ed ucational technology initiative. The state recommended that 30% of this money at each sc hool be spent on technology professional development. The data showed that Elm Street spent all of its TechNow funds to purchase computers, but that teachers acce ssed technology training through district-sponsored workshops. State and local funds also provided Elm Street with its general fund budget, which in addition to paying staff, materials and operating e xpenses, was the largest single source of professional development funding at Elm Street. By reallocating teacher time within the contract week, Elm Street was able to provide $ 63,983 in teacher time for professional development without additional costs. While adding this teacher time into an estimate of Elm Street's expenditures on profess ional development significantly increases the level of general fund spending, as me ntioned earlier in the discussion of teacher time, including this resource use in our es timate makes it possible to compare how different schools and districts create time for teachers to engage in professional development. For purposes of comparison, however, estimates of professional development spending without including teacher time within the regular contract are included in a later section. In addition to using time after school for professional development, Elm Street paid $7,770 from the school general fund to provide for
19 of 31 substitutes to release teachers during the school d ay to participate in professional development activities.Elm Street also used $38,900 from its general fund to pay for travel expenses for teachers attending ELOB conferences and workshops. In addit ion, Elm Street received a $2,500 grant from a private group to pay for the costs of travel and materials for conferences. Table 5 shows the sources of professional developme nt funding at the school level, including the cost of teacher time within the regul ar contract. (Tables 7 and 8 show how the cost of teacher time within the regular contrac t influences estimates of professional development costs). Professional development spend ing at Elm Street, like at the district level, comes from several sources. Two factors are most notable. The first is the lar ge contribution of a single federal program, Obey-Porter, to professional development s pending at Elm Street. Since all schools participating in CSRD's pay contractual fee s, Elm Street would have had to either acquire additional resources from a different sourc e or reallocate other resources in the school budget if it had not received that grant. Table 5 Sources of School-Level Professional Development at Elm StreetDescriptionFederalState/LocalPrivateTotalCSRD participation$ 75,000 $ 75,000Substitutes for teacher release $ 15,770 $ 15,770Teacher time after school within the regular contract $ 63,983 $ 63,983 Travel $ 38,900$ 2,500$ 41,400Total $ 75,000$118,653$ 2,500$196,153 Source Percentage of Total 38%61%1%100% Second, Elm Street contributes an average of $7,662 per teacher of professional development resources to the district-level spendin g. This highlights the importance of conducting school-level professional development sp ending analyses in districts that have decentralized budgeting. It is worth noting that w hile the findings are not generalizable to other schools in the district, other schools in the broader study also used site discretionary funds to dramatically increase profes sional development resources for their teachers (Fermanich, 2001). Other Resources for Professional Development at Elm Street Elm Street also has other resources that support pr ofessional development that were not quantified in this study. More specifically, there were three major types of additional staff development resources at Elm Street that were not included in the analysis: As mentioned earlier, 27% of Cincinnati's professio nal development spending could not be tracked to the school level. Across t he district, this is equal to an average of $1,038 per teacher. This could be added to the tracked spending for a
20 of 31 sense of the total per teacher cost of Elm Street's professional development opportunities, as is done on the next page.Additionally, since Elm Street participated in the teacher intern program with a university, teachers were eligible to apply for ind ividual grants from the university to support their own course-taking. Since these are outside of district and school control and no records of participation were obtain ed, this study did not include them. Finally, previous research (especially Little (1987 ), which attempted to quantify this resource) found that uncompensated teacher tim e was a significant resource for professional development. At Elm Street this inclu ded, among other things, graduate classes that several teachers took at a lo cal university, and uncompensated collegial work on instruction outside of the contra ct day. However, since the neither the district nor the school site bears any of this cost, it was not included in the analysis. Leaving these activities out of the analysis potent ially leads to an underestimate of professional development resources at Elm Street; h owever, accurately quantifying these resources is outside the scope of this study. Tabl e 6 presents a summary table presenting total, per teacher and per student professional dev elopment resources at Elm Street at both the district and school level.Table 6 Professional Development Resources at Elm Street by LevelLocus of Control Percentage Spending per level Total Professional Development Spending Total per Teacher Total per Student School level 67%$196,153$ 7,662$ 491 District level 33%$ 97,663$ 3,815$ 244 Total100% $293,816$11,477$ 735 As Table 6 shows, Cincinnati and Elm Street combine d provide for $11,477 per teacher in professional development resources. If the untr acked average district-level expenditure per teacher of $1,038 were included, th is estimate would be $12,515 per teacher. Since we are unable to definitively track these resources to Elm Street, however, the higher estimate is not used in this study.6. Cost Structure of Professional Development Spend ing At Elm StreetThe remainder of this article analyzes Elm Street's professional development resources by the six-element cost structure discussed earlier, w hich provides a framework for understanding how resources were allocated within t he school. Table 7 provides a breakdown of all district and school level professi onal development expenditures at Elm Street. If an ingredient within the cost structure is not listed, Elm Street did not have any expenditures in that category.
21 of 31 Table 7 Expenditures at Elm Street by Cost Element and Ingr edientCost ElementIngredientDescription of expenseCostTeacher Time Within Regular Contract Time after School$63,983 Outside regular contract Stipends$129 Substitutes$15,770 Total Teacher Time $79,882 Training and Coaching TrainingPurchased Training, including the ELOB contract fee (withconference costs excluded) $89,290 CoachingSalaries of District Coaches$41,299 Purchased Coaching$15,936 Total Training and Coaching $146,525 Administration of Professional Development Administrative salaries Salaries for administration of district professionaldevelopment programs allocated to participating schools $5,000 OverheadOverhead costs for administering district professional developmentprograms allocated to participating schools $16 Total Administration $5,016 Materials, Equipment and Facilities Used for ProfessionalDevelopment MaterialsMaterials costs for district professional development programs allocated toparticipating schools $761 Total Materials, Equipment and Facilities $761 Travel and Transportation for ProfessionalDevelopment TravelTravel to ELOB conference$41,400
22 of 31 TransportationTransportation costs for district professional development programsallocated to participating schools $132 Total Travel and Transportation $41,532 Tuition and Conference Fees Conference FeesELOB conference fees included in the CSRD contract $20, 100 Total Tuition and Conference Fees $20,100 Total $293,816 Elm Street had two main types of expenditures for T eacher Time: $63,983 of teacher time within the contract when students were not present was used for team meetings after the student school day; (no planning time provided by s pecialist teachers was used for professional development); and $15,770 was used fo r substitutes to provide release time for teachers to attend professional development act ivities. In addition, the district spent $129 for teacher stipends at Elm Street, as calcula ted by allocating the teacher stipends expenditures across schools participating in the tr aining program. Purchased training comprised almost 61% of total Training and Coaching expenditures; of the $89,290 for purchased training, $54,900 was for the ELOB contra ct fee, while the remainder covered a variety of workshops. Most of the coaching expen ditures were for salaries of district personnel who provided coaching ($41,299), however, the district hired some consultants as coaches for specific professional development in itiatives ($15,936). The majority of Administration expenditures ($5,000) were for salar ies of district administrators, however one district program had expenditures for materials necessary to administer the program of which $16 were allocated to Elm Street. Materia ls expenditures by different initiatives were also allocated across participating schools, f or a total of $761 at Elm Street. Elm Street's travel expenses ($41,400) were all related to attending ELOB conferences and training events; the expenditures for transportatio n ($132) that were allocated to Elm Street covered travel within the district for a par ticular coaching initiative. Finally, an estimated $20,100 of conference fees were separated from the ELOB contract cost to estimate Elm Street's expenditures for staff to att end professional development conferences.For purposes of analysis, it is useful to focus on the comparison of spending levels across cost elements, which is shown in Table 8. Of Elm S treet's expenditures for professional development, 77% were for either Teacher Time or Tr aining and Coaching. Elm Street had more expenditures for Training and Coaching tha n any other cost element, spending $89,290 (or 61% of Training and Coaching expenditur es) for training and $57,235 (or 39% of Training and Coaching expenditures) for coac hing. Most of the Travel and Transportation and Tuition and Conference Fees expe nditures were for participation in ELOB. Expenditures for Administration, and Materia ls, Equipment and Facilities were only a small portion of total professional developm ent expenditures.Table 8
23 of 31 Resources for Professional Development by Cost Stru ctureCost ElementExpenditureAverage Expenditure per Teacher Average Expenditure per Pupil Percentage of Total Professional DevelopmentExpenditures Teacher Time $79,882 $3,120 $20027%Training & Coaching $146,525 $5,724 $36650% Administration $5,016 $196 $132%Materials, Equip. &Facilities $761 $30 $2< 1% Travel & Transportation $41,532 $1,622 $10414% Tuition & Conference Fees $20,100 $785 $507% Grand Total $293,816 $11,477 $735100% As noted earlier, it is important to include the co st of teachers' time within the school contract as part of a discussion of the cost of pro fessional development. At Elm Street, however, this time had no additional cost. For pur poses of comparison, Table 9 shows Elm Street's professional development expenditures excluding teacher time within the regular school day. Excluding the cost of teacher time within the contract, professional development resources at Elm Street appear even mor e heavily concentrated in training and coaching. Additionally, this comparison shows the extent to which school-level resource allocation decisions enabled Elm Street to direct existing resources in teacher time to professional development without increasing spending. Table 9 Resources for Professional Development by Cost Stru cture, Not Including Teacher Time within the Regular ContractCost ElementExpenditure without Teacher Time within theContract Average Expenditure per Teacher Average Expenditure per Pupil Percentage of Total Professional DevelopmentExpenditures Teacher Time$15,899$621$407%Training &Coaching$146,525$5,724$36664%Administration$5,016$196$132%
24 of 31 Materials, Equip. &Facilities$761$30$2< 1%Travel &Transportation$41,532$1,622$10418%Tuition &Conference Fees$20,100$785$509%Grand Total$229,833$8,978 $575100% The professional development expenses for ongoing i mplementation of a comprehensive school reform initiative appear across four cost el ements, including teacher time within the regular contract. The expenditures for travel and transportation and tuition and conference fees, a total of $61,632, enabled teache rs to attend the ELOB conference. Additionally, $54,900 of the training and coaching expenditures paid the fee for participating in ELOB; this provided the school wit h consultants and other support for implementation. In addition to expenditures for participation in EL OB, the training and coaching expenses covered $67,234 in district coaches across a variet y of initiatives, of which $16,000 provide stipends for teachers to provide profession al development to their colleagues. Workshops across a variety of topics cost $24,391. Spending for training and coaching at Elm Street was somewhat fragmented, but significant amounts of spending were directed towards major school improvement strategies of comp rehensive school reform, improving literacy instruction, and teaching to sta ndards.DiscussionThe methodology of interviewing multiple central of fice staff as well as the principal to identify professional development expenses at Elm S treet helped the researcher gain a more complete picture of spending than would have b een possible from an analysis of budget data alone. This methodology provided much more detailed and accurate information about the district program resources av ailable at the school site. Furthermore, this study uncovered some resources th at were not apparent from school budget data. One example of this was the clarifica tion of how substitute time is used. Through interviews, it was determined that of the $ 11,655 Elm Street spent for substitutes, $7,770 went to provide teachers releas e time for professional development. The most interesting finding of this study is the h igh level of expenditure per teacher for professional development. Table 10 Previous Estimates of Professional Development Spen dingAuthor's Name (year) Spending per Teacher Spending per Student Notes
25 of 31 Little, et al. (1987) $1,931 $93 Excluding the future value of credits and uncompensatedteacher time Hertert (1997) $3,825 Killeen, Monk and Plecki (2000) $223 Did not report spending per teacher Garet (1999) $529 Estimate for high quality professional development Elmore and Burney (1997) $1,427 Miller, Lord and Dorney (1994) $2219-$4461 Miles, et al (1999) $5,170 Estimate per teacher and principal ?incl teacher time? Miles and Hornbeck (2000) $2078-$7002 Estimate including cost of teacher time within the contract Elm Street Case $11,477 $735 Estimate including cost of teacher time within the contract Including time within the teacher contract, the dis trict and school spent an average of $11,477 on resources of professional development; e xcluding this time still left an average of $8,978 per teacher. Table 10 above shows how these findings compare wit h earlier research on professional development spending. All dollar amounts have been reported in 2000 dollars, the year from which Elm Street data was collected. Table 10 raises a very important question: Why do the estimates for Elm Street's professional development expenditures appear so much higher than those found in other studies. The re are three main reasons. Unlike much earlier research, Elm Street data was c ollected using a multi-step methodology. The researcher supplemented budget da ta, traditionally the main source of data for professional development cost studies, wit h interviews that enabled the researcher to more accurately determine which expen ditures were directly related to professional development. Without these interviews the data would have been much less precise, since current accounting systems are not d esigned to clearly identify all types of professional development expenditures.Additionally, data was collected on school discreti onary as well as district expenditures for professional development. If only the district -level spending were taken into account, the researcher would have only estimated Elm Street professional development expenditures of $3,814 per teacher or $244 per stud ent. This is within the range found in some other studies, but clearly underestimates the total professional development resources available to Elm Street teachers.The methodology and cost framework utilized in this study includes teacher time within the regular contract in the estimate. This adds $2 ,499 to the per teacher estimate of professional development expenditures. Similarly, Miles and Hornbeck (2000) include
26 of 31district-level spending for teacher time, which inc ludes district-wide inservice days, in their calculations. Since Cincinnati does not incl ude such days in the district contract, the teacher time in our estimates is all provided on th e school level. Regardless, with teacher time removed, the estimates fall closer to those es timated in other studies. Unfortunately, beyond these three reasons it is not possible to tell exactly why the expenditure estimates vary across studies. There a re two potential reasons: The districts studied had varying levels of investm ent in professional development. This possibility is supported by cross-district com parisons such as those by Hertert (1997), Miller, Lord and Dorney (1994), and Miles a nd Hornbeck (2000), which found significant variation in professional develop ment spending across districts; 1. The data upon which different researchers based the ir analyses included different items under the category of professional developmen t. This possibility is also supported by existing research. The most notable e xample would be Killeen, Monk and Plecki (2000) who used a definition of pro fessional development that included a wide range of expenses that fall outside most definitions of professional development, for example audio-visual supplies. 2. The variation in definitions of professional develo pment embedded in data sources will inherently continue. Unless researchers move beyon d the use of traditional accounting codes, however, it will not be possible to disentan gle differences in school districts' categorizations of expenses from differences in act ual spending for professional development. Once expenditures are clearly identif ied by researchers, it is important to describe them using a comprehensive cost structure so that expenditures can be described transparently, making it feasible to compare findin gs across studies. The Odden, et al. (2001) cost structure helps to pr ovide a substantial level of detail about the nature of spending being studied. Using this c ost structure, it is possible to break out the variation caused by different definitions of pr ofessional development (for example inclusion of teacher time within the contract or on going coaching) from those caused by variations of spending. Use of this framework thus creates estimates that are more empirically and practically useful.By using the multi-level methodology to collect dat a and the Odden, et al. (2001) cost structure to analyze the data, it was possible to d etermine several things about professional development spending at Elm Street.Elm Street spent a significant amount of money on p rofessional development: $293,816 (or $11,477 per teacher) including teacher time wit hin the regular contract and $229,833 (or $8,978 per teacher) not including teacher time within the regular contract. This amount is much higher than typically recognized. W hile this finding should not be generalized beyond Elm Street, the use of the cost structure makes it possible to compare the findings to other studies. This leads to the h ypothesis that the inclusion of school level spending, which provides 67% of the professio nal development spending at Elm Street (or 57% not including teacher time within th e regular contract) is one of the reasons the estimate is higher than many. Since the school level is the source of such a significant amount of teachers' professional develo pment resources, future studies interested in better understanding professional dev elopment resources available to teachers could benefit from a multi-level analysis.
27 of 31Elm Street utilized $146,525, or 50% of expenditure s (67% not counting teacher time within the contract) for training and coaching. Of this, $57,235 was for non-traditional forms of staff development, like on-site, ongoing l iteracy coaching. This is significant since coaching, facilitating and on-site work with consultants are more likely to contain the elements of effective professional development identified by Garet, et al. (1999) and Odden, et al. (2001). This suggests that analyses of professional development spending that do not include such activities may miss expend itures that are substantial and more likely to be effective than typical one-day worksho ps. Elm Street spent very little on teacher time outsid e of the regular contract. This is partially indicative of the fact that Elm Street re structured time within the teacher contract to regularly provide time for professional developm ent. Interviews also indicated that teachers spend a significant amount of uncompensate d time on professional development at Elm Street. Of the spending on teacher time, $1 5,770 is for substitutes to release teachers for professional development, while only $ 129Â—stipends for attending an Eisenhower math and science workshopÂ—compensated te achers for time outside of the school day. While this is very cost efficient in t he short term, over the long-term it is unclear if this reliance on uncompensated teacher t ime will be a sustainable pattern for Elm Street.8. ConclusionThis study focused on professional development spen ding at an urban elementary school engaged in focused reform. Budgets and multiple in terviews were combined to form a rich data set. The methodology led to a detailed a nd accurate assessment of professional development spending at both the district and schoo l level. The addition of the school-level expenditure data led to significantly higher estimates of professional development spending, which more accurately reflect the professional development resources available to teachers within a given scho ol than do analyses that only utilize district data. The cost structure analysis yielded useful findings about not just the total professional development costs at Elm Street, but m ore importantly, the strategic allocation of resources. The cost structure also m akes it possible to see how different definitions of professional development shape findi ngs. It is thus an important contribution to the field since widespread use of s uch a cost structure would facilitate comparing findings across studies.This project represents an early step of a broader research agenda, which ultimately seeks to identify the level of professional development s pending and spending strategies that will enable schools and districts to improve teachi ng and student learning. Continuing these analyses in a systematic manner and employing the cost methodology defined in Odden, et al. (2001) will yield more data that will add to the extant knowledge on the cost of effective professional development. It would al so be interesting to apply this study's methodology to schools that have been successful in generating significant student achievement gains to begin to look at the link betw een professional development spending and student achievement gains.NoteThis article was prepared for the Consortium for P olicy Research in Education,
28 of 31Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The research reported here was supported by a grant fro m the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Nat ional Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policy-Making and Management, to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and the Wisconsin Cent er for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Gran t No. OERI-R3086A60003). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finan ce, Policy-Making and Management, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S Department of Education, the institutional partners of CPRE, or the Wisconsin Ce nter for Education Research.ReferencesBirman, Beatrice F., Desimone, Laura, Porter, Andre w C., & Garet, Michael S.. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership 57 (8), 28-33. Chambers, Jay G. (1999). Measuring resources in education: From accounting t o the resource cost model approach. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research Corcoran, Thomas B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professio nal development. (RB-16). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education Consortium for Policy Research in Educati on. Elmore, Richard, & Burney, Deanna. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Professional development and instructional improvement in Commun ity School District #2, New York City Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in E ducation and the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.Fermanich, Mark. (2001). Elementary School Spending for Professional Development: A Cross-Case Analysis. University of Wisconsin, Wisc onsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Educati on. Garet, Michael S., Birman, Beatrice F., Porter, And rew C., Desimone, Laura, Herman, Rebecca, & Yoon, Kwang Suk. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.Hertert, Linda. (1997). Investing in teacher professional development: A lo ok at 16 districts Denver: Education Commission of the States. Killeen, Kieran M., Monk, David H., & Plecki, Marga ret L. (March 2000). School district spending on professional development: Insights avai lable from national data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu cation Finance Association, San Antonio, Texas.Little, Judith Warren. (1993). Teachers' profession al development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15 (2), 129-151. Little, Judith Warren, Gerritz, William H., Stern, David S., Guthrie, James W., Kirst, Michael W., & Marsh, David D.. (1987). Staff development in California San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and De velopment.
29 of 31 Miles, Karen, Bouchard, Francine, Winner, Kendra, C ohen, Mary Ann, & Guiney, Ellen. (1999). Professional development spending in the Boston Pub lic Schools Boston: Boston Plan for Excellence, Boston Public Schools.Miles, Karen Hawley. (March 2001). Analyzing distri ct spending on instructional and school support. Paper presented at the annual meeti ng of the American Education Finance Association, Cincinnati, Ohio.Miles, Karen Hawley, & Hornbeck, Matthew. (2000). Rethinking district professional development spending to support a District CSR Stra tegy: Resource Reallocation, Issue #3 Arlington, VA: New American Schools.. Miller, Barbara, Lord, Brian, & Dorney, Judith. (19 94). Staff development for teachers: A study of configurations and costs in four districts Newton, MA: Education Development Center.Odden, Allan, Archibald, Sarah, Fermanich, Mark, & Gallagher, H. Alix. (2001). A framework for assessing the costs of effective prof essional development. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Educa tion Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. In revision, Journal of Educational Finance .About the AuthorH. Alix GallagherConsortium for Policy Research in EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison1025 W. Johnson St. Room 653Madison, WI 53706Email: email@example.comH. Alix Gallagher is completing her Ph.D. in Educat ional Administration at the University of WisconsinÂ–Madison. Throughout her car eer as a graduate student, her area of focus has been school finance. Her dissertation and future research plans involve in-depth study of various policies that better supp ort and prepare teachers, including knowledge and skill-based pay plans, pre-service an d inservice education.Copyright 2002 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 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board
30 of 31 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 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 Education Commission of the States 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 California State UniversityÂ—Stanislaus 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 University EPAA 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
31 of 31 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/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx email@example.com Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier 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