New Hampshire State Board of Education

Report to the New Hampshire State Board of Education

August 21, 2002

Ensuring access for all educators to high quality professional development that results in improved student learning. Professional Development Center Task Force

Coordinator: Tondy Higginbotham, Administrator Professional Development Bureau

Facilitator: Dr. Pamela L. Clark, Independent Consultant

Task Force Members Cheryl Baker Plymouth State College Dennise Bartelo Plymouth State College Fritz Bell Creative Classrooms Jane Bergeron SERESC* Chrys Bouvier Department of Education (Ed TECH) Dan Cherry Department of Education (GATES) Cyndy Currier SERESC Mary Ford Department of Education (SPED) Suzy Gifford Department of Education (PD) Gary Guzouskas Department of Education (BSLI) Mary Heath Assistant Superintendent, SAU 19 Cathy Higgins Department of Education David Hill Keene State College Virginia Irwin Department of Education (Career DEV) Susan Izard Department of Education (SPED Assess) Barney Keenan College for Lifelong Learning Lori Langlois NCEF** Ruth Littlefield Department of Education (SPED) James Nourse Upper Valley Teacher Institute Grace Nelson NEA-NH JoAnne Ollerenshaw Department of Education (Title II PD) Dottie Oliver Department of Education Jackie Oros Teacher, Pollard Elementary School Lorraine Patusky Department of Education (NHEIAP) Sandra Plocharczyk SERESC Stuart Robertson Teacher, Pelham Elementary School Marie Ross Assistant Superintendent, SAU 30 (Laconia) Mathew Treamer NCEF/GSDLN Lyonel Tracy Superintendent, SAU 52 (Portsmouth)

*Southeastern Regional Education Service Center, Inc. **North Country Education Foundation

2 This report was written by Dr. Pamela L. Clark with assistance from Tondy Higginbotham, Administrator Professional Development Bureau, NH Department of Education and members of the Professional Development Center Task Force. INTRODUCTION

Developing the talents and abilities of young people through education is an awesome responsibility. Children’s lives are shaped to a significant degree by the kind of treatment they receive at the hands of teachers and administrators. Positive experiences can help a child to new heights of knowledge, skill, and self-esteem; while negative experiences can turn children off from learning, limit their development, and seriously diminish their self-esteem. As a state and as local school districts, we need to ensure that the individuals who assume the roles of teachers and administrators possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that will enable them to be constructive forces in the lives of our children. In October 2000, the New Hampshire State Board of Education responded to the growing concern about the shortage of educators by launching an initiative aimed at identifying means for enhancing the recruitment and retention of quality educators. Educational stakeholders participating in this initiative identified access for all educators to quality professional development as essential to the state and local efforts to recruit and retain educators. They articulated the need to provide more diversified means of training for pre-service educators, systematic and effective coaching and support for beginning educators, and ongoing opportunities for collegial sharing and learning for experienced educators. In the fall 2001, the State Board of Education authorized the establishment of a Professional Development Center Task Force and charged it with formulating recommendations relating to the design and implementation of a statewide system for professional development delivery. The Professional Development Center Task Force began meeting in January 2002 and continued to meet through the month of June 2002. This report contains the results of the Task Force’s work. Within the report, information is presented in the following sequence:  The Need for Professional Development,  Recommended Model for Delivery of Professional Development  Recommendations for Implementation Process  Summary & Conclusions

THE NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Federal, State, and Local Focus on Professional Development Ensure that all At the national, state, and local levels, professional development teachers are able to has risen to the forefront of attention. Recognizing that high quality participate in high- professional development is crucial to school improvement initiatives quality professional and the enhancement of student learning, policy makers at the federal, development so that state, and local levels are raising the standards and requirements for they can improve professional development and shifting resources to increase support for their practice and professional development activities. enhance student learning

3 In Pursuit of Quality Teaching: Five Key Strategies for Policymakers In its 2001 report, the Education Commission of the States identified high quality professional development as one of five key strategies for improving the recruitment and retention of quality educators. The report recommends that state policy makers “ensure that all teachers are able to participate in high-quality professional development so that they can improve their practice and enhance student learning” by:  Setting high standards for professional development and establishing policies that support those standards;  Ensuring that professional development is a core component of school reform initiatives across the state;  Expanding teachers’ access—particularly in hard-to-staff schools and isolated rural districts-—to effective professional development opportunities; and  Enabling schools and districts to incorporate professional development into teachers’ routine work.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 2001 The Act of 2001 places strong emphasis upon the development of highly qualified teachers and administrators. The Act is aimed at insuring the success of all children through the placement of highly qualified teachers in every classroom and highly qualified principals in every school. The Act requires that federal funds be used to strengthen educator recruitment and retention and particularly to provide professional development to educators that increases their content knowledge and promotes the development of strong teaching skills. Even more specifically, the act requires the state and local districts to make available to all educators professional development that will enable educators to meet the needs of all students including those who are economically disadvantaged, have limited English proficiency, or are members of migrant families.

New Hampshire ED 512 Professional Development Master Plan and Recertification In 1999, the New Hampshire State Department of Education began the implementation of its comprehensive new standards for professional development master plans and educator recertification. These standards are grounded in research on effective practices in adult development and professional learning. The standards require districts, schools, and individual educators to link professional development tightly to district/school/personal improvement plans and student learning. New Hampshire districts have responded by investing significant energy in designing local professional development master plans that meet these standards and are now in the midst of implementing their new plans.

State and Local Commitment to Student Learning No Child Left Behind is now the nationally recognized short title for the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) signed into law by President George W. Bush. In New Hampshire, ‘No child left behind’ has long been the aim of public school educators. ‘No child left behind’ is a moral imperative that inspires educators to work unrelentingly to help each and every student to succeed in learning. Fulfilling this

4 imperative requires educators with passion, commitment, knowledge, and skill. Building and sustaining that passion, commitment, knowledge, and skill requires deliberate and continuous nurturing and support and professional development is an essential medium for providing this nurturing and support. Professional development kindles and rekindles passion, builds and strengthens commitment, cultivates and expands knowledge, and develops and enhances skills. As a first step in helping to insure that children encounter high quality teachers in every classroom throughout their school years, the New Hampshire State Department of Education and the New Hampshire educational community have been engaged in the work of redefining the competency standards for each and every certification endorsement. These competency standards specify the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are requisite for initial and continuing certification for teachers and administrators. Competence in teaching and leading is not a fixed state of being; competence is something that develops and expands over time. To become highly competent, all educators need continuous, high quality professional development. Continuous changes in the nature and needs of the students, advancements in technology, and new information emerging from educational research make continuous learning a necessity for every educator.

The Link between Professional Development and Student Learning

Historically, educational organizations and professional development providers have not systematically measured the impact of professional development on learning. More recently, effort has been made to assess the impact of professional development on classroom practice and student learning. These studies are confirming that there is a positive connection between high quality professional development, changes in classroom instruction, and improved student learning. One such study was completed as a part of the Local Systemic Change Initiative of the National Science Foundation project run by the Allegheny Schools Science and Technology (ASSET), Inc. (1995- 2000). Through this project, ASSET provided science curriculum modules and professional development to teachers in 30 different school districts. The project documented changes in teachers’ instructional behaviors and significant improvement in students’ science achievement. Data revealed a positive correlation between the quality and quantity of professional development completed by the teacher and the level of investigative science instruction used by the teacher in the classroom and a positive correlation between the length of involvement in the project and the achievement of students. Teachers who participated over a period of three years in intensive professional development that included opportunities for guided practice in the classroom appeared more confident in their ability to teach science, displayed a better understanding of science, presented more accurate information to students, used more inquiry techniques in their classrooms, gave greater independence to students in their learning, and more frequently facilitated rather than dictated learning. On a broader scale, federal initiatives including the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project are requiring professional development providers to assess their professional development programs on four levels—participants’ satisfaction, gains in participants’ knowledge, changes in participants’ classroom practices, and

5 improvements in student learning. An illustrative example is the Rigby Professional Development Program, a program designed to improve students’ reading and writing through the development of teachers’ ability to teach a balanced literacy program in their classrooms. An evaluation of the Rigby Professional Development Program by the Office of Evaluation Research (OER) (University of Illinois at Chicago) revealed high participant satisfaction as well as statistically significant gains in participants’ knowledge all eight components of the balanced literacy approach and in participants’ implementation of the balanced literacy techniques in their classrooms. Most importantly, students in these classrooms evidenced statistically significant gains in the use of reading strategies and in mastery of the writing process on pre/post test measures. The Center for Resource Management (CRM), an independent service provider located in New Hampshire conducted an similar multiple-level evaluation of the First Steps Program, a literacy program which was being implemented in a set of schools in Colorado. The CRM study yielded results similar to those obtained by OER in its evaluation of the Rigby Program. (See Appendix A for a summary of an additional study of the effect of professional development on student learning.) The federal, state, and local initiatives cited here in combination with documented evidence of the link between high quality professional development and improved student learning create a powerful mandate for ensuring that every New Hampshire educator has ready and continuous access to high quality professional development. An informal survey conducted by the Professional Development Center Task Force revealed that while numerous professional development initiatives (in excess of 100) are underway in the state, educators throughout the state do not share the same level of access to professional development opportunities. The absence of a central clearinghouse for information about professional development opportunities severely limits the ability of educators to locate and access the specific professional development they need. A lack of systematic communication and coordination between professional development providers leads to duplication of efforts and less efficient/effective use of available funding. While some professional development providers make an effort to take programs to various areas of the state, professional development opportunities continue to be concentrated around existing professional development providers (e.g., NCEF, SERESC), colleges, and universities leaving some areas of the state under-served. Geographic barriers hinder educators’ access to professional development sites as do limitations of time and money. Educators throughout New Hampshire would benefit from a coordinated, systemic, statewide approach to professional development delivery.

RECOMMENDED MODEL FOR THE DELIVERY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Research

In preparation for developing its recommendations, members of the Professional Development Task Force interviewed representatives of professional development centers in four other states (California, Florida, Maryland, and New York), held

6 conversations with representatives of independent professional development service providers within our state, and solicited input from teachers from one of the Southeastern Regional Education Service Center, Inc. (SERESC) Lab Schools. The following characteristics were common to all of the out-of-state centers:  The primary focus of all of the centers is the improvement of student learning through professional development aimed at enhancing curriculum, instruction, and assessment.  The centers exist to foster and facilitate collaboration and coordination across districts/schools in the provision of professional development such that funds are used effectively and efficiently.  The centers directly provide professional development as well as assist districts/schools in developing their own professional development opportunities.

Presently North Country Education Foundation (NCEF) and SERESC function as professional development centers for their respective regions of the state. NCEF and SERESC function in ways similar to those of the out-of-state centers described above. Both agencies engage in partnerships with institutions of higher learning and school districts and sponsor or co-sponsor a significant array of professional development opportunities. Both agencies model the benefits of collaboration and coordination in service delivery. Creative Classrooms, Inc. is another long-standing in-state provider of professional development. Members of that organization felt that they and the educators they serve would benefit from the development of some form of coordinated “clearing house” through which information about professional development could be researched and disseminated. Further, they felt that centers could bring an increased capacity for conducting educational research which would help to strengthen and add credibility to their efforts. Several teachers from one of the SERESC Lab schools were asked what they envisioned as potential benefits of having a statewide network of professional development centers. They felt that a statewide, network of professional development centers would:  Provide a means for them to find quality professional development opportunities offered in the state that matched their professional growth plans and learning needs;  Provide a vehicle through which teachers from different districts could get together to share their ideas and reflect on their practices with a wider array of colleagues;  Be staffed by people who had an understanding of the needs of New Hampshire educators and the New Hampshire recertification process; and  Provide increased opportunity for extended professional development programs (more than “one-shot” workshops). The teachers saw the development of a statewide system of professional development centers as a very positive step in the direction of respecting them as professionals.

7 Recommendations

Statewide Professional Development Center Network The Task Force recognizes and sincerely applauds the many professional development initiatives underway throughout the state but strongly feels that these efforts can be enhanced through the development and implementation of a statewide systemic approach to professional development. As a state and as local schools/districts, we will make greater progress if we unite in our common mission to improve learning for all students and if we act collaboratively to insure that all educators have access to high quality professional development. To that end, the Task Force recommends to the State Board of Education that over the next three years, a network of ten centers for professional development and school support be established throughout the state for the express purpose of insuring equitable and universal access to high quality professional development. The ten centers should be geographically distributed in such a way as to make professional development available within a 30-mile radius of any educator.

Mission of the Professional Development Center Network The Professional Development Center Network will exist to promote excellence in leadership, teaching, and learning. Its central aim will be to ensure access for all educators to high quality professional development that results in improved student learning. The Network Centers will work collaboratively with local school districts to build and enhance the capacity of educators to  Collect, manage, analyze, interpret, and use data effectively; in order to  Clearly identify student-specific learning needs; and to  Design and deliver effective curriculum, instruction, and assessment in response to those needs. The Network Centers will endeavor to  Insure equitable professional development support for everyone;  Align resources and services with local district/school needs and state and federal requirements.

Role and Function of the Professional Development Centers In order for each Center to be able to respond the needs of the school districts it serves, the Task Force recommends that the specific form services would take should remain to a great extent the prerogative of the individual centers. Center functions could include (but would not be limited to):  Providing professional development workshops, seminars, and courses;  Sponsoring and facilitating collegial meetings and study groups;  Identifying master teachers, consultants, and other professional development providers;  Assisting schools/districts in the design and delivery of professional development programs that effectively support their school improvement plans;  Providing support and assistance to “schools in need of improvement;”

8  Assisting schools/district in the development and use of effective methods for assessing the impact of professional development on participants’ satisfaction, participant learning, classroom practice, and student learning;  Coordinating collaborative professional development planning and delivery;  Providing physical space with access to current technology for school/district professional learning activities;  Enhancing the dissemination of quality research-supported educational programs;  Supporting mentoring and induction programs;  Providing support for educators seeking certification through any of the alternative processes;  Providing technical assistance to districts in obtaining grants to support school improvement efforts;  Serving as a lab for field testing new ideas and innovations;  Maintaining a web presence to communicate about professional development and school improvement activities taking place in the Centers  Promoting the educational profession to the public.

Standards for Professional Development Center Services The Task Force recommends that the Centers model their services upon the professional development standards promulgated by the National Staff Development Council. These standards define high quality professional development as professional development that:  Prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students; create safe, orderly, and supportive learning environments; and hold high expectations for their academic achievement.  Deepens educators’ content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately.  Provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders.  Uses disaggregated data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement.  Uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact.  Prepares educators to apply research to decision making.  Uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal.  Applies knowledge about human learning and change.  Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate.  Organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school and district.  Requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement.  Requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration.

9 Evaluation of Professional Development Center Impacts The Task Force believes that effective regular evaluation of Center services is fundamental to the continuous improvement of services, accountability to the stakeholders, and most particularly to assuring that Center services are in fact improving learning for students. The Task Force, therefore, recommends that each Center be required to establish a plan for regularly assessing the quality and the impact of its services. The plan should include, but not be limited to specific strategies for assessing:  Participant satisfaction;  Changes in participants’ knowledge;  Changes in district/school/classroom practices; and  Impact on student learning. The plan should also outline strategies for data collection, maintenance, analysis, and reporting.

Governance, Management, and Staffing With respect to governance, management, and staffing, the Task Force recommends that  A Statewide Professional Development Collaborative Council be established to provide oversight of the mission for the entire network of Centers. The Collaborative should include representatives from the New Hampshire Department of Education, New Hampshire School Administrators Association, New Hampshire Association of School Principals, New Hampshire School Boards Association, NEA-NH, AFT-NH, Institutions of Higher Learning, administrators, principals, and teachers.  An Advisory Board be established for each Center. The Advisory Board would provide guidance and oversight to insure that the Center remained aligned with the mission and to insure quality services. The Advisory Board should include representatives from local school districts (e.g., superintendents, principals, special education directors, professional development chairpersons, teachers, para-educators, or others).  A Professional Development Coordinator position be created at the Department of Education with express responsibility for directing and coordinating the Statewide Professional Development Center Network. (See below for more details regarding this position.)  Each Center should have a site coordinator and be staffed with any or all of the following ( or with other staff as appropriate to regional need):  Consultants,  “Master” teachers,  Faculty or administrators in residence,  Project teams,  Granite State network staff,  Clerical staff.  To the maximum extent possible, established professional development sites and collaboratives should form the foundation for the Centers.

Professional Development Coordinator

10 The Task Force believes that the establishment of a coordinator position at the Department of Education is pivotal to the success of the Statewide Professional Development Center Network. The actualization of the vision and recommendations contained in this report will require the full time attention of an administrative leader. The exact details of the classification of this position within the Department of Education should be the decision of the Commissioner and his cabinet. The Task Force recommends that 1. This position be established at a level that enables the individual to work collaboratively with the various Bureau Administrators and across Divisions; 2. The minimum qualifications for the position include:  Masters Degree  Experience as an educator;  NH Certification as an educator;  Competence in the use of information technology;  Effective written and verbal communication skills;  Strong, positive interpersonal skills;  Knowledge of school roles, functions, and organization;  Strong organizational and coordination skills;  Demonstrated ability to establish and sustain professional networks;  Knowledgeable about professional development research and evaluation. 3. The duties of the coordinator include, but not be limited to:  Conducting regular meetings with the Statewide Collaborative;  Building/facilitating communication among the centers;  Assisting in the coordination and implementation of the Department of Education’s Long Range Professional Development Plan  Coordinating professional development activities across the centers;  Ensuring equitable distribution of resources, services, and professional development offering across centers;  Maintaining the website and technology network;  Managing information sharing;  Managing budget;  Maintaining continuous action plan;  Coordinating research activities;  Keeping abreast of changes in federal/state rules and laws relevant to professional development. 4. Funding for this position be established without loss of other positions to the Department.

Funding for Professional Development Centers Task Force members from the identified a variety of existing and potential future sources of funding for the establishment of the centers and for specific forms of professional development. These sources include federal and state grants and entitlements as well as grants from private foundations. Most notably, these funds include the monies associated with the state’s technology initiative which over a period of the next three years, will fund the establishment of 10 “local education support

11 centers” (The technology grant utilizes this term to describe the centers; it should be understood that the actual functions of the local education support centers are similar to those defined by this task force for the professional development centers.) The local education support centers funded through the technology grant could easily expand beyond the technology focus to encompass the aims of the professional development centers. The Statewide Professional Development Center Network would provide an established, coordinated means for ensuring the equitable distribution of these funds to the various regions of the state and for facilitating efficient and effective use of the funds. (Please see Appendix B for a table summarizing these sources and the kinds of activities the funds can support.) The Task Force recommends that the Department of Education continue to explore funding options for the centers and develop a more specific plan for the funding of the ten regional professional development centers.

Funding for the Professional Development Coordinator The Task Force recommends that funding be added to the Department of Education budget to support the position and functions of the Professional Development Coordinator Position. Funding for this position should not result from the elimination of other positions at the department. The Task Force estimates the cost of this position and its necessary supports (salary and benefits) to be @$150,000.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Recommendations

Establishment of Professional Development Coordinator Position The Task Force recommends that this position be established and filled by July 1, 2003.

Establishment of the Statewide Professional Development Collaborative Council The Task Force recommends that the establishment of the Statewide Professional Development Collaborative Council be the first action of the Professional Development Coordinator and that this action be completed no later than December 1, 2003. The Task Force believes it is imperative that the development of the Statewide Professional Development Network be guided and shaped by Center stakeholders in order to be certain that the Centers are responsive to stakeholder needs and developed in collaboration with stakeholder initiatives. The stakeholder groups would include— 1. Professional Development Consumers—including district/school administrators, teachers, other certified or licensed personnel, para-educators, support staff, parents, students, and others. 2. Professional Development Providers—including colleges, universities, independent consultants, private professional development providers, professional associations, and others. 3. Professional Development Policy Makers—including the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education, legislators, and others.

12 4. Community/Taxpayers—including parents, community members, business leaders, and others.

Establishment of the Statewide Professional Development Center Network

The Department of Education has prepared a comprehensive, multi-year technology plan which will lead by 2005 to the development of ten “local education support centers.” With the infusion of money from other federal/state initiatives, private foundations, and other sources, these centers would expand their focus and become the professional development centers described in this report. The technology plan would thus provide the foundation for the establishment of the Statewide Professional Development Center Network wherein state of the art technology would be used to leverage regional and local professional development efforts. The following excerpt from the grant details the timeline for the development of these centers (A copy of the full plan is available on the NH Department of Education Website)—

 By July 1, 2003, E2T2 competitive grants will fund up to four local educational support centers, initially focused on professional development for the use of technology, throughout the state. Through this competitive process, consortia consisting of at least two high poverty school districts, other school districts, institutes of higher education, vocational centers, non-profit organizations, and other entities will be selected for this first cohort. Each center will be awarded $250,000 from E2T2 for the first year of operation. These four centers will then be offered an opportunity to reapply for $150,000 from E2T2 in the second year and $100,000 from E2T2 in the third year. It is expected that these centers will actively seek other sources of revenue to operate beyond year three.  Subsequent year two and year three awards will be contingent upon successful agency performance as determined by contract reports and a midyear monitoring visit by NHDOE. A Request for Continuation (RFC) process will be used to solicit annual program and spending plans necessary to support subsequent year contracts. Funding for these centers will be in the spring of each year.  By July 1, 2004, E2T2 competitive grants will fund up to a total of seven local educational support centers throughout the state. There will be four local educational support centers from Cohort I and an additional three centers, forming Cohort II, which will follow the same funding cycle as Cohort I.  By July 1, 2005, E2T2 competitive grants will fund up to a total of ten local educational support centers throughout the state. This will put 94% of all NH school districts within a 30-mile radius of at least one local educational support center. The remaining 6% of school districts, located in the north of the state, would be within less than a 50 mile radius of the nearest local educational support center.

The Professional Development Coordinator would oversee and orchestrate the evolution of the local educational support centers into Professional Development Centers in collaboration with other members of the Department of Education and with the advisory guidance of the Statewide Professional Development Collaborative Council.

13 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

The preceding pages of this report present the recommendations of the Professional Development Center Task Force. Those recommendations are focused around the development of a Statewide Professional Development Center Network to consist of ten Centers geographically distributed in such a way as to make high quality professional development readily accessible to all New Hampshire educators. High quality professional development in the context of this report is professional development that conforms to the standards of the National Staff Development Council and more importantly, is professional development that enables educators to enhance their professional practice and to improve learning for all students. Members of the Task Force include representatives from school districts (administrators, principals, teachers), colleges and universities, private professional development providers, and the Department of Education. As members of this Task Force, we share in the belief that a Statewide Professional Development Center Network would provide benefits to us all. We believe that the Statewide Professional Development Center Network will leverage the efforts of all of us to provide high quality professional development that results in improved student learning by:  Providing closer, more convenient access for educators to professional development;  Facilitating a more “grassroots” approach to improving schools that provides for local diagnosis and an individualized approach to improvement;  Creating a means and a context for ongoing professional discussion and collegial sharing within and across school districts;  Providing a structure which will promote and facilitate communication, collaboration, and coordination among professional development providers;  Creating an information center that enables educators to locate professional development opportunities within the state;  Reducing costs to districts through the more effective and efficient use of funds; and  Helping districts to maximize the benefits of their investment in professional development.

Our experiences as educators and professional development providers tell us that New Hampshire educators value and find great benefit in collegial sharing and professional dialogue but find those opportunities limited by insufficient resources (time and money) and hampered by the lack of a structure, context, and means for that sharing and dialogue to occur. We believe that the creation of the Statewide Professional Development Center Network would help to resolve these limitations by creating a vehicle for a more effective and efficient use of resources that will result in greater equity of access to professional development for all educators and by providing a formal structure and context for collegial sharing and dialogue. The insufficiency of time available to educators to participate in professional development is an issue that requires further attention. The present school day and school year provide only limited time for educators to engage in the kinds of professional development that will enhance their professional practice and result in improved student learning. This Task Force urges the

14 State Board of Education to make the issue of time for professional development a priority for future study. As a Task Force, we stand firmly behind the recommendations contained in this report. We believe that the Statewide Professional Development Center Network holds the potential to enhance teaching and learning throughout our state. We believe that improved access to high quality professional development will improve educators’ sense of efficacy, increase their sense of professional and personal satisfaction, and thereby, increase their willingness to enter and continue in the profession. To these ends we respectfully request that the New Hampshire State Board of Education adopt the findings and recommendations in this report.

15 References Cited

Education Commission of the States. 2000. In Pursuit of Quality Teaching: Five Key Strategies for Policymakers. Denver, Colorado.

National Staff Development Council. 2001. Standards for Staff Development. Oxford, Ohio.

OER Associates Evaluation Research Consultants. 2000. Developing Literacy First: Evidence of Effectiveness. Technical Report No. 662. Barrington, Illinois.

Raghavan, K., Coken-Regev, S., & Strobel, S. 2001. Student Outcomes in a Local Systemic Change Project. School Science & Mathematics, December 2001, Volume 101, Issue 8.

16 APPENDIX A eMINTS – (enhancing Missouri's Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies) - transforms elementary classrooms into places for learning where teachers and students use multimedia tools to better understand the world, work together and achieve at new and higher levels.

The goal of the eMINTS Program is to support Missouri educators as they integrate multimedia technology into inquiry-based, student-centered, interdisciplinary, collaborative teaching practices that result in improved student performance, increased parent involvement and enriched instructional effectiveness. eMINTS is administered by MOREnet under contract from Missouri's Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). MOREnet, Missouri's state education network, is part of the University of Missouri System. MOREnet provides Internet connectivity, training and technical support to Missouri's K-12 schools, colleges and universities, libraries, teaching hospitals and clinics, state government and other affiliates.

An evaluation study of the eMINTS program in Missouri (Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, 2002) examined the impact of constructivist practices on the state's mandatory academic performance tests, the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP).

Through the eMINTS program, teachers received over 250 hours of professional development focused on inquiry-based teaching practices integrating technology in the classroom. Every other week instructional specialists visited teachers to assist with the implementation of what they were learning in the professional development sessions. Teachers also engaged in monthly cluster meetings with others in their geographic region and participated in electronic forums for emailing questions, ideas, lesson plans, and teaching tips. To evaluate this professional development, teachers were observed twice. A 76% increase in student-centered, inquiry-based teaching practices was noted. (Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, 2002).

The evaluation of the 2001 MAP scores of 6,100 students in grades three and four from 44 school districts across the state were examined. The MAP tests covers communication arts and science in grade three and mathematics and social studies in grade four. Scores from students within eMINTS classrooms were compared with those of students within the same building, but not in eMINTS classrooms, as well as with students from other schools. "The differences between eMINTS and non-eMINTS students are seen most clearly in the fourth grade. eMINTS students in the fourth grade scored higher than non- eMINTS students in every analysis. In contrast, third grade eMINTS students scored consistently higher than non-eMINTS students, but few of these differences were statistically significant." (Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, 2002, p. 30) see: http://emints.more.net/evaluation/

17 18 APPENDIX B

PD Center Task Force Funding Subcommittee Table of Services, Funding, and Supports --Revised May 28, 2002

Potential PD Center Activities Existing Supports Potential Funding Potential Supports 1. School Support :  Distinguished Educator (NHEIAP)  Title I Reading First  Curriculum  PD-Job-embedded;  Best Schools (Dottie O. Admin. $$) Development content/pedagogy;  CTE Technical Assistance for  Title I PD funds from local  Program leadership; using data; teachers and administrators around level competencies action research; examining implementing CTE curriculum and  State Leadership Activities  Physical expansion student work; etc. programs. from Carl D. Perkins Funds  Join SREB for  Facilitator training  Assistance in supporting  State Funds for High Schools that  Mentor Training apprenticeship programs and Apprenticeship programs Work  other expansion of other areas.  Assessment $ (Lorraine  Develop more  Current work of PD Bureau and investigate for school apprenticeship Integrated programs support/curric.) programs for youth and adults. 2. Alternative Certification IV  Transition to teaching grant  State funds to help support Regional course work; and V Support; Mentoring  Troops to teachers Alt IV and funds from district distance learning; Training and Support  CLL Perkins allocations workshops for Alt IV  Tech NH  State Funds candidates; credit  North Country math & science  Credentialing fees based course work.  SERESC  Impact Center 3. “Highly Qualified”  CLL Para Training Program  Title II partnership funds If Perkins is Paraprofessional Development  NH Tech Training Program  SPED. reauthorized with the (NHCTC)  Title I same requirement of  Impact Centers paraprofessionals having an AA or two years of post- secondary, then TecNH could participate in this training as well.

19 4. Ed Tech Initiatives  Connected University  E2T2 initial sites  LoTi established with RFP’s  Marco Polo  Apple Learning  PT3 Interchange  PD calendar  Credentialing? 5. Technical assistance on the  Current SPED Bureau Activities  IDEA requirements of IDEA  State Improvement grant  Pre-school 6. Highly qualified teachers  Sped State Improvement Grant  Title II partnership funds  Meeting certification (IHE mini grants)  Title II Part A--Hire, Train standards  Northern NE co-mentoring & Recruit Funds network math & science  TecNH funds as above in #2 7. Leadership  Gates grant  Gates  NHSAA  CPEP at Plymouth  NHSPA  Title II Part A (SA $)  Leadership Teacher (Eliz Foy)  Best Schools 8. Community Involvement  Best Schools  Learn and Serve Funds Expand the role of  Even Start  Perkins Funds citizenship education;  21st Century  Character & Citizenship service learning, CTE  Plus time Education Funds program advisory committees 9. Needs Assessments &  Title II, Part A  Title II Part A--Hire, Train Regional Support from Evaluation  PD Bureau Work on Master Plans & Recruit Funds DOE to conduct Needs Assessment & continue evaluation of HQ Professional hiring, recruiting, training & development activities.

20 10. Technical assistance on the  Current work of Career  State Leadership Funds Assistance with requirements of Perkins when it Development Bureau from Carl D. Perkins Funds implementation and gets re-authorized  If we (State) get Federal accountability incentive money based on successful performance by CTE secondary and post- secondary and WIA Title I, could be a source of funds. Up to $1 Million is possible. Under control of Governor now.