European Journal of Teacher Education

Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 179–194

The professional development school as

learning organization
Mary M. Harris* and Frances van Tassell
University of North Texas, Denton, USA

Many US teacher education programmes have developed learning environments in partnership

with local school districts. A professional development school (PDS) is a learning organization
formed through the collaboration of a university-based teacher education programme with its K-
12 school partners. The resulting organization focuses simultaneously on the learning of school
students and of preservice and inservice educators. This manuscript presents the PDS work of two
different teacher education programmes and their alignment with the Standards for Professional
Development Schools, published by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
The first and most important of the five PDS standards addresses the qualities of the learning
community. The contribution of the standards to the viability of the PDS learning community as
an emerging organization is discussed.

Plusieurs programmes d’enseignement de professeurs ont développé un environnement

d’apprentissage en conjonction avec les districts locaux d’écoles. Une école d’apprentissage
(professional development school ou PDS) est une organisation d’enseignement créée avec la
collaboration d’un professeur d’université et des partenaires de l’école primaire et secondaire. La
nouvelle organisation a pour but le développement des étudiants scolaires et des enseignants qui
enseignent ou qui vont enseigner. Ce document présente le travail des deux groupes PDS
différents et comment ils conforment aux standards des écoles d’apprentissage (Standards for
Professional Development Schools) publié par le conseil national pour l’accréditation de
l’éducation des enseignants (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). Le
premier, et le plus important des cinq standards, discute les qualités de l’environnement
d’apprentissage. En plus, on considère la contribution de ces standards à la viabilité de
l’environnement d’apprentissage PDS comme organisation émergeant.

Muchos programas de preparación para maestros en los Estados Unidos han desarrollado
ambientes de aprendizaje en conjunto con distritos escolares locales. La escuela de desarrollo
profesional (PDS) es una organización de aprendizaje formada a través de la colaboración de un
programa universitario de educación con sus compañeros de los sistemas escolares de niveles
preescolar hasta doceavo año. La organización resultante se enfoca simultáneamente en el
aprendizaje de los alumnos escolares y los educadores en pre-servicio y en-servicio. Este
manuscrito presenta el trabajo de PDS (Escuela de Desarrollo Profesional) de dos diferentes
programas de preparación para maestros y su alineamiento con los estándares para Escuelas de

*Corresponding author. Meadows Chair for Excellence in Education, University of North Texas,
College of Education, PO Box 310740, Denton, TX 76203-0740, USA. Email: mmharris@
unt.edu
ISSN 0261-9768 (print)/ISSN 1469-5928 (online)/05/020179-16
# 2005 Association for Teacher Education in Europe
DOI: 10.1080/02619760500093255
180 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

Desarrollo Profesional, publicado por el Consejo Nacional para la Acreditación de Educación para
Maestros. Lo primero y lo más importante de los cinco estándares del PDS es que se concentra en
las cualidades de los centros de aprendizaje. La contribución de los estándares con la viabilidad del
centro de aprendizaje del programa de preparación para maestros como una organización
aflorando es discutida.

Viele Ausbildungsprogramme für Lehrer in den USA haben Lerngemeinschaften in

Zusammenarbeit mit regionalen Schulbezirken entwickelt.Durch die Zusammenarbeit eines
Lehrerbildungsprogrammes an einer Universität mit Partnern im Schulsystem [vom Kindergarten
bis einschliesslich 12. (Abschluss)-Klasse, K-12], entsteht eine Fach-Ausbildungs-Gruppe
(Professional Development Program, PDS). Die so entstandene Organisation konzentriert sich
gleichzeitig auf das Lernen von Schülern und der auszubildenden sowie der praktizierenden
Lehrer. Diese Untersuchung berichtet über Erfahrungen mit einer PDS in zwei verschiedenen
Ausbildungsprogrammen für Lehrer unter Berücksichtigung von Normen, die der Nationalrat für
Akkreditierung für Lehrerbildung (National Cuncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education)
veröffentlicht hat. Die erste und wichtigste der fünf PDS Normen befasst sich mit den Qualitäten
der Lerngemeinschaft. Der Beitrag der Normen zur Aussagekraft der PDS Lerngemeinschaft als
einer neu entehenden Organisation wird erörtert.

The professional development school as learning organization

Partnerships between institutions of higher education and pre-collegiate education
are important to teacher education. In reviewing examples of school–university
partnerships in England, The Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the USA, Day
(1999) categorized such partnerships as rooted in the following three types of
activity: (i) supervision and mentoring of teacher interns; (ii) provision of
customized professional development for inservice teachers; (iii) conduct of research
or inquiry, either with leadership by university faculty or in collaboration between
school-based and university-based educators. All three of these purposes are
embraced by the professional development school (PDS), a type of school–university
collaboration that has developed internationally, with examples in Canada (Fullan,
1995), Australia (Sachs, 1997), England (Hopkins et al., 1998), The Netherlands
(P. Lorist, personal communication, 27 August 2003) and the USA, where national
PDS standards established by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE, 2001) are part of the discourse of collaboration.
The American formulation of the PDS is attributed to the Holmes Group, founded
in 1986 as a reform initiative by research university deans. The Holmes founders
advanced the formation of complex, multi-purpose school–university partnerships,
comparing them with the teaching hospitals of medical schools in their focus on initial
and continuing education and research. As the PDS evolved, its definition came to
include a public or state supported school dedicated to educating a challenging K-12
student population via a significant partnership with a university teacher education
programme and involvement in inquiry about teaching practice. Levine (2002)
described a PDS as a relationship between schools and universities to better prepare
teacher candidates who are of high quality and safe to practice in a climate of
 The professional development school as learning organization 181

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

and teacher learning, as well as an opportunity to reform education in both contexts.
In the 1990s the Holmes Group became the Holmes Partnership, symbolizing a
more inclusive membership and mission. This refocusing brought into the Holmes
fold school and community leaders who desired full partnership in the preparation of
quality teachers for American’s children and youth (University of Kentucky Educators
Network, 2004).Tomorrow’s schools: principles for the design of professional development
schools (Holmes Group, 1990) set six criteria for a PDS that would: (i) promote
significant teaching and learning; (ii) create learning communities for large numbers of
students; (iii) serve everybody’s children, not just an elite group such as the children of
university faculty; (iv) promote professional development of educators; (v) foster
inquiry about teaching and learning; (vi) forge new types of partnerships between K-
12 and higher education. Holmes Group members, including the University of North
Dakota and the University of North Texas, featured later in this paper, were soon
engaged in actualizing such institutions, and they were not alone.
During the 1990s the major US teachers’ unions, the National Education
Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), encouraged
members to form partnerships with colleges of education. By 1995 interest had
grown to the extent that PDS reformers feared their efforts would be diluted by
imposters. By 2000 many American teacher education programmes claimed one or
more PDSs. Some were mere redesignations of the numerous public schools where
teacher candidates were placed for student teaching. Others were sustained,
collaborative efforts representing multiple purposes. Although some were inspired
by the Holmes Group, others followed the precepts of the National Network for
Educational Renewal (NNER), led by John Goodlad. In 1999 33 universities and
their 100 school district partners, including about 500 partner school sites, were
involved in the NNER (Clark, 1999). Positing teacher education as the framework
for education in a democracy, the NNER recognized four roles for partner schools:
(i) preservice teacher education, (ii) professional development of educators, (iii)
inquiry and (iv) school renewal.
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2004) described a
PDS as a learning organization where schools share the common goals of
maximizing the performance and achievement of students, preparing quality
teachers and other school personnel, enhancing the professional development of
novice and veteran teachers and inquiry into best practice.
In this paper we examine one of the five standards for professional development
schools that were developed by the NCATE. Our focus is on Standard I: learning
community, because of clear relevance to the theme of learning organizations. The
paper concludes with reflections on the current status of PDS standards and of PDSs
themselves.

Standards for professional development schools

Definition and delineation of quality in PDSs was sought through the release, in
October 2001, of Standards for professional development schools (NCATE, 2001). The
182 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

standards had been field tested at 17 PDS sites and were based on a review of the
literature describing work in PDSs (see, for example, Darling-Hammond, 1994; Clark,
1999; Johnson et al., 2000) and a description of the essential characteristics of a PDS
(see, for example, Osguthorpe et al., 1995; Levine & Trachtman, 1997; Levine, 1998;
Murrell, 1998). The standards were published with descriptive commentary and with
rubrics that denote a PDS as meeting the standards at a ‘beginning’, ‘developing’,
‘standard’ or ‘leading’ level. It is possible for a PDS partnership to meet the five
standards at different developmental levels and/or to return to an earlier level on one
standard or another as it deals with growth and change.
The five standards are briefly summarized below.

Standard I. Learning community

A learning community is at the heart of a PDS. This standard defines the PDS as ‘a
learning-centered community that supports the integrated learning and development
of P-12 students, candidates, and PDS partners through inquiry-based practice’
(NCATE, 2001, p. 11). A common vision of teaching and learning grounded in
research and practice guides the work of the partnership and results in improvements
in the practice of individuals and of the partnering institutions. The partner
institutions include the university, the school district and the teachers’ union or
professional education association(s). School and university faculty (including arts
and sciences faculty), community members and other PDS sites are important
participants in the extended learning community.

Standard II. Accountability and quality assurance

PDS partners are accountable to one another and to the public for upholding
professional standards. The partners set clear criteria for institutional and individual
participation, establish outcome goals for participants, develop assessments and use
results to examine their practice systematically. The partnership demonstrates its
impact at the local, state and national levels (NCATE, 2001).

Standard III. Collaboration

PDS partners strive to move ‘from independent to interdependent practice’ through
joint work. They design roles and structures to support shared work that improves
outcomes for P-12 students, teacher candidates and school and university faculty.
Each partner contributes to the joint work (NCATE, 2001, p.15).

Standard IV. Diversity and equity

Partners and candidates develop and demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions
resulting in learning for all P-12 students. The policies and practices of the partner
institutions and their inclusion of diverse participants and learning communities are
components of this standard (NCATE, 2001).
 The professional development school as learning organization 183

Standard V. Structures, resources and roles

PDS partnerships use their authority and resources to establish governing structures
that support teaching and learning. The partners ensure that structures, programmes
and resource decisions support their mission, reacting and modifying roles as
necessary to achieve their goals. Communication structures link the partnering
institutions and help to inform others of their work (NCATE, 2001).
None of the PDS standards is more important than the first. Commitment to a
learning community motivates the others. Components of the learning community
standard include (i) the PDS’s inclusion of multiple learners, (ii) a focus on inquiry
and learning in the direction of the work and in teaching practice, (iii) existence of a
commonly shared vision of teaching and learning grounded in research and
practitioner knowledge, (iv) service of the PDS as an instrument for change and (v)
development of an extended learning community.
In the following sections we describe two examples of PDS learning communities
that convey the nature of the American PDS work with respect to NCATE PDS
Standard 1.

Lake Agassiz professional development school

Lake Agassiz Elementary School in Grand Forks, North Dakota, is what Clark
(1999) calls a ‘stylish’ PDS. Lake Agassiz, one of 12 elementary schools in Grand
Forks, serves the most ethnically diverse population in this community of 50,000,
which is 100 miles south of the Canadian border. In 1998 the school population of
500 kindergarten through sixth graders was 27% minority, with Native American as
the largest group (18%). Eligibility of the school for funds authorized through Title I
of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act is an indicator of its service
to low income families, with 74% of its children receiving free or reduced price
school lunches (Self-Study Committee, 1999). The school staff included 35 teachers
and 22 paraprofessionals who partnered with the 12 member Elementary Education
faculty of the University of North Dakota (UND).
The PDS initiative of UND and Lake Agassiz began in 1990 in response to the
work of the Holmes Group and with support from the John D. and James S. Knight
Foundation’s Excellence in Education programme. In the time before its formal
beginning the partnership arrived at jointly held purposes and statements of belief
(Clark, 1999). The UND elementary education programme was founded in the
progressive tradition, representing a vision that included
individualized, developmentally appropriate, and constructivist curriculum; student-
centered teaming; interdisciplinary approaches to solving real problems; use of primary
resources and the direct experiences of learners; commitment to community
involvement and to the school as a model of democracy; valuing of diversity; and
commitment to humane and holistic understandings of teaching, learning, and
evaluation. (Harris & Gates, 1997, p. 29)

In the UND teacher education conceptual document these values indicate nine goals
for teacher candidates. Through a series of summer workshops, complementary goals
184 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

for Lake Agassiz students were developed by the PDS partners. In both
programmes the realization of goals by teacher candidates or K-6 students came
to be assessed through portfolios. These complementary frameworks of goals and
assessments were at the heart of the other programmes developed to support
learning at the Lake Agassiz PDS.
UND is committed to preparing preservice teachers who are active learners, who
take an active role in the learning of students and who envision alternative
approaches to the dilemmas posed by practice. Lake Agassiz supports the UND
preservice programme by each year accepting twelve 16-week student teachers, an
average of 20 candidates in earlier semester-long field experiences and as many as 36
candidates involved in briefer experiences that accompany introductory courses.
These experiences exceed the state requirement of at least 200 hours of field
experience to precede a minimum of 12 weeks of full-time, unpaid student teaching
in a state accredited school with a cooperating teacher who is certified and has
completed a 3 credit hour course in the supervision of student teachers. As the only
PDS of the UND elementary education programme, Lake Agassiz strives to design
programmes that promote learning and can be replicated at other schools. Initiatives
for preservice teachers at Lake Agassiz included teacher-led seminars for candidates,
welcoming and farewell rituals, school location of university classes and a handbook
for field experience students and their mentor teachers (Bakke & Harris, 1998).
In 1992 Lake Agassiz and UND, with support from the Grand Forks Education
Association, an NEA affiliate, started an ongoing resident teacher programme. This
initiative enables three certified teachers who have never taught under contract to
practice full-time while earning masters degrees in elementary education. The
resident teachers qualify for admission to the UND Graduate School and are
selected jointly by school and university personnel. The school district pays the
salaries of the residents through a subcontract with the university, which employs
them as Graduate Service Assistants. As of 2003, 34 resident teachers had
completed the programme, and many were employed in Grand Forks schools.
A substantial contributor to the learning of the resident teachers and of preservice
candidates at Lake Agassiz is the resident supervisor, who is constantly available to
support new teachers as a colleague, mentor and friend (Johnson & Gates, 1998).
The duties of the resident supervisor include supporting the preservice programme,
coordinating professional development activities and assisting other schools in their
work with teacher education.
In 1993 the partnership began to explore an interdisciplinary curriculum in both
the K-6 and elementary education programmes. Over several years K-12 teachers
and UND faculty engaged in joint and parallel study groups, visits to other schools
and summer workshops that included consultation with national leaders in this area.
Their exploration led in many directions. The UND faculty devised assignments for
candidate development of interdisciplinary thematic units (Barrentine, 1999). A
search for models of interdisciplinary practices inclusive of fine arts led to
participation in the Metropolitan Opera Project. Through a rich construction and
production process, sixth grade students and their teachers joined a global
 The professional development school as learning organization 185

community of opera lovers (Sherwood et al., 1998). Lake Agassiz adopted a carefully
constructed annual school-wide thematic unit celebrating cultures of families. A
sixth grader observed, ‘I learned how important … it is to learn about other cultures
so that we can … help one another’. A fourth grader put it more directly, ‘We are all
one family and we have to take care of one another’ (Fuller, 1998, p. 14). Combining
curricular innovations with experiments in extended day and extended year
programmes, Lake Agassiz teachers gained time for grade level and interdisciplinary
planning (Grinolds, 1998; Schmisek, 1998).
Changes in assessment practices led to new ways of interacting with parents about
the learning goals and progress of students. The school refined a process for parent–
student–teacher goal setting that was later adopted district wide. What had once
been evening music programmes evolved into ‘celebrations of learning’, planned by
the children to convey authentic and interdisciplinary learning related to a theme
(Harris & Gates, 1997). These activities were joined by monthly ‘family learning
nights’, special reading programmes and author- and illustrator-in-the-schools
programmes (Peterson, 1998). A parent reading room, school-based health services
and other elements of full service school programming were added as the school
came to better know the needs of its community.
Lake Agassiz was one of the 17 PDS sites included in the NCATE PDS standards
field test. The visiting team found that it met the five standards, including: the
learning community expectations of a common vision; serving multiple types of
learners; a focus on inquiry into learning and practice; serving as an impetus for
change; extending the learning community to parents, to other schools and to wider
professional communities.
Before turning to developments at the University of North Texas (UNT) we
should point out the respective sizes of these two institutions and their service
regions. UND, located in a frost-belt state with a declining rural population of
650,000, enrolls approximately 11,000 students and prepares 220 new teachers
annually, half in elementary education. As the only elementary PDS, Lake Agassiz
serves some, but not all, teacher candidates and is a research and development
centre. UNT, in contrast, is located in a growing metropolitan area of 4,500,000.
The university enrolls over 31,000 students and is growing. UNT currently
graduates about 320 elementary baccalaureate candidates annually and also offers
preservice programmes at the post-baccalaureate level. When the Texas Legislature
announced in the early 1990s the goal of placing every teacher candidate in the state
in a PDS, UNT faced a substantially different challenge from that selected by UND.

University of North Texas PDS network

UNT started its PDS work in 1992 in response to the state initiative. The Texas
Legislature authorized funding for Professional Development and Technology
Centers (PDTCs) that were intended to increase the capacity of K-12 schools for
‘field basing’ the teacher education programmes offered by institutions of higher
education (Resta, 1998). Starting in one urban, one suburban and three rural school
186 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

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

develop intensive field experiences for candidates who were enrolled in their final
two semesters of a four year undergraduate programme (Harris & Wilhelm, 2002).
Leaders at the PDS sites were free to develop and implement curricula as they saw
fit, and new sites, urban and suburban, gradually joined the network. By 1997 UNT
had PDS clusters in 10 school districts. School people viewed the PDS programmes
as strengthening the historic commitment of UNT to teacher education. In response
to a 1996 survey conducted by UNT, school district personnel officers
recommended that all UNT candidates participate in a PDS.
This recommendation coincided with the end of state funding for PDTCs. Still,
the UNT College of Education administration called for a uniform PDS-based
curriculum for all candidates. A faculty committee (PDS Model Committee, 1998)
identified common curricula for teacher candidates at all sites and specified that
each candidate would complete two eight-week ‘rotations’ or placements with
mentor teachers in each of two semesters of internship. Candidates would be placed
in school districts in ‘cadres’ of 36. This number was chosen because it generated the
number of semester credit hours needed to fund the programme using financial
formulas applied by UNT. The role of ‘PDS Coordinator’ was created as a UNT
faculty position responsible for organizing cadres and coordinating arrangements
with school districts. A formal ‘PDS Agreement’, signed annually by UNT and
partner districts, codifies commitments, definitions of terms and policies that are
common to all PDS sites.
The PDS Coordinator works with approximately 14 school districts that are
geographically proximate to UNT. The largest district, Dallas, serves 161,000
students. Suburban districts, including Denton, where UNT is located, are part of
the network, as also are proximate rural districts, some serving as few as 1000
students. The Dallas Independent School District (ISD) is the eighth largest school
district in the nation, and it offers a full range of urban challenges: changing
populations, an inadequate tax base and an inability to attract teachers. Districts
peripheral to the metroplex, and especially those on the north side, towards Denton,
have grown rapidly since opening of the Dallas Fort Worth Airport. Rural districts
struggle to offer students opportunities. UNT is caught between the needs of rapidly
growing neighbor districts, where candidates often aspire to teach, and the needs of
the urban districts for teachers who are well prepared to work across cultures in
assuring student learning.
The university tries to address the need for culturally competent teachers by
specifying that PDS sites in all partner districts be the most ethnically diverse schools
available, however, K-12 student diversity in partner districts varies considerably.
For example, Dallas ISD currently serves a student population that is 36% African-
American, 55% Hispanic and 8% White, with 74% of students classified as
economically disadvantaged, while Northwest ISD, which includes the suburbs
north of Fort Worth, serves a student population that is 1% African-American, 9%
Hispanic and 88% White, with 19.1% of students classified as economically
disadvantaged. For the school districts the commitment to working with UNT is
 The professional development school as learning organization 187

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

local curricula and ways of working.
To achieve placements for an increased number of candidates in 2001–2002, the
PDS Coordinator enlisted partnerships with 15 school districts. A cadre of interns
spent two semesters, either autumn and spring or spring and autumn, in one district,
distributed among its PDS sites. Some districts offer placements at campuses where
virtually all the teachers are involved in the PDS. An example is Cowart Elementary
School in the Dallas ISD, which regularly rotates interns among its experienced staff.
Other, less established partnerships offer multiple campuses at which small groups of
interns are placed. Although this practice sometimes lacks the stability of Cowart, it
is unlikely to change in fast growing suburban districts that open several new schools
every year and move their experienced teachers as needed to balance newly hired
staff. Wherever they are placed, UNT interns spend two days a week at the PDS in
the first semester (Internship I) and five days a week in the second (Internship II),
working in two classrooms (rotations) that vary in grade level and match the content
area(s) of preparation of the candidates. Internship II meets the requirements of
student teaching set by the state, to include at least 12 weeks of full-time, unpaid
experience in a state-accredited school with a cooperating teacher who is
experienced and certified.
Teacher candidate learning is structured by the courses in which students are
simultaneously enrolled and by the faculty member who serves as the cadre
coordinator. In the secondary programme, a Field Experience Journal is a major
organizer for Internship I. The journal guides candidates through a series of
observations and reflections on topics that are progressive and include observing the
classroom environment, studying assessment and grading practices, working with
the Individual Education Plan of a student eligible for special education services,
interviewing an administrator and interacting with parents. Structure for elementary
Internship I experiences is provided through a handbook for interns, mentor
teachers and faculty, weekly seminars and candidate preparation of a portfolio. The
portfolio process is introduced early in the programme, with candidates asked to
document their learning to meet standards developed by the Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 1992).
During Internship II a new role enters the learning organization. This person is the
university supervisor, often a retired teacher or principal, who visits classrooms
regularly to support and assess interns as they accept increasing responsibility for the
learning of students. Candidates are expected to assume responsibility for at least
two full weeks of teaching in each eight-week rotation. University supervisors and
mentor teachers apply a set of 33 descriptors of teaching behaviours, based on the
Texas teacher proficiencies, to their assessment of candidate teaching. These
descriptors tend to shape the discussions about teaching that occur in Internship II.
Research by UNT faculty demonstrates aspects of the effect of the PDS on
teacher candidate learning. In spring 2001 candidates assessed self-perceived
proficiency on the INTASC standards at the beginning, middle and end of the
188 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

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

assessments of competence. Areas of strongest growth were consistent with local
programme themes. Scores of candidates who completed all three of the self-
assessments increased significantly (P,0.01) on all items (Harris & Wilhelm, 2002).
Cobb (2000) found that mentor teachers at one PDS site perceived that PDS-
prepared candidates were better prepared, more qualified and more confident than
non-PDS peers. Cobb (2001) followed graduates from one PDS site into their early
years of teaching. She found that graduates saw themselves as change agents and
reported their use of change-oriented practices that included student-centred
methods, use of technology, variety in instructional approaches, reflection and
continuing high expectations for students. Cowart and Rademacher (1998) asked
Grade 4–8 students their perceptions of candidate learning in one PDS. They found
that the children were positive about the PDS but had suggestions for the interns
about classroom management, how to motivate students and how to improve
assignments to meet the needs of diverse learners.
In related studies faculty looked at the effect of specific innovations on teacher
candidate learning. Wilhelm et al. (1996) studied the effect on candidates of an
orientation seminar designed as an urban plunge, where candidates engaged in an in-
depth orientation to the diversity aspects of the urban setting of their PDS site. They
found that at the conclusion of the plunge candidates expressed increased confidence
in their ability to plan for multicultural instruction, to evaluate instructional materials
for bias and to educate students who are English language learners.
Increased confidence was not necessarily associated with increased candidate
performance, however. For example, candidates who had completed the plunge
were not significantly more able than other candidates to classify lesson plans
according to Banks’ (1993) model of multicultural curricular infusion. Rademacher
et al. (1997) examined the effect of candidate application of strategies taught in a
seminar to improve the quality of assignments for diverse learners. They found that
students were more likely to complete and to perform well and that mentor teachers
were more likely to approve of carefully designed assignments that provided for
student choice and involvement in planning. Similarly, Rademacher et al. (2001)
studied the effect on intern assignments of resources provided to support the
integration of technology. The conclusions reinforced the importance of time for
implementation, selection of appropriate learning goals and assessment criteria and
open-endedness for students in teacher candidate designed, technology-based
assignments.
Mentor teachers with whom UNT PDS candidates are placed during their four
rotations typically have at least three years teaching experience. Because mentor
teachers work without compensation, it is important that they see a benefit to
working with an intern. When good communication structures are in place at the
local level, mentor teachers become co-learners in experiences provided for interns
such as those described above. Cobb (2000) studied the impact of the PDS on
mentor teacher professionalism. She found that mentor teachers were generally
positive about the PDS concept and grew more favourable in their perception over
 The professional development school as learning organization 189

the four years of PDS implementation. While few teachers reported fundamental
changes in their teaching philosophies, 85% reported they had learned innovative
teaching strategies from participation in the PDS. Tunks (2001) found improvement
over a four year period in the extent of agreement between university supervisors and
mentor teachers about candidate performance based on the Texas teacher
proficiencies. This finding suggests a growth in understanding and application of
a common understanding of teaching to candidate performance.
Opportunities for substantial mentor teacher learning have occurred when partner
districts make the financial commitment to support the enrollment of experienced
teachers in UNT masters degree programmes, which can be tailored for delivery on
site. When mentor teachers are involved in university-based coursework that supports
the learning premises of the initial programme, more advanced directed inquiry can
occur, supporting the teacher leadership that is a condition of school-wide change in a
PDS learning environment. Ongoing teacher leadership at Cowart Elementary School
has been an important factor in setting directions for school development.
The effect of the PDS on P-12 student learning is indicated by some of the
research on intern learning reported earlier. Improved assignments by teacher
candidates, their use of technology and their demonstration in portfolios of the
interaction of student learning with teacher planning attend to this priority. Still,
Cobb (2000) found that mentor teachers did not believe that the PDS intervention
had the potential to improve student achievement on annual high stakes tests
without other interventions. At Cowart Elementary School, however, there were
steady gains, from 1994 to 2000, in student attendance, attitude and performance
on state tests in reading, writing and mathematics. These results were attributed by
Cowart and Rademacher (2003) to active inclusion of the students in shaping their
learning community.
Application of the learning community elements to the UNT PDS network
suggests that each site successfully involves multiple learners, including interns,
mentor teachers, students and university faculty. Furthermore, ongoing research,
including many candidate action research projects not cited here, suggests that much
of the work is inquiry focused. Some elements are in place to promote a common
professional vision, such as the PDS agreement, handbooks and the conceptual
framework of the UNT programmes. However, there is not a strong vehicle for
shared envisioning across the network. The PDS has served as a vehicle for change in
certain schools and districts, most notably at Cowart Elementary School, where its
predominantly Hispanic students remain on solid ground academically because of a
strong, committed teaching force enabled by the PDS. Where the network currently
has its greatest impact is in the quality and longevity of the teachers prepared.
Morrow’s (2002) survey showed that 100% of responding personnel officers
considered UNT graduates ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ compared with graduates of
other programmes. UNT candidates enter the classroom the year after graduation at
a rate of 87%, compared with a state wide mean of 66%, and 70% of the UNT
graduates remain in teaching after five years, compared with a state average of 50%
(State Board for Educator Certification, 2002).
190 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

Do professional development schools and standards matter?

In a recent handbook written to assist PDS partners in advancing their work through
use of the NCATE standards, Teitel (2003) pointed out three types of
accountability for the PDS. One refers to the responsibility of all schools to account
for the quality of their students’ learning. A second refers to the PDS as an
innovation and to the concomitant responsibility of involved parties to justify their
work. The third refers to the quality of inquiry into practice enabled by the PDS as a
participant in the educational research community. Teitel claims that each type of
accountability comes into bloom as a PDS is established and matures. The standards
enable description of the evolution of a PDS, inviting cross-site comparisons. So far,
however, most of the PDS research has focused on only one site or network and has
addressed questions about the PDS as an innovation.
Early research on the American PDS focused on qualities of the teacher
candidates and other professionals working in these settings. Abdal-Haqq (1998)
found support in the literature for the propositions that teacher candidates placed in
PDS settings, when compared with those placed in scattered settings, (i) utilized
more varied teaching strategies, (ii) were more reflective, (iii) had more knowledge of
school routines and practices, (iv) were more confident of their knowledge base, (v)
felt better prepared to teach linguistically and ethnically diverse learners and (vi) had
lower attrition rates after the first years of teaching. For experienced teachers he
found that the benefits to PDS participants supported by research included: (i) a
greater willingness to experiment and take risks; (ii) intellectual energy generated by
new ideas, participation in research and inquiry and interaction with others about
teaching; (iii) growth from engaging in newly developed roles; (iv) reduced isolation;
(v) a greater sense of power; (vi) an improvement in teaching practice; (vii) an
increased feeling of professionalism. The results of research conducted at UNT
support several of these findings and the descriptions of practice at Lake Agassiz/
UND, including many written by school-based professionals, exude the energy and
power of engaged PDS learners.
More recent research has focused on questions about student learning outcomes
in the PDS. In 1998 Abdul-Haqq found scant support for the proposition that
schooling in a PDS has a notable effect on student achievement, but Teitel (2003)
expressed more confidence. A review by Teitel (2001) cited a few studies that
demonstrated improved achievement for K-12 students enrolled in a PDS, and this
evidence is growing. Beyond improved scores on state-mandated tests, the PDS-
based research typically includes measures reflecting more complex understandings
of learning. With growth in the research which suggests that PDS matters, there is
increased potential for multi-partnership participation in research that attends to
higher order thinking and problem-solving in these settings.
Reality offers numerous barriers to this grand vision. Local PDS partnerships
experience peaks and valleys. Key leaders change; sources of funding whither. State,
local and national policy changes require rethinking of issues that were once
resolved. Although the UND experience shows that an excellent PDS can be
constructed with goodwill, energy and the focus of all available resources on one
 The professional development school as learning organization 191

goal, Lake Agassiz PSD is now struggling, as restricted state funding threatens key
sources of university support. UNT, a faculty committed to enabling a PDS
experience for every candidate, made that happen in spite of a lack of the leadership
required to develop a viable, multi-layered network and in spite of the lack of
continued state funding. Today, Texas teacher education faculty wonder about the
fate of their PDS-supported programmes as legislatively mandated alternative
programmes allow teacher candidates to bypass student teaching in favour of on-the-
job paid internships.
Reflecting on the progress of teacher education reform in Texas, Tipps (1998)
pointed out that every innovation in teacher education must wrestle with the
dilemmas of quality versus quantity, lack of funding and the lack of status of the
teaching profession. These dilemmas are evident at other sites (Crocco et al., 2003)
as well and at the national level. For example, NCATE, having developed national
standards for PDS through an externally funded project, chose not to mandate these
standards nor the expectation that its members sponsor a PDS as part of its national
accreditation process.
According to Pope (2002), collaboratively developed partnerships flourish in
political climates that welcome the development of unique, locally defined learning
organizations and wane when central authorities control relationships between
schools, teachers and teacher education. In spite of the increasing centralized control
of outcomes for both higher and pre-collegiate education, teacher education in
American public universities has no credible future except in partnership with the
public schools that are the employers of its graduates. The NCATE PDS standards
offer a tool for measuring the development of a PDS that is consistent with the
Holmes and NNER visions. These standards contribute to an education reform
agenda that includes the professionalization of teaching and the access of every
student to a public education of consequence. In a regulatory climate that could shift
the responsibility for teacher education in America from universities to school
districts, the viability of a negotiated partnership like PDS depends on its
understanding of ‘learning organization’. An over-reliance on university-led initial
teacher preparation in the mission and organization of a PDS distracts attention
from its equally salient functions of professional development, student learning and
inquiry. As Bredeson (2003) pointed out, a learning community must also be an
unlearning community, pruning the structures and activities that no longer fit. The
NCATE PDS standards provide a road map for partnerships of practitioners and
scholars that advance the learning of multiple actors by offering a vision of
collaboration wide and deep enough to accommodate the changing political context
of school reform.

Notes on contributors
Mary M. Harris is Meadows Chair for Excellence in Education and Professor of
Teacher Education and Administration at the University of North Texas, in
Denton. Formerly dean of the College of Education and Human Development
192 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

at the University of North Dakota, she served on the Design Committee for the
NCATE PDS Standards Project. Her research interests are in teacher
education, with a focus on early career development.
Frances van Tassell, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teacher
Education and Administration. She has been at the University of North Texas
for 12 years. In 2003–2004 she was President of the Association of Teacher
Educators and in 2004–2005 Chair of the University of North Texas Faculty
Senate.

References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998) Professional development schools: weighing the evidence (Thousand Oaks, CA,
Corwin).
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2004) Professional development schools
at a glance. Available online at: www.aacte.otg/Eric/pds_glance.htm (accessed 1 November
2004).
Bakke, J. & Harris, M. (1998) Lake Agassiz professional development school, in: M. Harris (Ed.)
Under construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND,
College of Education and Human Development), 40–45.
Banks, J. A. (1993) Multicultural education: development, dimensions, and challenges, Phi Delta
Kappan, 1, 22–28.
Barrentine, S. (1999) Facilitating preservice students’ development of thematic units, The Teacher
Educator, 34(4), 276–290.
Bredeson, P. V. (2003) Designs for learning: a new architecture for professional development in schools
(Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin).
Clark, R. W. (1999) Effective professional development schools (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
Cobb, J. B. (2000) The impact of a professional development school on preservice teacher
preparation, inservice teachers’ professionalism, and children’s achievement, Action in
Teacher Education, 22(3), 64–76.
Cobb, J. B. (2001) Graduates of professional development school programs: perceptions of the
teacher as change agent, Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 1–19.
Council of Chief State School Officers (1992) Model standards for beginning teacher licensing and
development: a resource for state dialogue. Available online at: www.ccsso.org/intascst.html
(accessed 7 February 2001).
Cowart, M. & Rademacher, J. A. (1998) In my opinion: what students say about professional
development schools, Teaching and Change, 6(1), 119–131.
Cowart, M. & Rademacher, J. A. (2003) Turning student voice into student outcomes, in:
D. L. Wiseman & S. L. Knight (Eds) Linking school–university collaboration and K-12 student
outcomes (Washington, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education), 87–102.
Crocco, M. S., Faithfull, B. & Schwartz, S. (2003) Inquiring minds want to know: action research at
New York City professional development school, Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 19–30.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.) (1994) Professional development schools: schools for developing a profession
(New York, Teachers College Press).
Day, C. (1999) Developing teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning (London, Falmer Press).
Fullan, M. G. (1995) The limits and potential of professional development, in: T. R. Gurskey
& M. Huberman (Eds) Professional development in education: new paradigms and practices
(New York, Teachers College Press), 253–268.
Fuller, M. (1998) Diversity at Lake Agassiz School: we are all one family and we have to take care
of one another, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz
elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and Human Development),
7–14.
 The professional development school as learning organization 193

Grinolds, C. (1998) Common planning time, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence in
education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and
Human Development), 33–35.
Harris, M. M. & Gates, J. S. (1997) Using standards in simultaneous renewal, Action in Teacher
Education, 19(2), 27–37.
Harris, M. M. & Wilhelm, R. W. (2002) Institutional report submitted to National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education & State Board for Educator Certification (Denton, TX,
College of Education).
Holmes Group (1990) Tomorrow’s schools: principles for the design of professional development schools
(East Lansing, MI, Holmes Group).
Hopkins, D., West, M. & Ainscow, M. (1998) Improving the quality of education for all (London,
David Fulton).
Johnson, M., Brosnan, P., Cramer, D. & Dove, T. (Eds) (2000) Collaborative reform and other
improbable dreams: the challenges of professional development schools (Albany, NY, State
University of New York Press).
Johnson, S. & Gates, S. (1998) The resident teacher program, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under
construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND,
College of Education and Human Development), 75–82.
Levine, M. (Ed.) (1998) Designing standards that work for professional development schools
(Washington, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education).
Levine, M. (2002) Why invest in professional development schools? Educational Leadership, 59(6),
65–68.
Levine, M. & Trachtman, R. (Eds) (1997) Making professional development schools work: politics,
practice, and policy (New York, Teachers College Press).
Morrow, J. (2002) Employer survey (Denton, TX, College of Education).
Murrell, P. (1998) Like stone soup: the role of the professional development school in the renewal of urban
schools (Washington, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education).
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001) Standards for professional
development schools (Washington, NCATE).
Osguthorpe, R. T., Harris, R. C., Harris, M. F. & Black, S. (Eds) (1995) Partner schools: centers for
educational renewal (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
PDS Model Committee (1998) Reinventing the wheel: the revision of UNT’s professional development
school model to serve large numbers of teacher certification candidates (Denton, TX, College of
Education).
Peterson, L. (1998) Parent/family involvement at Lake Agassiz elementary school, in: M. Harris
(Ed.) Under construction: excellence in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand
Forks, ND, College of Education and Human Development), 102–106.
Pope, M. (2002) Varied views of collaboration in professional development schools (review of the
book Collaborative Reform and Other Impossible (sic) Dreams), Teaching and Teacher Education,
18(8), 1051–1059.
Rademacher, J. A., Cowart, M., Sparks, J. & Chism, V. (1997) Planning high quality assignments
with diverse learners, Preventing School Failure, 42(1), 12–15.
Rademacher, J., Tyler-Wood, T., Doclair, J. & Pemberton, J. (2001) Developing learner-centered
technology assignments with student teachers, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,
17(3), 18–25.
Resta, V. K. (1998) Professional development schools as a catalyst for reform (Austin, TX, Texas State
Board for Educator Certification).
Sachs, J. (1997) Reclaiming the agenda of teacher professionalism: an Australian experience,
Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 263–276.
Self-Study Committee (1999) Self study for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education professional development schools standards project (Grand Forks, ND, College of
Education and Human Development).
194 M. M. Harris and F. van Tassell

Sherwood, C., Gregoire, D. & Iverson, D. (1998) Creating original opera at Lake Agassiz
Elementary School, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence in education at Lake
Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and Human
Development), 21–28.
Schmisek, G. (1998) The extended day program, in: M. Harris (Ed.) Under construction: excellence
in education at Lake Agassiz elementary school (Grand Forks, ND, College of Education and
Human Development), 29–32.
State Board for Educator Certification (2002) Teacher attrition and employment by preparation entity.
Available online at: www.sbec.tx.us/SBECOnline/reportdatasearch/tchrattremploy.asp
(accessed 20 June 2003).
Teitel, L. (2001) How professional development schools make a difference: a review of research
(Washington, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education).
Teitel, L. (2003) The professional development school handbook: starting, sustaining, and assessing
partnerships that improve student learning (Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin).
Tipps, S. (1998) Paradox in teacher education: why things don’t get better in teaching and teacher
preparation, in: F. van Tassell (Ed.) Restructuring teacher education in Texas through
professionalism, partnerships, pluralism, and performance (Dalls, TX, Texas Congress on
Educator Preparation), 54–62.
Tunks, J. (2001) Unpublished study reported in Elementary Education Program Review.
Unpublished document submitted to the Association of Childhood Education International
(Denton, TX, College of Education).
University of Kentucky Educators Network (2004) Professional development school distinction.
Available online at: www.uky.edu/Education/PDS/distinction.html (accessed 1 November
2004).
Wilhelm, R. W., Cowart, M. F., Hume, L. M. & Rademacher, J. A. (1996) The effects of a
professional development school institute on preservice teachers’ intellectual sensitivity, The
Teacher Educator, 32(1), 48–59.