ABSTRACT
American schools in the midst of major school restructuring and change are challenged to develop innovative professional development programs that involve collaborative and democratic discourse. Although this has been an area of much research and discussion within the educational arena for the last decade (Evertson & Murphy, 1992; Fullan, 1991; Hargreaves, 1994) never has teacher professional development been a more contested subject. Bureaucrats and the public see schools as failing organizations and strict measures are being taken to “hold them accountable” while students are being asked to conform to the norm on standardized tests. Teachers are being mandated to log professional development hours to show that they are properly trained. School administration officials hope that these hours will result in higher test scores that will keep their schools off the list of failing schools, and while every school district has days earmarked for “professional development,” this term has been difficult to define with educators and administrators alike using multiple, seemingly synonymous terms, such as in-service training, and supervision. Many professional development programs currently offered focus on merely exposing teachers to the latest theories and initiatives without providing the conditions (e.g., time, opportunities to practice, and feedback) required for them to be linked to-and to potentially improve-actual classroom practice, which is at the very heart of professional development. In fact, Joyce & Showers (2002) argue that teachers are not the only ones who benefit from professional development initiatives: such programs can play a crucial role in fostering student achievement through a transfer of the training to classroom practices. Professional development is a key to the success of the individual teacher, learners, and the larger school community.
