Professional Relationships (Community) Outside of School Walls

PRISE White Paper No. 2007-7 February 2007

Professional Supports Outside School Walls

Ra’sheedah Richardson Department of Teaching, Learning, & Culture

Robert Wilson Department of Teaching, Learning, & Culture

Policy Research Initiative in Science Education Research Group Texas A&M University – College Station [email protected] PRiSE Policy Research Initiative in Science Education College of Education and Human Development – Texas A&M University College Station, TX  http://prise.tamu.edu

Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for noncommercial purposes by any means, provided that the above copyright notice appears on all copies.

PRISE white papers are available on the Internet at http://prise.tamu.edu

The research reported in this white paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, Grant ESI-0455679, and the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas A&M University. Any opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies or Texas A&M University. Professional Supports Outside School Walls 2

Professional Supports Outside School Walls

Ra’sheedah K. Richardson and Robert Wilson PRISE Research Group Texas A&M University

The nation is experiencing a critical shortage in the number of teachers. This is especially true of the State of Texas where in the six year span between 1996 and 2002 the demand for public school teachers increased by nearly 50 percent (Fuller, 2002). Factors such as increased teacher retirement and student enrollment have been cited as reasons for the teacher shortage. Recently, however, the teacher shortage has been primarily attributed to the high numbers of teachers leaving their jobs prior to retirement (Ingersoll, 2004). Cutbacks on resources, lack of funding, lowered classroom autonomy and agency, and imposed innovations with steep learning curves are some factors teachers have identified as diminishing a commitment to teaching. Teacher commitment is a critical predictor of teacher turnover and retention (Firestone, 1996; Tsui & Cheng, 1999). As such, methods and practices that sustain teacher commitment are invaluable. This is especially true for science and mathematics teachers who experience higher turnover rates than teachers in all other areas. Due to recent budget cutbacks at the national level, schools by themselves may not be able to provide needed relationships, resources, and services within their school walls to sustain high school science teachers’ retention. Professional support systems outside of the school walls, however, can help. Increasingly, these support systems are playing a pivotal role in maintaining teacher commitment and retention.

Professional Supports Outside School Walls constitutes any relationships, services or resources not primarily sponsored by the school institution. Further, the domain is defined specifically for science teachers as they seek new and crucial experiences to advance their scientific knowledge, expertise in the use of technology, knowledge of education research theory, and expert practice. Professional Supports Outside School Walls are vital to teachers at each stage of the Teacher Professional Continuum because they provide teachers with relationships, services, or resources that address needs related to their unique classroom experiences and specific to their professional level -- induction, mid-career, or veteran. Reviewed literature indicates science teachers and their school institutions receive professional support from one or more of seven support systems: (1) Professional Development Schools; (2) Scientist- teacher Connections; (3) Educator study groups; (4) Local Education Foundations (LEFs); (5) Corporate and local business collaborations; (6) Informal science learning centers (ISLCs); and (7) Professional networks and electronic mailing lists. These organizations, foundations, and networks have been identified as providing numerous subsidies to teachers or their school institutions including: monetary donations, supplies, equipment, technology, professional development opportunities, and/or expert personnel for the expressed purpose of teacher professional learning and support. Professional Supports Outside School Walls 3

 Professional Development Schools simultaneously benefit teachers at multiple stages of the Teacher Professional Continuum (TPC).

 Scientist-teacher connections extend the science teacher’s reach far beyond the school walls to provide authentic information, experience, and mentoring.

 Educator study groups afford science teachers a sustained professional learning context.

 Local Education Foundations (LEFs) subsidize basic school expenditures and thus provide additional support to science teachers.

 Corporate/local business collaborations offer private support to sustain and enhance the quality of high school science programs.

 Informal science learning centers serve as an immediate context for teachers to build their science content knowledge and engage in professional development.

 Professional networks and electronic mailing lists enable science teachers to communicate professional knowledge beyond the traditional school boundary.

Professional Development Schools simultaneously benefit teachers at multiple stages of the Teacher professional Continuum (TPC). A Professional Development School (PDS) is a collaborative partnership in which educational theory, research, and practice are shared between K-12 school faculty, pre-service teachers, and university faculty. Traditionally, PDSs have focused on equipping pre-service teachers with fundamental skills necessary for their successful participation in the field, including classroom management and lesson planning. Presently, however, PDSs have purposefully extended their objective to include benefits to teachers at advanced stages of the TPC (Allen, 2002; Carroll, 2006; Smith & Trexler, 2006). Depending on the organization of the PDS, veteran teachers are provided with opportunities to deepen their pedagogical and content knowledge through active service as mentors, adjunct faculty, co-researchers, and teacher leaders (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Empirical evidence was collected in a case study conducted by Smith and Trexler (2006) of a partnership program in science education co-facilitated by the University of California, Davis. The case study revealed that classroom teachers serving as mentors benefited from the partnership concurrent with undergraduate interns, gaining an “enhanced capacity to teach science” (Smith and Trexler, 2006, p. 29). Additional research studies (Benton & Schillo, 2004; Blackwell, 2004; Edwards, 1998) have also communicated the value of partnerships between universities and K-12 institutions to both pre-service and in-service teachers. Subsequently, PDSs are instrumental to the TPC as a means whereby new science teachers can be recruited, and teachers at more advanced stages (mid-career and veteran) can deepen their professional content and pedagogical knowledge. Professional Supports Outside School Walls 4

Scientist-teacher connections extend the science teacher’s reach far beyond the school walls to provide authentic information, experience, and mentoring. Scientists can be an extremely useful resource to teachers at all stages in the professional continuum. James Bower (National Academy of Sciences, 2006), who has had extensive experience in working with scientists and school districts in the Caltech Precollege Science Initiative, listed three ways in which scientists have been involved as resources to public school teachers. Under the heading of “teacher support,” Bower emphasized the profound effect that scientists can have on teachers’ optimism in changing their teaching styles and/or their adoption of new curricula, by providing “crucial emotional support” (p. 8), and by serving as advocates for teachers within a particular program, school, or community. In the category of “resource allocation,” Bower identified grant writing and communication as necessary activities of scientists to supplement insufficient science resources in the public schools. Finally, Bower described “modeling the scientific process.” Bower found that trained scientists, “properly prepared and with attitudes adjusted,” can easily transfer the “real scientific skills” to teachers: “investigation, critical thinking, imagination, intuition, playfulness, and thinking on your feet and with your hands that are essential to success in scientific research” (p. 8).

Currently, many opportunities exist for teachers and scientists to work together to improve classroom teaching and learning practices. Scientists write grants and receive funds to offer summer programs for teachers, such as those offered by the National Science Foundation through programs, such as their Centers for Teaching and Learning and Research Experiences for Teachers (e.g., Brady, Singh, & Anderson, 2005). Research centers, such as the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (2006) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2006) can link scientists with science teachers. Various forms of “Ask-A-Scientist” programs are offered on the Internet as ways for teachers to acquire current scientific information (see Argonne National Laboratories, 2006). Science education partnerships can provide mentoring from university scientists to teachers through programs such as Teacher Link (North Carolina Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Center, 2005); or CV Oracle (Oracle Administration, n.d.). Mentoring can also be offered by volunteer scientists from professional societies, such as the Botanical Society of America, which pair scientists as electronic mentors to teachers and their students as they work on independent, student-directed scientific projects (Botanical Society of America, 2006).

Many opportunities exist for teachers to benefit from the expertise, experience, and knowledge of scientists. Successful programs are collaborative and involve both scientists and teachers in planning and implementing them. Other characteristics of successful programs are that they are designed to address school-based needs, provide opportunities for both formal and continued informal contact between scientists and teachers, and treat participating teachers as professionals (National Academy of Sciences, 1996). Texas teachers, in particular, have many opportunities to work with scientists as mentors through these types of venues.

Educator study groups afford science teachers a sustained professional learning context. In these small group collaboratives, teachers engage in purposeful Professional Supports Outside School Walls 5 interrogation of their own classroom practices in a focused area of pedagogy or content knowledge (Saavedra, 1996). In a case study examining the impact of study groups on secondary geometry teachers, Arbaugh (2003) confirmed that study groups built professionalism, developed support of curriculum reform, established community and relationships, and permitted connections across theory and practice to be made by teachers. In the wake of the No Child Left Behind reform, numerous school policies involved steep learning curves, necessitated regimented instruction practices, and evoked feelings of a loss in professional agency. Day, Elliot, and Kington (2005) stated that factors such as a sense of community and new systemic initiatives (reform) affected teacher commitment to the profession. A sense of community among teachers typified by sharing classroom practice and peer support enhanced teacher commitment to the profession. Conversely, teacher commitment to the profession is diminished by reform that is poorly implemented. Teacher commitment is a critical predictor of teacher retention (Day et al., 2005). As such, Educator study groups may be instrumental in sustaining the science teacher workforce. Recent studies have also validated study groups as a viable form of teacher professional development (Arbaugh, 2003; Birchack, Connor, Crawford, Kahn, Kaser, Turner, & Short, 1998; Boggs, 1996).

Local Education Foundations (LEFs) subsidize basic school expenditures and thus provide additional support to science teachers. Teachers of science and mathematics exhibit a higher turnover rate than teachers in all other fields (Murnane, Singer, Willet, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991; Shin, 1995). Numerous factors, such as inadequate building facilities, low wages, and a lack of resources, have been identified as reasons for job dissatisfaction among teachers (Buckley, Schneider, & Shang, 2004). Coupled with recent budget cuts in education at the national and state levels, teacher job dissatisfaction continues to loom. To subsidize basic school expenditures teachers and their school institutions are exploring new funding sources. Locally funded and operated, Education Foundations offer equipment, services, and monetary donations. Monetary donations are used to fund such school needs as instructional programs or instructional resources (books and computers). In some instances, monetary donations are used to fund small grants that support teachers to pursue innovative classroom teaching projects. Furthermore, well established LEFs may even fund teaching positions within a school (De Luna, 1998). The provisions of such resources are particularly important in raising the quality of science programs in urban schools that are often under funded. An empirical study by Day et al. (2005) of Australian and English teachers demonstrated the importance of adequate school resources and funding to teachers. Teachers reported the loss of resources or a lack of funding as factors that diminish their level of commitment to the profession. Teacher commitment is a critical predictor of teacher retention (Day et al., 2005). As such, the contributions of Local Education Foundations to science teachers or their school institutions not only play a critical role in improving the quality of education received by science students, but they also play a critical role in the retention of the science teacher workforce.

Corporate/local business collaborations offer private support to sustain and enhance the quality of high school science programs The most common school partnerships being developed across the country are partnerships with corporations and Professional Supports Outside School Walls 6 businesses. The importance of these partnerships is beginning to be noticed by both schools and businesses alike (Ferguson, 2001). As such, procedures for establishing these collaborations are beginning to work their way into the policies of both school districts and businesses. “Increasingly, science educators are recognizing that business can -- and probably should -- play an active role in effecting change” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1998). Many national organizations help guide policy in science education, like the Corporate Council for Mathematics and Science Education, the National Science Resources Center, the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education, the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. These organizations work closely with business to solicit input about science education reform issues. They also include representatives from the scientific and business communities on their advisory boards (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1998).

Teachers and their schools seek private support from corporate and local businesses. This support can consist of monetary support to purchase new scientific equipment to be used in the classroom, to make capital improvements for schools, and to maintain current operations (Zimmer, 2003). Monetary support can also be used to fund scholarships for teachers to attend workshops and conferences and to pay summer internships (Ferrell, 2005). In some instances, corporate and local businesses provide internships for teachers. One such example is Advance Micro Devices (AMD), a member of the Industry Initiatives in Science and Math Education (IISME) program. The IISME program provides summer internships with local corporations and businesses where teachers receive high-tech, hands-on experience, as well as stipends to help teachers afford the high cost of living in the local Bay Area. The IISME data reflects, “IISME teachers have a higher retention rate and better overall job satisfaction than non-IISME teachers” (Weisbaum, 2001). AMD also supports the New Teacher Project, which provides support for over 1600 induction-year teachers (Ferrell, 2005). Private support from corporate and local business can also provide donations of scientific equipment, and textbooks. Finally, corporate and local business support schools and teachers by providing expert personnel. Expert personnel can enrich the education of teachers and their classrooms by serving as mentors, guest speakers, tutors, and volunteers. “Schools alone cannot provide quality education…organizations alone cannot provide quality education either. However, through purposefully collaborative efforts schools and organizations together can create quality schools” (Hirota, 2004). Current trends suggest that collaborations between corporate and local business and science educators will continue to evolve, thus sustaining and enhancing the quality of high school science programs.

Informal science learning centers serve as an immediate context for teachers to build their science content knowledge and engage in professional development. The National Research Council (1996) recommends improvements in science teaching. Often the instructional practices teachers use to teach science are related to their personal perceptions of science (National Research Council, 1996). These perceptions can be accurate or inaccurate. Informal Science Learning Centers (ISLCs), including zoos, aquaria, botanical gardens, national parks, museums, and science centers (Falk & Professional Supports Outside School Walls 7

Dierking, 1998) such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Johnson Space Center, play an instrumental role in the continued learning of science teachers. ISLCs serve as a places where teachers can construct deeper understanding of content in their subject area and engage in meaningful professional development. In-service and pre-service teachers alike are provided “with standards-based curriculum materials, a chance to find out more about field trip programs, and opportunities to network with other educators” (Sweeny & Lynds, 2001, p. 127), on significant issues in education like subject integration and the identification of common themes across multiple disciplines. In general, ISLCs provide occasions for adults to learn about current developments in the fields of science and science education reform. Adults, including teachers and parents, learn about science through collections, exhibitions, text panels, hands-on-experiences, supplemental programs and staff expertise. Informal Science Learning Centers grant equitable access to science learning to all members of the community within their service area (Sweeny & Lynds, 2001). This may be particularly important to teachers in urban schools who often have limited resources to teach science. In addition, ISLCs may help to increase science teacher retention by supplying teacher with resources to teach science. Teachers report that a lack of resources decreases their commitment to teaching. Teachers with low commitment levels are more likely to leave the profession (Day et al., 2005).

Professional networks and electronic mailing lists enable science teachers to communicate professional knowledge beyond the traditional school boundary. Teachers at all stages of the TPC benefit from the support offered by colleagues within their schools. However, teachers also require access to wider communities of discourse (Feimen-Nemser, 2001) that extend further than communities involving their immediate colleagues. Professional networks and electronic mailing lists allow science teachers to engage in professional discourse with other teachers across district and state boundaries. Examples of professional networks and electronic mailing lists include both national and local teacher networks, teacher professional associations and electronic mailing lists (Texas Association of Biology Teachers (TABT); Associated Chemistry Teachers of Texas (ACT2); Science Teachers Association of Texas (STAT); Teachers.net; Science Learning Network (www.sln.org); and NSTA Community (http://www.nsta.org/listservsabout). Through in-person meetings and electronic databases, networks provide a context were teachers can “explore and discuss topics of interest, pursue common goals, share information, and address common concerns” (Boyle, Lamprianou & Boyle, 2004, p. 5). More specifically, Suppovitz and Turner (2000) identified networks as a means for teachers to make the necessary connections for both individual and joint implementation of inquiry-based teaching and learning (Khourey-Bowers, Dinko, & Hart, 2005), recommended in state and national science educational standards (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, 1996; National Science Teachers Association). Additionally, learning in networks can diminish the natural resistance to change and innovation often recognized in experienced (veteran) teachers (Van Driel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001). Finally, teacher networks, when coupled with other induction year factors, positively affect teacher retention (Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005). Since the science TPC experiences higher turnover rates than teachers in most other subject areas, encouragement of science teachers to participate in Professional Supports Outside School Walls 8 professional networks and electronic mailing lists may be particularly influential in reducing attrition rates.

Conclusion Cutbacks in resources, funding, lowered classroom autonomy and agency, and imposed innovations with steep learning curves diminish teachers’ commitment to teaching. Due to systemic events occurring beyond their control, some schools are not equipped to provide science teachers with the relationships, services, or resources necessary to encourage teachers’ commitment to their jobs. Teacher commitment is a critical predictor of teacher retention. Professional Supports Outside of Schools Walls can maintain teacher commitment and thus increase teacher retention. Professional Development Schools allow both induction and veteran year teachers the opportunity to enhance their understanding and practice of science. Similar to Professional Development Schools, Scientist-teacher connections allow science teachers opportunities to perfect their understanding and practice of science. However, connections to scientists also provide teachers with advocates and emotional support needed to change teaching styles or adopt new curricula. Educator study groups are also important to maintaining teacher commitment because they establish community and provide a consistent context for teachers to discuss new curriculum reform. Lack of the proper support systems to help teachers adjust to and implement new curriculum reform can lead to diminished teacher commitment and lowered retention rates. Local Education Foundations and Corporate and local business partnerships are essential in providing science teachers with the monies to buy new technology or try innovative classroom practices. Informal science learning centers offer teachers professional development and standards-based curriculum materials. Professional networks and electronic mailing list provide science teachers with a context to investigate topics of interest and discuss shared concerns beyond communities involving their immediate colleagues. Collectively, Professional Supports Outside School Walls are instrumental in the preservation and enhancement of both the economic and professional integrity of school institutions. Furthermore, these supports connect teachers to relationships, services, and resources that address their professional needs and help maintain their commitment to the profession. Purposeful engagement in Professional Supports Outside School Walls may increases job satisfaction and thus the retention of science teachers.

References

Allen, R. (2002). Teacher education at the community college: partnership and collaboration. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED467 986).

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC: Author. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for Professional Supports Outside School Walls 9

all Americans. Washington, DC: Author. Arbaugh, F. (2003). Study groups as a form of professional development for secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 139-163.

Argonne National Laboratories. (2006). Ask a scientist. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/aasinfo.htm

Benton, C. J., & Schillo, L. M. (2004). School and university collaborative partners: A model collegial support of literacy and professional development. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 30-37.

Birchak, B., Connor, C., Crawford, K.M., Kahn, L.H., Kaser, S., Turner, S., & Short, K.G. (1998). Teacher study groups: Building community through dialogue and reflection. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Blackwell, P.J. (2004). Putting the system together: Lessons learned by Eisenhower Initial Teacher Professional Development Programs. Action in Teacher Education, 25(4), 38-47.

Boggs, H. (1996, October). Launching school change through teacher study groups: An action research project. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Mid- western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Botanical Society of America. (2006). Scientific inquiry through plants. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.plantbiology.org/

Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1-27.

Brady, T., Singh, A., & Anderson, M. (2005). Enabling the nation’s future through discovery, learning, and innovation. A presentation at Grinnell College, April 2, 2005. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.nsf.gov

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004). The effects of school facility quality on teacher retention in urban school districts. Retrieved February 17, 2006, from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/teacherretention.pdf

Carroll, D. M. (2006). Developing joint accountability in university-school teacher education partnerships. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 23-34.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, (55)5, 206-11. Professional Supports Outside School Walls 10

Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 563- 567.

De Luna, P. (1998). Local Education Foundations. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 385-389.

Edwards, A. (1998). Mentoring student teachers in primary schools: Assisting student teachers to become learners. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 47- 62.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1998, July). Free-choice learning: an alternative term to informal Learning? Informal Learning Environments Research Newsletter, 2(1), 2.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teacher's College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Ferguson, M. V. E. (2001). Partnerships 2000: A decade of growth and change. National Association of Partners in Education, 121.

Ferrell, D. (2005). Educating Tomorrow's Workforce, SIA’s 2005 Report on the U.S. Semiconductor Industry’s Commitment to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education in Grades K-12 in the United States. San Jose, CA: The Semiconductor Industry Association.

Firestone, W. A. (1996). Images of teaching and proposals for reform: A comparison of ideas from cognitive and organizational research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 209-235.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. (2006). SEP scientists and volunteers. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.fhcrc.org/science/education/educators/sep/scientists

Fuller, E. (2002). Elements of the demand for Texas public school teachers. Austin, TX: State Board for Educator Certification.

Hirota, J. M. (2004). Partnership and innovation: New Century High Schools in New York. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their classrooms with qualified teachers? Washington DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved December 19, 2006 from, http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/ingersoll-final.pdf Professional Supports Outside School Walls 11

Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Khourey-Bowers, C., Dinko, R. L., & Hart, R.G. (2005). Influence of a shared leadership model in creating a school culture of inquiry and collegiality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 2-24.

Murname, R. J., Singer, J. D., Willett, J. B., Kemple, J. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1991). Who will teach? Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Scientists and science education reform: Myths, methods, and madness. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.nationalacademies.org/rise/backg2a.htm

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2006). Experience NASA. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.nasa.gov/

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (1996). The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

National Science Teacher Association. (1998). Teacher resources. NSTA position statement. Retrieved September 29, 2006 from http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=24 North Carolina Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Center. (2005). Teacher link. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.ncsmt.org/prog.teach .html

Oracle Administration. (n.d.) Science education partnerships: Corvallis School District 509J, Oregon State University, and Hewlett Packard. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.seps.org/cvoracle

Sweeny, J. K., & Lynds, S. E. (2001). Reform and museums: Enhancing science education in formal and informal settings. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Professional Development Leadership and the Diverse Learner (pp. 125-131). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Smith, M. H., & Trexler, C. J. (2006). A university-school partnership model: providing stakeholders with benefits to enhance science literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 23-34.

Saavedra, E. (1996). Teachers study groups: Context for transformative learning and action. Theory into Practice, 35(4), 271-277. Professional Supports Outside School Walls 12

Shin, H. (1995). Estimating future teacher supply: Any policy implications for educational reform? International Journal of Educational Reform, 4(4), 422-433.

Tsui, K. T., & Cheng, Y. C. (1999). School organizational health and teacher commitment: A contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(3), 249-268.

Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.

Weisbaum, K. S., & Huang, D. (2001). IISME Teacher Retention and Program Impact 1985-2000. Cupertino, CA: Industry Initiatives for Science and Math Education. Retrieved February 9, 2007 from, http://iisme.org/PDFfiles/Newsletter.pdf

Zimmer, R. W., Krop, C., & Brewer, D. J. (2003). Private resources in public schools: Evidence from a pilot study. Journal of Education Finance, 28(4), 485-521.