|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 of 23 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 10 Number 29May 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 .A Case Study of Professional Development Expenditur es at a Restructured High School Sarah Archibald Consortium for Policy Research in Education University of Wisconsin-Madison H. Alix Gallagher Consortium for Policy Research in Education University of Wisconsin-MadisonCitation: Archibald, S. & Gallagher, H. A. (2002, M ay 31). A case study of professional development expenditures at a restructured high sch ool. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10 (29). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epa a/v10n29.html.AbstractThis article is an analysis of professional develop ment spending in a recently restructured urban high school. This study describes the school's restructuring effort, the ways in which professiona l development in the school supports the effort, and the ways in which t he school reallocated
2 of 23resources to create funds for professional developm ent spending. We then apply the framework of professional developmen t costs proposed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich and Gallagher (forthcom ing) to the professional development expenditures in the school Information regarding professional development expenditures was obtained from budget and planning documents as well as interviews with school and district personnel. These data revealed that teache rs in this school on average received $9,711 of professional development resources with 98% of the spending on teacher time and training or coaching. Districts and schools around the country are being called upon to improve the performance of their students. In an attempt to do so, they are implementing whole school designs, reducing class sizes, adopting new curriculums and increasing both the quantity and the quality of professional developmen t for teachers. Experts have come to believe that this focus of effort and resources on professional development is necessary to reach the high student achievement goals set by standards-based reform (Birman et al., 2000; Corcoran, 1995; Hertert, 1997; Killeen, Monk and Plecki, 2000; Little, 1993). With this in mind, CPRE researchers at the Universi ty of Wisconsin-Madison embarked on a study of the costs of effective professional d evelopment. This study involved a couple of different stages. We began with a review of the literature on effective professional development and its costs, which held a lot of information on what constitutes effective professional development but very little on its costs. Furthermore, the extant research on professional development cos ts lacked a common framework for analyzing and discussing the costs at the state, di strict, and school level. This led the CPRE researchers to develop a new framework for ass essing the costs of professional development that might become a common framework (O dden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gallagher, 2001). At the same time, CPRE researchers Fermanich and Ga llagher began collaborating with Karen Hawley Miles on a study of district and schoo l level professional development expenditures in Cincinnati. Miles had already done similar work at the district level in three other districts: San Antonio, Boston and Albu querque. The work in Cincinnati goes beyond an analysis of expenditures at the dist rict level and evaluates school-level professional development spending as well. This pr oject's first case study, written by Alix Gallagher (2001) about a Cincinnati K-8 school was the first to systematically estimate costs at the school level and use the Odde n et al. (2001) framework to analyze the professional development resources at a school engaged in comprehensive school reform. This case study uses Gallagher's format, a nd focuses on the different kinds of professional development now being employed by a re structured high school in Cincinnati and the costs of that professional devel opment. This case highlights Harrison Place High School (Note 1) a magnet school that used professional development as an integral part of a c oordinated schoolwide reform. Professional development is defined here as organiz ed district and school activities intended to build teacher knowledge and skills. Th is includes activities that are often classified as professional activities to promote in structional improvement; for example, workshops, teacher coaching, work with consultants, and collaborative planning time and in-service days used for activities designed to lead to professional growth. Since this case study examines resource use rather than e conomic costs, it does not cover
3 of 23 activities that have no cost for the district or sc hool, including uncompensated teacher time. This case study seeks to answer three questi ons: 1) What is Harrison's strategy for improving student achievement? 2) How does professi onal development support this strategy? 3) How does Harrison allocate resources f or professional development? In an attempt to answer these questions, we develop ed a framework, collected data from documents and interviews, and aligned that data wit h our framework. These steps are described in the next section. This article does n ot involve an extensive literature review. See previous work by Gallagher (2001) and Fermanich (2001), for an extensive review of research on professional development cost s, including an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of those studies. Followi ng the section on methodology, Harrison's educational strategy is explained in lig ht of its district context. The final section examines Harrison's professional developmen t spending in terms of funding sources and the Odden et al. (2001) cost structure.2. MethodologyBased on prior research, the following goals were s et for the study: a) to develop a methodology based on prior research that provides a good estimate of professional development expenditures at the school site and inf ormation on the nature of professional development activities;and b) to use a systematic framework for analyzing professional development expenditures.This case study builds on Elmore and Burney's (1997 ), Miller, Lord and Dorney's (1994), and Miles' (Miles et al., 1999; Miles and H ornbeck, 2000; Miles, 2001) methodologies, but takes them a step further by ana lyzing expenditures in terms of a clearly articulated cost structure and tracking dis trict spending on professional development to the school site. Our first step was to identify a more specific fram ework for analyzing professional development costs. In a review of literature on the costs of professional development, Odden et al. (2001) built on the Garet et al. (1999 ) and Elmore and Burney (1997) studies (among others) to create a systematic frame work for analyzing the costs of professional development. They then collaborated w ith Jennifer King Rice of the Finance Project to create a common framework consis ting of six core and two optional (Note 2) elements to be used to analyze the costs of profess ional development. The six core elements are: 1) teacher time, 2) training and coaching, 3) administration, 4) materials, equipment and facilities, 5) travel and transportation, and 6) tuition and conference fees. Table 1 depicts this cost structu re.Table 1*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 1. teachers' hourly salary 1.
4 of 23 present before or after school or on scheduledin-service days, half days or early release days-planning time Time Outside the regular day/year : 2. -time after school, onweekends or for summer institutes 3. -release time provided by substitutes 4. times the number of student free hours usedfor pdthe cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover theteachers' class during planning time used forpd 2. the stipends or additional pay based on the hourly rate that teachers receiveto compensate them for their time 3. substitute wages 4. Training and Coaching Trainingsalaries 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 for district or school level administrators ofprofessional development programs salary for administrators times the proportion of their timespent administering pd programs Materials, Equipment and Materials 1. materials for pd, 1.
5 of 23 Facilities Used for ProfessionalDevelopment Equipment 2. Facilities 3. including the cost of classroom materialsrequired for CSRDsequipment 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 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. *Reprinted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich and Gal lagher, A cost framework for professional development, Journal of Education Finance forthcoming. These cost elements provide a meaningful level of d etail on how money is spent for professional development at the district and school The usefulness of this sort of framework for making comparisons across studies bec omes most apparent when analyzing the studies by Miller, Lord and Dorney (1 994), Miles, et. al. (1999) and Miles and Hornbeck (2000). Although these studies use s omewhat similar methodologies, it is difficult to draw conclusions across studies abo ut the level and effectiveness of professional development spending without a shared analytic framework. We hope our comprehensive framework, which was developed in coo peration with other professional development researchers and has now been employed i n three case studies, offers a useful standardized framework to allow cross-site a nalyses. As previously mentioned, the data collection for th is study began in conjunction with Miles' (2001) multi-district analysis of expenditur es on instructional improvement. First, data were collected on instructional and sch ool support at the district level. As in Miles' earlier work, instructional and school suppo rt were defined as all district supports for high-quality instruction, including professiona l development. The analysis began with the entire district general fund budget, as we ll as those from all other public and
6 of 23private sources of funding for the district. The an alysis proceeded according to the following six steps: a) 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 departmental and categorical budgets. Th e interviews provided data on which district initiatives supported instructional and school support, the type of spending each related line item represented, and th e percentage of salary costs for relevant individuals that should be considered inst ructional and school support. b) At that point, the focus narrowed to those expen ditures within instructional and school support that we defined as professional deve lopment. This included, for example, district literacy coaches, stipends paid b y 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 an estimate of the cost of teacher planning time that was actually devoted to professional development. However, the cost of salary advanceme nts due to professional development credits and the cost of uncompensated t eacher 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), and form of delivery (e.g. sc hool-based coaching, workshop). With this level of detail, it was possible to sort data according to general initiative (e.g. literacy, standards, teacher leadership) as w ell as by cost element (teacher time, trainers and coaches, other costs). d) Professional development costs from all district budgets were then allocated, where possible, to the school level. The cost of e ach initiative was allocated among participating schools based on the staff and overhead costs in one of three ways: By participating schoolfor 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 schoolfor example, one initiative provided a block grant to participating schools based on stu dent enrollment. The number of pupils at each participating school was m ultiplied by the per pupil funding formula to determine the resource lev el at the school; By participating teacherfor 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.A later section explains the precise method of calc ulating the cost for each
7 of 23initiative that involves Harrison Place High School e) Once district-level spending was tracked to the schools, resources from the school site budget and categorical programs were an alyzed. Line item budgets were available for both the school general fund and Title I (the federal grant that provides supplemental educational funding for low-i ncome students) budgets. For Title VI (the federal class size reduction initiati ve), Obey-Porter (the federal comprehensive school reform demonstration project), Literacy Today (a state literacy initiative) and TechNow (a state technolog y initiative) only total allocations were available. All of these sources w ere added to the district information to generate a preliminary estimate of r esources controlled by the school. The next step ascertained how many of thes e 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 the school used categorical dollars and its discret ionary control to increase or reduce professional development resources at the sc hool 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 were gathered by cost structure elements. These data provided three types of info rmation: 1) Qualitative information on the school's goals and strategies; 2) A comprehensive r esource use picture; 3) Descriptive data that enabled this analysis to move beyond acco unting codes to an understanding of the professional development strategies and their c ost. These three types of data together made it possible to present professional development spending at Harrison utilizing the cost structure d eveloped by Odden et al. (2001). Additionally, as becomes apparent in the next secti on, these data allow for a detailed explanation of exactly how the 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. 3. District And School ContextHarrison Place High School is located in the Cincin nati Public School District, a moderately large, urban district in the Midwest tha t serves approximately 48,000 students. In the mid 1990's the district had rela tively low achievement, but has made a significant attempt to generate improvements by foc using on school accountability, coordinated reform, teacher leadership, and instruc tional improvement. Cincinnati's accountability system categorizes schools into five performance categories, the lowest of which can trigger 'redesign,' the district's school reconstitution plan. Redesign schools receive a new principal and a substantially new sta ff, who are required to implement the comprehensive school reform model chosen by the sch ool's redesign committee (comprised of four members chosen by the district a nd four members chosen by the union). Cincinnati also operates a number of magnet schools funded at a slightly higher amount per pupil, and supports the adoption and imp lementation of comprehensive school reform models in many schools in the distric t that are not redesign schools.
8 of 23 Cincinnati has several other strategies for improve ment in addition to comprehensive school reform. The district invested significantly in teacher leadership through its team leader and lead teacher programs. The district also provides ongoing teacher coaching on literacy and aligning instruction to standards for schools that participate in either of these initiatives. Furthermore, the district provides me ntors for new and struggling teachers, and hosts teacher-interns from a local university. Finally, the district contracts with an independent staff development academy to provide wo rkshops and training for teachers on topics that the district identifies as important for instructional improvement. Cincinnati's initiatives have made significant dist rict resources available to school sites undertaking reform, and in several cases, have focu sed efforts on raising student achievement to the district's standards.School Background InformationHarrison Place High School is one of five schools i n the Cincinnati Public School District that serves students in grades 9-12. Its student population is 85% African American and 15% white. Approximately 50% of stude nts qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Compared to other high school s in CPS, Harrison serves a relatively high number of special education student s; approximately 15% of students have Individual Education Programs (IEPs). Table 2 provides other relevant facts about Harrison High School. Table 2 Facts about Harrison Place High SchoolStudent Enrollment1550Grades9-12Student-teacher ratio, overall12:1Student-teacher ratio, academic classes17:1Number of special education teachers19Comprehensive School Reform DesignsPaideia, Co-nect After the 1988-1989 school year, the district close d Harrison Place High School due to persistently low academic performance. After reope ning in Fall 1989, the school was structured to create smaller, self-contained academ ic programs for students. As of the 2000-2001 school year, the school offered five acad emic programs that are close to being self-contained. In this structure, students choose one of the five programs, and then take all of their academic courses with only t hose students and teachers in their chosen program, thus creating a smaller community f or both students and teachers. The only exceptions are for non-core academic courses s uch as physical education and music. Two of the programs students select from ar e national whole school designs, Paideia and Co-nect, and the other three are homeg rown designs created at the school or district level. Although only one of the progra ms officially uses Paideia, the whole school considers itself a Paideia school, adopting the Paideia mission of producing graduates who will become lifelong learners, respon sible citizens and productive workers. The five programs include:
9 of 23Paideia: With 400 students, this program uses teach ers as coaches, runs classes as seminars, and places an extra emphasis on English. Cincinnati Academy of Math and Science (CAMAS): Wit h 375 students, this program helps students acquire specific skills uniq ue to science and mathematics by concentrating on these areas in other discipline s. There is also a small program within CAMAS called the ZOO Academy. Students in t his program attend classes at the Cincinnati Zoo and study a zoological-center ed curriculum. Teaching and Technology: With 250 students, this pr ogram uses the Co-nect school design, which emphasizes project-based learn ing supported by technology. Communications: With 250 students, this program off ers a complete high school academic studies program and provides students with experiences in journalism, graphics and photography, public relations, adverti sing, and technical writing. Health Professions: With 225 students, this program offers the essential building blocks for any health career academic coursework combined with lab and field experience in health-related or medical areas. In addition to five separate academic programs, Har rison made a number of changes to meet the constant need for teachers to engage in a wide variety of professional development. Five on-site instructional facilitato rs were hired, one for each academic program, to provide teachers with full-time support specific to their program. In 1997-1998, Harrison Place also became a team-based school. Teams of teachers and students created smaller learning communities for s tudents and reduced student loads for teachers. The school also began participating in t he district's team leader and lead teacher programs.Another big change at the school came in 1999 when the school changed to flexible block scheduling. This change allowed the principa l to rearrange the schedule so that all teachers had common planning time with their core a cademic team members. The school leadership recognized that common planning t ime was necessary for teacher teams to engage in job-embedded professional develo pment during the regular workday. By the 2001-2002 school year, all core academic tea chers had two 45-minute planning periods per day, or 450 minutes per week. In most cases, teachers used one of these planning periods to meet with their team for profes sional development purposes while the other was used for personal planning time. Th e collaboration time allows teachers to meet and discuss teaching strategies, plan a cur riculum unit, or meet with their instructional facilitator during the regular school day, and is therefore included in our cost estimate of professional development. The nex t section outlines the various sources of professional development spending at Harrison. (Note 3) 4. Sources and Control of Professional Development Spending at HarrisonIn the 2000-2001 school year, Harrison received fed eral, state and local funding. While some resources are controlled at the district level the school site has significant control over the budgets from most sources. Unlike previou s studies that focused on data from the district level, this case study tracks district and school expenditures on professional
10 of 23development from federal, state and local sources. Because these data are complex, it may be useful to think of two categories of profess ional development spending at Harrison: 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 programs that are provid ed to school staff. This category can be further divided into two groups: 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 tracking category. This includes spending on district-funde d coaches that work with schools on instructional improvement, mentors for n ew teachers, courses provided by the district professional development a cademy and funds earmarked for adoption of CSRDs. This article prov ides significant 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 s upport for individuals to pursue National Board certification) and so could not 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 accurately allocate this district spending to the school level, but because it is such a small po rtion of the total expenditures, we do not believe it is a problem for our analysis. 1. Spending for school-initiated professional developm ent activities funded from schools' own discretionary budgets. This would inc lude a school's use of Title I money to hire a facilitator or coach to provide tea chers training and support in implementing a CSRD, structuring planning time to p rovide teachers time within the school day for professional development, or usi ng the school's general fund budget for materials or travel expenses for profess ional development. 2.
11 of 23 The upcoming sections explain the sources of tracka ble district-level and school-level professional development resources at Harrison.District-Level Support for Professional Development at HarrisonHarrison participated in many of Cincinnati's profe ssional development initiatives, including team leaders, lead teachers, teacher ment oring, the teacher intern program, and math and science workshops. Individual staff membe rs also took courses on various topics offered by the district through its independ ent professional development academy. While most initiatives were funded throug h the district general fund, funding for the math and science workshops came from Title II of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as the Eisenhow er Program. Table 3 lists the district initiatives in which Harrison participated the strategy used for allocating the cost to Harrison, and the cost estimate of the resources Harrison received. All estimates include the cost of fringe benefits where applicabl e.Table 3 District Professional Development Initiatives at Ha rrison InitiativeAllocation MethodDistrict-wide Expenditure per Initiative Harrison Resource Estimate Team-based schoolsTeacher stipends allocated per team leader to participating schools; otherinitiative costs allocated evenly across participatingschools $1,192,959$85,999 Lead TeachersTeacher stipends$587,500$57,000Staff Development Agency Courses Allocated proportionally across schools based on prior year course-takingpatterns $867,134$11,897 Teacher Intern ProgramBy salary and stipend costs for participating schools $219,474$54,677 Peer MentoringAllocated across schools based on number of newhires/intervention teachers at each school $602,731$ 32,018 Eisenhower Math and Science Allocated proportionally across schools based on current year workshopenrollment. $ 343,371$5,404 Total District-controlled $3,813,169$246,995
12 of 23 professional development resourcesat Harrison In sum, the district provided Harrison's teachers w ith an average of $1930 (Note 4) in professional development resources.As previous research has shown (Miles & Hornbeck, ( 2000); Miles, et. al., (1999); Elmore & Burney (1997); Hertert, 1997; Miller & Lor d, (1994)), districts utilize multiple sources of funding for professional develo pment. Cincinnati is no exception. As Table 4 shows, Cincinnati used federal programs, state and local tax revenues to fund professional development.Table 4 Sources of District-Level Professional Development at HarrisonInitiativeFederalState/LocalPrivateTotalTeam-based schools$85,999$85,999Staff Development Agency Courses$2,808$9,089$11,897Lead Teachers $57,000$57,000 Teacher Intern Program$54,677$54,677Peer Mentoring$32,018$32,018Eisenhower Math and Science Workshops $ 5,404$5,4 04 Total $8,212 $241,591 $0$246,995Source Percentage of Total 3%97%0%100% As Table 4 illustrates, state and local funds repre sent the largest source of dollars for Cincinnati's professional development initiatives. These sources provide 98% of the district-level professional development resources a t Harrison. In addition to the $246,995 that the district spend s to provide Harrison's teachers with professional development, the school spends some of its site budget on professional development. These expenditures are detailed in th e next section.School-Controlled Support for Professional Developm ent at HarrisonAt the school level, Harrison spent a total of $995 ,986 on professional development. Most of these funds came from the school's general fund budget. The only other source of school-controlled funds used for professional de velopment at Harrison was a $300,000 grant from TechNow, a state educational te chnology initiative. The state recommended that 30% of the grant money at each sch ool be spent on technology professional development. Harrison used approxima tely $15,000, or 5% for professional development at the school site; the mo ney was spent to provide technology training for teachers.Harrison's commitment to funding teachers for core academics means that some
13 of 23 common school-site expenditures on professional dev elopment are not a part of its budget. For example, Harrison has no allocation in its budget for substitutes to free teachers to attend professional development activit ies. Instead, teachers must rely on members of their team to cover their classes or mon ey from the union's professional development fund. However, the fact that its five separate academic programs each have a full-time, on-site instructional facilitator means that the school spends a significant amount on what we term professional dev elopment in this study, even when the cost of providing common planning time is exclu ded. Harrison spent $980,986 from its school general fun d for professional development. Most of this spending was used for the salary costs of teachers who provided classroom teachers with common planning time. While including planning time dramatically increases the estimate of professional development spending, it is included here because planning time provides teachers student-free time w ith the opportunity to collaborate with other teachers and build their skills. Not al l schools have arranged their schedules to provide teachers with common planning time, and those that have are, in effect, building an infrastructure for job-embedded profess ional development. Although we cannot be sure that all of this time is used for pr ofessional development, we believe that thinking of this time as a professional development resource could help to justify creating joint planning time for staff, which is an excellent opportunity for collaboration around student learning. Furthermore, interview da ta revealed that common planning time at Harrison is used for meetings with instruct ional facilitators and collegial discussions about better teaching strategies and cu rriculum units. These activities clearly fall within our definition of professional development. For purposes of comparison, however, estimates of professional deve lopment spending without planning time are included in Table 5.In addition to providing planning time, the general fund budget was used to pay the salaries of the five instructional facilitators, on e for each separate academic program. These full-time, on-site facilitators are licensed teachers who have extensive knowledge of their specific academic program. Their on-site c oaching and support of teachers is an example of the kind of professional development tha t has been proven effective ongoing, job-embedded, and focused on the content o f the academic program. The additional $995,986 ($7,781/teacher) spent on p rofessional development at the school site underscores the importance of conductin g school-level professional development spending analyses in districts that hav e decentralized budgeting, since the school's discretion can both augment and detract fr om predicted expenditures on professional development. Table 5 lists Harrison's school-controlled expenditures on professional development, which are all funded by s tate and local sources. The table also shows the percentage of the total spent on eac h item.Table 5 Sources of School-Level Professional Development at HarrisonDescriptionState/LocalPercentage of total*Salaries (& benefits) of on-site facilitators$349,9 1035% On-site technology training$15,0002%
14 of 23 Common planning time used for pd$631,07663%Total with planning time$995,986100%Total without planning time$364,91037% *Rounded to the nearest percentProfessional Development Resources from Other Sourc esIn addition to the public funds listed above, Harri son also has other resources that support professional development that were not quan tified in this study. More specifically, there were two major types of additio nal staff development resources at Harrison that were not included in the analysis:External support for individual teachers' professio nal developmentHarrison had two such sources. The first was the union's profession al development fund, to which teachers in Cincinnati could apply for mini-grants to attend conferences that supported their professional growth. Second, since Harrison p articipated in the teacher intern program with a university, teachers were eligible t o apply for individual grants from the university to support their own course-taking. Sinc e these are outside of district and school control and no records of participation were obtained, this study did not include these.Uncompensated teacher timeLittle (1987) found that uncompensated teacher time was a significant resource for professional development At Harrison this included, among other things, graduate classes that several teacher s took at a local university, and collegial work outside of the contract day. Howeve r, since the school site bears none of this cost, it was not included the analysis.Leaving these activities out of the analysis potent ially leads to an underestimate of professional development resources at Harrison; how ever, accurately quantifying these resources is outside the scope of this study. Table 6 presents a summary table with total, per te acher and per student professional development resources at Harrison at both the distr ict and school level.Table 6 Professional Development Resources at Harrison by L evelLocus of Control Percentage Spending per level Total Professional Development Spending Total per Teacher* Total per Student School level 80%$995,986$7,781$642 District level 20%$246,995$1,930$159 Total100% $1,242,981$9,711$801
15 of 23 *This table uses all professional teaching staff, i ncluding core academic, specials, vocational education and special education teachers in the per teacher calculation. As Table 6 shows, Cincinnati and Harrison combined provide for $9,711 per teacher in professional development resources. If the untrack ed average district-level expenditure per teacher of $1,038 were included, this estimate would be $10,749 per teacher. Since we are unable to definitively track these resources to Harrison, however, the higher estimate is not used in this study.5. Cost Structure of Professional Development Spend ing At HarrisonThe remainder of this article analyzes Harrison's p rofessional development resources by cost structure, which provides a framework for unde rstanding how resources were allocated within the school. Of Harrison's $1,242, 981 total expenditures for professional development (including both district and school lev el spending), 98% were for either teacher time or training and coaching. Teacher tim e was the largest expenditure, $631,519. All but $443 was spent on providing teac hers with a common planning period during each regular school day that could be used to engage in professional development. The remainder was used to pay teacher s to attend math and science workshops funded by the Eisenhower program. The sc hool spent $581,781 on training and coaching, spending $58,134 for training and $52 3,647 for coaching. Table 7 shows Harrison's expenditures for professional developmen t by cost element.Table 7 Resources for Professional Development by Cost Stru ctureCost ElementExpenditureAverage Expenditure per Teacher Average Expenditure per Pupil Percentage of Total Professional DevelopmentExpenditures Training & Coaching $581,781 $4,545 $37547%Teacher Time $631,519 $4,934 $40751%Travel & Transportation $704 $6 $ **%Tuition & Conference Fees $0 $0 $00%Administration $26,049 $203 $172%Materials, Equip. & Facilities$2,928 $23 $2 *%Grand Total $1,242,981 $9,711 $801100% *Since this was such a small amount of money, the p er-pupil and/or percentage of total expenditures calculations were negligible.
16 of 23 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. While this time is included in the regular teacher contract and the refore has no marginal cost to the school, the school leadership had to make a number of changes to enable teachers to have such a substantial amount of common planning t ime. For this reason, we feel it is appropriate to include the estimate of the cost of providing the common planning time in the calculation of the total amount spent on profes sional development. However, some researchers prefer to use estimates of professional development costs that does not include planning time, so, for the purposes of comp arison with those studies, Table 8 shows Harrison's professional development expenditu res excluding teacher time within the regular school day. The figures are still subs tantial, on both a per teacher and a per student basis.Table 8 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 Training & Coaching$581,781$4,545$37595%Teacher Time$443$3$**%Travel & Transportation$704$6$**%Tuition & Conference Fees$0$0$00%Administration$26,049$203$174%Materials, Equip. & Facilities$2,928 $23 $2 1%Grand Total$611,905$4,780 $394100% *Since this was such a small amount of money, the p er pupil and/or percentage of total expenditures calculations were negligible.Excluding the cost of teacher time within the contr act, professional development resources at Harrison are spent almost entirely on training and coaching. A closer look at his cost element reveals that most of it (99%) i s spent on coaching. This cost is high for a number of reasons. First, coaching is a form of professional development with a longer duration than most, making it more expensive Secondly, this school has hired five full-time instructional facilitators to provid e coaching at the school site; their
17 of 23salaries account for 60% of the amount spent on coa ching and 28% of total spending on professional development at Harrison. This reflect s the fact that the separate academic programs, including two comprehensive school design s, is one of the main strategies for school improvement at Harrison. The school adminis tration's belief that a full-time, on-site coach who could meet with teachers during c ommon planning time is reflected in their large investment in both facilitators and com mon planning time. While most comprehensive school designs have fees, Harrison has managed not to incur any costs from its two programs. Administrators an d staff at Harrison agreed to let Co-NECT use Harrison as a demonstration site; in ex change, the school gets to use the program without paying the usual fees. Any initial fees to use the Paideia program were paid by the district in previous years and are not part of this analysis. In addition to the salaries of the five instruction al facilitators, the training and coaching expenses covered $173,737 in coaches across a varie ty of district initiatives, including lead teachers, team leaders, and peer mentors. Wor kshops across a variety of topics cost $16,804, including math and science workshops funde d by the federal Eisenhower program. The combination of district and school-le vel expenditures on professional development adds up to comprehensive, ongoing profe ssional development for teachers at Harrison Place High School.7. ConclusionThe methodology of interviewing multiple central of fice staff as well as the principal to identify professional development expenses at Harri son 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 $15,000 i n grant money used for technology training.This study has two very interesting findings: the r elatively high estimate of the amount spent on professional development and how that mone y was spent. The first, the high level of expenditure per teacher for professional d evelopment, is higher than those found in other studies mentioned earlier in the article. Including time within the teacher contract, Harrison teachers had an average of $9,71 1 of resources of professional development. There are three main reasons that thi s estimate is higher than those found in other studies:Unlike much earlier research, Harrison's data were collected 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 designed to clearly identify all types of professional development expenditures.Additionally, data were collected on school discret ionary as well as district expenditures for professional development. If only the district -level spending were taken into account, the researcher would have only estimated H arrison professional development
18 of 23expenditures of $1930 per teacher or $160 per stude nt. This is within the range found in some other studies, but clearly underestimates the total professional development resources available to Harrison Place teachers.The methodology and cost framework utilized in this study includes teacher time within the regular contract spent on professional developm ent activities in the estimate. This adds $4,931 to the per teacher estimate of professi onal development expenditure. Similarly, Miles and Hornbeck (2000) include distri ct-level spending for teacher time, which includes district-wide inservice days, in the ir calculations. Since Cincinnati does not include such days in the district contract, the teacher time in our estimates is all provided on the school level. The variation in definitions of professional develo pment that lead to very different estimates of costs will continue unless researchers decide on a comprehensive and relevant definition. This project attempted to adv ance this effort by looking across several prior works on professional development exp enditures to arrive at such a definition. We then constructed a cost structure t o aid in the collection of the same expenditures across studies. Only when studies inc lude the same expenditures will we be able to say that one estimate is higher or lower than another and focus on why that is the case.As illustrated in this case study, the Odden, et. a l. (2001) cost structure provides a substantial level of detail about the nature of spe nding being studied. The cost structure helps highlight the second interesting finding of t his study: how Harrison's professional development money was spent. The highest percentag e (51%) of the money spent on professional development at Harrison was for common planning time for teachers time within the regular school day to engage in professi onal development. Including this cost estimate is important because school leadership at Harrison purposefully reorganized the school schedule to ensure that every teacher had da ily common planning time with his or her teacher team. The second largest percentage (4 7%) of the expenditure for professional development at Harrison was for traini ng and coaching, and the highest portion of these funds was spent on the salaries of five full-time, on-site instructional facilitators. Again, this school-based expenditure is important to include because it represents such a substantial investment in ongoing teacher learning. As these examples show, using this cost structure m akes it possible to break out the variation caused by different definitions of profes sional 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 more empirically and practically useful.In sum, the cost structure analysis yielded useful findings about not just the total professional development costs at Harrison, but mor e 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 case study represents one of the early steps o f a broader research agenda, which ultimately seeks to identify the level of professio nal development spending and spending strategies that will best enable schools and distri cts to improve teaching and student
19 of 23learning. Continuing these analyses in a systemati c manner and employing the cost methodology defined in Odden, et. al. (2001) will y ield more data that will add to the extant knowledge on the cost of effective professio nal development. This knowledge will help districts and schools make informed decis ions about spending on professional development.NotesThis article was prepared for the Consortium for Po licy Research in Education, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. It borrows heavily from two other CPRE papers. The li terature review, methodology, and general format were taken from Elm Street School: A Case Study of Professional Development Expenditures, by H. Alix Gallagher, ano ther school in the same study of one district. Some details about the school itself were taken from: A Case Study of Dramatic Resource Reallocation to Improve Student A chievement: Harrison Place High School, by Sarah Archibald. The research reported in here was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Ed ucational Research and Improvement, National Institute on Educational Gove rnance, Finance, Policy-Making and Management, to the Consortium for Policy Resear ch in Education (CPRE) and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Grant No. OERI-R3086A60003). Th e opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policy-Making and Management, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Departme nt of Education, the institutional partners of CPRE, or the Wisconsin Center for Educa tion Research. 1. The actual name of the high school described here is not used; Harrison Place High School is a pseudonym. 2. The two optional elements are research and develop ment and future salary obligations. We chose not to use them in this stud y. 3. For more information on the changes made at the sc hool, please see: Archibald, Sarah. 2001. A Case Study of Dramatic Resource Re allocation to Boost Student Achievement: Harrison Place High School, CPRE Worki ng Paper Series, SF-01-1, available online: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/fin ance/research/reallocation.asp. 4. To calculate the per-teacher estimate, all core ac ademic teachers, specials teachers, vocational education teachers and special education teachers were included. If the estimate were only to include core academic teacher s, the estimate would be $2954 per teacher. It is likely that most of these district initiatives were focused on these teachers, but not all.ReferencesArchibald, Sarah. 2001. A Case Study of Dramatic Resource Reallocation to Improve Student Achievement: Harrison Place High School. P aper prepared for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Available online at: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/re search/reallocation.asp.
20 of 23Birman, 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. Submitted to Elementary School Journal Gallagher, H. Alix. (2002). Elm Street School: A Case Study of Professional Development Expenditures. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (28). Available online: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n28.html.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: Insi ghts available from national data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Americ an Education 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 Rese arch and Development. 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
21 of 23 #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 distric ts Newton, MA: Education Development Center.Odden, Allan, Archibald, Sarah, Fermanich, Mark, an d Gallagher, H. Alix. (2001). A cost framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance Forthcoming.About the AuthorsSarah ArchibaldConsortium for Policy Research in EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison1025 W. Johnson St. Room 653Madison, WI 53706Sarah Archibald is a Researcher at the Consortium f or Policy Research in Education at the University of WisconsinMadison. Her main rese arch area is school finance. Specifically, she is interested in districtand sc hool-level finance analyses. Recently, she has worked on a district and school-level study of professional development expenditures and helped develop a school-level expe nditure structure that arrays both resource data and the educational strategies tied t o those resource allocations. H. Alix GallagherConsortium for Policy Research in EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison1025 W. Johnson St. Room 653Madison, WI 53706Email: firstname.lastname@example.orgH. Alix Gallagher is completing her Ph.D. in Educat ional Administration at the University of WisconsinMadison. 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, email@example.com or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: firstname.lastname@example.org .EPAA Editorial Board
22 of 23 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 email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers California State UniversityStanislaus Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven email@example.com Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisUC 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 firstname.lastname@example.org Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.email@example.com
23 of 23 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu
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 29series Year mods:caption 20022002Month May5Day 3131mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2002-05-31
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 E11-00277
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 10, no. 29 (May 31, 2002).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c May 31, 2002
Case study of professional development expenditures at a restructured high school / Sarah Archibald [and] H. Alix Gallagher.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)