1

The Relative Influence of Professional Community on Changes in Science Teaching Steven McGee & Linda C. Lee

Northwestern University NARST 2014

1 Abstract Previous research has shown that professional learning communities have the potential to

be a powerful lever for continuous improvement in school settings. This research seeks to extend previous research by unpacking the characteristics of professional community that influence science teaching practice and focusing the research on neighborhood schools in an urban setting, where low student performance and high teacher turnover present barriers to professional community. All of the science teachers in a particular network of neighborhood schools in an urban setting were surveyed on the extent to which they participated in a variety of formal and on-the-job learning opportunities over the course of the current school year. The teachers also indicated the extent to which they changed their teaching practices in the current school year. The results indicate teachers engaged in a variety of professional community activities such as collaborative discussions about curricula and student work and advice seeking. These conversations were associated with teachers' changing their teaching practice. Science educators who are supporting implementation of science curricula in urban settings would be well advised to consider how to support these ongoing conversations about their curricula and resulting student work products.

2 Introduction of the Problem Racial disparities in the STEM workforce can be traced back to socioeconomic status

(SES) and racial performance gaps that begin before kindergarten (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005), persist through elementary and high school (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011) and manifest in differential matriculation and graduation from college (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011). These SES and racial performance gaps can be substantial at the crucial transition point between elementary and high school. For example, on the 2011 NAEP eighth grade science test1, (1) low-income students performed 0.8 standard deviations below middle- to high-income students, (2) students whose parents dropped out of high school performed 0.9 standard deviations below students with at least one parent who graduated from college, and (3) black students performed 1.0 standard deviation below white students.

In the face of these strong relationships between SES, race, and science outcomes, it can be easy for teachers to despair, feel that there is little that they can do to overcome students' background, and diminish their expectations for low income, minority students (Diamond, Randolph, & Spillane, 2004). However, among schools that serve low-income, minority students there still exists significant variation in science outcomes (Williams et al., 2010). In other words, schools can have a significant impact on improving science outcomes for low income, minority students. Those schools that are achieving higher science outcomes for their low-income, minority students tend to be engaging them in scientific practices (Allensworth, Correa, & Ponisciak, 2008). These scientific practices are at the core of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Results have consistently shown, that teachers who successfully engage students in these scientific practices have seen improved science outcomes 1 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_168.asp

2

(Bredderman, 1983). However, despite the significant long-term federal investment in curriculum reform and the research evidence of their effectiveness, the market share is modest for instructional resources that support scientific practices in K12 schools (Fulkerson, Campbell, & Hudson, 2013, p. 2.35). Schools have found it difficult to successfully implement and even more difficult to sustain implementation of instructional resources that support scientific practices (Anderson, 1994; Tushnet et al., 2000).

One important tool for overcoming barriers to implementation is professional development. Research has shown that participation in content-specific, teacher professional development can lead to changes in teaching practice (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Parise & Spillane, 2010), which in turn can lead to improvement in student learning outcomes (Banilower, Heck, & Weiss, 2007; Johnson, Kahle, & Fargo, 2007; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010). Recognizing the essential benefits of professional development, the federal government has significantly invested in professional development programs to support the implementation of previously developed instructional resources that engage students in scientific practices (Young & Lee, 2005). One such program, the Urban Systemic Initiative, specifically targeted professional development in large urban districts with high concentrations of low-income, minority students. After almost a decade of investment, large urban districts were seeing reduced racial disparities in science outcomes through increased teacher capacity to implement high quality science instructional materials (Kim et al., 2001). However, it has been difficult to sustain these benefits beyond the infusion of professional development support from the federal government or from the district (Tushnet et al., 2000).

The fate of the Chicago Systemic Initiative provides a robust example of the difficulty in sustaining long-term implementation (USI-9450600). Throughout the course of the program funding and for almost a decade after the end of the NSF funding for the Chicago Systemic Initiative (14 years), Chicago Public Schools (CPS) had just two superintendents—Paul Vallas and Arne Duncan 2 . After NSF funding ended, Arne Duncan continued to support the implementation of high quality instructional materials through teacher-led professional development and a robust equipment lending library for teachers to borrow hands on materials for the district-supported science units. In January 2009, Arne Duncan left CPS to become the U.S. Secretary of Education. Since that time, CPS has experienced three superintendents and one interim superintendent in five years. Funding has been eliminated for the teacher-led professional development and for the lending library. Racial performance gaps are at an all-time high as witnessed by the closure of 50 "failing" elementary schools in Chicago, primarily serving black children3.

Changes in school leadership and waves of policy reform are two of the five major forces that Hargreaves and Goodson (2006) have identified as significantly contributing to an ever-changing landscape in schools. The other three forces are changing teacher demographics, changing student demographics, and changing relations among schools. As seen in Chicago, waves of policy reform come about with changes in school superintendents. Chicago experienced an unusual 14-year period of stability during the implementation and continued support of the Chicago Systemic Initiative. However, more recently Chicago is experiencing an unusual period of instability with four superintendents in five years. More typically, changes in district leadership occur around every three to five years in urban settings (Council of Great City

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CEOs_of_the_Chicago_Public_Schools 3 http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9112543

3

Schools, 2010)—barely enough time for a new implementation to gain traction in the district. Changes in school building leadership occur regularly as well, with around half of high school principals leaving a school after three years (Fuller & Young, 2009). Principal turnover is particularly acute in urban settings where principals in high poverty, low performing schools tend to leave more frequently.

Likewise, high teacher turnover contributes to changing teacher demographics. For example, less than half of the high school teachers in Chicago stay at the same school for more than four years (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009). Like principals, teachers in high poverty, low performing schools tend to have above average rates of teacher turnover. If the school district is part of a professional development program, new teachers will get support for learning how to implement the adopted curriculum at the school. However, when schools are no longer participating in a professional development program teachers either flounder with curricula that support scientific practices or they tend to revert to teacher-directed instruction in the face of accountability pressure (Au, 2007). Instability of the teaching corps tends to decrease curriculum coherence and the quality of instruction (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010).

A significant countervailing force against teacher turnover in high poverty, low performing schools is having a strong professional community of collaborative colleagues that are focused on school wide efforts to improve instruction (Allensworth et al., 2009). Teachers are more likely to remain at a school with collaborative colleagues that trust each other. In addition, schools with a strong professional community focused on curriculum alignment also almost double the probability of sustaining long-term growth in student learning (Bryk et al., 2010, p. 116). Long-term sustainability of any curriculum effort requires shared visions, ample time for constant collaborative adaptation, and the development of teacher leadership capacity (Larkin, Seyforth, & Lasky, 2009; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007).

Given the powerful role that professional community can play in teacher retention and in sustaining teaching improvements gained through professional development, it is surprising how little we know about the mechanisms by which this happens, particularly in science education. The majority of the research on the mechanisms by which professional community impacts practice is based on organizational research in math and literacy. There is a need for more organizational research on the impact of professional community on science teaching. In particular, there is a need for this research on professional community in urban settings where the limited experience and high turnover of teachers in low-achieving schools works against the formation of strong professional community (Panizzon, Barnes, & Pegg, 2007). In order to design supports for the development of professional community among urban science teachers, it is critical to understand the characteristics of science professional communities in urban settings that are most significant for influencing teaching practice.

Some evidence of these characteristics has been identified in prior research. In a national study of Eisenhower math and science professional development workshops, Garet et al. (2001) investigated the impact of a variety of workshop characteristics on self-reported teacher knowledge and changes in teaching practice using survey methodology. One of the professional development characteristics included in the survey was the extent to which the workshops focused on active learning, which included peer observation, collaborative discussion of student work, planning instruction, and professional presentations. The survey aggregated these characteristics into a single active learning scale. The survey did not make a distinction between

4

teachers collaborating with colleagues in their school or teachers collaborating with peers from other schools participating in the professional development. The results of the investigation found that the extent to which professional development included active learning as a whole significantly predicted improvements in teacher knowledge, but did not have a direct effect on changes in teaching practice. This study provides evidence that active learning in science professional development in the aggregate can positively benefit teachers.

Parise and Spillane (2010) investigated the relative influence of the components that comprise the Garet et al. (2001) active learning scale. Parise and Spillane (2010) labeled these characteristics on-the-job learning opportunities (peer observation, collaborative discussion, and advice seeking). They compared the characteristics of on-the-job learning opportunities to formal opportunities (coursework, workshops, network participation). Their study investigated these characteristics for elementary math and English teaching in an urban setting, but not science. Of the various types of formal learning opportunities, content-specific professional development significantly predicted changes in teaching practices, which is consistent with Garet et al. (2001). In contrast, Parise and Spillane (2010) found that a subset of on-the-job learning opportunities directly predicted changes in teaching practices, specifically collaborative discussion and advice seeking. In similar research, these self-reported changes in teaching practice have been found to predict improvements in student learning in English and math (Supovitz et al., 2010).

In this study we seek to extend the findings from Parise and Spillane (2010) into the discipline of high school science. To what extent do the characteristics of professional community influence changes in teaching practice among high school science teachers? What is the relative influence of formal and on-the-job learning on changes in teaching practice? In this research project, we investigate the characteristic of formal and on-the-job learning opportunities that predict self-reported changes in science teaching for 15 high school science departments in the same high school network in Chicago. Given CPS's recent period of rapid turnover in superintendents and subsequent policy ambiguity makes the district a worthwhile subject of study for how professional learning opportunities influence teaching practice. There has not been a consistent program of external teacher support in these high schools for several years. This contrasts with previous research that has examined these questions in the context of ongoing external professional development.

3 Methods During the months of May and early June 2013, the first author attended a science

department meeting in fifteen of the sixteen schools in one out of a half dozen high school networks in Chicago to administer an online version of the School Staff Questionnaire used in Parise and Spillane (2010). After inviting teachers to participate in the research, participants had the opportunity to indicate their willingness to participate by signing an informed consent form. A total of 112 teachers agreed to participate and completed the online survey during their science department meeting.

3.1 Measures The survey instrument comes from previous research on teachers’ professional learning

opportunities (Goldring, Huff, Pareja, & Spillane, 2008; Goldring, Spillane, Huff, Barnes, & Supovitz, 2006; Supovitz et al., 2010). Questionnaire items are primarily closed-ended and ask about the teachers’ work in and out of the classroom. In one open-ended question, respondents are also asked to describe their in-school social networks by listing the names of people from whom they seek advice about science. Scales used in this study were developed using a

5

combination of previous empirical work as well as relevant literature on each dimension of formal and on-the-job learning opportunities. Previous scale development using the same teacher survey identified reliable constructs related to teachers’ learning opportunities (Goldring et al., 2008; Goldring et al., 2006; Supovitz et al., 2010). All scales were shown to be reliable with alphas above or equal to .70, and most were highly reliable with alphas above .90 (Parise & Spillane, 2010). Supovitz et al. (2010) conducted confirmatory factor analysis to validate the use of similar scales from the teacher survey. They provided initial group membership of survey items within scales, permitting items to then migrate iteratively to scales that better explain item variance, but no item migrated from its hypothesized scale.

The following sections detail the dependent variable of changes in teaching practice, the independent variables related to the characteristics of professional learning opportunities, and the control variables related to teacher demographics.

3.1.1 Changes in Science Teaching Practices Scale (Dependent Variable) Prior research has shown that self-reported changes in teaching practice can predict student

learning (Supovitz et al., 2010). That same research has shown that the quality of professional learning opportunities influences the amount of changes teachers report in their teaching practice. We seek to explore that same relationship between professional learning opportunities and teaching practice in science. To that end the School Staff Questionnaire includes eight questions that measure changes in teaching practice for science. On a 7-point scale ranging from not at all to a great deal, participants were asked to indicate how much they changed their science teaching during the past year for the following items: (1) student assessment, (2) student grouping, (3) materials used, (4) topics covered, (5) teaching methods used, (6) kinds of work students do, (7) kinds of questions asked, and (8) understanding of the needs of individual students in their class. The items were averaged to create the changes in science teaching practices variable, which serves as the dependent variable for this study. The alpha reliability of the changes in science teaching practices variable was 0.93.

3.1.2 Formal Professional Learning Opportunities (Independent Variables) The formal professional learning opportunities are Science Professional Development,

Science Courses in the past year, and Outside Network Participation. The alpha reliability of the formal professional learning opportunities scale was 0.30, which indicates that each of the questions addresses different components of formal professional learning. Therefore, each question will be used separately as an independent variable.

Science professional development. Science professional development is a measure of teachers’ formal learning opportunities in science. On a 4-point scale ranging from none to 8+ sessions, participants were asked to indicate the number of professional development sessions they participated in during the past year.

Science courses. A second measure of formal learning opportunities is teachers’ science or science education coursework in the past year. On a 5-point scale ranging from none to 4+ classes, participants were asked to indicate the number of undergraduate or graduate level courses they have taken in science or science teaching in the past year.

Outside network participation. On a 6-point scale ranging from never to 10 or more times, respondents were asked to indicate how often they participated in a network with other teachers outside of their school this year. Characterized by Garet et al. (2001) as a type of reform professional development, teacher networks outside of the school may provide teachers with opportunities to learn and may bring new information into teachers’ own schools .

6

3.1.3 On-the-Job Professional Learning Opportunities (Independent Variables) The scales of on-the-job professional learning opportunities are Collaborative Discussion

and Review of Student Work, Peer Observation and Feedback, and Science Advice Seeking. Collaborative discussion and review of student work. The collaborative discussion

measure captures teachers’ behaviors around conversation with colleagues regarding teaching and learning. On a 5-point scale ranging from never to more than 2 days/week, participants are asked questions regarding their conversations with colleagues around issues of teaching and learning: (a) what helps students learn the best, (b) development of new curriculum, (c) the goals of this school, (d) managing classroom behavior, (e) science instruction, and (f) content or performance standards in science. On the same 5-point scale, respondents are also asked to indicate how often they had engaged in collaborative review of student work. The alpha reliability of the collaborative discussion and review of student work scale as a whole was 0.87.

Peer observation and feedback. On a 5-point scale ranging from never to more than 2 days/week, participants are asked to indicate how often they participated in three different observation and feedback activities around instruction: (a) how often the teacher observed someone else, (b) how often someone else observed the teacher, and (c) how often the teacher received feedback based on someone's observation. Researchers have found that when teachers engage in observation and feedback, they may learn from colleagues and they ask more questions to improve their own teaching practice (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Little, 1990). Items were averaged to create the peer observation and feedback variable. The alpha reliability of the peer observation and feedback scale was 0.80.

Science advice seeking. Respondents are asked, “To whom do you turn for advice or information about science instruction?” Respondents can list up to ten different sources of information. As an indicator of tie strength, respondents are also asked to indicate how often they turned to each source for advice, ranging from yearly to daily. The science advice seeking measure is created by totaling the frequency with which subject-specific advice was sought from all sources listed.

3.1.4 Teacher characteristics (Control Variables) Individual teacher characteristics were included as control variables in our analyses,

including age, number of years as a teacher, number of years teaching at the current school, gender, and race.

At School Total

1-5 yrs 55 31 6-10 yrs 23 18 11-15 yrs 16 26 16-20 yrs 9 18 > 20 5 18 Table 1: Teaching Experience

Caucasian 56% African American 26% Hispanic 12% Asian 7% Other 6%

Table 2: Race

Male 36% Female 64%

Table 3: Gender

3.2 Population A total of 112 teachers responded to the survey. Below are the demographic characteristics of the teachers. The average number of years of teaching was just over 12 years. The distribution of overall teaching experience is somewhat uniform (see third column of Table 1). However, the

7

average number of years teaching at the current school was around 7.5 and the distribution was skewed toward the lower end. Almost half of the teachers were at their school for five years or less (see Table 1). This discrepancy between overall teaching experience and experience at the current school suggests that the population reflects the high turnover rate within CPS as a whole (Allensworth et al., 2009). Over half of the teachers were Caucasian and around one-fourth were African American (see Table 2). Almost two-thirds of the teachers were female (see Table 3).

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive Results Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics for the primary dependent and independent

variables included in this study. The number of participants that responded to each question, sample means, and standard deviations are listed. Also, the scale label for the average value, as well as the minimum and maximum values are listed. The dependent variable—changes in science teaching—indicates that, on average, teachers were slightly above the midpoint on the scale meaning that teachers implemented a fair amount of changes in their classroom practice and there was substantial teacher-level variation in the amount of change implemented. In terms of formal professional learning opportunities, teachers on average participated in 3-7 workshops during the school year and participated in a network with science teachers outside of their school a couple of times per year. During the 2012-13 school year, CPS provided tuition subsidies for math and science teachers to take graduate courses in science and math. The average rating for this population was a little less than 1 graduate class in science or science teaching.

Teachers participated in on-the-job professional learning opportunities more often than formal professional learning opportunities. Advice seeking was the most frequent behavior. Teachers on average sought advice weekly from five colleagues. Recall that the overall advice seeking metric combines the number of advisors and the frequency of seeking advice. Teachers engaged in conversations with their colleagues on average a few times per month. They more frequently discussed how students learn best, science instruction, classroom behavior, and performance standards—a couple of times per week. A little less frequently, teachers discussed the goals of the school, developing new curricula, and student work—a few times per month. Teachers engaged in peer observation and feedback a few times per year. They more frequently observed other teachers (few times per month) than they themselves were observed by other teachers and received feedback (few times per year).

Table 6 in the Appendix presents the zero-order correlations of the dependent and independent variables. The correlations between the dependent variable— changes in science teaching practice—and teachers’ formal and on-the-job learning opportunities were moderate to high, ranging from 0.14 to 0.48. The number of science courses that a teacher took had the strongest association with changes in science teaching among the formal learning opportunities, 0.33. Among the on-the-job learning opportunities variables, several of the conversation topics had correlations above 0.40. Science advice seeking and peer observation and feedback both had strong correlations around 0.32. On the other hand, the length of time a teacher has been at the school is negatively correlated with changes in teaching practice. Teachers who were veterans at the schools were less likely to take courses, engage in outside networks, discuss classroom behavior, and seek advice.

8

Variable N Mean SD Typical Label Min Max

Dependent Variable

Changes in science teaching 112 4.3 1.4 Not at all (1) A great deal (7)

Formal Learning Opportunities Science professional development 110 2.7 0.9 3-7 sessions None (1) 8+ Sessions (4)

Outside network participation 110 2.2 0.9 1-2 Times None (1) 10+ session (4) Science courses this year 110 1.7 1.3 1 class None (1) 4+ classes (5)

On-the-Job Learning Opportunities

Science Advice Seeking: 109 12.2 8.0 0 32

Number of Advisors 109 4.6 2.9 5 Advisors 0 10

Average Frequency of Advice 98 2.9 0.7 Weekly Few times/yr (1) Daily (4)

Conversations about: 112 3.5 0.8 Few times/month None (1.4) few times/wk (5)

What helps students learn best 110 3.9 1.0 1-2 days/wk None (1) few times/wk (5) Your science instruction 110 3.9 1.1 1-2 days/wk None (1) few times/wk (5) Content or performance standards 109 3.7 1.0 1-2 days/wk None (1) few times/wk (5)

Managing classroom behavior 109 3.6 1.2 1-2 days/wk None (1) few times/wk (5)

The goals of this school 109 3.3 1.1 Few times/month None (1) few times/wk (5)

Development of new curriculum 110 3.3 1.1 Few

times/month None (1) few times/wk (5)

Review your students' work 110 2.5 1.0 Few times/month None (1) few times/wk (5)

Peer Observation and Feedback: 112 2.2 1.0 Few times/year None (1) few times/wk (5)

Observe another classroom teacher teach 112 2.5 1.4 Few

times/month None (1) few times/wk (5)

Another classroom teacher observe you teach 110 2.3 1.2 Few

times/year None (1) few times/wk (5)

Another classroom teacher give you feedback after observing you teach

111 1.9 1.0 Few times/year None (1) few times/wk (5)

Table 4: Descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables

4.2 Regression Results To analyze the extent to which changes in teaching practice were associated with formal

and on-the-job learning opportunities, we developed three multiple regression models. The first model examined the influence of formal opportunities. The second model examined the influence of on-the-job learning opportunities. The third model examined the influence of both

9

on-the-job and formal learning. In each of the models, we controlled for length of time at the school. Table 4 shows the results of these multiple regression analyses. The cell values are the standardized betas. The statistically significant variables are bolded and the cells are highlighted in green. All three models were statistically significant. Of the three formal learning opportunities, the only characteristic that was statistically significant was the number of science or science teaching classes teachers completed in the current school year. About 25% of the teachers in the sample indicated that they took one or more classes. It is possible that several of these teachers took advantage of tuition subsidies and stipends that the school district provided for the 2012-13 school year to encourage science and math teachers to deepen their content knowledge through university coursework. In analyzing the on-the-job learning characteristics, we sought to unpack the characteristics of teachers' conversations that were associated with changes in teaching practice. We analyzed each of the topics of conversation separately and reported those conversational topics that were statistically significant. The statistically significant on-the-job characteristics are conversations about curriculum, collaborative review of student work, and science advice seeking. It is worth noting that the on-the-job learning opportunities model explains almost two times as much of the variance as the formal learning opportunities model. Adding the formal learning to the on-the-job learning model only adds 5% additional explanation of variance in the Full Model. However, none of the formal professional learning variables are statistically significant in the full model. The length of time that a teacher had been at a particular school is statistically significant in all three models. It is associated with fewer changes the teacher made to his/her science teaching practice.

Independent Variable

Changes in Science Teaching Practice Formal

Opportunities Only On-the-Job

Opportunities Only Full Model Formal Professional Learning

Science Professional Development 0.124 0.081 Science Courses (School Year) 0.281** 0.149 Outside Network Participation 0.044 -0.113

Informal Professional Learning Conversations about:

Student Work 0.303** 0.320** Curriculum 0.294** 0.242**

Science Advice Seeking 0.251** 0.269* Peer Observation and Feedback -0.021 -0.033

Teacher Controls Years Teaching at Current School -0.197* -0.202* -0.208* Gender, Race - - -

R-square 25% 44% 49% Observations 98 97 91

Significance Levels: 0.05 = *; 0.01 = **

Table 5: Results of Multiple Regression

10

5 Conclusion Previous research has shown that professional learning communities have the potential to

be a powerful lever for continuous improvement in school settings. However, these previous research studies have taken place in the context of ongoing professional development programs. Garet et al. (2001) found that professional development with active learning components increased teacher content knowledge of science, but did not influence teaching practices. Their research results, however, are confounded by the fact that the active learning dimension aggregated several of the characteristics of professional community. This research has shown that these characteristics have differential influences on teaching practices. The fact that Garet et al. (2001) did not find an influence of active learning on teaching practice may be due to aggregating the effects of different characteristics into one scale. Parise and Spillane (2010) found that both formal and on-the-job learning opportunities have a significant influence on changes in teaching practice in English and math. In contrast, this research found that the influence of on-the-job learning explained the vast majority of the variance in changes in teaching practice. None of the formal opportunities were statistically significant within the model that included the on-the-job learning opportunities. We do not believe that these findings suggest that formal learning opportunities are unimportant. It is important to recall that there was not any coordinated science professional development intervention occurring. These findings might suggest that in the absence of a coordinated formal professional development program, the resulting haphazard professional development has limited influence on teaching practices. What this current research does suggest is that conversations about curriculum and student work are commonly occurring in ordinary high school settings despite the changing leadership and policy ambiguity in the district. These conversations about curricula and student work have a significant influence on teaching practice. Science educators who are supporting implementation of science curricula in urban settings would be well advised to consider how to support these ongoing conversations about their curricula and resulting student work products as a way to increase the probability that the intervention will sustain after the professional development component comes to end.

6 References Allensworth, E. A., Correa, Macarena, & Ponisciak, Steve. (2008). From High School to the

Future: ACT Preparation–Too Much, Too Late Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

Allensworth, E. A., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The Schools Teachers Leave: Teacher Mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Chicago Consortium on School Research.

Anderson, R.D. (1994). Issues of curriculum reform in science, mathematics and higher order thinking across the disciplines. . Collingdale, PA: Diane Publishing Company.

Au, Wayne W. (2007). High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. doi: 10.3102/0013189x07306523

Banilower, Eric R., Heck, Daniel J., & Weiss, Iris R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation's local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395. doi: 10.1002/tea.20145

Bastedo, Michael N., & Jaquette, Ozan. (2011). Running in Place: Low-Income Students and the Dynamics of Higher Education Stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 318-339. doi: 10.3102/0162373711406718

11

Bredderman, Ted. (1983). Effects of Activity-based Elementary Science on Student Outcomes: A Quantitative Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518.

Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E. , & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, S. L., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Council of Great City Schools. (2010). Urban School Superintendents: Characteristics, Tenure, and Salary. Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.

Diamond, John B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, James P. (2004). Teachers' expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75-98.

Duncan, Greg J., & Magnuson, Katherine A. (2005). Can Family Socioeconomic Resources Account for Racial and Ethnic Test Score Gaps? The Future of Children, 15(1), 35-54.

Fulkerson, W. O., Campbell, K. M., & Hudson, S. B. . (2013). 2012 National survey of science and mathematics education: Compendium of tables. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Fuller, Ed, & Young, Michelle D. (2009). Tenure and Retention of Newly Hired Principals in Texas. Charlottesville, VA: University Council for Educational Administration.

Garet, M.S. , Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Goldring, Ellen B., Huff, Jason, Pareja, Amber Stitziel, & Spillane, James P. (2008). Measuring principals’ content knowledge of learning-centered leadership. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. http://philiphallinger.com/papers-x/Goldring1.pdf

Goldring, Ellen B., Spillane, James P., Huff, Jason, Barnes, Carol, & Supovitz, Jon. (2006). Measuring the Instructional Leadership Competence of School Principals. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/aera_2006_instructional_leadership_and_principals.pdf

Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational Change Over Time? The Sustainability and Nonsustainability of Three Decades of Secondary School Change and Continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.

Johnson, Carla C., Kahle, Jane Butler, & Fargo, Jamison D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, whole-school professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775-786. doi: 10.1002/tea.20149

Kim, Jason J., Crasco, Linda M., Smith, Robert B., Johnson, Greta, Karantonis, Ana, & Leavitt, David J. (2001). Academic excellence for all urban students: Their accomplishment in science and mathematics. Foxboro, MA: Systemic Research.

Larkin, Douglas B., Seyforth, Scott C., & Lasky, Holly J. (2009). Implementing and sustaining science curriculum reform: A study of leadership practices among teachers within a high school science department. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 813-835. doi: 10.1002/tea.20291

12

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ profes- sional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2009 (NCES 2011–451). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Panizzon, D., Barnes, G., & Pegg, J. (2007). Exceptional Outcomes in Science Education. Teneriffe, Queensland: Post Pressed.

Parise, L. M., & Spillane, James P. (2010). Instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323-346.

Roehrig, Gillian H., Kruse, Rebecca A., & Kern, Anne. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907. doi: 10.1002/tea.20180

Supovitz, Jonathan A., Sirinides, Philip, & May, Henry. (2010). How Principals and Peers Influence Teaching and Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56. doi: 10.1177/1094670509353043

Tushnet, Naida C., Millsap, Mary Ann, Abdullah-Welsh, Noraini, Brigham, Nancy, Cooley, Elizabeth, Elliott, Jeanne, . . . Rosenblum, Sheila. (2000). Final Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Instructional Materials Development Program. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf0071/nsf0071.pdf.

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., Rosin, Matthew, Webman, Ben, Wilson, Kathy, . . . Woodward, Kathryn Morgan. (2010). Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Young, BettyJ, & Lee, SharonK. (2005). The Effects of a Kit-Based Science Curriculum and Intensive Science Professional Development on Elementary Student Science Achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5-6), 471-481. doi: 10.1007/s10956-005-0222-2

7 Acknowledgments This research was funded through a grant from the Fry Foundation to Northwestern

University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Fry Foundation.

13

Variable Teach Chng PD Class Net-

work Studs learn

New curri-culum

School goals

Beha-vior

Instruc-tion

Stan-dards

Stud Work

Obs &

Feed Obs Be

obs Get feed

Advice Seek

Num of Advisors

Avg Adv Freq

Science professional development

0.241*

Science courses this year

0.328** 0.120

Outside network participation

0.229* 0.122 0.260

** What helps students learn best

0.479**

0.237 *

0.203 *

0.271**

Development of new curriculum

0.418** -0.046 0.182 0.112 0.581

** The goals of this school

0.305** 0.086 0.204

* 0.070 0.584** 0.527

Managing classroom behavior

0.417**

0.247** 0.141 0.295

** 0.631

** 0.425

** 0.449

** Your science instruction

0.439** 0.170 0.216

* 0.179 0.730**

0.555 **

0.400 **

0.604 **

Content or performance standards

0.341** 0.055 0.318

** 0.172 0.651**

0.542 **

0.502 **

0.469 **

0.660 **

Review your students' work

0.430**

0.200 *

0.231 *

0.240 *

0.416**

0.302 ** 0.170 0.222

* 0.287

** 0.304

** Peer Observation and Feedback

0.320**

0.216 *

0.214 *

0.244 *

0.374**

0.370 ** 0.167 0.337

** 0.278

** 0.318

** 0.388

** Observe another classroom teacher teach

0.224 * 0.173 0.027 0.175 0.298

** 0.179 0.061 0.158 0.105 0.231 *

0.281 **

0.797 **

Another classroom teacher observe you teach

0.275** 0.152 0.242 0.203

* 0.314

** 0.380

** 0.181 0.378 **

0.312 **

0.310 **

0.336 **

0.888 **

0.476 **

Another classroom teacher give you feedback after observing you teach

0.327**

0.221 *

0.315**

0.236 *

0.330**

0.415 ** 0.173 0.350

** 0.305

** 0.262

** 0.376

** 0.857

** 0.449

** 0.814

**

Science Advice Seeking:

0.316** 0.047 0.247

* 0.191 0.217 * 0.138 0.127 0.175 0.303

** 0.237

* 0.158 0.200 * 0.091 0.168 0.269

**

Number of Advisors 0.254** 0.032 0.227

* 0.291

** 0.154 0.093 0.079 0.144 0.223* 0.097 0.061 0.119 0.021 0.076 0.222 *

0.905 **

Average Frequency of Advice 0.135 -0.004 0.019 -0.134 0.181 0.208* 0.197* 0.168 0.266

** 0.364

** 0.286

** 0.257

** 0.182 0.293 **

0.202 * 0.001 -0.328

** Years at Current School

-0.342 ** -0.111 -0.227

* -0.324

** -0.151 -0.007 -0.168 -0.286 ** -0.129 -0.192 -0.041 -0.142 -0.117 -0.090 -0.133 -0.224

* -0.237* -0.008

Table 6: Zero-order correlations of primary variables *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).