1

August 2005

As in many professions, elementary and secondary school

teachers are expected to participate regularly in professional

development activities. These activities may be intended to

help teachers to learn new teaching methods, broaden their

subject matter content knowledge, or stay informed of changing policies, among other purposes. Researchers have identified several features of professional development that have

been correlated with change in teacher knowledge and instructional practices (Cohen and Hill 2000; Garet et al. 2001),

including (1) a focus on teachers’ subject matter content or

the teaching methods they employ (called focus on content

and focus on methods in this Issue Brief); (2) duration in terms

of the number of hours of training and the number of weeks

or months over which training is provided (duration); (3) an

activity format that is integrated into the daily work of teachers rather than removed from the context of direct public

school teaching, as in traditional workshops (format); (4)

collective participation of teachers’ peers in matters of instruction (collective participation); (5) alignment with local

standards and other initiatives to change instructional practice, as well as teachers’ own professional goals (alignment);

and (6) activities that produce many opportunities for active

learning, including observation, planning, practicing, and

presenting (opportunities for active learning).

Little is known about how common these features of professional development are at the national level. This Issue Brief

uses data from the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey

(SASS) to examine the prevalence of the first five features of

teacher professional development listed above.1

Measures of teachers’ professional development were taken

from teacher reports on their activities over the 12 months

prior to the day they were surveyed. In the balance of the

Issue Brief, we refer to this period as “in the previous year.”

Measures of focus on content and focus on methods were

taken from teacher reports of professional development they

received in the previous year. Duration was measured as the

total number of hours teachers reported participating in professional development activities in content and methods of

teaching.2 Format was measured as two types—attendance

at workshops, conferences, or training and participation in

mentoring, peer observation, or coaching. The measure of

collective participation was taken from a teacher questionnaire item asking if teachers participated in regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers on issues of instruction.3

 Measures of alignment were taken from school principal reports on the importance of various influences on teacher

professional development activities (on a five-point scale with

1 = Not at all important and 5 = Very important). Potential

influences included district improvement plans, school improvement plans, state or local academic standards, state or

local skills standards, and teacher preferences.4

 For each, the

Characteristics of Public School Teachers’

Professional Development Activities: 1999–2000

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2005–030

IssueBrief

Issue Brief shows the percentage of principals who reported it

as “very important.”

Prevalence of Professional Development by

Feature

Focus on content and focus on methods. During the 1999–

2000 school year, 73 percent of public school teachers reported participating in professional development focused on

methods of teaching in the past 12 months (table 1). More

than half (59 percent) of teachers reported participating in

professional development focused on the content they taught.

Teachers with a main assignment in elementary education were

more likely to report professional development focused on

content (69 percent) than were teachers with main assignments in English (60 percent), mathematics (53 percent), science (47 percent), or social science (46 percent). Teachers with

3 or fewer years of teaching experience were less likely than

teachers with more teaching experience to report professional

development in content. Elementary level teachers reported

more professional development both in content and teaching

methods than did teachers at the secondary level. Teachers in

schools with 75 percent or more of students eligible for free

or reduced-price lunch (hereafter called “highest poverty

schools”) reported more professional development in both

content and teaching methods than did other teachers.

Duration. Regardless of focus, content or teaching methods,

a majority of teachers reported receiving 8 or fewer hours of

professional development in the previous year. Eighteen percent of teachers reported at least 33 hours in the previous

year in professional development on content, compared with

10 percent who reported at least 33 hours in activities focused on methods of teaching. Teachers with main assignments in elementary education and English were more likely

to report at least 33 hours of professional development in

content over the past 12 months (22 and 20 percent, respectively) than teachers with main assignments in mathematics

(15 percent), science (16 percent), or social science (14 percent). In both content and teaching methods, teachers with

4–9 or 10–19 years of teaching experience were more likely

than teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience to

report at least 33 hours of professional development. Elementary level teachers were more likely than secondary level teachers to report at least 33 hours of professional development on

each focus, as well.

Format. Ninety-five percent of public school teachers reported

attending a workshop, conference, or other training session

in the previous year, compared with 42 percent who reported

participating in mentoring, peer observation, or coaching

(table 2).5 Teachers with 3 or fewer years teaching experience

were more likely than teachers with more teaching experience to report participating in mentoring, peer observation,
2

or coaching activities—a format more likely than workshops

and conferences to integrate professional development with

teachers’ daily work. More teachers reported participating in

mentoring, peer observation, or coaching in the highest poverty schools than did other teachers.

Collective participation. Seventy-four percent of public school

teachers reported participating in regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers on issues of instruction. Teachers

with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience were less likely

than more experienced teachers to report regularly scheduled

collaboration. Teachers at the elementary level were more likely

than secondary level teachers to report regularly scheduled

collaboration.

Alignment. More than half of public school principals reported

a school improvement plan (59 percent) or state or local academic standards (52 percent) as “very important” influences

on determining the content of teacher professional development activities (table 3). More than 40 percent of principals

reported that a district improvement plan (46 percent) or state

or local skills standards (45 percent) were “very important”

influences on teacher professional development. Twenty-six

percent of principals called teacher preferences a “very important” influence.

Conclusion

Nearly 60 percent of all public school teachers reported professional development in the previous year in the content of

the subject matter they taught; more than 70 percent reported

professional development in methods of teaching. On the other

hand, in both content-focused and teaching methods-focused

professional development, fewer than half of public school

teachers reported receiving more than 8 hours of professional

Table 1. Percentage of public school teachers’ participation in subject matter content and teaching methods professional development

activities in the previous year, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1999–2000

NOTE: Selected main assignment categories are mutually exclusive. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Not all apparent differences in this

table are statistically significant. Standard errors are available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubinfo.asp?pubid=2005030.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–2000 “Public School Teacher

Questionnaire” and “Charter School Teacher Questionnaire.”

Table 2. Percentage of public school teachers who reported

participating in various professional development

activities, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 1999–2000

NOTE: Selected main assignment categories are mutually exclusive. Not all

apparent differences in this table are statistically significant. Standard errors

are available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ubinfo.asp?pubid=2005030.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–2000 “Public School

Teacher Questionnaire” and “Charter School Teacher Questionnaire.”

MentorWork- ing and/

shops, or peer Regularly

 confer- observa- scheduled

Teacher and school ences, or tion and collabcharacteristics or training coaching oration

Total 94.8 42.1 74.4

Main assignment

Elementary education 96.9 43.8 80.7

English 95.3 44.2 75.9

Mathematics 93.6 39.4 71.9

Science 92.8 41.2 69.1

Social science 93.6 45.1 72.4

Years of teaching experience

0–3 93.3 50.7 63.4

4–9 95.5 42.4 73.7

10–19 95.8 40.8 77.9

20 or more 94.2 38.8 77.4

Grade level taught

Elementary 96.4 42.6 78.1

Secondary 92.9 41.5 70.2

Percent of students eligible for

free or reduced-price lunch

Less than 50 percent 94.4 41.1 73.8

50–75 percent 95.2 42.9 75.1

75 percent or more 95.6 47.0 76.6

Teacher and school

characteristics Content Methods 0–8 9–32 33+ 0–8 9–32 33+

 Total 59.1 72.8 52.3 29.5 18.2 57.3 32.5 10.2

Selected main assignments

Elementary education 68.7 77.9 42.7 35.4 21.9 50.9 37.4 11.7

English 60.1 73.6 51.4 29.0 19.5 56.0 31.7 12.3

Mathematics 52.9 68.1 58.1 26.6 15.4 62.3 29.2 8.5

Science 47.4 68.5 64.1 19.7 16.2 63.9 26.6 9.5

Social science 45.9 72.4 65.1 20.6 14.2 60.9 30.4 8.7

Years of teaching experience

0–3 53.4 71.0 59.7 26.9 13.5 61.4 30.0 8.6

4–9 59.9 74.4 51.7 29.4 18.9 55.7 33.6 10.7

10–19 61.9 74.4 48.7 30.7 20.6 54.3 34.1 11.5

20 or more 59.1 71.4 52.0 29.8 18.2 58.6 31.6 9.7

Grade level taught

Elementary 66.1 76.5 45.6 33.9 20.5 52.7 35.9 11.3

Secondary 51.1 68.5 59.9 24.4 15.6 62.5 28.5 9.0

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Less than 50 percent 57.1 70.9 54.2 28.7 17.0 59.9 30.7 9.4

50–75 percent 61.7 75.7 49.1 31.3 19.6 53.1 36.0 10.9

75 percent or more 65.8 78.9 47.0 32.0 21.0 49.9 37.7 12.4

Focus

Hours in past 12 months by focus

Content Methods
3

The Issue Brief series presents information on education topics of current interest. All estimates shown are based on samples and are subject to sampling

variability. All differences are statistically significant at the .05 level as measured by Student’s two-tailed t tests. In the design, conduct, and data processing of

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) surveys, efforts are made to minimize the effects of nonsampling errors, such as item nonresponse, measurement

error, data processing error, or other systematic error. For more information on the Schools and Staffing Survey, visit http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass.

This Issue Brief was authored by Marion Scotchmer, Daniel J. McGrath, and Ellinor Coder of the Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI). This Issue Brief was

formatted by Carol Rohr of Pinkerton Computer Consultants, Inc. For further information, contact Edith McArthur, NCES, at 202-502-7393 or edith.mcarthur@ed.gov.

To order additional copies of this Issue Brief or other NCES publications, call 1-877-4ED-PUBS or visit http://www.edpubs.org. NCES publications are also available

on the Internet at http://nces.ed.gov.

development in the past 12 months. In addition, a larger percentage of teachers reported participating in workshops than

in mentoring, peer observation, or coaching. About three in

four teachers received opportunities for collaborative participation, while less experienced teachers were the least likely to

collaborate with other teachers. In terms of alignment, about

6 in 10 principals reported that school improvement plans were

“very important” in determining teacher professional development activities; in contrast, teacher preferences were cited

as “very important” 26 percent of the time.

SASS 1999–2000 did not collect data to capture active learning (e.g., opportunities for practice designed into the training), another aspect of professional development identified by

researchers. Further research on this developmental feature

and the five considered herein may more completely reveal

the links between teacher knowledge and instructional practices and the key features of professional development.

Endnotes

1 The1999–2000 SASS did not collect information that could be used

to measure the sixth characteristic (opportunities for active learning).

Analysis in this Issue Brief is based on data from 44,933 public school

teachers and 9,415 public school principals in the 1999–2000 SASS

sample. When the teacher cases are weighted using the TFNLWGT

weighting variable and the principal cases are weighted using the

AFNLWGT weighting variable, estimates are representative of the

total populations of public school teachers and principals, respectively,

during the 1999–2000 school year.

2 SASS offered teachers four categories: 8 hours or less, 9–16 hours,

17–32 hours, and 33 hours or more; in this Issue Brief, the two

intermediate categories are combined into a single middle category.

3 The SASS teacher questionnaire does not define “regularly” except

to say that regularly does not include administrative meetings. For

instance, Parsad, Lewis, and Farris (2001) found that 69 percent of

public school teachers in 1999–2000 had participated in regularly

scheduled collaboration with other teachers over the prior 12 months,

but 31 percent reported collaborating at least once a week.

4 This measure of alignment refers only to professional development

sponsored by the school administration. Teachers may be

participating in other professional development.

5

 Additional analysis shows in 1999–2000, 99 percent of public school

teachers participated in some form of professional development in

the past 12 months.

References

Cohen, D.K., and Hill, H.C. (2000). Instructional Policy and

Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in

California. Teachers College Record, 102(2): 294–343.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., and Yoon,

K.S. (2001). What Makes Professional Development Effective?

Results From a National Sample of Teachers. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(4): 915–945.

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., and Farris, E. (2001). Teacher Preparation and

Professional Development: 2000 (NCES 2001–088). U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Table 3. Percentage of public school principals who ranked potential influences on determining teacher professional development

activities as “very important,” by selected school characteristics: 1999–2000

NOTE: Not all apparent differences in this table are statistically significant. Standard errors are available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubinfo.asp?pubid=2005030.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–2000 “Public School Principal

Questionnaire” and “Charter School Principal Questionnaire.”

District School State or local State or local

improvement improvement academic skills Teacher

School characteristics plan plan standards standards preferences

Total 46.4 59.2 52.5 45.1 25.6

School level

Elementary education 49.8 62.7 55.8 48.3 26.9

Secondary 38.5 50.3 44.0 36.5 22.1

Combined 34.9 50.7 45.2 40.0 22.8

Locale

Large or mid-size city 51.7 68.4 58.9 52.3 29.6

Urban fringe 48.7 60.4 53.6 46.0 25.3

Small town or rural 39.1 50.3 45.9 38.3 22.8

School enrollment

Less than 349 41.7 51.4 46.6 39.9 25.2

350–999 49.8 64.2 56.3 48.6 26.1

1,000 or more 43.8 58.1 51.8 43.8 23.7

Percent of students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

Less than 50 percent 45.2 56.7 49.2 41.2 24.3

50–75 percent 47.6 63.7 55.7 48.9 23.8

75 percent or more 52.3 66.4 61.6 55.2 31.3