Level 5: Student Learning Outcomes

1. The school has a PD committee that is comprised of various district employees.
2. The goal of the school is listed as "Improve student achievements as measured by standardized tests, grades and behavior.    
3. P14 lists a goal of PD as "increasing student achievement."
4. In 2011-2012 grades K-2 teachers received PD in guided reading, comp strategies, When Readers Struggle, Writers Workshop, Assessments, Beginning Writing, Genre Writing & the Use of rubrics.  Other grade levels received other training as well.  Math teachers received additional training, but I was not sure if this included Primary/elementary teachers or not. (P7).
5. Under "Addressing Student Learning Needs" on P9, it also said, "A determination was made to include writing in the content area, differentiated instruction, support to diverse learners and using assessment to inform instruction."
6. Section 2B said that when discussing goals/objectives for the upcoming year "parental input was sought through parent conferences, school events, PTO, [and] ECAC." p14
7. Key Data Sources for assessing PD needs were listed as:  classroom observations, review of student assignments & assessments (summative & state), student demographic info., attendance & disciplinary records, teacher requests/needs, CAPA recommendations -  p14.
8. After listing what each grade band of teachers would be working on for PD, they listed the following ways to measure their success: formative & summative assessments, Read 180, Study Island, Unit assessments, Learnia results, F & P benchmark assessments, DIEBELS, High frequency word lists, report card grades, writing prompts & NJASK/HSPA/ACCESS scores p23
9. On p24 they said that all these things were data driven, "teachers review student work & student achievement data to make decisions regarding PD.  They also stated that "Numerous opportunities are in place to evaluate the program & adjust as needed (Teacher input, student achievement data, curriculum evals).

Personal Thoughts in Comparison with The Article

Points 1 & 6. I didn't find any areas that showed that affective outcomes (attitude and dispositions) were measured.  The Guskey article also suggested that you could include "results from questionnaires and structured interviews with students, parents, teachers and administrators."  -49.   To me, I felt that any input from students and parents was either not mentioned or not done.  Furthermore, to say that you get input from parent conferences, school events, PTO ... that seems a bit of a stretch to me.  Parents that are at conferences b/c of concerns are typically more concerned with their child than giving PD input; parents at school events are often focused on their child's play/presentation/assembly, etc.  And the PTO makes up a very small and highly dedicated group of parents - not exactly a group that is usually representative of all types of students, especially lower achieving or struggling students.

Points 2 - 5: Improving/increasing student achievement is VERY VAGUE.  Just about anything that you do can be related back to this goal.  Which is probably why it appears they tried practically every method out there.  Over and over again, I heard Wagner saying, "Simply put, the individual teacher, school or district with ten priorities has none." (Wagner - 66)!  (Side note: Check TEN or fewer areas for PD!  A survey that was FOUR pages long!  Seriously?).  It was hard to look at student learning outcomes, because I didn't know where to start!  They are looking at so many things talked about.  Should I look at how guided reading and comprehension strategies and When Readers Struggle, etc. affected achievement?  Or writing in the content areas, differentiation and support to diverse learners?  I took it as the first were the main focuses of the PD with the latter (differentiation, diverse learner support, etc.) would be talked about within the PD.  Correct me if I am wrong.  With so many priorities, it certainly seemed like nothing was a priority!

Points 7 & 8: This is where I tried to link the data sources with the PD.  Because the goal is to see if the PD worked or "how did the professional development activity affect students?" (p49).
PD "Focus"  --------  Data Source that could provide info on the PD effectiveness
Guided Reading - classroom observation, review of assignments/assessments
Comprehension Strategies - classroom observation, review of assignments/assessments
Writers Workshop - classroom observation, review of assignments/assessments
Assessments - F & P benchmark assessments, DIEBELS
Beginning Writing - classroom observation, review of assignments/assessments; writing prompts & scores

Genre Writing & The Use of Rubrics, review of assignments/assessments; writing prompts & scores
The data sources not mentioned above:
Read 180 & Study Island - there was no PD on either of these, so to me, how does that actually work to see if the PD was effective?  I don't think Study Island is specific enough to show actual comprehension strategies - maybe it could show you how they did on main idea or cause and effect, but I don't think it would show comprehension strategies.  Also, as a special education teacher, that made me cringe, b/c I know how many of my kids just click through it because they can't read it at grade level.  I felt the same about Unit assessments & grade cards - they are both usually a hodge podge of many skills, not just one.  To use these, you would have to break them down item by item.  I have never used Learnia.  I did not see where High Frequency word Lists fit.

Overall: Many of these things don't tie in or won't be pulled together without dialogue after getting started (like the assessments - how did it go?  What results did you get?  How will that effect future instruction?  Ok, now what are the results & where do you go from here?).  To say that they are being looked at by classroom observation or review of assignments is not enough.  I know how that is at my school - is just isn't going to happen without a plan in place to say WHEN you have to meet!  I guess overall I was not impressed with their Level of Step 5.

This plan was too long and too involving for the teachers to be expected to do any kind of work! What do YOU think?

Level Four: Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skill

The key to gathering relevant information at the “Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skills Level” rests in specifying clear indicators of both the degree and the quality of implementation (p. 47). Using this as a guide, in the study through testing, we do not see clear cut evidence that the Bridgeton Public School District is evaluating teacher implementation of skills learned.

When Bridgeton Public School District wrote their professional development plan, they reflected back on their previous plans and participants use of new knowledge and skills from professional development.  They found that, “Results from the 2009, 2010 and 2011 administration of NJ ASK for grades 3-8 and NJ HSPA for grade 11 indicate that the staff development was effective at some grade levels and in some sub groups. However, the results continue to indicate a need to incorporate additional training for teachers of special education and LEP students” (Bridgeton Public Schools, pg 7).  They do not explain what they mean by effective or how they determined who was implementing the new knowledge from the training.

Guskey mentions that one way to check for implementation is classroom observation (pg. 49).   In the Bridgeton Public School District after learning about Marzano’s Classroom Instruction That Works, walkthroughs were conducted.  There were more learning objectives posted and teachers were providing students with more constructive feedback (BPS, pg 9).  However, they noted that there was still room to improve in some areas.  They give no quantitative information or really no qualitative information.  Just a description of a general change they noticed.

There were many other professional development examples provided including math content training, literacy initiatives, instruction on behavior systems, recognizing at risk students, motivating urban students, and quality assessment training.  Many were job embedded and several were even coaching situations.  However, it does not describe the level of implementation or quality of implementation that occurred as a result of these professional development opportunities. It is intimated that teachers have increased their collaboration and modules have had a positive impact (p. 10). This data is not qualified so it is unclear how the impact of the training was determined. Many teachers have exceeded the 20 hours of training mandated by the district (p. 12).

Later in the plan, it is stated that “Evidence that will indicate staff has learned new skills will be monitored through:

                  ¿  Classroom visits

                  ¿  Formal/Informal Observations by Administrator

                  ¿  Peer to Peer Observations and Feedback

                  ¿  Power Walkthroughs

                  ¿  Assessment Data

                  ¿  Workshop evaluation forms”

 (BPS, pg 34).  The plan also explains that evaluation as to the success of the plan will be evident in: student observation and performance, teacher lesson plans, classroom observations, workshop evaluation forms, curriculum revisions, collaborative meetings, surveys and relevant student data from ancillary sources, such as IXL and Study Island (BPS, pg 35). Although they include classroom observations in their plan and they do have a SMART goal that includes the use of student data to determine the effectiveness of professional development, they do not have a clear cut way of determining the level of implementation of new knowledge and skills once an educator has experiences training.

Overall, using the state achievement test, student achievement increased by 10% in various groups and subgroups. This increase implies that teachers were implementing what they learned from the PD’s attended.  This also implies that the implementation was performed to a certain degree to improve student performance. The plan, however, does not actually include any evidence of the percentage of implementation or the quality of implementation.

Level 3: Organization Support & Change

According to Guskey, "Lack of organization support and change can sabotage any professional development effort, even when all the individual aspects of professional development are done right." This is key to any professional development plan.
I wanted to go through the questions that Guskey posed in the article and answer them according to the aspects of the Bridgeton Professional Development plan.

Did the professional development activities promote changes that were aligned with the mission of the school and district?
Bridgeton's Mission Statement is as follows: "The mission of the Bridgeton Public Schools is to have all pupils meet the Core Curriculum Content Standards and graduate from high school as lifelong learners who will make positive contributions to the community, act with the highest moral and ethical standards, promote equal opportunity, and participate in the advancement of our democratic society." As far as the Bridgeton Professional Development Plan states their professional development appears to support the mission statement of the district. These professional development opportunities, while not incredibly detailed, support the students meeting the core curriculum content standards. I do not believe the plan states how they are going to help the children act with high moral and ethical standards as the mission states.

Were changes at the individual level encouraged and supported at all levels?
I have not seen many opportunities for change at the individual level. There are small group opportunities in grade-level meetings, but no prevalent opportunities at individual levels.

Were sufficient resources made available, including time for sharing and reflection?
The district provided lots of resources for the teachers and schools to be successful in the professional development plan. Teachers participate in professional development during the course of the year in workshops, committees, and collaborative team meetings. These along with a long list of opportunities in a bullet point list in the plan show the district allowed many resources to support change.
"In 2010-2011, three schools received SIA and SIG funds that support professional development. In 2011-2012, four schools received SIA funds that support professional development." This shows that there was increase in schools in the district using funds to support change.

Were successes recognized and shared?
This question is difficult to answer without seeing meeting minutes or interviews with the team members. It appears the district provided lots of opportunities to share their successes but a completely positive verdict cannot be delivered without all the applicable evidence and data.

The district highlighted its priority for the school year, with a focus on supporting teachers. “The district recognizes the need to constantly evaluate the effectiveness of its professional development program by classroom observations, analysis of test data, teacher, student and parent feedback. The district supports the development professional learning communities by providing diverse opportunities for staff including professional development days, after school sessions, summer workshops and college courses” (p 13). Surveys were used to gather data that was then used to determine the needs of teachers in the district. 

Level Two: Participants' Learning

Level Two: Participants’ Learning

District Goal: Improve student achievement as measured by standardized tests, report card grades, and student behavior (p.6).

Mission: The mission of the Bridgeton Public Schools is to have all pupils meet the Core Curriculum Content Standards and graduate from high school as lifelong learners who will make positive contributions to the community, act with the highest moral and ethical standards, promote equal opportunity, and participate in the advancement of our democratic society (p.6).

C. Professional Development Goals for the District

1. Student Learning Goals:  The focus of all professional development has, as an organizing principle, improvement of student achievement, specifically in the areas of Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics. The study and analysis of data to improve student achievement, as well to identify areas of need for professional development has been an essential component of the planning process p.21)

2. List of District Professional Development Goals: Bridgeton is committed to providing a professional development plan that incorporates varied structures and designs for the delivery of professional development. Professional development activities include experiences that are intended to increase teachers’ understanding of their respective content areas with specific emphasis upon the relationship between daily classroom lessons and alignment to NJCCCS, Common Core State Standards, WIDA standards and NJPTLS (NJPTLSQ). Further, the professional development opportunities are designed to assist teachers by providing research supported strategies relevant to student behaviors, learning styles, and the most effective strategies to provide instruction to a community of diverse students. Opportunities for collaboration, the sharing of best practices, and reflection are built into the process to foster the development of school-based professional learning communities (p.21).

The district recognizes the importance of continual assessment and evaluation of current and future professional development plans to assess whether identified goals are being addressed. Additionally important is the need for follow-up on professional development activities. It is essential that teachers work to implement research based programs within their classes. Administration at both the school and district level, ensure that sufficient allocation of resources are in place (p.21).

Summary of positive aspects of prior Professional Development Plans: Results from the 2009, 2010 and 2011 administration of NJ ASK for grades 3-8 and NJ HSPA for grade 11 indicate that the staff development was effective at some grade levels and in some sub groups. However, the results continue to indicate a need to incorporate additional training for teachers of special education and LEP students (p.7).

The results of feedback from staff development (New Teacher Orientation, In-service days, Novice Teacher training, SIOP training, in-district workshops) indicate that teachers believe that their needs were met. Positive aspects of the plan include: Professional development opportunities were differentiated based on the staff’s level of proficiency, interests and distinct initiatives (p.8).

 The plan was comprehensive and flexible addressing changes in the Core Curriculum Content Standards and revisions to curriculum and staff needs. Collaboration among staff members and the emergence of Professional Learning Communities at the building level continue to increase. Identification of challenges: (p.8)

There are some challenges that were a concern:

- Providing substitutes for staff development

- Providing staff development to the vast number of novice teachers and newly reassigned teachers (2011-2012) in our district.

 -Assessing how the impact of staff development has increased student performance

-Common planning/preparation time among grade level and content teachers

 -Elimination of LAL coaches, math coaches, facilitator (K-8), and tutors (2010-2011)

-Reduction of building level supervisors

Addressing student learning needs:  During the 2008-09, 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 school years, state testing data was disaggregated and discussed with teachers and members of the administrative team to identify areas of instructional practice that needed to be addressed. As a result of articulation meetings with grade level teams and department staff, administrative interests and observations, along with information from consultants a determination was made to include writing in the content area, differentiated instruction, support to diverse learners and using assessment to inform instruction. Additionally, the district’s professional development goals were infused into the school level professional development opportunities (p.9)

During walkthroughs and CAPA visits, there was an increase in the posting of objectives. There was evidence that the students’ work contained constructive feedback from the teachers. However, there is room for improvement in the aforementioned areas (p.9)

There was evidence of reinforcing effort and providing recognition with teachers’ posting student work with constructive feedback. In addition, the district refined the report card policy (#5124) to reflect percentage weights for summative and formative assessments, homework and class work (p.9).

 All administrators believe it is vital to monitor instruction by conducting routine classroom observations. Administrators observe teachers' use of effective instructional strategies, level of student engagement, use of technology, and additional teacher practices research has proven to influence student learning. Through the use of Power Walkthroughs, administrators determine that staff development efforts are positively impacting teaching and student learning (p.9).

The READ180 Program is an intensive reading intervention program which assists educators in addressing the problem of illiteracy on multiple fronts, using technology, print, and professional development. Over the past two years, the READ180 program has been expanded to three schools within the district. Data has shown an increase in student achievement in reading for those students receiving this supplemental program (p.10).

Evidence of professional learning needs of the staff are gathered from various sources including, but not limited to, formal and informal teacher observations and surveys, Professional Growth Plans (PGP), monthly grades level meetings with administrators, and school groups which may consist of parents, teachers, students and community members (SLC or ECAC)  (p.14).

The district recognizes the importance of continual assessment and evaluation of current and future professional development plans to assess whether identified goals are being addressed. Additionally important is the need for follow-up on professional development activities. It is essential that teachers work to implement research based programs within their classes. Administration at both the school and district level, ensure that sufficient allocation of resources are in place (p.21).

SMART Goals:

Language Arts (p.22-23)                        

In 2008-2009, the language arts literacy data (NJASK 3-8 & HSPA) reveals that many students are in need of remediation in these critical areas: Working with Text, Analyzing Text and Writing. In 2009-2010, the language arts literacy data (NJASK 3-8 & HSPA) reveals that many students are in need of remediation in Analyzing Text and Writing. In 2010-2011, the language arts literacy data (NJASK 3-8 & HSPA) reveals that many students are in need of remediation in the following areas: Working with Text (Grades 3-8); Speculative Task (3-8), Expository Task (3-8, 11), Persuasive Task (11) and Interpreting Task (11). In order to facilitate the district’s continued movement toward infusing best practices for standards-based, balanced language arts literacy instruction and to meet the needs of students and staff as indicated by the needs assessment data, the following will take place:

Specific: The district will provide experiences that deepen teacher understanding and application of content knowledge; current thinking of how children learn language; differentiation strategies to help students approach literacy in alternate, modified, and scaffold ways; and collaborative examination and analysis of student work on response items as well as published work. In 2010-2011, Writing Workshop Residence training continued in grades 7 and 8; Writers Workshop training continued in the elementary and the middle grades; Teaching for Comprehension continued in grade 3; and Vocabulary Development continued in grades Kindergarten and grade 1. In 2011-2012, grades K-2 teachers received professional development in Guided Reading; Comprehension Strategies, When Readers Struggle, Writing Workshop with our Youngest Writers, Assessments (Fountas & Pinnell Results, Administering Running Records, High Frequency words), Beginning Writing, and Genre Writing and the use of Rubrics. In 2011-2012, grades 3-5 teachers received professional development in the instructional components of the Reading and Writing Workshop Models. During this school year, teachers in grades 3-5 received professional development in the following areas; Reading Workshop and Being A Writer - coaching. In 2011-2012, grades 6-8 teachers received professional development in implementing the new core reading series. During this school year, teachers in grades 6-8 received professional development in the following areas; Holt McDougal Program Implementation, Addressing the needs of Struggling and Hard to Reach Readers, Coaching in middle grades literacy, Supporting ELL’s in upper grades, Best Practices in Adolescent Literacy Writing and the Rowan Literacy Consortium in 23 grade 8. In 2011-2012, in grades 9-12, faculty-led action research projects continued. These action research projects focus on studying and implementing strategies to close the achievement gap in literacy.

Measured: Student progress will be measured through formative and summative assessments such as: READ180, Study Island, unit assessments, Learnia results, Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment, DIBELS, High Frequency Word List, report card grades, writing prompts (grades 3-8) and NJASK/HSPA/ACCESS scores.

Attainable: Best practices for standards-based, balanced literacy instruction will be attained by in-service professional development on content knowledge and pedagogy; implementation of professional learning communities; articulation meetings; teacher collaborations; and grade-level meetings, modeling of lessons, and co-teaching experiences provided by administrators.

Results Based: 10% increase in state assessment proficiency/advanced proficiency achievement. A 10% increase in state test data from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 occurred for the total population in grades 7 and 11. A 10% increase in state test data from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 occurred for the general population in grades 6, 7, 8 and 11. A 10% increase in state test data from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 occurred for the following grade levels: Grade 3 (LEP, Female, Black, Economically Disadvantaged); Grade 4 (Special Education, Female and Hispanic); Grade 5 (LEP and Male); Grade 6 (LEP, Female, Black); Grade 7 (LEP, Non-Economically Disadvantaged); Grade 8 (Special Education, LEP, Male and White) and Grade 11 (Special Education, LEP, Female, Non-Migrant, Black and Non-Economically Disadvantaged). The district is looking to increase state assessment proficiency and advanced proficiency achievement by 10% in 2011-2012.

Time-bound: by June 2012

Mathematics (p.23-24)

In 2008-2009, the mathematical data (NJASK 3-8 & HSPA) reveals that many students are in need of remediation in three critical areas: Geometry and Measurement; Data Analysis, Probability and Discrete Mathematics; and Problem Solving. In 2009-2010, the mathematical data (NJASK 3-8, Algebra I EOC & HSPA) reveals that many students are in need of remediation in three critical areas: Patterns and Algebra; Data Analysis, Probability and Discrete Mathematics; and Problem Solving. In 2010-2011, the mathematical data (NJASK 3-8 & HSPA) revealed that many students are in need of remediation in Number and Numerical Operations (Grades 3-8), Data Analysis, Probability and Discrete Mathematics (Grades 3-8,11) and Geometry and Measurement (Grade 11). In order to facilitate the district’s continued movement toward infusing best practices for standards-based, mathematics instruction and to meet the needs of students and staff as indicated by the needs assessment data, the following will take place:

 Specific: The district will provide experiences that deepen teacher understanding and application of content knowledge; current thinking of how children learn language; differentiation strategies to help students approach math in alternate, modified, and scaffold ways; and collaborative examination and analysis of student work on open response items as well as published work. The Kindergarten math curriculum was revised in 2010. In 2010-2011, teachers were provided with content and program training, TI-Navigator training and the Accuplacer exam training. Both vertical and horizontal articulation has continued. The district has continued to participate in articulation meetings with the Cumberland County College and Cumberland County Curriculum Consortium. In 2011-2012, all K-12 math curriculum guides were revised to reflect the 2010 CCSS. In 2011-2012, twenty teachers and three administrators attended the NCTM Conference, all K-12 teachers received training on understanding and implementing the CCSS in mathematics, grades 6 & 7 math teachers received training on implementing writing into the math classroom, grades 24 9-12 teachers received training on the use of the TINavigator and Smartboard and grades 1-6 received training on the Everyday Mathematics core program. The district has continued to participate in articulation meetings with the Cumberland County College and the County Curriculum Consortium.

Measured: Student progress will be measured through formative and summative assessments such as: Study Island, unit assessments, Learnia results, IXL reports, report card grades, and NJASK, Algebra I EOC, HSPA scores.

Attainable: Best practices for standards-based, mathematics instruction will be attained by in-service professional development on content knowledge and pedagogy; implementation of professional learning communities; articulation meetings; teacher collaborations; and grade-level meetings, modeling of lessons, and co-teaching experiences provided by administrators.

Results Based: 10% increase in state assessment proficiency/advanced proficiency achievement. A 10% increase in state test data from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 occurred for the total population in grades 3 and 4. A 10% increase in state test data from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 occurred for the general education population in grades 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11. A 10% increase in state test data from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 occurred for the grades: Grade 5 (Male), Grade 6 (Total, General Education, LEP, Female, White, Black, Economically Disadvantaged, Non- Economically Disadvantaged, NonMigrant); Grade 7 (Black); Grade 8 (Total, General Education, LEP, Male, White, Black, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, Non-Economically Disadvantaged, Non-Migrant) and Grade 11 (LEP, Female, Black, Hispanic, Non- Economically Disadvantaged). The district is looking to increase state assessment proficiency/advanced proficiency achievement by 10% in 2011-2012.

Time-bound: by June 2012

Job-Embedded Professional Learning (p.26)

Job-embedded professional development at each school will occur during the common planning time period, monthly grade level meetings, department meetings, monthly vertical and horizontal articulation meetings, district articulation meetings, in-service days, as well as regularly scheduled administrator classroom visits. All K-8 teachers will meet for a full day at a minimum of four times (once per marking period) for collaboration. These collaboration meetings will be held with special education teachers, bilingual teachers, and general education teachers. During these times, teachers will analyze student work, benchmark assessments, interim reports, building level and district level assessments, share ideas, engage in professional reading, agree on common strategies, establish school goals and make any modifications to instructional practices to enhance student learning. Professional development will be conducted by school instructional leaders and other district support. School administrators will extend the teachers’ repertoire of knowledge and pedagogical skills by providing demonstration lessons, professional conferencing, peer coaching, and content specific research-based instructional strategies to improve student achievement in the core content areas (p.26).

 Key Curriculum Areas of Focus (p.27)

Data Analysis

All schools report that there will continue to be an emphasis on detailed analysis of the state and district assessments (i.e. NJASK3-8, Algebra I EOC, ACCESS, DIBELS, Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment, High Frequency Word List, and HSPA). Students in grades K-8 will have their performance analyzed through running records. Students taught in READ180 will have their instruction differentiated through the Scholastic Reading Inventory as well as the rSkills tests. All schools indicate there will be grade-specific collaborative meetings for teachers (including bilingual education and special education) to determine areas of concern and specific instructional strategies to increase student performance (p.27).

Evidence to support job-embedded professional development will include but not be limited to: surveys, agenda/minutes, teacher observations, funding for substitutes and evaluation forms. (p.35)

Level One: Participants' Reactions

           “Good evaluations don’t have to be complicated. They simply require thoughtful planning, the ability to ask good questions, and a basic understanding of how to find valid answers. What’s more, they can provide meaningful information that you can use to make thoughtful, responsible decisions about professional development processes and effects. (Guskey, 2002, p. 46)

In the article is mentions in depth all of the training that teachers went to from 2008-present. It then shared the feedback that they got from the staff.  Guskey (2002) says, “Information on participants’ reactions is generally gathered through questionnaires handed out at the end of a session, or activity (p.46).” It is implied that the teachers where able to give their feedback and that the feedback was evaluated.

            When the district was developing their professional development plan for 2012-2013, they planned to use it to monitor each step of their plan by receiving feedback from the teachers.  This includes using them to evaluating through feedback forms where a teacher is on the gradient of learning the presented material, additional data on the training, opinions on job imbedded professional development, and teacher surveys to give input and ideas. The article cites that this information can come in different forms including: online, verbally, face-to-face, written feedback, phone, and mail ( Bridgeton, 2012, p. 36).

           Guskey goes in depth about how important it is to take into account the teachers reaction to the professional development.  By evaluating the teacher’s feedback forms every step of the way, the teachers will be able to give feedback and be a part of the process. This feedback can be a driving force behind change in the professional development to fine tune what the district need to do and where the district needs to go next in their professional development plans.

The article went in depth about the needs assessment for professional development. Teachers were to mark the 10 topics they would be interested in professional development, and there was a comment section where teachers could put other topics they were interested in studying further.  The district will then use this information to help form their decisions on professional development for the year.

           The article lists some of the positive aspects of the previous training and also concerns. Their positive feedback included how the district differentiated, how the training covered Core Curriculum and changed that needed to be made in the curriculum.  They also mentioned how collaboration had increased through professional development.  Some of the concerns were substitutes, providing professional development for new teachers, planning time, positions being cut, reductions in the school. This would indicate the type of feedback they are asking on their  workshop feedback forms.

"Guskey mentions in his article that when gathering participant feedback, you even want to ask about the conditions of the environment like room temperature and was the coffee good.  I have been in workshops were the room was so cold and poorly lit that it was distracting from the the task at hand." Heather Shaner

The Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation

Here are Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation from the article:

Level 1: Participants’ Reactions

Level 2: Participants’ Learning

Level 3: Organization Support & Change

Level 4: Participants’ Use of New Knowledge and Skill

Level 5: Student Learning Outcomes

About this Small Blog

Hello! We are a team of educators participating in a reading endorsement class at The University of Dayton. This is our project for the final module in course EDT 650, The Professional Development of Teacher Leaders. 

Together, we reviewed the readings for Module 6, taking specific note of evaluation processes and criteria as described by Guskey (2002). The readings included:

Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 430 - 454.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181 - 199. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X08331140.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), pp. 45 – 51.
Bridgeton Public Schools Plan for Professional Learning 2012 - 2013

Using the Five Levels of Professional Development Evaluation (Guskey), the team evaluated the Bridgeton Public Schools District Plan for Professional Development. Each member of the team took one level and described how the plan addressed that level; finally, as a team we each shared two big ideas about teacher leadership and change that we would take away from this learning experience.