Agenda Number: 8

Meeting Date: 05/11/2010

To: Interim Commissioner Diane DeBacker

From: Pamela Coleman
Subject: Professional Development Audit Task Force Final Report
Date: 04/20/2010
Board Goals: Providing a caring, competent teacher in every classroom

In the fall of 2009, the Board approved a contract for the Kansas State Department of Education to
collaborate with the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) to convene a state-wide task force
charged with development of a comprehensive professional learning system for Kansas. A
comprehensive learning system ensures that all Kansas educators engage in effective professional
learning focused around core expectations and aligned with state initiatives, content standards,
regulations and legislation.

Joellen Killion, Deputy Executive Director, NSDC guided the task force in review, development and
recommendations for a statewide, comprehensive professional learning system for Kansas. The task
force met six times beginning in November of 2009. Members sought input and feedback from
constituencies across the state as they completed their work.

Joellen will be presenting to the Board the policy recommendations of the task force.

The National Staff Development views high quality professional learning as essential to creating schools
in which all student and staff members are learners who continuously learn. The Board has endorsed the
use of the NSDC professional development standards.

Teacher Education and Licensure

Phone: 785-296-2288
Fax: 785-296-4318
TTY: 785-296-6338

27
28
 Audit of Kansas State
Professional Development Policies

Submitted by
Kansas Professional Development
Task Force

May 2010

29
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 2

Act 96 Professional Development Defined............................................................... 3

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 4

The Role of Professional Learning in Promoting High-Quality Teaching,

Leadership, and Student Achievement ..................................................................... 8

Audit Process .......................................................................................................... 14

Areas of Strength
x Commitment to Continuous Improvement ............................................................ 15
x Task Force Consensus on the Purpose of Professional Learning .......................... 15
x Tiered Points for Licensure Renewal .................................................................... 15
x Article 96. Professional Development Programs .................................................. 15
x Professional Development Councils...................................................................... 15
x Standards for High-Quality Professional Development ........................................ 16

Areas for Improvement

x Definition of Professional Development ............................................................... 16
x Inequity of Access ................................................................................................. 16
x Individual versus School Improvement ................................................................. 16
x Limited Application and Impact Level Professional Development ...................... 17
x Integrated System for Professional Development ................................................. 17

Recommendations
x Recommendation 1: Definition of Professional Development .............................. 17
x Recommendation 2: Accountability ...................................................................... 18
x Recommendation 3: Backwards Design ................................................................ 19
x Recommendation 4: Professional Pathway ........................................................... 19
x Recommendation 5: Licensure Renewal ............................................................... 19
x Recommendation 6:Professional Preparation........................................................ 20
x Recommendation 7:Educators’ Roles ................................................................... 20
x Recommendation 8:Funding for Professional Development................................. 21
x Recommendation 9: Time for Job-Embedded Professional
Development ......................................................................................................... 21

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 22

References ............................................................................................................... 24

30
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The foresight of the Kansas State Board of Education and Department of Education
to conduct an analysis of the state’s professional development policies and the
impact of those policies on professional development practices throughout the state
demonstrates the ongoing commitment of the Board and Department to ensuring
educators participate in high-quality professional development that results in
improved learning for Kansas students.

Particular appreciation is extended to the Professional Development Task Force

members representing various constituencies, listed below, who committed time
and energy for six months and who contributed significantly to the
recommendations. NSDC further acknowledges the support of the Kansas State
Department of Education staff, particularly Pamela Coleman, Director of Teacher
Education and Licensure; Susan Helbert, Assistant Director, TEAL; Lynn Bechtel,
Education Program Consultant; Kathy Boyer, Education Program Consultant; and
Janet Williams, Sr. Administrative Assistant, for organizing a broad array of
documents for review, convening the Professional Development Task Force, and
supporting the meetings of the Task Force.

Educators, school board members, and state legislators throughout Kansas took
time to share insights and suggestions during the Task Force’s work and provide
feedback on the draft recommendations enriched the work of the Task Force.

Barbara Bunting USD 373-KASB

Walter Carter USD 229-KNEA
Mike Cook ESSDACK-Service Centers
Sandee Crowther Executive Director-KSDC
Glennys Doane Board of Directors-KASB
Peg Dunlap Director-KNEA
Jeff Eastman USD 205-KNEA
David Flowers USD 308-KASA
Randy Freeman USD 372-KASA
Diane Gross USD 261-KSDC
David Hofmeister Southwestern College -Non-public IHE
Pam Irwin USD 305-PDC Representative
Anna Moon Bradley USD 456-KNEA
Shirley Palmer District 4-Kansas House of Representatives
Larry Patrick Smoky Hill Education-Service Centers
Suzan Patton USD 382-Curriculum Directors
Cesar Pena USD 374-KAMSA
Michele Penner USD 259-KNEA
Joshua Robinson USD 290-KAESP
Kris Sherwood USD 260-KASSP
Gail Shroyer Kansas State University-Board of Regents IHE
Sheryl Spalding District 29-Kansas House of Representatives
Diana Wieland USD 315-Curriculum Directors

31
Article 96--PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 72-
9601. Citation of act; legislative declaration and intent. This act
shall beknown and may be cited as the education professional
development act. It is hereby declared that it is essential to the welfare
of the people of Kansas that the provision of quality educational
opportunities for all pupils in the state be assured. Therefore, it is the
intention of this act to promote continuous professional development,
diversification in academic foundations or subject knowledge,
improvement in job effectiveness, enhancement of skills and
techniques, and competent on-the-job performance of all certificated
personnel serving regularly in the accredited elementary and secondary
schools of the state of Kansas.

32
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Study
The Kansas State Department of Education commissioned a statewide task force
facilitated by Joellen Killion, deputy executive director of the National Staff
Development Council, to conduct an audit of state’s professional development
policies. This audit will be utilized to inform the work of the Department of
Education’s revision and alignment of policies related to educator standards,
licensure, licensure renewal, professional development, and school improvement.
The specific focus of the Professional Development Task Force was to review and
recommend changes in policies (statutes, regulations, and guidelines) for
professional development for Kansas educators to ensure a system of seamless and
continuous improvement from preservice through the entire continuum of
educators’ career so that it contributes to both educator practice and pre-K through
20 student academic success. The Professional Development Task Force examined
several key questions, including:

x What are the strengths of the Kansas professional development policies,

especially in comparison to other states?

x Where are leverage points in Kansas’s professional development policies

that can strengthen the quality of educator professional development and
tighten its link to improved leadership, teaching, and student learning?

x What recommendations can be made for Kansas’s professional development

policy revision?

Audit Process
The audit consisted primarily of document review (regulations, statutes, and
guidelines), study of research, principles, and practice, dialogue among Professional
Development Task Force members, feedback from constituents, and examination of
current practice reported by task force members. The Professional Development
Task Force analyzed documents and identified both strengths and areas for
improvement, drafted recommendations, sought and studied constituent feedback,
and revised recommendations for inclusion in this document.

Strengths
In its analysis, several strengths in the current statute, regulations, and guidelines
emerged. They are listed below.
x Commitment to Continuous Improvement
x Task Force Consensus on the Purpose of Professional Learning
x Tiered Points for Licensure Renewal
x Article 96. Professional Development Programs
x Professional Development Councils
x Standards for High-Quality Professional Development

33
Areas for Improvement
A number of areas for improvement emerged from the analysis of state policies.
When taken together these areas increase the likelihood that effective policies fall
short of their intended effects.
x Definition of Professional Development
x Inequity of Access
x Individual versus School Improvement
x Limited Application and Impact Level Professional Development
x Integrated System for Professional Development

Recommendations
The broad recommendations in this section encompass many of the specific
recommendations identified in Areas for Improvement and can be viewed as areas
for task force work, used to sequence and prioritize action plans based on this
policy audit, and become the focus of required budgetary priorities for the
Professional Standards Board and Department of Education.

Policy is best recommended by those who are responsible for administering it as

well as those who will be affected by it, therefore this policy audit report will be
most helpful to those who develop, implement, and support policy on professional
development. It is NSDC’s suggestion that a representative group of thoughtful
educators be appointed to review the report for purposes of relevance and accuracy.
Following that review, the policy audit report can serve as a guide for revising the
necessary policies.

Recommendation One: Define effective professional development by

specifying its essential attributes and its intention to improve student
learning to guide revision in policies and practices.

Recommendation Two: Establish a system of accountability for high-quality

professional development with specific checks at multiple points within the
design, implementation, support, and evaluation of professional
development.

Recommendation Three: Design and implement professional development

in the districts and schools that reaches beyond developing educator
knowledge to application and impact on student learning.

Recommendation Four: Ensure that all individuals involved in the education

process participate in career-long learning. Each develops a professional
development plan during his/her initial preparation based on his/her
strengths and areas for improvement that is continuously revised to follow
the educator throughout his/her career.

Recommendation Five: Ensure that educator professional learning

incorporate application and impact on student learning.

34
 Recommendation Six: Ensure that state standards for teachers and school
and district leaders currently under revision align with and include concepts
and practices of high-quality professional development including active
participation in and facilitation of both job-embedded and externally
provided professional development.

Recommendation Seven: Engage every educator in focusing on a continuum

of learning that contributes to enhanced student achievement.
Administrators are simultaneously learners and facilitators of systemic
change within their districts and schools by ensuring that professional
development addresses knowledge acquisition, application to practice, and
impact on student learning. Teachers, as administrators, are simultaneously
learners who actively engage in professional development for continuous
improvement and who facilitate professional learning while contributing to
growth in student achievement.

Recommendation Eight: Require general fund budgets to reflect funds set

aside for Pre-K-20 educator professional development.

Recommendation Nine: Ensure that local districts provide 40-80 hours of

student achievement-focused professional development for licensed
educators and support staff directly involved in student learning each year as
part of the student contact hours as established in KS Law 72-1106. Because
the majority of professional development is job-embedded, there will not be
the need for additional special days within school calendars devoted to
professional development as time away from the classroom. Professional
development can occur in classrooms and school during student contact time
or within educators’ workday. Time for professional development during the
school day includes teacher collaboration time driven by specific goals for
educator learning that are based on an analysis of student achievement data.

Conclusion
The Kansas State Department of Education has a significant responsibility to ensure
that it allocates the resources, supports the development work recommended in this
policy audit, and facilitates changes in the structure of the school day to ensure that
professional development is not viewed just as a mechanism for renewing educator
licenses, but rather a fundamental responsibility of all professional educators that is
vital to meeting the state’s goals for improved student academic success.

35
 PURPOSE  OF  THE  AUDIT  OF  KANSAS  STATE    
PROFESSIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  POLICIES  
The Kansas State Board of Education and Department of Education authorized an
audit of the state’s professional development policies. The National Staff
Development Council, with experience in conducting similar studies for other
states, was commissioned to lead the audit process. The recommendations emerging
from the study will be used by the Kansas State Department of Education to guide
policy revisions that ensure Kansas educators engage in effective professional
development to improve student academic success.

Kansas State Board of Education and Department of Education have both the
responsibility and authority to establish 1) criteria for effective professional
learning for all educators; 2) systems for monitoring the quality and equitable
access to effective professional development for all Kansas educators; and 3)
guidelines for time allocations and fiscal support for the implementation of effective
professional development.

State policies exist within a context set by federal policies, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), scheduled for reauthorization. Proposed changes
in ESEA may impact guidelines and expectations for professional development
funded with federal funds, Kansas State Department of Education will want to be
positioned to respond to any potential changes by beginning now to examine
research and recommendations for improving professional development that are
likely to be associated with the reauthorization of ESEA. In addition, reviewing and
updating the state’s professional development policies position Kansas State
Department of Education to ensure that professional development has a greater
impact on teaching quality, leadership, and student achievement.

State policy plays an important role in professional development. By describing the

expected professional development results and assigning accountability to one or
more entities for these results, policy becomes the means through which the
public’s interest in educators’ continuous learning is protected. It is essential to the
success of Kansas students to develop policy that establishes a clear definition for
professional development, its role in improving student learning, systems to
monitor and evaluate its effectiveness, and parameters for its practice. Time and
resources for educators to participate in professional development will be necessary
to achieve the desired results.

Because professional development occurs in many different contexts, e.g., school,

district, state, out-of-state, makes it important to provide guidance about the
conditions and context essential for professional learning to produce the identified
results—increased student achievement. Policy and funding to monitor the
implementation of staff development, evaluate its results, and publicly report the

36
findings to determine whether professional development is improving
administrators’ leadership and teachers’ instruction is essential. The question is not
how much professional development policy is necessary, but which policies are
necessary to achieve the result of improved performance levels of, first, educators
and then students.

Professional development is not an option. Taxpayers have a right to expect that

educators will engage in a continuous improvement throughout their careers to
strengthen their practice and prepare them for the ever-changing landscape of
education. At the same time, educators have a right to expect that their professional
development is aligned with their role and responsibilities and applicable to the
classrooms, schools, and communities. However, in too many communities
throughout the United States, both taxpayers and educators are disappointed with
the execution of professional development. Quite frequently, it is poorly conceived,
ineffectively implemented, and rarely evaluated. Many educators have experienced
such consistently poor professional development that they have come to regard it as
more of a burden than an opportunity. Furthermore, many taxpayers and their
elected representatives see little evidence that professional development produces
the positive student effects they anticipated.

In far too many school systems nationwide and still in some in Kansas, the
prevailing mode of professional development continues to be a didactic
presentation, often by a consultant who understands little about the context in which
the educators work. Frequently, the purpose of this form of learning is the
transmission of information rather than the engagement of educators in dynamic
and relevant learning experiences they can translate to their daily practice.
Whatever the purpose or type of professional development, there is seldom follow-
up support to provide educators with the classroom, school, or workplace support
necessary to apply their new learning or to assess the effectiveness of their learning
on practice or student learning. Specific policies and guidelines about the both the
purpose and design of professional learning and its connection to educators’
authentic work and expected results improve both the quality of professional
learning and its impact.

THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING IN PROMOTING

HIGH-QUALITY TEACHING, SCHOOL LEADERSHIP, AND
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
What teachers know and do influences what students know and do. Consensus from
nearly two decades of research confirms that the quality of teaching students
experience influences their learning. So strong is this consensus that current state
and local efforts to revamp teacher evaluation systems seek ways to include at least
some measure of student learning. While teaching quality is the primary influence
on student academic success, what school leaders do to support effective teaching
influences the quality of teaching in classrooms. In recognition of the importance of

37
teacher and leadership quality, the accountability measures in No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) of 2001 increased the expectation for states to ensure teaching quality
as well as demonstrated improvement in student achievement. As ESEA
reauthorization takes center stage in the US House and Senate in the month ahead,
states and school districts can anticipate new policy expectations to ensure measures
of teaching effectiveness and student achievement. Professional learning contributes
to both. When educators learn, their students learn.

States use educator standards and licensure regulations to guarantee that new
teachers and school leaders are highly qualified and prepared for their respective
roles in teaching rigorous content standards and leading school improvement.
Strong mentoring with induction systems ensure that novice educators,
approximately 25% of educators, have substantive support to move from a state-
approved preparation program to the educator workforce. Professional development
for educators who become or are already working in schools, districts, and agencies
throughout the state—approximately 75% of educators, on the other hand, is a
state’s policy lever for ensuring that teachers and school leaders continue to deepen
and expand their professional knowledge and practices. As with other professionals,
educators retool, deepen their content knowledge, expand their pedagogical and
leadership expertise, and refine practice over time to meet the changing demands of
students, families, and communities and the changing expectations of education
systems to ensure students meet rigorous content standards, are college and career
ready and prepared for life and work in the 21st Century and beyond. New
initiatives such Kansas’s Multi-Tier System of Support depend on building human
capital for successful implementation. Ongoing learning and continuous
improvement are the hallmarks of the professions.

Teaching in a standards-based environment means that both teachers and school

leaders shift practices from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered
instruction. “To teach in the ways envisioned by standards reformers, teachers need
strong content knowledge and the ability to change their pedagogical repertoire as
well as their underlying beliefs and attitudes about it. To do this successfully,
teachers need opportunities for deep learning of content as well as opportunities to
learn how to use reform-oriented strategies, practice those strategies in the
classroom, and observe their effects on student learning. Therefore, standards-based
professional development is the cornerstone of a standards-based system” (Snow-
Renner & Lauer, p. 3). Evidence that improved professional development for
teachers and principals leads to increases in student learning is growing. Timperly
& Alton-Lee (2008) in their synthesis of the research on professional development
noted, “Some of the most effective professional development identified in our
synthesis results in more than 3 times the expected gain over the same period for
students who do not typically achieve well” (p. 335). They acknowledge that policy
makers are beginning to recognize that improving education systems, particularly
teaching quality, is an important way to meet the challenges of a knowledge society.

Not all professional learning, research concludes, is equally effective in improving

38
educator practice and student achievement. Over the last decade, research in
professional development has defined the core attributes of professional
development that is more closely associated with changes in educator practice and
student learning. NSDC, drawing on research in both education and business and
industry, states:

“PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT— The term “professional

development” means a comprehensive, substantiated, and intensive
approach to improving teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness in
raising student achievement --

(A) Professional development fosters collective responsibility for

improved student performance and must be comprised of professional
learning that:
(1) is aligned with rigorous state student academic
achievement standards as well as related local educational
agency and school improvement goals;

(2) is conducted among educators at the school and facilitated

by well-prepared school principals and/or school-based
professional development coaches, mentors, master teachers,
or other teacher leaders;

(3) primarily occurs several times per week among

established teams of teachers, principals, and other
instructional staff members where the teams of educators
engage in a continuous cycle of improvement that —
(i) evaluates student, teacher, and school learning
needs through a thorough review of data on teacher
and student performance;

(ii) defines a clear set of educator learning goals

based on the rigorous analysis of the data;

(iii) achieves the educator learning goals identified in

subsection (A)(4)(ii) by implementing coherent,
sustained, and evidenced-based learning strategies,
such as lesson study and the development of
formative assessments, that improve instructional
effectiveness and student achievement;

(iv) provides job-embedded coaching or other forms

of assistance to support the transfer of new
knowledge and skills to the classroom;

(v) regularly assesses the effectiveness of the

39
 professional development in achieving identified
learning goals, improving teaching, and assisting all
students in meeting challenging state academic
achievement standards;

(vi) informs ongoing improvements in teaching and

student learning; and

(vii) that may be supported by external assistance.

(B) The process outlined in (A) may be supported by activities such

as courses, workshops, institutes, networks, and conferences that:
(1) must address the learning goals and objectives established
for professional development by educators at the school
level;

(2) advance the ongoing school-based professional

development; and

(3) are provided by for-profit and nonprofit entities outside

the school such as universities, education service agencies,
technical assistance providers, networks of content-area
specialists, and other education organizations and
associations” (National Staff Development Council,
(http://www.nsdc.org/standfor/ definition.cfm)

The McKinsey study of 25 of the world’s school systems, including 10 of the top
performers, provided information on the common factors and tools they use to
improve student outcomes. The experiences of these top school systems suggests
that three things matter most: 1) getting the right people to become teachers; 2)
developing them into effective instructors; and 3) ensuring that the system is able to
deliver the best possible instruction for every child. These systems demonstrate that
these best practices for achieving student success work irrespective of the culture in
which they are applied. The authors’ analysis demonstrates that substantial
improvement in student outcomes is possible in a short period of time and that
applying these three best practices universally could have enormous impact in
improving failing school systems wherever they may be located (Barbour &
Mourshed, 2007).

In a research study conducted by Stanford University’s School Redesign Network,

entitled Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on
Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad, the research team identified
multiple differences in teacher professional development between the U.S. and
countries that out-perform the U.S. on international exams. Notable among the
difference are the length of time teachers invest in professional learning,
collaborative efforts with peers to improve student learning, focus on teacher

40
professional learning on rigorous content standards, and amount of classroom
support (Darling-Hammond, et al, 2009).

Economist Eric Hanushek (2005), in his analysis of the relationship between

academic outcomes and economic growth, concluded that “governmental
investments should focus on school quality because they have such powerful
economic impacts . . . The most likely way to improve student performance is to
improve the quality of teachers” (p. 9, 14). The Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development also highlighted the importance of professional
development as a policy lever for improving student learning. “At the level of the
education system, professional development of teachers is a key policy lever” (p.
20).

Jackson and Bruegmann (2009), in a study published by the National Bureau of

Economic Research based on longitudinal data about teachers and students,
conclude that elementary school students have larger test score gains when their
teachers’ colleagues improve in observable characteristics of related to effective
teaching.

“In an attempt to determine the mechanisms behind these spillovers, we

test for empirical patterns that are consistent with peer related learning.
First, we show that less experienced teachers are generally more
responsive to changes in peer quality than more experienced teachers.
We also find that teachers who are certified and have regular licensure
are generally more responsive to peer quality. The most compelling
piece of evidence supporting the learning hypothesis is that the effect of
teacher peer quality is persistent over time. Most peer effects that
operate either through the education production function or through
peer monitoring/pressure will have a contemporaneous effect. We show
that for both math and reading, the quality of a teacher’s peers the year
before, and even two years before, affect her current students’
achievement. For both subjects, the importance of a teacher’s previous
peers is as great as, or greater than, that of her current peers. The
cumulative effect over three years of having peers with one standard
deviation higher effectiveness is 0.078 standard deviations in math and
0.072 standard deviations in reading. Because teachers have about three
peers on average, this is about one third of the size of the own-teacher
effect, suggesting that over time, teacher peer quality is very important.
Lastly, we find that peer quality in the previous two years “explains
away” about one fifth of the explanatory power of individual teachers.
This suggests that a sizable part of the own-teacher effect is learned as a
result of exposure to her previous peers” (pp. 22-23).

The continuous improvement of all teachers within a school, particularly in teams

of teachers who have responsibility for the same students and curriculum, rather
than some, such as those who are renewing their license, calls for changes in

41
policies that support individually focused professional learning if there is an intent
to increase the impact of professional learning on student achievement. Jackson’s
and Bruegmann’s research has implications for mentoring and induction, teacher
placement, teacher leadership, and systems of teacher evaluation and support.

Two recent scientifically rigorous studies of professional development make it clear

that even after barely a year of implementation, the programs, one in literacy and
one in mathematics, impact teaching performance (Garet, et al, 2008, 2010). While
the results of the first year studies do not yet show evidence of improved student
learning, primarily because the period of implementation prior to student testing
was too brief to have a substantive impact, there is strong evidence of impact on
teaching practices. As Desimone (2009) notes changes in teaching practice precede
changes in student achievement. To improve teaching and learning in Kansas
classrooms, it is essential to closely examine professional development policy, align
it to research and standards of excellence, and provide adequate funding,
monitoring, and support for implementation.

Current research on effective professional development suggests that a reform

approach to professional development rather than traditional approach is associated
with improved teaching and student learning. Yoon et al (2007) reviewed the
evidence on how teacher professional development impacts student learning. After
an extensive review, researchers identified nine studies confirming that sustained
(49 hours or more), high-quality professional development is associated with gains
in student achievement. In their landmark, national, empirical study on the impact
of the Eisenhower Math and Science Program professional development, Garet et al
(2001) concluded that reform-oriented teacher professional development is more
effective in changing teacher practices than traditional approaches to professional
development such as one-shot or short-term workshops or college courses. Reform-
oriented professional development has specific structural features, e.g., teacher
study groups sustained over time; collective participation by teachers from the same
school; focus on the content; active, inquiry-oriented learning approaches; and a
high level of coherence with other reform initiatives, content, and performance
standards in the teachers’ local context.

A study of professional development conducted by Peneul et al (2007) reached

similar conclusions. This study, associated with the implementation of an inquiry
science program, concluded that increases in teacher knowledge and practice
correlate with coherence between district goals for student learning and teachers’
goals for professional development; collective participation by teachers from a
school; ongoing, in-classroom support with equipment, resources, and practices;
time to plan for implementation; and focus on the program’s content.

Cohen and Hill (2000) concluded that teacher professional development focused on
specific curricula resulted in more reform-oriented instructional practices than
general professional development. Reform-oriented instructional practices are
positively related to increases in student achievement. Banilow (2002) reported a

42
positive relationship between the extent of teacher participation in professional
development and student achievement. Data from the Merck Institute for Science
Education program evaluation (Corcoran et al, 2003) provides support for collective
participation in professional development. Student performance correlated to the
proportion of teachers in a school who were engaged in professional development.
When a large proportion of teachers (at least 78%) participated, student
performance increased.

In quasi-experimental study focused on the benefits of moving teacher learning

closer to the classroom, Saunders, Goldenberg, and Gallimore (2009) report that
the  practice  of  teachers  meeting  in  grade  level  teams  to  focus  collaboratively  
on  instruction,  provided  evidence  that  grade-­‐level  teams  focused  on  improving  
student  learning      does  “produce  school-­‐level  effects  of  both  statistical  and  
practical  significance”  (p.  1026).  Further,  this  study  reinforces  the  role  of  
teacher  leadership  in  facilitating  grade-­‐level  or  subject-­‐area  professional  
learning  teams.  The  greatest  gains  in  student  achievement  in  this  three-­‐year  
study  did  not  occur  in  the  first  year  when  principals  alone  facilitated  learning  
teams.  Only  in  the  second  and  third  year,  when  teachers  facilitated  their  own  
learning  teams,  did  changes  in  teaching  and  learning  occur.  
 
Research  in  the  last  decade  confirms  that  professional  development  must  be  
integral  to  school  improvement  processes,  the  continuum  of  educator  
development,  and  focused  on  producing  changes  in  practice  and  student  
learning.  The  current  Kansas  professional  development  statute,  Article  96—
Professional  Development  Programs,  emphasizes  the  link  between  content,  
educator  practice,  and  student  learning,  yet  practice  is  remote  from  the  
intention  of  the  statute.  The  shift  from  a  pullout  program  for  adults  that  
centers  learning  away  from  school  to  a  system  that  centers  learning  in  schools  
for  both  students  and  educators  requires  a  greater  change  in  practice  than  
policy.  Increasing  opportunities  for  collaboration,  collective  responsibility,  
peer  support,  and  continuous  improvement  is  essential.  The  Department  of  
Education  will  need  to  create  systems  of  accountability  for  this  change  in  
practice,  provide  the  resources  to  school  and  district  leaders,  statewide  
agencies  and  associations,  and  teachers  to  make  this  transition,  and  minimize  
the  reliance  on  knowledge-­‐building  or  awareness  level  professional  learning  
that  produces  little  return  on  investment  in  professional  development.  
 
AUDIT PROCESS
The audit consisted primarily of document review (regulations, statutes, and
guidelines), study of research, principles, and practice, dialogue among Professional
Development Task Force members, feedback from constituents, and examination of
current practice reported by task force members. The Professional Development
Task Force analyzed documents and identified both strengths and areas for
improvement, drafted recommendations, sought and studied constituent feedback,
and revised recommendations for inclusion in this document. The audit process did

43
not include revising specific statute, regulation, or guideline language or developing
implementation processes for the recommendations. Department of Education staff
will lead that work, upon acceptance of the task force’s recommendations.

STRENGTHS
In its analysis, several strengths in the current statute, regulations, and guidelines
emerged. They are reported below.

Commitment to Continuous Improvement

The Kansas State Board of Education and Department of Education model
continuous improvement by charging the Professional Development Task Force to
review policies and recommend improvements. This commitment to ongoing
review and revision ensures that Kansas educators and their students are provided
effective, equitable opportunities for learning.

Task Force Consensus on the Purpose of Professional Learning

Strong consensus emerged from Task Force members that the primary goal of
professional learning is student success. In addition, members coalesced around the
importance of providing equitable and highly effective, school-based, coherent,
content-specific professional learning is a fundamental lever for improving student
success and advancing state, district, and school initiatives.

Tiered Points for Licensure Renewal

Current regulations that allow educators to accrue three levels of points based on
the outcome of the learning experience provide a framework for acknowledging the
application and impact of professional learning. While this system rewards and
acknowledges educators’ commitment to extend their learning beyond the
knowledge level, educators rarely access the higher levels of points.

Article 96. Professional Development Programs

The current Kansas statute on professional development programs includes a
number of strengths including a funding formula, standards for quality, requirement
for evaluation of professional development local school board maintenance of
professional development programs, state aid, professional development fund, and
technical advice and assistance to local school districts and agencies.

Professional Development Councils

The establishment of local professional development committees, at the district and
in some cases at the school level, ensures the involvement of educators, selected to
represent both teachers and administrators, in decisions regarding their professional
development and hold them accountable for developing a local board approved
professional development plan. Members must participate in annual training to
serve on the councils to ensure implementation of Kansas professional development
regulations.

44
Standards for High-Quality Professional Development
The Kansas State Board of Education endorsed the National Staff Development
Council’s Standards for Staff Development in 2008. These standards establish
criteria for effective professional development that guide the design,
implementation, and evaluation of professional development.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

A number of areas for improvement emerged from the analysis of state policies.
When taken together these areas increase the likelihood that effective policies fall
short of their intended effects.

Definition of Professional Development

The current definition of professional development fails to establish the primary
purpose of professional learning as improving student success. As defined in Act
96: Professional Development Programs, professional development is:
(a) " ‘Professional development’ means any planned learning opportunities
provided to certificated personnel employed by a school district or other
authorized educational agency for purposes of improving the performance of
such personnel in already held or assigned positions” (72-9602. Definitions).

When the definition of professional development falls short of identifying impact

on student academic success, its implementation will also fall short of producing
substantive impact. The definition also ties professional development to personnel
performance, emphasizing the individual focus, rather than to school improvement
and student academic success.

Inequity of Access
Kansas School Board Association annually collects data on school district
calendars. In analyzing data from the current year, the Task Force identified
substantial disparities in educators’ access to professional development within the
school calendar. The range of days allocated to professional development in Kansas
school district ranged from one day to 11 days. The scope of this discrepancy
impacts opportunities for educator learning to refine or extend their practice and to
contribute to student success. It also contributes to districts’ capacity to implement
innovations.

Individual versus School Improvement

The challenge of balancing individual professional development with that designed
to achieve district and school improvement as a part of the Kansas Quality
Assurance Program complicates the administration of professional development
programs. More recent research in professional development suggests that
professional development is most effective when it is centered at schools among
teams of educators, sustained over time, focused on rigorous content standards,
follows a cycle of continuous improvement, is evaluated regularly, and is supported
by school-based and/or classroom assistance for implementation. Current licensure

45
renewal procedures emphasize individual professional development rather than to
integrate licensure renewal as a part of the seamless system of school and district
improvement. When professional development resources are aligned with priorities
established by local school boards and schools, all the resources contribute to the
achievement of established goals. Balancing individual professional development
for licensure renewal points or performance improvement with professional
development for school and district improvement requires difficult decisions about
how to maximize the impact of all professional development resources.

Limited Application and Impact Level Professional Development

Educators in Kansas can be rewarded for applying and demonstrating the impact of
their professional development. However, few educators, according to reports from
Task Force members, take advantage of this opportunity. The effort to recognize
and reward application and impact level professional development is commendable,
however, all professional development, if designed to meet identified student
achievement needs and strengthen educator practice, should minimally require
evidence of application and impact.

Integrated System for Professional Development

An integrated system for professional development identifies roles of all
constituents. Those stakeholders include Kansas State School Board, Kansas State
Department of Education, local school district boards of education and central
office staff, school leaders, teacher leaders, teachers, agency staff, other non-
instructional educators, support staff, and parents and community members. When
the system delineates roles for each stakeholder group, an integrated and cohesive
system of support for effective professional learning exists. This system is currently
fragmented. Some stakeholders have clearly defined roles; others do not.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy makers frequently develop policies in response to new priorities, crises, or
special interests; however, as they are developed, all too often there is limited
analysis of how the new policies interact with those already in existence. It is
instructive for states and other political entities to engage in an interactive process
to reevaluate and revise policies on a regular basis.

The following broad recommendations encompass many of the specific

recommendations identified in Areas for Improvement. These broad categories
identify areas for the Kansas State Department of Education to develop prioritized
action plans based on this policy audit, other policy reviews and revisions, and
available state resources.

Recommendation One: Definition of Pr ofessional Development

Define effective professional development by specifying its essential attributes and
its intention to improve student learning to guide revision in policies and practices.

46
Rationale: By defining what effective professional development is, using research
and effective practice, educators will be able to design, implement, and evaluate the
quality of professional learning. Defining the attributes of high-quality professional
development provides criteria for the Kansas State Department of Education to
evaluate the professional development statewide, strengthen educators’ access to
effective professional learning, and facilitate implementation of high-quality
professional development to increase the return on its investments in professional
learning.

Explanation: Clear criteria clarify expectations, guide practice, provide guidance for
evaluation systems, and improve practice. The criteria, based on research, will
ensure that professional learning is aligned with goals, focused on results for
students, and more job-embedded within educators’ work day. A concomitant
strategy to defining professional development will be shifting educators’ perception
that professional development occurs only when students and educators are away
from school to one that recognizes that professional learning is a continuous cycle
of improvement that occurs most effectively in schools among teams of educators.

Recommendation Two: Accountability

Establish a system of accountability for high-quality professional development with
specific checks at multiple points within the design, implementation, support, and
evaluation of professional development.

Rationale: Systemic accountability is necessary to monitor the completion of action

plans and to ensure that professional development leads to demonstrable student
achievement.
x The Kansas Constitution ensures that schools must provide Kansas
students with public education characterized by quality and equity.
x Schools must meet local, state, and national standards for continuous
improvement.
x A clearly articulated system of checks and balances throughout the
process clarifies expectations and redirects actions as necessary.
x Accountability measures ensure quality control throughout the state for
all pre-K – 20 education personnel.
x Accountability encourages experimentation and innovation.

Explanation: As Kansas educators move toward meeting local, state, and national
standards of student achievement and national standards of professional
development, it is imperative that they are accountable for meeting standards.
Without accountability it is unlikely that Kansas school districts can ensure
equitable access to professional development and student achievement.
Accountability must be built into the system specifically defining the role and
responsibility of each stakeholder, from the state legislature, the Department of
Education, teacher preparation institutions, to the local education agencies. All

47
educators will benefit from professional development that exists within a clearly
articulated system of accountability.

Recommendation Three: Backward Design

Design and implement professional development in the districts and schools that
reaches beyond developing educator knowledge to application and impact on
student learning.

Rationale: Effective professional development goes beyond knowledge, to

application and measurable impact on student learning. Professional development
engages educators in long-term processes that include practice, modeling, coaching,
and collaboration to improve effectiveness and student results. A focus on data and
student learning drives all aspects of professional practice, including the design of
professional development. As professionals, educators share expertise and
systematically address problems of practice by developing shared knowledge,
engaging in reflective practice, and assessing the impact of their work (Hirsh and
Killion, 2009).

Explanation: Professional development must start at the broad policy level with a
focus on student learning. If student learning is the beginning of the professional
development planning process, this approach to backwards design by beginning
with the end in mind will lead to a professional development model that has a
greater likelihood of achieving its identified and intended results.

Recommendation Four : Pr ofessional Pathway

Ensure that all individuals involved in the education process participate in career-
long learning. Each develops a professional development plan during his/her initial
preparation based on his/her strengths and areas for improvement that is
continuously revised to follow the educator throughout his/her career.

Rationale:
Effective professional development connects professional learning to the needs of
students, educators and their career continuum, school and district, and community
to improve teaching, leadership, and student learning.

Explanation: Each educator develops an individualized professional development

plan to guide career-long professional learning. This plan guides the mentoring and
coaching provided during the first two years of educators’ service. An ongoing
professional learning plan will be based on the needs of pre-K-20 students, the
individual educator, the district, school, and state initiatives and will continue
throughout the educator’s career. The plan should be include specific, results-
oriented, and standards-based goals for growth and development.

Recommendation Five: Licensure Renewal

Ensure that educator professional learning incorporate application and impact on
student learning.

48
Rationale: Knowledge that results in increasing the growth of student learners and
educators reaches beyond the knowledge level. Professional learning that
transforms practice and produces impact on students requires changes in
knowledge, skills, disposition, and behavior. Educators should approach all
professional development with the intention that it will impact student learning and
educator practice.

Explanation: A framework that recognizes that multiple forms of professional

learning are integrated to improve educator practice and positively impact student
learning while advancing the education system.
 
Recommendation Six: Professional Preparation
Ensure that state standards for teachers and school and district leaders currently
under revision align with and include concepts and practices of high-quality
professional development including active participation in and facilitation of both
job-embedded and externally provided professional development.

Rationale: Educators cannot be expected to recognize, demand, provide, or facilitate

high-quality professional development without deep knowledge about its attributes
and related practices. By including knowledge and skills related to high-quality
professional development planning, implementation, facilitation, and evaluation
into educator performance standards, every educator will leave their preparation
programs better prepared to expect and experience the kind of professional
development that ensures that “every educator engages in effective professional
learning every day so every student achieves” (NSDC).

Explanation: NSDC’s definition of and standards for professional development

should be the foundation of revisions in state and district professional development
policies, regulations, guidelines, and practices. In addition to knowing how to
recognize high-quality professional development, teachers and administrators must
also know how to advocate for quality professional development practices.

Recommendation Seven: Educators’ Roles

Engage every educator in focusing on a continuum of learning that contributes to
enhanced student achievement. Administrators are simultaneously learners and
facilitators of systemic change within their districts and schools by ensuring that
professional development addresses knowledge acquisition, application to practice,
and impact on student learning. Teachers, as administrators, are simultaneously
learners who actively engage in professional development for continuous
improvement and who facilitate professional learning while contributing to growth
in student achievement.

Rationale: Professional learning is not a temporary experience, but rather a career-

long process that begins with preparation programs and continues throughout an
educator’s career to expand, extend, and refine professional knowledge, skills,
dispositions, and behaviors to improve student learning. By engaging in

49
professional learning communities educators can deepen their knowledge and skills,
receive support for changes in practice, and reflect on and evaluate the impact of
their practice on student learning. Professional learning communities encourage
sharing expertise within a school or district and establish and maintain a culture of
collaboration and collective responsibility. Job-embedded professional learning
moves learning closer to the site of implementation and impact increasing the
likelihood of achieving specified goals.

Explanation: Student academic success demands professional educators who

engage in professional development every day within a culture of support and
collaboration. This occurs when educators collaborate within teams of peers, have
opportunities to work with and be coaches of peers, and engage with facilitators of
professional learning throughout their career.    

Recommendation Eight: Funding for Professional Development

Require general fund budgets to reflect funds set aside for Pre-K-20 educator
professional development.

Rationale: Designated funding for professional development ensures an effective

teacher in every classroom and effective leaders at schools and within districts.
Designated funds ensure that funds for professional development are a protected
line item so that they cannot be easily removed.

Explanation: Continuous professional development of all educators is essential to

improve student achievement. Adequate funding is necessary to ensure that all
educators engage in continuous professional development. Funds for professional
development include funding for both job-embedded and externally provided
professional development.

Recommendation Nine: Time for Job-Embedded Professional Development

Ensure that local districts provide 40-80 hours of student achievement-focused
professional development for licensed educators and support staff directly involved
in student learning each year as part of the student contact hours as established in
KS Law 72-1106. Because the majority of professional development is job-
embedded, there will not be the need for additional special days within school
calendars devoted to professional development as time away from the classroom.
Professional development can occur in classrooms and school during student
contact time or within educators’ workday. Time for professional development
during the school day includes teacher collaboration time driven by specific goals
for educator learning that are based on an analysis of student achievement data.
 
Rationale: Meaningful professional development that produces changes in practice
and student learning requires that learning move beyond knowledge to include
application and impact. Changes in educator practice takes time, therefore it is
essential to build time into the schedule. Time for practice of new skills and
strategies, including opportunities for preparation, peer coaching, feedback, and
evaluation, is essential to impact student learning. The span from 40-80 hours

50
provides Kansas school districts with the flexibility to meet their own student
achievement needs and professional development goals of educators.
 
Explanation: Results-focused professional development is guided by student
achievement needs. If time is provided for job-embedded professional development,
haphazard approaches to professional development must cease. Since this time is
built into the 1116 hours required for student contact, additional cost for substitutes
is not necessary – not an increase in salaries. Some change to KS Law 72-1106 may
be necessary to clarify this. Currently the interpretation is that 50% of a
professional day can count toward student contact hours (i.e. 6 hours of professional
development = 3 hours of student contact time).
 
 
CONCLUSION
Policymakers may want to consider this question: If the State of Kansas began with
the proverbial “blank sheet of paper” to create a system of professional
development for the ultimate purpose of enabling students to achieve rigorous
content standards and be college and career ready in the 21st Century, how would
that system be similar to and different from the current arrangement? This is a
difficult question, one that calls for incorporating new learning about effective
professional development as well as setting aside institutional allegiances in favor
of efficiencies, practices, core assumptions, and resources that will produce better
results.

Asking and soberly answering the hard question above is a prerequisite for actions
that will allow the state to meet its ambitious goals for professional development. It
is not realistic to expect entities responsible for professional development to
abandon their own interests to fashion a new, comprehensive system with greater
potential to engage local educators in professional development and that improves
their practice. The state’s current approach to professional development was created
by the state legislature and Department of Education, and only these entities have
the authority to create a new system that is both more coherent and effective. The
recommendations of the Professional Development Task Force are just the
beginning of this reform process. Because this process must be thoughtful and
deliberate, without an expectation of “silver bullet” solutions or a rush to judgment,
the Department of Education is best positioned to lead the statewide consideration
of creating a new professional development system for Kansas grounded in current
research and noteworthy practices.

During any serious review of the state’s current policies, many issues will surface.
It is not appropriate for this report to pre-empt the role of the Kansas State
Department of Education by prioritizing the recommendations and implementation
of them. However, in addition to the recommended revisions, it will be crucial to
ensure that whatever revisions result in effective professional development practices
also improve student academic success. The Department of Education has a

51
significant responsibility to ensure that it allocates the resources, supports the
development work recommended in this policy audit, and facilitates changes in the
structure of the school day to ensure that professional development is not viewed
just as a mechanism for renewing educator licenses, but rather a fundamental
responsibility of all professional educators to meet student learning needs, improve
schools, and meet the state’s goals for improved student academic success.

A new vision of professional development will emerge in Kansas – one in which

skillful, professional educators who engage in accountable interactions and share
collective responsibility for the success of every Kansas student. Implementation of
this vision and the results it will produce ensure that Kansas will attract and retain
educators who develop as professionals throughout the continuum of educator
development from preparation to expert professional, and who serve as leaders
within a world-class educational system.

52
 REFERENCES
Banilow, E. (2002). Results of the 2001-2002 study of the impact of the local
systemic change initiative on student achievement in science. Chapel Hill,
NC: Horizon Research.

Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance:
The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2),
294-343.

Corcoran, T., McVay, S., & Riordan, K. (2003). Getting it right: The MISE
approach to professional development. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education.

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional

development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Education
Researcher, 38(3), pp. 181–199.

Garet, M., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., Uekawa, K.,
Falk, A., Bloom, H., Doolittle, F., Zhu, P., and Sztejnberg, L. (2008). The
Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading
Instruction and Achievement (NCEE 2008-4030). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2008.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample
of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), pp. 915-945.

Garet, M., Wayne, A., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Walters, K., Song, M., Brown,
S., Hurlburt, S., Zhu, P., Sepanik, S., and Doolittle, F. (2010). Middle
School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study: Findings
After the First Year of Implementation (NCEE 2010-4009). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Darling-Hammond, L, Wei, R. Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanis, S. (2009).

Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on
Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Oxford, OH:
National Staff Development Council.

Hanushek, E. (2005). Economic outcomes and school quality: Education Policy

Series. International Academy of Education and International Institute for
Educational Planning, UNESCO.http://www.smec.curtin.edu.au/iae/

53
 Hirsh, S. and Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, students learn: Eight
principles of professional learning, Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), pp. 464-469.

Jackson, C. and Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each

other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. Working Paper 15202.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15202

National Staff Development Council. (2001). National Staff Development

Council Standards for Staff Development Revised. Oxford, OH: Author.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). I. Paris:

Author.

Peneul, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum
implementation. (2007). American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), pp.
921-958.

Snow-Renner, R., & Lauer, P. (2005). McREL Insights: Professional

development analysis. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education
and Learning.

Timperly, H. & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning:

An alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse
learners. Review of Research in Education, 32, pp. 328-369.

Saunders,  W.,  Goldenberg,  C.,    and  Gallimore,  R.  (2009).  Increasing  

achievement  by  focusing  grade  level  teams  on  improving  classroom  
learning:  A  prospective,  quasi-­‐experimental  study  of  Title  I.  American  
Educational  Research  Journal,  46(4),  pp.  1006–1033.  
 
Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student
achievement (Issues & Answers, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from
http://ies.gov/ncee/edlabs.
 

54