Teachers’ Views of School-Based Professional Learning in Six High-Performing, High-Poverty, Urban Schools

Abstract

Policy makers, practitioners and scholars agree that teachers need sustained job-embedded professional learning experiences to help students meet the demands of new accountability systems, higher education, and the workforce (Smylie, Miretzky, & Konkol, 2004; Valli & Buese, 2007). Research shows that job-embedded learning for teachers can improve student performance (Parise, & Spillane, 2010). Although, researchers generally agree about the core features of effective professional development (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Desimone, 2011), their findings do not provide sufficient guidance to practitioners and policy makers in designing and implementing on-the-job learning opportunities (Hill, Beisiegel, & Jacob, 2013). This dissertation is a qualitative, comparative case study embedded in a larger study, “Developing Human Capital Within Schools,” conducted by the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. I analyzed collected documents and data from 142 semi-structured interviews of administrators and a diverse sample of teachers from six high-performing, high-poverty schools within one city. Three of the schools are state-authorized charter schools (one a restart of an underperforming school) and three are district schools (one traditional and two former turnaround). In this study, I explored how teachers experienced and assessed three practices intended to support improvements in teaching quality—teacher evaluation, collaborative data routines and peer observation. Teachers and administrators across the sample, described evaluation, first and foremost, as a robust, ongoing improvement process that incorporated frequent feedback to teachers, which they valued. It also played a role in holding teachers accountable for their work. All six schools had structured data routines that required teachers to collaboratively gather, analyze and respond to students’ learning data. Data practices contributed to high expectations for all students and teachers. Finally, the schools had a range of practices that allowed teachers to observe each other, be observed, and in some cases analyze the experience. Teachers’ responses, although generally very positive, differed across and within schools, depending on the school’s ability to address logistical and cultural barriers to peer observation. None of these practices were implemented as discrete, stand-alone initiatives. Instead, the professional learning opportunities at these schools were intensive experiences that teachers described as highly interconnected.