The Federal Role in Teacher Professional Development

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides an opportune occasion to take a fresh look at the federal role in teacher professional development. Funds designed to improve teachers' professional prowess currently are tucked into a number of federally funded p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Brookings papers on education policy 2000, Vol.2000 (1), p.265-295
1. Verfasser: Koppich, Julia
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides an opportune occasion to take a fresh look at the federal role in teacher professional development. Funds designed to improve teachers' professional prowess currently are tucked into a number of federally funded programs--programs, for example, for students living in poverty, for children with little or no English language proficiency, and for schools engaged in so-called whole school reform. The largest federal professional development appropriation, and the only federal effort devoted entirely to this purpose, is the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which is one of many teacher training programs funded by the federal government. Koppich notes that its earlier emphasis on mathematics and science kept it admirably targeted to specific school subjects, making it a valuable resource for states and local school districts that wanted to strengthen teachers' knowledge of their subject. Since its last reauthorization, however, recipients are able to use the funds for other school subjects, thus diluting its focus. She urges a rededication of the program so that it specifically aims to improve teachers' subject matter knowledge. A more focused approach that concentrates on increasing teachers' subject matter knowledge and subject-based pedagogy, and holds recipients of these federal dollars accountable for improving student learning, seems both sensible and worthwhile. Comments by Thomas Toch and Michael Podgursky are included. (Contains 38 notes.)
ISSN:1096-2719
1533-4457
1533-4457
DOI:10.1353/pep.2000.0010