U .S. D epartm ent of E ducation

O ffice of the U nd er Secre ta ry

P lannin g and E valuat ion Service

E v aluation

B r ief

U .S. D epartm ent of E ducation

O ffice of the U nd er Secre ta ry

P lannin g and E valuat ion Service

E v aluation

B r ief

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN TITLE I SCHOOLS: RECENT 

EVIDENCE FROM THE NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF SCHOOLS

PURPOSE OF THE BRIEF 

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, promotes 

high-quality professional development to

improve the teaching of academic subjects

in order to help all children meet student 

performance standards. 

This evaluation brief addresses the general 

question: What is the status of professional

development in Title I schools? The brief

uses data from school years (SY) 1998-1999 

and 1999-2000 to examine professional 

development at the school level and the

teacher level. At the teacher level, the brief 

discusses the content, duration, and 

perceived effects of professional 

development; professional development for

teaching special populations of students; 

and less traditional forms of professional 

development (e.g., mentoring programs) and 

the duration and perceived effects of these 

forms of professional development. At the

school level, it describes what policies exist 

regarding the inclusion of and support for 

teacher aides in professional development 

activities. 

This study found that only about half of 

teachers said that professional development 

led them to change their teaching practices, 

although those who participated in 

activities such as common planning time

and formal mentoring on an ongoing basis 

and for a longer duration were more likely 

to say that their teaching improved. 

However, most teachers of students from

special populations did not participate in 

professional development to address the 

needs of special population students. They

felt less well prepared to address the needs

of these students compared with how well

prepared teachers were to teach their main 

subject area or to teach to content 

standards. Many schools included teacher 

aides in professional development, although 

few districts had career ladders that offered 

them opportunities for advancement.

Finally, most teachers said that they would

like the chance to participate in additional 

professional development activities. 

DATA

This evaluation brief reports on data

obtained through the National 

Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS), a 

nationally representative survey of

principals and teachers in Title I Schools in 

SY 1998-1999. Designed and conducted by 

Westat, the principal and teacher surveys of 

the NLSS were first fielded during SY 1998–

1999; schools that remained in Title I 

status were followed for the next two

 1 September 2002 
through SY 2000–20011. The surveys 

focus on whether and how schools are

implementing standards-based reforms and 

the provisions of Title I. The total sample

size for the NLSS was 1,507 Title I schools. 

The total number of responding schools 

was 1,081 in SY 1998-1999 and 987 in SY 

1999-2000; the total number of responding 

teachers was 2,657 in SY 1998-1999 and 

5,414 in SY 1999-2000.2 

It should be kept in mind that the analyses

reported here are based on survey data, 

which rely on respondents’ self-reports. 

Self-reports may reflect socially desirable

responses. In addition, the findings 

generally present sub-group comparisons 

among variables of interest and are not 

meant to suggest causality. 

ONLY HALF OF TEACHERS REPORTED 

THAT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

ACTIVITIES LED THEM TO CHANGE THEIR 

TEACHING PRACTICES

Teachers who received professional 

development in a given content area were

asked what impact it had on their teaching 

practice: whether it confirmed what they

were already doing, led them to change

their teaching practice, or had little or no

impact (Exhibit 1). Teacher reports 

regarding the impact of professional 

development on their instruction were

relatively consistent across topic areas. 

Only about half of the teachers receiving 

professional development in a given area

reported that it led to a change in their 

teaching practice; less than 10 percent of

teachers reported that the professional 

development had had little or no impact;

and about 40 percent reported that it

confirmed what they were already doing. 

 

 

1In 1998-1999 the NLSS sample was nationally 

representative of Title I schools. The sample was 

not refreshed and consequently is not 

representative of all Title I schools in subsequent 

years. 

2The section on professional development on the

teacher survey was matrix sampled in SY 1998-

1999. Thus, only half of all teachers in the full 

NLSS sample answered this section in SY 1998-

1999; hence the sample of teachers is smaller 

than in SY 1999-2000. 

The only deviation from this pattern was 

professional development around 

integrating educational technology into the

classroom. In this area, teachers were

significantly less likely to report that the

professional development confirmed what

they were already doing compared with 

other professional development topics (21 

percent compared to approximately 40 

percent).3 This difference may be due to

the fact that many teachers may have

limited experience in integrating 

educational technology into the classroom. 

Overall, 57 percent of teachers who 

participated in such professional 

development reported that it led them to

change their teaching practice while 22 

percent of participating teachers reported

that it had little or no impact on their 

teaching practice.4

3 Throughout this brief, “significant” is used in a 

statistical sense, to indicate that the difference

between two estimates is significant at a 0.05 

probability level or better. 4This is similar to what we found in SY 1998-

1999. Compared with the other professional 

development topics, teachers ranked

professional development in the use of 

technology as the most effective in terms of 

causing them to change their teaching practices, 

with 65 percent reporting that it had had an 

impact on their teaching practice. About 14 

percent reported that it had had little or no 

impact, and 21 percent that it had confirmed 

what they were already doing. However, the

wording of the question was slightly different, 

asking about professional development in the

use of technology, rather than integrating 

educational technology into the classroom. 

 2 September 2002 
Exhibit 1. Teacher Reports about Participation in Professional Development Activities 

and Effect on Teaching Practice, SY 1999-2000 

Effect of Professional Development 

Participated

in Activity Changed 

teaching 

practice

Confirmed 

teaching 

practice

Little or no 

impact 

Percentage of teachers 

Teaching the subject area in your main 

teaching assignment 

78.0 51.7 44.1 4.2

Teaching to content standards in reading 79.0 51.4 39.8 8.7 

Teaching to content standards in 

mathematics 

66.0 52.9 38.6 8.4

Integrating educational technology into your 

classroom 

71.5 57.4 20.5 22.0

Use of student assessment techniques 57.0 51.9 39.2 8.8 

Use of the research-based model adopted by 

your school 

75.6 52.5 38.3 9.2

Exhibit reads: 78.0 percent of teachers in Title I schools reported that they had received 

professional development to teach the subject area in their main teaching assignment. Of those 

teachers who received professional development in the subject area of their main assignment, 51.7 

percent reported that this led them to change their teaching practice; 44.1 percent reported it 

confirmed their teaching practice; and 4.2 percent reported that it had little or no impact. 

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. TD1C, TD1D 

Notes: Questions were asked only of teachers who reported receiving professional development in the

 past 12 months. 

 Questions regarding content standards were asked of teachers who taught the specific subject 

 and were familiar with content standards. 

 Question regarding the use of research-based model adopted by the school was asked of teachers 

 in schools that had adopted such models.

TEACHERS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES FOR A 

LONGER DURATION WERE MORE LIKELY 

TO REPORT THAT THE ACTIVITY 

IMPROVED THEIR TEACHING PRACTICE 

“TO A GREAT EXTENT” THAN TEACHERS 

ENGAGED FOR A SHORTER DURATION

More than 40 percent of teachers who

participated in common planning time and 

formal mentoring relationships reported

that participation had improved their 

classroom teaching “to a great extent,” 

compared with 26 percent who participated 

in a network of outside teachers. The only 

significant difference between reports of

teachers in the highest-poverty and lowestpoverty secondary schools was regarding 

the effect of participating in a network of 

teachers outside the district on improving 

teaching (39 percent versus 21 percent). 

 3 September 2002 
Exhibit 2. Teacher Reports about Changes in Teaching Practice Due to Participation in 

Different Types of Professional Development Activities, by Frequency of the Activity, SY 

1999-2000 

18

24

40

63

32

44

38

47

56

15

53

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

A few times a year Once a month 2-3 times a month Once a week

Percentage of teachers reporting that the 

professional develop

ment changed their teaching

practice "to a great extent"

Common planning Mentoring Networking with teachers outside of the school

Exhibit reads: 18 percent of teachers who participated in common planning a few times a year 

reported that it changed their teaching practice “to a great extent.” 

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section G, Q. TD2A 

A link between duration and perceived 

effectiveness was found. Teachers reported

greater improvement in teaching practices 

for activities that were ongoing and frequent 

than activities that were of a short 

duration. Exhibit 2 shows that, of the

teachers who reported engaging in common 

planning time a few times a year, 

approximately 18 percent reported that it

improved their teaching practice “to a great 

extent.” This figure compares to 24 percent 

of teachers who engaged in the activity once

a month, 40 percent of those who engaged 

in the activity 2-3 times per month, and 63 

percent of those who engaged in the activity 

on a weekly basis. All these differences

were significant, and the same trend holds 

for mentoring and networking activities. 

TEACHERS IN THE HIGHEST-POVERTY 

SCHOOLS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE 

LIKELY TO REPORT THAT PROFESSIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR CONTENT AREA 

WAS ONGOING THAN TEACHERS IN THE 

LOWEST-POVERTY SCHOOLS

Prior evaluation studies have shown that 

professional development is likely to be

high quality (i.e. result in changing teacher 

practice) when it is sustained and intensive

and promotes coherence in teachers’ 

professional development (Garet et al.,

1999, 2001; Parsad et al., 2001). 

In SY 1998-1999, teachers receiving 

professional development in a number of

areas were asked about the frequency of the 

activity: one-time activity; ongoing activity 

this year; or ongoing, multiyear activity. 

 4 September 2002 
A greater percentage of teachers in the

highest-poverty schools (47 percent in 

elementary and 61 percent in secondary)

reported receiving ongoing, multiyear 

professional development in subject area

content than teachers in the lowest-poverty 

schools (27 percent in elementary schools 

and 32 percent in secondary schools). 

[Exhibit 3] Forty percent of the highestpoverty elementary school teachers

reported that professional development for

strategies to teach to content standards 

was an ongoing, multiyear activity 

compared with only 20 percent of

elementary teachers in the lowest-poverty

schools; this difference was significant. 

Teachers in the highest-poverty schools 

were more likely to report that the

professional development focused on 

strategies for using assessment results was 

ongoing and multiyear (29 percent in 

elementary and 40 percent secondary

schools) compared with teachers in the

lowest-poverty schools (16 percent in 

elementary and 9 percent in secondary

schools). These differences were

significant.5

In SY 1999-2000, overall, teachers receiving 

professional development in their content 

area reported an average of 34 hours of 

professional development in their content 

area. This figure increased significantly 

from the 22 hours in SY 1998-1999. 

Secondary teachers in the highest-poverty 

Title I schools reported significantly more

professional development in their content 

area compared with secondary teachers in 

the lowest-poverty Title I schools (39 versus 

22 hours).

 

5 We investigated whether the difference between

the highest-poverty schools and the lowestpoverty schools could be explained by the fact 

that a greater percentage of the highest-poverty 

schools were in need of improvement under 

Title I, and consequently may have received

increased professional development. However, 

we found that the relationship was driven by 

poverty and not in-need status. For example,

the same difference exists between the highestpoverty and the lowest-poverty schools for 

schools not identified as in need of improvement. 

Teachers in schools that adopted researchbased comprehensive school reform models 

reported receiving about 28 hours of

professional development in the use of the 

model. Elementary teachers in the highestpoverty Title I schools with models reported

significantly more professional development 

in the use of the model compared with

elementary teachers in the lowest-poverty

Title I schools with models (33 versus 18 

hours). 

 5 September 2002 
Exhibit 3. Teacher Reports about the Duration of Professional Development Activities by 

Poverty Status, SY 1998-1999 

47

32

61

20

40 37

52

25

16

29

9

40

18

35

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

0-34.9% 75-100% 0-34.9% 75-100% All Title I

Schools

Percent

age of t

eachers participating i

n

a

n ongoing, m

ultiy

e

ar activity

Subject area content Content standards Strategies for using assessments

Poverty Status

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

47

32

61

20

40 37

52

25

16

29

9

40

18

35

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

0-34.9% 75-100% 0-34.9% 75-100% All Title I

Schools

Percent

age of t

eachers participating i

n

a

n ongoing, m

ultiy

e

ar activity

Subject area content Content standards Strategies for using assessments

Poverty Status

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

Exhibit reads: 27 percent of teachers in the lowest-poverty Title I elementary schools who 

received professional development in their subject area content reported that this professional 

development was an ongoing, multiyear activity. 

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 1998-1999, Section D, Q. TD1A 

Note: Questions were asked only of teachers who reported receiving professional development in the

 specified content area in the past 12 months. 

TEACHERS WHO RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT IN ADDRESSING THE 

NEEDS OF SPECIAL POPULATIONS OF 

STUDENTS REPORTED MUCH HIGHER 

LEVELS OF TEACHER PREPAREDNESS 

THAN THOSE WHO DID NOT RECEIVE 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

About 52 percent of the teachers of

students with limited English proficiency 

and 56 percent of teachers of migrant

students who had received professional 

development in these areas reported being

well prepared, compared with only 14 and 

19 percent of those who did not participate 

in such professional development. These

differences were significant. 

Compared with the over 80 percent who felt

well prepared to teach the subject area in

their main assignment or the threequarters who felt well prepared to teach to 

content standards, a much smaller 

percentage—only about 30-39 percent—of

teachers of special population students 

reported feeling well prepared to address

their needs. 

Exhibit 4 shows the percentage of teachers 

of special population students who reported

that they felt prepared “to a great extent” to

address the needs of these students. In

addition, we also show the same data 

disaggregated by whether or not they had 

received professional development in the

specific area. 

 6 September 2002 
Exhibit 4. Teacher Reports about the Extent to Which They Felt Well Prepared to 

Address the Needs of Special Population Students, by Whether Teachers Received 

Professional Development in that Area, SY 1999-2000 

36 39

56 59 59

19

26 31 30

52

30

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Address the Needs of

LEP Students

Address the Needs of

Migrant Students

Address the Needs of

Native American

Students

Address the Needs of

Students with IEPs Percentage of teachers reporting they felt prepared "to a great extent"

All teachers teaching specific special population students

Teachers who received professional development in a given area

Teachers who did not receive professional development in a given area

Exhibit reads: 31 percent of all teachers of students with limited English proficiency reported that 

they felt prepared “to a great extent” to address the needs of such students. This was true of 52 

percent of teachers of students with limited English proficiency who received professional 

development in this area and 14 percent of teachers of these students who did not. 

Source: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section D, Q. TD1B, TD1C 

Notes: Questions were asked only of teachers who reported receiving professional development in the

 past 12 months. 

Questions were asked of teachers who reported teaching specific special population students, 

with the exception of the question relating to students with IEPs, which was asked of all teachers 

who reported receiving professional development in the past 12 months. 

 

WHILE A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF 

SCHOOLS INCLUDED TEACHER AIDES IN 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

ACTIVITIES, FEW DISTRICTS HAD CAREER 

LADDERS FOR TEACHER AIDES 

In SY 1999-2000, 89 percent of the 

principals reported that teacher aides were

included in professional development 

activities. This was essentially unchanged 

from SY 1998-1999. 

Because teacher aides are widely used in 

Title I schools and are involved in direct 

instructional activities, there is 

considerable interest in helping teacher 

aides receive more education and 

professional development.6 Almost all the

principals in Title I schools reported having 

teacher aides in their schools. 

The percentages of teacher aides included

in professional development were much 

higher in the highest-poverty schools—41 

percent in elementary and 70 percent in

secondary schools, compared with 25 

percent and 13 percent in the lowestpoverty elementary and secondary schools 

respectively. The difference was significant 

at the secondary level. 

 

6See Kirby, McCombs, Murray, Naftel, and 

Berends (In review) for details on the use of 

teacher aides in Title I schools. 

 7 September 2002 
While a large percentage of the schools

included teacher aides in their professional 

development activities, few districts had 

career ladders for these aides, according to

principals (Exhibit 5). Overall, in SY 1999-

2000 about 30 percent of principals in 

schools that had teacher aides and 

included them in professional development 

activities reported that their district 

provided career ladders for teacher aides.7

About a quarter of the schools offered 

funding or release time for aides to take

higher education courses. About 18 

percent of principals reported that their

schools offered release time for the teacher 

aides to take a class or study for their high 

school diploma or GED, while less than 10 

percent offered funding for high school

diploma or GED classes.

Compared with the lowest-poverty schools,

the highest-poverty schools were generally 

more likely to provide support for teacher 

aides through these various means. Many 

of these differences were significant,

particularly at the secondary level. 

MORE THAN HALF OF TEACHERS 

REPORTED WANTING ADDITIONAL 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Compared with teachers in the lowestpoverty Title I secondary schools, a 

significantly higher percentage of secondary 

school teachers in the highest-poverty 

settings reported that they would have liked

additional professional development in SY 

1998-1999 (69 percent compared with 50 

percent). 

Of those who desired additional 

professional development and had not

received it in a given area, training in the

use of technology and training for strategies

to teach low-achieving students were the

most popular preferred options (83 percent

each). About 74 percent of the teachers 

who responded to this particular set of

items would have liked professional 

development in instructional strategies and 

subject area content. About 60-68 percent

of these teachers said they wanted 

professional development in teaching to

content standards, approaches to 

assessment, using assessment results, and 

strengthening parent involvement. 

 

7It is difficult to compare trends over time

because the comparable question in SY 1998-

1999 was asked of all principals who reported 

having teacher aides at their school, while in SY 

1999-2000, the question was asked only of 

principals who reported having teacher aides at 

their school and that they were included in 

professional development activities. 

CONCLUSIONS

As mentioned earlier, the analyses reported 

here are based on survey data that rely on 

respondents’ self-reports, which can be

subject to socially desirable responses. 

However, the data do provide interesting 

information regarding teachers’ perceptions 

of their professional development. We 

conclude with three highlights from the

data analysis. 

First, only half of teachers who received 

professional development on various topics 

reported that the professional development

changed their teaching practice. 

Second, like other evaluations, we found a 

link between duration and perceived effects 

of professional development. Teachers

engaging in certain activities for a longer

duration were more likely to report that it 

changed their teaching practice than 

teachers who had engaged in the activities

for a shorter period of time. 

Third, teachers in the highest-poverty 

schools appear to be receiving more ongoing, multi-year professional development 

experiences than teachers in the lowestpoverty schools. However, there is 

opportunity to increase such professional 

development for all teachers, as less than 

half of teachers in the highest-poverty 

schools and less than a third of teachers in 

the lowest-poverty schools received ongoing, multi-year professional development 

in their content area.

 8 September 2002 
Exhibit 5. Principal Reports about the Professional Development Opportunities for 

Teacher Aides in their School, SY 1999-2000 

Title I Elementary Schools Title I Secondary Schools 

Lowestpoverty 

(0-34.9%) 

Highestpoverty 

(75-100%) 

Lowestpoverty 

(0-34.9%) 

Highestpoverty 

(75-100%) 

All Title I 

Schools 

Percentage responding “yes” 

Are teacher aides included in your 

professional development activities?a

79.8 87.4 91.6 92.9 89.3

Percentage of schools with teacher aides that include them in professional development activities

Does your district support educational 

improvement for teacher aides through:b

Career ladder for teacher aides? 24.5 40.9 12.6 70.2 30.0 

Funding for higher education classes? 20.0 36.0 5.9 37.5 25.5 

Release time for classwork or studying for 

higher education courses? 

14.3 25.8 24.3 37.8 24.6

Release time for classwork or studying for 

a high school diploma or GED? 

15.5 17.3 3.9 58.6 18.3

Funding for high school diploma or GED 

classes? 

1.7 14.6 2.1 17.7 8.9

Exhibit reads: 79.8 percent of principals in the lowest-poverty Title I elementary schools reported 

that teacher aides are included in their professional development activities. 

Source: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1999-2000, Section G, Q. PG3, PD20 

Notes: aQuestion asked of principals who reported having teacher aides at their school. 

 bQuestions asked of principals who reported having teacher aides at their school and that they

 were included in professional development activities. 

 

 9 September 2002 
REFERENCES

Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Herman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (1999). 

Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

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.

Kirby, S. N., McCombs, J. S., Murray, S., Naftel, S., & Berends, M. (In review). Provision of

services in Title I schools: Recent evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools. 

Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. 

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 

2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

U. S. Department of Education. (2001). High standards for all students: A report from the 

national assessment of Title I on progress and challenges since the 1994 reauthorization. 

Washington, DC: Author. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

This report was prepared by Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Scott Naftel, Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Mark 

Berends, and Sheila Murray of RAND, 1200 South Hayes St., Arlington, VA 22202-5050 and 

edited by Paul Arends. The project monitor for the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools is

Susan Sanchez, Planning and Evaluation Service, U. S. Department of Education. The project 

director is Babette Gutmann, Westat, Rockville, Md. 

 10 September 2002