A Cost Framework for Professional Development
Author(s): Allan Odden, Sarah Archibald, Mark Fermanich and H. Alix Gallagher
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Education Finance, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2002), pp. 51-74
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40704157 .
Accessed: 20/12/2012 13:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Education Finance.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNALOF EDUCATIONFINANCE
28 (SUMMER 2002), 51-74
A CostFrameworkfor
ProfessionalDevelopment
By Allan Odden, Sarah Archibald, Mark Fermanich and
H. Alix Gallagher
educationreforms,
where
Tn thecontext
oftoday'sstandards-based
toachievetohighperformance
Athegoal is forstudents
standards,
is critical.In orderforstudents
effective
development
professional
to learnmore,teachersmustchange whatand how theyteach.
has had littleimpacton
development
Thoughtypicalprofessional
deeffective
teacherpracticeorstudent
professional
performance1
foraccomplishis consideredbymosta criticalstrategy
velopment
achievement
ambitious
student
goals.2
ingtoday's
Researchis beginningto linkthekeyfeaturesof professional
thatchangeteacherpracticeandinturnboost
development
programs
1. Thomas Guskey, "Staff Development and the Process of Change," Educational Researcher 15, no. 6 (1986): 5-11; JudithWarrenLittle, "Teachers' Professional Developmentin a Climate of Education Reform,"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15,
no. 2 (1993): 129-151.
2. Thomas Corcoran, TransformingProfessional Developmentfor Teachers: A Guide for
State Policymakers(Washington,DC: National GovernorsAssociation, 1995); Mark Smylie,
"From BureaucraticControlto Building Human Capital: The Importanceof Teacher Learning in Education Reform,"Educational Researcher 25, no. 9 (1996): 9-11; Dennis Sparks
and Stephanie Hirsh, A National Plan for ImprovingProfessional Development (Oxford,
OH: Author,1999); JamesStiglerand JamesHiebert,The TeachingGap: Best Ideas fromthe
World'sTeachersfor ImprovingEducation in the Classroom (New York: Free Press, 1999).
and Co-Director of the ConsorAllan Odden is a Professorof Educational Administration
tium for Policy Research in Education at the Universityof Wisconsin-Madison. Sarah
Archibald is a Researcher at the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the
Universityof Wisconsin-Madison.Mark Fermanichis a doctoral studentat the University
of Wisconsin-Madison. H. Alix Gallagher is a doctoral studentat the Universityof Wisconsin-Madison.
This paper was preparedfor the Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, Wisconsin
Center for Education Research, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison for presentationat the
American Education Finance Association Annual Conference held March 22-24, 2001 in
Cincinnati,Ohio. The research reportedin this paper was supportedby a grantfromthe
U.S. Departmentof Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,National Instituteon Educational Governance, Finance, Policy-Making and Management,to
the Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and the Wisconsin Center for
Education Research, School of Education, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison (Grant No.
OERI-R3086A60003).
[51]
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52
Journalof Education Finance
scores.3Butwhilethereis a growingconsenstudentachievement
aboutthefeaturesofeffective
sus amongresearchers
professional
and
district
this
development,4 knowledgeis onlyslowlyentering
stillprovidenuschoolpractices.Forthesereasons,manydistricts
merous,unfocusedandineffective
prodevelopment
professional
This
student
with
for
that
are
not
learning.5
goals
aligned
grams
costsmoney.Since disofprofessional
development
proliferation
ditrictsand schoolshave limitedresources,theseexpenditures
minishtheirabilitytodeploymoreeffective
developprofessional
whichresearchis beginningto showrequiresigmentstrategies,
overa sustainedtimeperiod.Even whenrenificant
expenditures
districtand schoolleaderswantto deployeffective
form-minded
strategies,
theyrarelyknowhow much
professional
development
theprograms
cost.
This paperbeginsto addressthislack ofknowledgeaboutthe
Whileitsmain
costsofvarioustypesofprofessional
development.
fororganizingthecosts of
purposeis to developa methodology
into
professional
development
programs an analyticalframework,
theauthorsalso believeitis necessarytohavea commonlanguage
Forthat
fordiscussingvariousprofessional
development
programs.
develofprofessional
reason,sectionone beginswitha definition
have
taken
a
of
this
we
For
the
comprepaper
opment.
purposes
hensiveperspectiveon professionaldevelopmentthatincludes
some strategiesthatare morecommonlyknownas instructional
such as providinga fulltimeon-siteinstructional
improvement,
facilitator
at each schoolsite.Next,we reviewa smallportionof
effectiveprofessionaldeveloptheliterature
on whatconstitutes
elementsthateffecwe
draw
six
from
which
ment,
programmatic
3. (e.g., David Cohen and Heather Hill, "Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California," Teachers College Record 102, no. 2
(2000): 294-343; Michael Garet, Beatrice Birman, Andrew Porter,Laura Desimone and
Rebecca Herman,DesigningEffectiveProfessionalDevelopment:Lessons fromthe
Eisenhower Program (Washington,DC: United States Departmentof Education, 1999);
JonathanSupovitz, Daniel P. Mayer and Jane B. Kahle, "PromotingInquiry Based InstructionalPractice: The Longitudinal Impact of Professional Development in the Context of Systemic Reform,"Educational Policy 14, no. 3 (2000): 331-356.
4. (e.g., Beatrice F. Birman, Laura Desimone, Andrew C. Porter and Michael S. Garet,
"Designing Professional Development That Works," Educational Leadership 57, no. 8
(2000): 28-33; Dennis Sparks and Stephanie Hirsh, A National Plan (1999); Jonathan
Supovitz and HerbertM. Turner,"The Effects of Professional Development on Science
Teaching Practices and Classroom Culture,"Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37,
no. 9 (2000): 963-980.
5. Thomas Guskey,"StaffDevelopment" (1986); Karen Hawley Miles, Francis Bouchard,
Kendra Winner,Mary Ann Cohen and Ellen Guiney,Professional DevelopmentSpending
in the Boston Public Schools, A JointReport of the Boston Plan for Excellence and the
Boston Public Schools (Boston: Boston Plan for Excellence, 1999).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
53
tiveprofessional
haveincommon.Although
development
strategies
itis nottheprimary
of
this
to
whatconstitutes
goal
paper identify
effective
we believeitis usefultohave
professional
development,
somenotionofthekeyelementsto guidea discussionofthecosts
ofprofessional
A commonsetofcarefully
development
programs.
definedtermsthatdescribeprofessional
facilitatesa
development
discussionin whichit is easy to differentiate
one programand its
In previousresearch,thishas beendifficult
costsfromanother.
because neithera definedsetof termsnora commonframework
for
costs
was
used.
identifying
elements
fordisHavingdefineda commonsetofprogrammatic
in sectionone,sectiontwoestabcussingprofessional
development
lishestheneedfora commonframework
forassessingthecostsof
It
professional
development
programs. beginswitha reviewofthe
onprofessional
literature
andcostswhich
development
expenditures
revealsthatcurrent
financial
structures
do
not
facilitate
idenreporting
and
also
reveals
tification
ofprofessional
development
expenditures
thatthestudiesoncostsuseda number
ofdifferent
methods
todeterminecosts.Becauseoftheseissues,sectiontwoconcludesthatthere
costsand
is notmuchknownaboutwhatprofessional
development
thata framework
is neededtohelpguidefuture
researchso thatexand cost figurescan be morecomparable.Sectionthree
penditure
thatcan be used to structure
future
providesone suchframework
of
the
costs
of
analysis
professional
development
programs.
DefiningProfessionalDevelopmentand Its Key Elements
To ensurethatwe includethemostimportant
aspectsofeffecwe firstdefinethetermand then
tiveprofessionaldevelopment,
itskeyelements.Effecreference
severalrecentstudiestoidentify
is
defined
as
tiveprofessional
professionaldevelopdevelopment
mentthatproduceschangein teachers'classroom-basedinstrucin student
tionalpractice,whichcan be linkedto improvements
researchers
and
The
and
professional
learning. practices principles
developmentorganizationsuse to characterize"highquality"or
drawupon a seriesof em"effective"
professionaldevelopment6
6. Susan Loucks-Horsley, Peter Hewson, Nancy Love and Katherine Stiles, Designing
ProfessionalDevelopmentfor Teachers of Science and Mathematics(Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, 1998); National Partnershipfor Excellence and Accountabilityin Teaching
(NPEAT), NPEAT Principles for EffectiveProfessional Development (College Park, MD:
Author, 1998); Dennis Sparks and Susan Loucks-Horsley, "Five Models of Staff Development for Teachers," Journal of StaffDevelopment 10, no. 4 (1989): 40-57; Katherine
Stiles, Susan Loucks-Horsley and Peter Hewson, Principles of EffectiveProfessional Developmentfor Mathematics and Science Teachers, NISE Brief, Volume 1 (Madison, WI:
National Institutefor Science Education, 1996).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54
JournalofEducationFinance
tochangesin
strategies
pinealresearchstudiesthatlinkedprogram
in student
increases
and
teachers'instructional
practice subsequent
These studiesinclude,amongothers,thelong-term
achievement.
researchon thechangeprocess,8a longituofBruceJoyce,7
efforts
reinCalifornia,9
toimprovemathematics
dinalanalysisofefforts
of the science curriculum;10
searchon changeand improvement
Elmore's11
studyofDistrict#2in NewYorkCity;theConsortium
forPolicyResearchinEducation's12
studyofsustained
longitudinal
forSciInstitute
the
Merck
development
providedby
professional
ence Education;studiesof comprehensive
professionaldevelopandan evaluation
menttoimprovescienceteachingandlearning;13
and scienceprofessional
of thefederalEisenhowermathematics
program.14
development
ofeffective
features
six structural
Thesestudiesidentified
professionaldevelopment:
theactivityis orga1) The formoftheactivity- thatis, whether
collaboranizedas a studygroup,teachernetwork,
mentoring
Research
or
curriculum
committee
tive,
suggroup.
development
shouldbe schooldevelopment
professional
geststhateffective
7. Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers, StudentAchievementThrough StaffDevelopment
(White Plains, NY: Longman Press, 1988); Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun, ed. Learning
Experiences in School Renewal: An Exploration of Five Successful Programs (Eugene,
OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1996).
8. Michael Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College Press, 2001); Gene E. Hall and Shirley M. Hord, ImplementingChange: Patterns,
Principles and Potholes (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2000).
9. David Cohen and Heather Hill, State Policy and Classroom Performance:Mathematics
Reformin California (Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania,Graduate School of Education, Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, 1998); David Cohen and Heather
Hill, "InstructionalPolicy" (2000).
10. Susan Loucks-Horsley, Peter Hewson, Nancy Love and Katherine Stiles, Designing
Professional Development (1998).
11. Richard Elmore and Deanna Burney,"Investingin Teacher Learning: StaffDevelopment and InstructionalImprovement,"in Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, ed. Linda Darling-Hammond and Gary Sykes (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999).
12. Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, Deepening the Work:A Report of the
SixthYear of the MerckInstitutefor Science Education, 1998-99 (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania,Graduate School of Education, Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education, 2000).
13. JonathanSupovitz, Daniel P. Mayer and Jane B. Kahle, "PromotingInquiry" (2000);
JonathanSupovitz and HerbertM. Turner, "The Effects of Professional Development"
(2000).
14. Michael Garet,Beatrice Birman,AndrewPorter,Laura Desimone and Rebecca Herman,
Designing EffectiveProfessional Development (1999).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
55
based andjob-embeddedratherthana one-dayworkshop.
2) The durationoftheactivity,
includingthetotalnumberofcontacthoursthatparticipants
areexpectedtospendintheactivity,
as well as thespanoftimeoverwhichtheactivitytakesplace.
Researchhas showntheimportanceof continuous,ongoing,
long-term
professionaldevelopmentthattotalsa substantial
numberof hourseach year.
The
3)
degreetowhichtheactivity
emphasizesthecollectiveparof
of
teachers
from
thesame school,departticipation groups
ment,or gradelevel. Researchsuggeststhateffective
professhouldbe organizedaroundgroupsofteachsionaldevelopment
ersfroma schoolthatovertimeincludestheentirefaculty.
4) The degreeto whichtheactivityhas a contentfocus- thatis,
thedegreeto whichtheactivityis focusedon improvingand
knowledgeas wellas howstudents
deepeningteachers'content
learnthatcontent.Researchconcludesthatteachersneed to
knowwell thecontenttheyteach,need to knowcommonstudentmiscuesorproblemsstudents
typicallyhavelearningthat
instructional
and
effective
content,
linkingthetwo.15
strategies
foractive
5) The extentto whichtheactivityoffersopportunities
to
become
for
teachers
such
as
engaged
learning,
opportunities
forexample,
inthemeaningful
analysisofteachingandlearning;
a stanworkordevelopingand"perfecting"
byscoringstudent
unit.Researchhas shownthatprofesdards-basedcurriculum
is mosteffective
whenitincludesopportusionaldevelopment
thenew
nitiesforteachersto workdirectlyon incorporating
practice.
techniquesintotheirinstructional
the
The
to
which
6)
activitypromotescoherencein teachdegree
develers' professional
development,
byaligningprofessional
opmentto otherkeypartsoftheeducationsystemsuchas studentcontentand performance
standards,teacherevaluation,
ofa professional
schoolanddistrict
goals,andthedevelopment
Research
tyingprofessional
development
supports
community.
inter-related
to a comprehensive,
changeprocessfocusedon
student
learning.
improving
Form,durationand activelearningtogetherimplythateffectiveprofessionaldevelopmentincludessome initiallearningas
workin whichteachersincorwell as considerablelonger-term
15. JohnBransford,Ann Brown and Rodney Cocking, How People Learn (Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1999); Mary Kennedy, "Form and Substance in Inservice
Teacher Education," (research monographno. 13, National Institutefor Science Education, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison, 1998).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56
Journalof Education Finance
poratethenew methodologiesintotheiractual classroompractice.Activelearningimpliessome degreeof coaching.It should
be clear thatthelongertheduration,and themorethecoaching,
themoretimeis requiredof teachersas well as professionaldevelopmenttrainersand coaches. Contentfocusmeansthateffectiveprofessionaldevelopmentfocuseslargelyon subjectmatter
knowledge,whatis knownabouthow studentslearnthatsubject,
andrelatedcurriculum
Collectiveparticipation
strategies.
implies
thatthebestprofessionaldevelopmentincludesgroupsof teachersfroma school,who thenworktogetherto implement
thenew
in
and
the
build
a
strategies,
process,help
professionalschool
Coherence
that
the
community.
suggests
professionaldevelopmentis moreeffective
whenthesignalsfromthepolicyenvironment(federal,state,district
andschool)reinforce
ratherthancontradictone anotheror sendmultiple,confusingmessages.Coherence also implies thatprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities
shouldbe givenas partofimplementation
ofnewcurriculum
and
instructional
approaches.
Each of these six structural
featureshas cost implications.
Form,duration,collectiveparticipationand active learningrequirevariousamountsof bothteacherand trainer/coach/mentor
time,duringtheregularschool day and yearand, dependingon
thespecificstrategies,
outsideoftheregulardayandyearas well.
Thistimecostsmoney.Further,
all professional
stratdevelopment
materialsand supegies requiresome amountof administration,
plies,andmiscellaneousfinancialsupportfortravelandfees.Both
theabove programmatic
featuresand the specificsof theircost
are
to
describespecificproimplications helpful comprehensively
fessionaldevelopment
programsand theirrelatedcosts.Ourcost
framework
in
providesa methodof organizingthatinformation
termsof six costelements.Butbeforepresenting
ourcostframework,the nextsectionreviewssome of the existingstudiesof
theneedfor
professional
development
expenditures,
highlighting
a morespecificcostframework
to guidetheidentification
of the
costsofall thefeaturesofvariousprofessionaldevelopment
programs.
PreviousResearchon ProfessionalDevelopmentCosts
Mostresearchhas soughttoidentify
district
develprofessional
To be technical,professionaldevelopment
opmentexpenditures.
costswouldincludeall costs- whetherpaid forby theschoolor
district
ornot- thatcomprisea professional
development
strategy
thatproducesan impacton studentlearning.Some studieshave
soughta morecomprehensive
pictureof costs thatincludesun-
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
57
butmosthave simplytriedto identify
teachertime,16
compensated
or schoolsactuallyspendforprofessionaldevelopwhatdistricts
ment.For a numberof reasons,even thishas been problematic.
learnedthatthereported
researchers
For example,in one district,
was
for
budget professionaldevelopment $460,000. Followinga
Miles and Hornbeck,17
detailedstudy,however,thoseresearchers,
foundthatthedistrictactuallyspent$8.9 millionon professional
- abouta twenty-fold
difference.
Similarly,a 1981
development
develfoundthatactualprofessional
studyofthreeurbandistricts
a
the
districts'
own
estimates
exceeded
by factor
opmentspending
18
is
of 50. Correctingsuch misunderstandings importantif the
inprofessional
extantandnewinvestments
development
country's
and higherlevels of student
are to payoffin improvedinstruction
achievement.
Previousresearchon professionaldevelopmentexpenditures
all ofwhichlimitedtheability
fromthreemajorproblems,
suffered
aboutthefiscalsideofprooftheresearchto speakauthoritatively
Theseproblemswere:
fessionaldevelopment.
• Usingdata fromschooldistrict
budgetsand fiscalaccounting
and inaccuratecost estimates
which
crude
records,
produced
because currentaccountingcodes do not allow foraccurate
ofprofessional
expenditures.
development
tracking
• Usingdifferent
frameworks
forcapturingprofessionaldevelwhichmadefiscalestimateswidelydifopmentexpenditures,
andnotcomparable.
ferent
• Collectingdata fromonlythedistrictlevel, whichunderestias manyschools
matesprofessional
expenditures
development
sometimes
development
substantiallyprofessional
augment
providedbydistricts.
opportunities
A discussionofeach oftheproblemswithexistingresearchon
follows.
expenditures
development
professional
16. J.W. Little,W. H. Gerritz,D. S. Stern,JamesW. Guthrie,M. W. Kirst,and D. D. Marsh,
"Staff Development in California: Public and Personal Investments,Program Patterns,
and Policy Choices," (Berkeley and San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratoryfor Educational Research and Development and Policy Analysis for California Education, 1987).
17. Karen Hawley Miles and Matthew Hornbeck, "RethinkingDistrict Professional DevelopmentSpending to Support a District ComprehensiveSchool Reform Strategy."10:
New American Schools StrategyBrief, Resource Reallocation, Issue #3, (2000).
18. Thomas B. Corcoran, "Helping Teachers Teach Well: TransformingProfessional Development(Rb-16)," (New Brunswick,NJ: Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education,
Rutgers University,1995).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58
JournalofEducationFinance
Problems with Current Fiscal Accounting Codes
A primary
reasonforthedifficulty
intracking
spendingforprofessionaldevelopment
is theweaknessof stateand district
financial reporting
State
education
and
local
school
systems.19
agencies
districts
almostuniversally
use costaccountingmodelsforreportThesemodels,generally
mandated
ingrevenuesandexpenditures.20
federaladministrators,
areusedto supportprogram
bystateand/or
andcompliancefunctions.
fiscalaccounting
codes
Current
reporting
trackexpenditures
materiequipment,
by object(salary,benefits,
instructional
and/
instruction,
als),function
(administration,
support),
oreducationprogram(regulareducation,specialeducation,bilintheseexpenditure
catgualeducation,etc.).Thoughstandardized,
are
broad
and
allow
identification
of
the
subegories
rarely
good
categoryofprofessional
development.
Studiesthathave used national,standardizedschool district
databasesto conductanalysesof professionaldevelexpenditure
opmentspendingare frequently
stymiedby the system'slimitaareoftenlumped
tions.Expenditures
forprofessional
development
in
a
with
other
unrelated
together
spending broadlyconstruedexas
such
instructional
penditurecategory
support,an expenditure
this
categoryused by Killen,Monk,and Plecki.21Unfortunately,
includes
curriculum
instructional
category
development,
superviand oftenlision,computertechnologiesand othermulti-media,
Further,
development.
large
brarycostsin additiontoprofessional
in
are
also
of
development
ignored
reportquantities professional
forspecialeducationorcompensatory
education,
ingexpenditures
Morebothof whichoftenhave significant
training
components.
ofprofessional
develover,becausethereis no commondefinition
its
even
when
districts
or
method
to
determine
costs,
attempt
opment
can occurifmorerecent
to trackitsexpenditures,
under-reporting
orcoachsuchas mentoring
variations
ofprofessional
development
total.
in
are
excluded
the
expenditure
development
ing
professional
innational
fiscaldatabases
arerepresented
Thuslargeinconsistencies
inthestatesanddistricts
thenumbers
becauseindividuals
producing
label
areeach makingtheirowndecisionsabouthowtocategorize,
19. Linda Hertert,"Investing in Teacher Professional Development: A Look at Sixteen
School Districts,"(Denver, Co: Education Commission of the States, 1997); Thomas B.
Corcoran, "Helping Teachers Teach Well" (1995); J. G. Chambers, (1999) "Measuring
Resources in Education: From Accounting to the Resource Allocation Model Approach"
(Report WorkingPaper No. 1999-16).
20. J. G. Chambers, "Measuring Resources in Education" (1999).
21.K. M. Killeen, D. H. Monk, and M.L. Plecki, "School District Spending on Professional Development: Insights Available fromNational Data," Journal of Education Finance 28 (2002): 25-50.
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
59
andtrackprofessional
development
expenditures.22
thesefiscalaccounting
Anotherstudythatencountered
sysmulti-district
was Hertert's23
temshortcomings
analysis.Hertert's
goal was to use districtbudgetdata to estimatestateand district
evaluatetheconnections
expenditures,
professionaldevelopment
and
in student
betweenspendingandimprovements
performances,
of
to
the
most
effective
resources
of
types
suggestways reallocating
to
60
districts
She
development. initiallyapproached
professional
a
basic
cost
for
even
butonly16 keptthedatanecessary
participate,
information
thatwould
estimate.
Ofthose,nonewereabletofurnish
allowherto addressthesecondandthirdquestionsin herstudy.
Hertertwas able to analyzeprofessionaldevelopmentspending across six categoriesof activities:thecentraldistrictprofesandworksionaldevelopment
office;district
providedconferences
and
conferences
non-district
workshops;in-serprovided
shops;
/colnormal
school
vicetraining
year;university
daysbuiltintothe
None
assignments.
legecourseworkandsabbaticals;andtemporary
ofthesecategorieswerecapturedby a typicalexpenditure
object,
thesecategoriesexcludednearlyall
function
or program.Further,
as wellas manyotherprodevelopment,
site-provided
professional
outsidethecentral
fessional
proprovided
opportunities
development
office(suchas "program
fessionaldevelopment
support"activities
theanalyfromtheTitleI orspecialeducationoffices).
Nevertheless,
sis showedsignificant
ranging
development
spending,
professional
from1.7 percentto 7.6 percentofnetoperating
expenditures.
AlthoughHertertdid notcalculateprofessionaldevelopment
an estimate
on a perteacherbasis, she did construct
expenditures
of $3,385 (or $3,825 in 2000 dollars)perteacher.She calculated
thisestimateby takingthepercentof netoperatingexpenditures
andcalculatedthat
thatdistricts
development
spenton professional
it was approximately
6.8 percentof teachers'salaries.She then
used a hypothetical
teacherwho earnedan averagesalary(plus
benefits)of $50,000, whichallowed herto arriveat the $3,385
estimate.Thoughtheestimatecannotbe directlycomparedwith
in showinghow
herstudyis important
otherper-teacher
estimates,
are
of
development
spending notneatlycapcategories professional
turedintraditional
fiscalaccountingcategories.
In conjunction
withKileen,MonkandPlecki's24
work,these
toestimate
studiesshowwhyitis difficult
development
professional
fiscalaccounting
systems.
spending
byusingdatacollectedincurrent
22. Ibid.
23. Linda Hertert,"Investing in Teacher Professional Development" (1997).
24. K. M. Killeen, D. H. Monk, and M.L. Plecki, "School District Spending" (2002).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60
JournalofEducationFinance
DifferentFrameworksfor Capturing Professional Development
Costs
ofusingnumbersin fiscalaccounting
Recognizingthefutility
several
other
studies
have triedto captureprofessional
systems,
detailedanalysesofdisdevelopment
expenditures
byconducting
trict-wide
for
activities,theingredients
professional
development
theactivities,
andthecostsofeach ingredient.
Forexample,Little
et al.25used interviews,
surveysand statedocumentsto analyze
California'sprofessional
development
spendingintermsofschool,
and
state
forparticipants'
timeand
district,
regional,
expenditures
forthecostofproviding
theprofessional
This
development
activity.
landmark
studyanalyzedboththequalityofprofessional
developmentandall professional
development
expenditures,
including
perThe study
sonalspending
byteachersonprofessional
development.
foundthat,on average,professionaldevelopmentexpenditures
5 percentof the totalclassroomcosts equaled approximately
$4,600 perteacher($6,973 in 2000 dollars).
Littleet al.'s estimates,however,includedtwo itemsthatare
teachertime
notincludedin suchstudies:uncompensated
normally
direct
dollar
an
estimated
60
cents
for
(worth
every
spentby the
inschoolsystemon professional
development)and lane salary26
fromcreditsearnedthrough
develcreasesresulting
professional
opmentactivities(estimatedas 61 percentof totalstaffdevelopincreasedesmentcosts).Combined,thesetwoitemsdramatically
but the figure,
timatedprofessionaldevelopmentexpenditures,
usefulnumber.Since
is nota particularly
thoughcomprehensive,
teachertime,thefigure
thebulkof totalcosts is uncompensated
does notrepresent
an actualdistrictexpenditure
per se; it could
it
but
not
what
was.
Since another
what
it
should
be,
represent
overforteacher
is expenditures
salaries,thefigure
significant
portion
stateswhatwouldneedtobe in a professional
development
budget.
credits
anduncompensated
teacher
Withthepresent
valueofsemester
timeexcludedfromtheanalysis,Littleet.al. foundthatprofessional
accountedforaround1.4 percentof totalclassroom
development
expenditures$1,360perteacheror $2,062in 2000 dollars.
Corcoran27
describesa 1981 studyby Moore and Hyde that
also includedsalarylaneincreasesintheircosts,butanalyzedonly
foundthatprofessional
threeurbandistricts,
development
spend25. J. W. Little,W. H. Gerritz,D. S. Stern,JamesW. Guthrie,M. W. Kirst,and D. D. Marsh,
"Staff Development in California" (1987).
26. Lane refersto the part of a teacher's salary thatgoes up in proportionto the number
of additional educational credits the teacher obtains.
27. Thomas B. Corcoran, "Helping Teachers Teach Well" (1995)
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
61
ingrangedfrom3.3 percentto5.7 percentoftotalbudget,or$1,000
to $1,767 ($1,894 to $3,347 in 2000 dollars).
Anotherclassic studyof professionaldevelopmentcosts by
estimates.This
Miller,LordandDorney28
producedquitedifferent
used
and
teacher
interviews
tobuild
district-level,
study
principal,
of professionaldevelopmentactivities
an in-depthunderstanding
and theircosts.Theyidentified
professionaldevelopmentspendin
six
baseline
staffdevelopment
(district
office);
ing
categories:
districtand school-levelstaffdevelopmentsalary;materials,serandmiscellaneous;substitutes;
vices,travel,consultants,
externally
fundedprograms;andpersonalcontributions.
Thoughreasonable,itshouldbe notedthatthesecategoriesare
fromthoseused by Littleet al.29And whiletheyinclude
different
on thepartofteachers,thatcategoryis not
personalcontributions
teachertime"in theLittleet
definedthesame as "uncompensated
theMilleret al. 30studydoes notincludeany
al. study.Further,
amountofsalaryincreasesthatderivedfromsalarylanemovements.
Last,Milleret al. estimatedthat15 percentof all principals'time
butdidnotexplainveryclearly
was forprofessional
development,
thattimeestimate.
howtheydetermined
in themTheirfindings,
shownin Figure1, whileinteresting
fromtheLittleet
selves also revealverycompellingdifferences
al.31study.Theyareless thantheLittleet al. figuresincludinguntimeandsalaryincreases,butgreaterwhenthesetwo
compensated
itemsareexcluded.
Figure 1
and
s32
Estimates
of Professional DevelopmentCosts
Lord
Dorney'
Miller,
District
Large
Large
Medium
Small
Cost perRegularClassroom
Teacher
$3,529
$1,755
$2,706
$3,528
Cost as a Percentage
of
Operating
Budget
2.30%
1.80%
2.00%
2.80%
28. Barbara Miller, Brian Lord, and JudithDorney, "Staff Development for Teachers: A
Study of Configurationsand Costs in Four Districts," (Newton: Education Development
Center, 1994).
29. J.W. Little,W. H. Gerritz,D. S. Stern,JamesW. Guthrie,M. W. Kirst,and D. D. Marsh,
"Staff Development in California" (1987).
30. Barbara Miller, Brian Lord, and JudithDorney, "Staff Development for Teachers: A
Study of Configurationsand Costs in Four Districts," (Newton: Education Development
Center, 1994).
31.J. W. Little,, W. H. Gerritz,D. S. Stern, James W. Guthrie,M. W. Kirst, and D. D.
Marsh, "Staff Development in California" (1987).
32. BarbaraMiller,Brian Lord, and JudithDorney,"StaffDevelopmentforTeachers" (1994).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62
JournalofEducationFinance
and efof thesophisticated,
A detailedstudy33
multi-faceted,
in
New
York
fectiveprofessionaldevelopment
strategy
deployed
District2 foundthatthedistrict
spentaboutthree
CityCommunity
about
the
total
of
$1,300
perteacher,on
budget,
operating
percent
over
a
three
each
yearperiodfrom
year
development
professional
1994to 1996.Theirestimatedidnotincludeeithersalaryincreases
teachercosts,
caused by lane movementsor anyuncompensated
thestudyshowedthat
eitherfortimeorformaterials.
Interestingly,
whilethelargestportionofprofessional
development
expenditures
in thefirstyearof theprogramwas on teachertime,thelargest
and
was fortrainers
portioninthesubsequentyearsoftheprogram
consultants.
Severalrecentstudiesof professionaldevelopmentexpendituresbyKarenHawleyMiles andcolleagues34supporttheneedto
of professionaldevelopmentacestablisha commonframework
of the
tivitiesand costs in orderto gain a clearerunderstanding
In
a
fiscalaspectof effective
professionaldevelopment. studyof
Boston'sprofessionaldevelopment
spending,Miles et al.35intervieweddirectorsof all relevantcentralofficeprograms(curricueducalum,instruction,
compensatory
development,
professional
all professionaldeveloption,special education,etc.) to identify
mentactivities,whethershownin thedistrictbudgetor not,and
coded thedata by focus(e.g. mathematics,
science,leadership),
form(e.g., workshop,coaching),objectof expenditure
(e.g. salIn
and
source
total,
state,
local,
(federal,
they
private).
ary,stipend),
foundthatthedistrict
spentover$23 millionperyear($4,894 per
or3.8 percent
teacherandprincipal)on professional
development,
are
Both
of
these
ofthetotaloperating
figures highrelative
budget.
to theLittleet al.36and Milleret al.37studies,a surprisebecause
foreithersalarylane movements
theydo notincludeexpenditures
teachertime.
orforuncompensated
33. Richard Elmore and Deanna Burney,"Investing in Teacher Learning" (1997).
34. Karen Hawley Miles, Francine Bouchard, Kendra Winner, Mary Ann Cohen, and
Ellen Guiney, "Professional Development Spending" (1999); Karen Hawley Miles and
Matthew Hornbeck, "RethinkingDistrict Professional Development Spending" (2000).
35. Karen Hawley Miles, Francine Bouchard, Kendra Winner, Mary Ann Cohen, and
Ellen Guiney, "Professional Development Spending in the Boston" (1999).
36. J.W. Little,W. H. Gerritz,D. S. Stern,JamesW. Guthrie,M. W. Kirst,and D. D. Marsh,
"Staff Development in California" (1997).
37. Barbara Miller, Brian Lord, and JudithDorney, "Staff Development for Teachers"
(1994).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
63
In subsequentwork,Miles andHornbeck38
usedthesamemethto
in four
odology identify
professional
development
expenditures
urbandistricts.
between
2.4
Theyfoundthatthedistricts
spent
percentand4.3 percentoftheiroperating
debudgetson professional
notincludingthecostofcontracted
in-servicetraining
velopment,
When
these
were
therangewas 2.4
included,
days.
expenditures
of
the
or
from
$2,010-$6,628
percent-5.9
percent
operating
budgets,
per teacher.However,thedistrictspendingwas frequently
fragmentedacrossmanydepartments
andmanytopics,generallyunrelatedto thecore contentareas, and thusnotfocusedon thedistricts'highestpriority
areas.Finally,districtspendingdiffered
by
While
districts
in
some
invested
strategy.
heavily workshopsor
others
course-taking,
subsidizinguniversity
spenta higherproportionon stipendsforteachersto takeon responsibilities
outsideof
traditional
teaching.
Lack of School-Level Analysis
noneoftheaforementioned
studiessystematically
traced
Further,
In
to
the
school
level.
disdevelopment
expenditures
professional
schoolfundingand schooldecisiontrictsthathave decentralized
making(and evenin thosethatdo not),theschoolcan enhanceor
For example,
reducedistrictprovidedprofessionaldevelopment.
schools thathave adoptedcomprehensiveschool designs often
spendfromtheirown sourcesbetween$50,000 and $70,000 for
On
training
providedby theschooldesignteam.39
design-specific
theotherhand,schools can takefundsforprofessionaldevelopandsimplypurchasemore
mentforsomeareas,suchas technology,
and
the
an
Only analysisofschoollevel
technology ignore training.
would
reveal
these
decisions.
decision-making
budgetary
of PreviousResearch
Summary
deThoughthestudiesshedsomeneededlighton professional
still
the
are
quiteinvelopmentexpenditures, picturespresented
issues.Defibecauseofthreeinter-related
completeandinconsistent
varied
the
which
nitionsofprofessional
studies,
development
among
meantthatsome studiesincludedelementsthatothersexcluded.
Forexample,somestudiesincludedindirect
developprofessional
mentcostssuchas relatedsalaryincreases(because oflane shifts)
teachertimewhileothersdidnot.Notsurprisanduncompensated
38. Karen Hawley Miles and Matthew Hornbeck, "RethinkingDistrict Professional Development Spending" (2000).
39. Allan Odden and Sarah Archibald, Reallocating Resources: How to Boost Student
AchievementWithoutAskingfor More (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2001).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64
Journalof Education Finance
increasedtotalcosts.Some
thoseitemsdramatically
including
ingly,
studiesincludedplanningand preparation
time,whileothersdid
incostestimates.
differences
led
to
the
differences
not.Again,
large
Also,no commonsetoftermswas used so thestudiesdidnotcapactiviturethecostsof a similarsetof professionaldevelopment
thecosts of thesix key eleties.If thestudieshad all identified
mentsof professionaldevelopmentoutlinedin sectionone, they
would have producedmorecomparablecost specificsabout the
analyzed.
programs
professional
development
ofeachofthestudiescitedabovewouldhave
Thecontributions
enhancediftheyhaduseda commonframework
beensignificantly
forcapturing
and methodology
expenprofessionaldevelopment
andsimilarities
tobe
ditures.Thiswouldhavealloweddifferences
outlines
a
The
next
section
of
the
sorted
out.
paper
systematically
thatcan be used to guide futureresearchon profesframework
andcosts.
sionaldevelopment
expenditures
A Frameworkfor CapturingProfessionalDevelopmentCosts
is necessaryforsysAs thelast sectionshowed,a framework
various
the
costs
of
professional
development
tematically
assessing
that
programs.To meetthisneed,we have createda framework
and coachincludessix costelements:1) teachertime,2) training
4) materials,equipmentand facilities,5)
ing,3) administration,
Table
andconference
fees.40
and6) tuition
travelandtransportation,
1 depictsthisframework.
calculateand
This cost structure
providesa way to identify,
that
districts
and
resources
the
analyze professionaldevelopment
schoolsmakeavailableto teachersat a givenschool site.Below,
is explainedinmoredetail.Where
eachelementofthecoststructure
elements
from
the
terms
and
key
possible,
sectionone are used as a way of linkingthe six descriptive
elementsof effectiveprofessionaldevelopmentand the six cost
elements.Both formand durationhave clear timeimplications;
and
workshopsrequireless timethan2-3 weeksummerinstitutes,
teacher
time
is
themore
thelongertheduration,
required.Further,
themorecombinedteacher
thegreaterthecollectiveparticipation,
and coaches comprise
timeis required.Teachertime,and trainers
costs.
ofprofessional
thelargestcomponent
development
40. We collaborated with JenniferKing Rice on this cost framework,although hers
includes two additional elementsthatwe chose to exclude: 1) researchand development;
and 2) futuresalary obligations. See her paper for more information:"Cost Framework
for Teacher Preparationand Professional Development,"(Washington,D.C.: The Finance
Project, 2001).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
65
TABLE 1
A Cost Structure for Professional Development
Cost Element
TeacherTime
Used for
Professional
Development
Trainingand
Coaching
How Cost is Calculated
Ingredient
contract:
within
the
Time
regular
are notpresentteachers'hourlysalarytimesthe
-whenstudents
freehoursused
numberof student
beforeor afterschoolor on
scheduledin-service
days,half forpd
daysor earlyreleasedays
thecostof theportionof thesalary
time
-planning
of thepersonused to coverthe
teachers'class duringplanning
timeused forpd
TimeOutsidetheregularday/year:
- thestipendsor additionalpay
-timeafterschool,on
based on thehourlyratethat
weekendsor forsummer
teachersreceiveto compensate
institutes
themfortheirtime
- substitute
-releasetimeprovidedby
wages
substitutes
Training
trainers
-salariesfordistrict
salaries
sumof trainer
feesor comprehensive
who
consultant
-outsideconsultants
fees
maybe part schooldesigncontract
providetraining;
of CSRD
Coaching
coaches sumof coach and facilitator
-salariesfordistrict
includingon-sitefacilitators salaries
consultant
feesor comprehensive
who
-outsideconsultants
fees
providecoaching;maybe part schooldesigncontract
of CSRD
timesthe
or school salaryforadministrators
Administration Salariesfordistrict
of
their
time
of
of Professional leveladministrators
spent
proportion
administering
pd programs
development
professional
Development
programs
materialsforpd, includingthecost
Materials
Materials,
of classroommaterialsrequiredfor
Equipmentand
CSRDs
FacilitiesUsed
forProfessional Equipment
neededforpd activities
equipment
Development
rentalor othercostsforfacilities
Facilities
used forprofessional
development
Travel
Traveland
Transportation
forProfessional
Development
Transportation
Costsof travelto off-site
pd
activities
Tuition
Tuitionand
ConferenceFees
or reimbursement
Tuitionpayments
foruniversity-based
pd
withinthe
Costsof transportation
district
forprofessional
development
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66
JournalofEducationFinance
Teacher time
thatschools and disThereare severaltypesof expenditures
trictscan havewhenpayingfortimeforteacherstoengagein proforteachertimecan be sepafessionaldevelopment.
Expenditures
ratedintotwobroadcategories:timethatis withintheteachercontractandtimeoutsideofthecontract.
Althoughexplainedin more
detaillater,itis important
tonotethatnotall ofthecostsdiscussed
herewillbe additionalcostsin all schoolsor districts.
We include
thesecostsin orderto estimateexactlyhowmuchtimeandmoney
mightbe requiredundereach costelementto accountforthecompletecostsofprofessional
development
programsin place in districtandschoolprograms.
Teacher time withinthe teacher contract.Time within
theregularteachercontract
usedforprofessional
can
development
be further
dividedintotwo categories:student-free
teachertime
whenno studentsare presentin school,such as timebeforeand
afterschoolas well as in-servicedays;andstudent-free
timewhen
students
arepresentin school,usuallyprovidedbyanotherteacher
or staffmember,
whichmostfrequently
consistsofplanningtime
used forprofessional
development.
time(whenno students
are
Calculatingthecostofstudent-free
within
the
teacher
contract
used
for
present)
regular
professional
is ideallydone at theschoollevel by askingprincidevelopment
scheduledstudentfreetimethat
pals whenteachershaveregularly
is usedforcollectiveparticipation
inprofessional
and
development
activelearning.This includesmeetingwithotherteachersto improvetheinstructional
program,
workingwitha coach,or engagin
other
activities.
ing
professional
development
Thefollowing
shows
the
cost
ofa hypothetical
school's
example
use ofstudentfreetimewithintheregularcontract
forprofessional
The hypothetical
school forthisexampleemploys
development.
20 teacherswithan averageteachersalary(includingbenefits)of
$54,000,a 180 day/36week contractyear,and a 6 hourcontract
day.Atthisschool,theteachers'dailysalaryis $300 andtheirhourly
salaryis $50.
If all teachersengagein one hourofprofessional
development
meetingsper week beforeor afterschool,thecost can be determinedby multiplying
thenumberof teachersby thenumberof
hourstheyspendon professional
each week,bytheir
development
hourlywage, by thenumberof weeks in thecontractyear.This
at ourhypothetical
school wouldbe 20 teachersx 1
expenditure
hourperweekx $50 x 36 weeksin a contract
year= $36,000.
half
Someschooldistricts
schedule
regularly
earlyreleasedays,,
daysorin-service
Early
daysas partoftheregularteachercontract.
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
67
in
releasedaysareoftenusedtoencouragecollectiveparticipation
at
the
that
take
activities
variousprofessionaldevelopment
place
schoolsite,whichareoftenongoing.In-servicedays,on theother
intheformof
duration,
hand,areoftenusedforactivitiesofshorter
forthis
a districtwideone ortwo-dayworkshop.The expenditures
the
timewouldbe addedto thisestimateto determine
student-free
student-free
on professional
totalexpenditure
during
development
teachertime.
also includestwo
theaboveexample,ifthecontract
Continuing
in-servicedays,one ofwhichis usedforprofessional
district-wide
thecostofthatdayfortheschoolwouldbe obtained
development,
thenumberofteacherstimestheirdailysalarytimes
bymultiplying
thenumberof in-servicedaysused forprofessional
development.
schoolwouldbe 20 teachers
at ourhypothetical
This expenditure
x $300 perday x 1 in-serviceday peryear,or $6,000. Combined,
thisschoolwouldspend$42,000 ($36,000 fortimebeforeor after
school+ $6,000 forthein-serviceday) on teachertimeforprofeswhenstudentsare notpresentoverthecourse
sionaldevelopment
oftheschoolyear.
can also provideteacherswithplanning
Schools and districts
lunchduringtheschoolday.Althoughexpenditimeor duty-free
turesto provideteacherswithplanningtimearefrequently
partof
and someofthistimeis used forpersonal
thenegotiatedcontract,
and otherduties,some schools createschedneeds,preparation,
ules thatprovidecommonplanningtime.Commonplanningtime
inprofessional
develis thenoftenusedforcollectiveparticipation
thatfocuson
opmentactivitieslike discussionsaboutcurriculum
new
with
coaches
on
or
content
working
implementing
specific
to
it is possible verifythe
teachingpractices.Throughinterviews
development
portionofplanningtimethatis used forprofessional
at a givenschool.
Duringplanningtime,theteachers'classesarecoveredbyother
"specialist"staffmembers.The costofthistimeelementis ideally
thenumberof hours
calculatedat theschoollevel by multiplying
ofspecialistteachers,suchas art,music,orotherspecialteachers'
each
timethatis usedtofreeteachersforprofessional
development
thestudentfreetime,
week,bythehourlywage ofthoseproviding
by thenumberof weeksin a year.
Continuingfromtheearlierexample,if all teachersuse one
hourper week of planningtimeprovidedby music,artor other
desimilarteachers(withan hourlysalaryof$50) forprofessional
for
this
of
teacher
time
theschool's expenditure
type
velopment,
wouldbe 20 hoursof special teachers'timeper week x $50 per
hourx 36 weeks in thecontractyear= $36,000. If a school de-
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68
Journalof Education Finance
cidedtoreallocateresourcesso thattworegularclasses werecombinedformusic(or othersimilarinstruction),
thecostwouldbe 10
hoursofspecialteachers'timeperweekx $50 perhourx 36 weeks
in thecontractyear= $18,000; thisreflectspotentialcost savings
ofdoublingtheclass size forthesenon-coreareas,thereby
requiringonlyhalfthespecialistteachers'timeto providetimeforprofessionaldevelopment.
timewithintheregularcontract
Clearlythecostofstudent-free
is notan additionalexpenditure
forschoolsand districtsthatare
alreadypayingteachersforsomeofthetimetheyspendin school
engagedin professionaldevelopment- whetherbeforeor after
to
schoolorduringplanningtime.However,thiscostis important
notebecause districts
acrossthecountryhave takendifferent
apin
to
how
of
time
include
the
teachers'
hours
proaches
many
they
A districtthatpays fora significant
contract.
amountof studentfreetimebeforeorafterschooland/or
providesin-service
daysand/
or providessubstantial
time
within
the
teacher
contract
planning
some
oftheothercategoriesof
mightnotneedtorelyas heavilyon
which
forteachertime,suchas stipendsorsubstitutes,
expenditures
are describedin thenextsection.Thus understanding
thecost of
studentfreetimewithinthecontract
dedayusedforprofessional
velopmentis necessaryto comparecosts acrossdifferent
professionaldevelopment
strategies.
For example,we have founddistrictsthathave a seven-hour
contractday forteachers,onlysix hoursof whichis used forinstruction.
These districts
alreadypay foran houra day thatcould
be usedforprofessional
On theotherhand,we have
development.
studieddistricts
thatprovideonlya six-hourcontract
day,all used
forinstruction.
These districts
needto pay stipendsorhiresubstitutesinorderfortheirteacherstohavetimeforprofessional
development.
Teacher time outside of the teacher contract.Sometimes
schoolsneed to createteachertimeforprofessionaldevelopment
outsideof thecontract.One commonway of doingthisis to pay
forsubstitutes
to coverteachers'classes duringtheregularschool
so
teachers
can attendprofessional
activities.
The
day
development
is
calculated
based
on
the
substitutes'
At
expenditure
wages. the
schoollevel,itwouldbe calculatedby summingtheamountspent
on substitutes
whoreleasedteachersforprofessional
development.
Anotherfrequently
used strategy
is to pay teachersstipendsfor
in a professionaldevelopmentactivityoutsidethe
participating
teachers'contract
dayoryear.Anexampleofthiswouldbe a $1,000
a day for10 days) to attenda two-week sum$100
stipend(e.g.,
merinstitute.
The expenditure
hereis calculatedbysumming
all of
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
69
overtheschool
theteachers'stipendsforprofessional
development
year.
TeacherTime
Uncompensated
It has been well documentedthatteachersspendtimeon professionaldevelopmentforwhichtheyare not compensated.Althoughsome(see forexample,Littleet al.41have triedto estimate
teachertimecarriesno
thecost of thisstrategy,
uncompensated
and
is
notpartofouranalysis.
for
schools
or
districts
expenditures
Timeand Costs
It shouldbe clearthattheform,durationand collectiveparticieach
ofa professional
strategy
development
pationcharacteristics
In termsofform,
costimplications.
timeandtherefore
hassignificant
one-dayworkshopswouldbe lowercost thantwo-weeksummer
institutes
wheretheteachersarepaid fortheirtime.The longerthe
overallduration,i.e.,themoretimethatis involvedinprofessional
thehigherthecosts.Andresearchshowsthateffecdevelopment,
tiveprofessionaldevelopmentgenerallyrequiresmorethan100
variationin dua year.Further,
hoursofprofessional
development
whether
a
rationis largelydetermined
by
professionaldevelopforactivelearningwith
has ongoingopportunities
mentstrategy
butit shouldbe
coaching;thosethatdo are muchmoreeffective,
clearthattheyalso have highercosts.
Trainingand Coaching
This categorycan be dividedintotwo subcategories,which
theformofprofessional
development
provided.The first
represent
of
refersto teacherssittingand gettingtraining
category,
training,
summer
instito
three-week
from
one-dayworkshops
anylength,
foractivelearntutes;thesecond,coaching,referstoopportunities
ing thatare oftenongoingin natureand assistteachersin active
learning.Withinthesecategories,thecost is eitherin theformof
costofconsultand/or
salariesfortrainers
coaches,orthecontract
and/orcoaching.
antsused toprovidetraining
demuchoftraditional
covers
professional
Training.Training
to
district
and
school
expenditures provide
velopment,including
activitiesin theformof
or contractoutprofessionaldevelopment
or otherdistrict-sponsored
profesworkshops,summerinstitutes
schooldesignsinclasses.Manycomprehensive
sionaldevelopment
andtraintechnical
assistance
fordesign-based
cludeannualcontracts
41. J.W. Little,W. H. Gerritz,D. S. Stern,JamesW. Guthrie,M. W. Kirst,and D. D. Marsh,
"Staff Development in California" (1987).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70
JournalofEducationFinance
canbe funded
andsitebudgetary
sources.
ing.Training
bybothdistrict
the
sort
of
Coaching. Coachingcaptures
professionaldevelthat
is
often
of
a
duration
and
opment
longer
providedbya mentor
or coach who increasingly
worksat the school site.We include
school-site
instructional
facilitators
anddistrict
coacheshereas well
as stipends
forteacherswhoassumeadditional
rolesinvolving
traininstructional
Whilewe acknowlingotherstoimprove
performance.
that
all
of
these
include
some
timeon adminisedge
positionsmay
it
is
difficult
and
often
to
tration,
impossible accuratelyparsethis
timeoutand so we includethetotalexpenditure
undercoaching.
arecalculatedbasedon coaches',mentors'orinstrucExpenditures
tionalfacilitators'
salariesorstipends.
Administration
Thiscostelementincludesanyidentifiable
andsubstantial
cost
tothedistrict
or schoolforadministering
itsprofessional
developmentprograms.
This costelementincludesfull-time
district
positionsinchargeofadministering
We also
professional
development.
estimatea percentage
ofotherpositionswhenstaffmembersspend
at least20 percentoftheirtime(approximately
one dayperweek)
administering
professional
development.
and facilities
Materials, equipment
Thiscostelementcoversexpenditures
formaterialsandfacilitiesnecessaryforall formsof professional
This indevelopment.
cludesthecostofanyclassroommaterialsrequiredforimplementationofa comprehensive
schooldesignas wellas equipment
costs
forprofessional
development
workshops.
Travel and transportation
This includesthecosts of teachersor otherstaffmembersto
attendoff-site
activities.This couldinprofessional
development
cludetravelcoststo annualmeetingsofprofessional
associations,
annualmeetingsof thoseinvolvedin comprehensive
school deto
cross-school
and
cross-district
or
for
the
travel
weekly
signs,
professionaldevelopmentnetworkactivities.It does notinclude
thetravelcoststhata districtmightprovidefora consultant
precosts
are
included
as
a
at
a
school
site.
Such
part
senting workshop
and so areconsidereda partof
ofthecostofhiringtheconsultant
thetraining
andcoachingcostelement.
Tuitionand conferencefees
foruniversity
coursesthat
Thisincludestuitionreimbursement
and
conference
fees
forall conas
qualify professional
development
ferences
relatedtoprofessional
development.
Manycomprehensive
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
71
haveopportuniwhereparticipants
schooldesignshaveconferences
to deepencontent
ties foractivelearningas well an opportunity
feesareincludedin thiscategory.
knowledge;thoseconference
Total professionaldevelopmentcosts
In ordertodetermine
thetotalcostsofall professional
developmentactivitiesateithertheschoolordistrict
level,one wouldneed
tocalculatethecostsforeach oftheabove six costcategories,and
in
thetotalcosts.Totalexpenditures
thensumeach to determine
thecoststructure
each ofthesixcostcategoriescoulddifferentiate
eveniftotalcosts
ofdifferent
strategies,
development
professional
werethesame.Forexample,as notedabove,theDistrict2 strategy
spentmoreon teacher'stimein thefirstyearand moreon trainers
andcoachesin subsequentyears,buttheoverallannualcostswere
aboutthesame.
Cost implicationsof thesix keyelements.In addition,using
develthetermsfromthesixkeyelementsofeffective
professional
clear.Again,themorecomopmentcan helpmakethedifferences
coachwithfollow-through
the
form
(summer
workshop
prehensive
the
the
duration
a
one-shot
versus
(one day
workshop), longer
ing
versusmultipledaysor weeks),andthegreaterthecollectiveparticipation(all teachersratherthanjust some volunteerteachers),
theprothemoreeffective
thehigherthecost- and,incidentally,
gram.On theotherhand,thereis no clearcostimplicationforthe
all programs
content
focusofa professional
development
program;
focusis on subject-specific
havesomecontent.The mosteffective
contentandrelatedinstructional
strategies.
Total hours. Finally,in additionto cost, it is also usefulto
attachwherepossiblea timevariable- numberof hours- to the
totalcostsof theprofessionaldevelopment
program.In thisway,
theanalysiscan relatethetotalcosts of theprogramto thetotal
timerequiredby theprogram;again,programsof longerduration
andhighercost.
aregenerallybothmuchmoreeffective
Summary
The cost elementsdescribedin thissectionare thepieces of
information
could,over
that,ifused systematically
byresearchers,
of
time,help identifyand quantifythe costs and cost structures
effectiveprofessionaldevelopmentprograms.This would allow
studies.
forgreatercomparisonacrossdifferent
One finalexamplewill helpmakethispoint.In a recentstudy,
42. Fred M. Newmann, M. Bruce King, Peter Youngs, "Professional Development that
Addresses School Capacity: Lessons fromUrban ElementarySchools," AmericanJournal
of Education 108, no. 2 (2000): 259-299.
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72
Journalof Education Finance
estimatedthatan effective
Newmann,King andYoungs42
professionaldevelopment
thataccompaniesimplementation
of
strategy
theSuccess forAll comprehensive
schooldesigncostonly$1,300
perteacher,a figuretheystatedwas muchlowerthanotherprofessionaldevelopment
costfiguresthathave beencalculatedforthat
But
program.43 theyexcludedsuch costs as use of planningtime
forprofessional
anda full-time
instructional
facilitadevelopment
toras theseelementswere "alreadyin the budget"or could be
fundedvia resourcereallocation.But no matterhowtheyarepaid
foran effective
for,suchelementsare notonlyimportant
professionaldevelopment
butare highcost elementsand must
strategy,
be includedin anyvalidestimatesoftheactualcostsof suchstrategies.To be sure,thefundsfortheseelementsmightalreadybe in
some school or districtbudgetsand can be fundedvia resource
reallocation.
Buttheyarepartoftheoverallcostsanditis misleadnot
to
include
wouldensure
them;use of thecost framework
ing
thatsuchcostsare included.Whenincluded,theNewmann,King
and Youngscost estimateswould increasefrom$1,300 to about
$3,500 a teacher,i.e., riseby an additional170 percent.
Conclusion
Almosteveryoneinvolvedinthestandards-based
educationreformmovement
that
effective
develagrees
providing
professional
opmentis crucialto changingwhatand how teachersteachand
in sectionone,researchis nowbeginstudents
learn.As identified
to
ofeffective
somewhat
thekeyfeatures
ning identify
confidently
fewer
researchers
have studHowever,
professional
development.
ied thecostsofprofessional
development.
the
costs
of
Estimating
development
programsis
professional
difficult.
both
the
elinformation
about
keyprogrammatic
Specific
ementsandthecostsofeach elementareneededin orderto determinea moreprecisecostfigurefortheprogramat a givendistrict
orsite.Thiskindofinformation
has rarelybeenprovidedbyextant
in
because
it
has
been
difficult
tocollect.Thisis also
research, part
truebecauseall districts andschools includedifferent
program
elementsas partof theircost estimates,and because thereis no
standardsetofbudgetitemsused to calculateprofessionaldeveldeopmentcosts.Especiallynowthatjob-embeddedprofessional
43. Allan Odden and Carolyn Busch, Financing Schools for High Performance:Strategies
for Improvingthe Use of Educational Resources (San Francisco,CA: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1998); Allan Odden, "New and BetterForms of Teacher Compensationare Possible,"
Phi Delta Kappan, 81 no. 5 (2000): 361-366.
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Cost Framework
for ProfessionalDevelopment
73
velopmentactivities- whichoftenoccur duringregularteacher
itis increasingly
planningperiods- arebecomingmoreprevalent,
ina given
difficult
toestimate
thecostsofprofessional
development
a commonframework
withdistinct,
district
or school.Therefore,
to obwell-defined
costelementsis needed,as well as interviews
about
andprogrammatic
characteristics
tainresourceuse particulars
from
the
that
cannot
be
culled
general
professionaldevelopment
fiscalrecordsorbudgetdocuments.
thatenablesresearchers
Thispaperpresentsa cost-framework
costsinterms
tosystematically
categorize
professional
development
andcoaching;
ofsixkeycostelements:1) teachertime;2) training
4) materials,equipmentand facilities;5) travel
3) administration;
fees.
tuitionandconference
andtransportation;
and6) university
level of detailon
These cost elementsprovidea meaningful
how moneyis spentforprofessionaldevelopmentat thedistrict
andschool.As explainedin sectiontwo,theusefulnessofthissort
acrossstudiesbecomesmost
offramework
formakingcomparisons
apparentwhenanalyzingthestudiesbyMiller,LordandDorney,44
Since thesestudiesused
Miles,et.al.45andMiles andHornbeck.46
andtheircosts,it
different
definitions
ofprofessional
development
is difficult
todrawconclusionsacrossthestudiesaboutthetypical
level of professionaldevelopmentspending;had each studyused
in thisarticle,comparisonswouldhave been
thecost framework
facilitated.
thecostframework
shouldbe used to analyze
Further,
data
at
both
thedistrict
and school
and
programmatic expenditure
leveltoensurethatthefullrangeofprofessional
prodevelopment
arecaptured.
gramsandtheirrelatedexpenditures
Finally,we shouldnotethatwe haveoftenused "expenditures"
and "costs"as interchangeable
terms,butin facttheyare not.Exhas
referto whatis spent,andcalculatingexpenditures
penditures
of
most
fiscal
studies
of
develbeentheprimary
goal
professional
areincurred
toproducea certainoutcome,
opment.Costs,however,
These
such as a certainlevel of increasedstudentperformance.
of
and
costsincludeinfrastructure,
inputs production, opportunitiesforegoneto pursuethespecificoutcome.Ourcostframework
all ofthesecosts,exceptopporis particularly
usefulforcapturing
44. Barbara Miller, Brian Lord, and JudithDorney, "Staff Development for Teachers"
(1994).
45. Karen Hawley Miles, Francine Bouchard, Kendra Winner, Mary Ann Cohen, and
Ellen Guiney,"Professional Development Spending in the Boston Public Schools" (1999)
46. Karen Hawley Miles and Matthew Hornbeck, "RethinkingDistrict Professional Development Spending" (2000).
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74
Journalof Education Finance
costs.
tunity
As fiscalresearchonprofessional
movesforward,
development
we hope studiesuse theproposedcost framework
to identify
the
fullscope of professionaldevelopmentspendingthatalreadyis
As shouldbe clearfromtheresearchthathas beendone,
occurring.
districts
and schoolsalreadyspendlargeamountsofmoney
many
on professional
At somepointresearchalso needsto
development.
costs- whatarethefullcostsof
identify
professional
development
variousprofessionaldevelopmentstrategies
thatproducevarious
impactson increasedstudent
learning.Itis onlywhenwe havethat
kindofinformation
thatwe can beginto focusprofessional
develon
those
that
the
opmentspending
programs provide improvedstudentoutcomesthatare thegoal of standards-based
educationreform.Withsuchinformation,
schoolsanddistricts
canmakebetterinformed
decisionsaboutprofessionaldevelopmentin bothprogramand spending.
This content downloaded on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:00:59 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions