Teachers Centers: A New Voice for Teachers in Teacher Education Reform

Hide Document

HU)~"''''

.~ t1 cu a ...


o~~·

«S I
<~
__ 1.:.:_"

The AFT Teacher Center Advisory Group was created by the
American Federation of Teachers Executive Council in
February of 1977. The group is composed of key leaders from
various sections of the country who have expertise on the
subject of teacher centers. They serve as a resource to locals
working on the development of teachers centers and offer
advice and information to the Executive Council
on the subject.

MEMBERS OF THE TEACHER CENTER ADVISORY GROUP
Zita J. Areman

Great Neck, New York
Myrna Cooper

United Federation of Teachers, New York City
Rod Davis
FEA United, Florida
Thomas Feeley
Chicago Teachers Union
Sandra Feldman

United Federation of Teachers, New York City, AFT Vice President
James Garberina
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Francis M. Martin
Massachusetts Federation of Teachers


Earline Rogers
Gary Teachers_Union
Margaret Tuovilla
Detroit Federation of Teachers


Jacqueline Vaughn

Chicago Teachers Union, AFT Vice President
Lynwood Williamson
Washington Teachers Union


1eachers'Centers:
A New Voice for1eachers
in 1eacher Education


Refo~


AFT Quest '78, the seventh annual conference on educational issues was held in Washington, D.C. April 28-30. During the three days, educators explored the theme "Forging New Alliances for Quality Education" through 26 workshops, special interest group meetings and five general sessions. The workshop on "Teachers' Centers" was among the most popular and stimulating of the weekend conference. This publication of the papers presented during the teachers' center session is in response to the numerous requests from educators for copies of the papers. This document is made available through a project funded by the National Institute of Education, the AFT TEACHER CENTER RE•SOURCE EXCHANGE. Project activities include conferences and workshops as well as a clearinghouse through which publications, slide-tape presentations and resource persons are made available to leaders involved in Teacher Center research and development.
Patricia Weiler, Director AFT Teacher Center Resource Exchange
The work upon which this publication is based was performed pursuant to Contract No. 400-77-0092 of the National Institute of Education. It does not, however, necessarily reflect the views of that agency.
I_~~,__.. ~_-"


TheNew

'Ieacher Center


Program
By CHARLES LOVETT and DR. ALLEN 'SCHMIEDER

On October12, 1976 the New NationalTeacher Center Program was signed into law by the President. The last decade has seen an expo•nential expansion in the roles and responsibili•ties of "regular" classroom teachers has also seen an almost equally irppressive increase in the number of new Federaland State programs directed at improving and reforming what happens in the Nation's classrooms. But the two have seldom been linked. Most programs intended to raise the quality ofschooling had to be implemented without the necessary staff development; most were "outside-in" programs-solutions developed somewhere outside the classroom and then expected to match the most urgent problems within the classroom. The New Teacher CenterLaw turns things "insideout." Teachers will finally be given the major responsibility for determining the kinds of changes and improvements that are needed in their classrooms and will also have the lead in putting together the kinds of training and curriculum development pro•grams that will best meet those needs. And center programs will draw heavily upon the experience and expertise of the teachers them•selves. In all of the passion during recent years to improve the knowledge base of education, most experts and policy makers have usually overlooked what is by far the most important part of that base-the classroom tested knowl•edge of teachers. At a recent meeting, the di-
Allen Schmieder, Manager ofthe Teacher Celzter Program ill the Office of Educatioll has participated in numerous AFT conferences and seminars. In his administrative position in the Office of Education, he !ws implemented tlle Teacher Center program at the national level. Charles Lovett, Administrative Assistant in the Teaclzer Center Program, O.E., !laS participated in planning the delivery system that made federally funded Teacher Centers a reality in this decade.
rector of a major educational development en•terprise understandably boasted that his high-powered staff included over 100 person•years ofexperience in educational reform. One could argue that the Nation's teachers consti•tute 20 million person-years of experience in educational reform. The teacher center pro•vides one mechanism for further releasing the potential of this vast storehouse of educational successes. It is possible that the greatest ad•vances in education in the near fuhue will be gained through developing more effective ways to link the creativity and experience of every classroom to every other classroom.
The basic purpose of the new Federal Teacher Centers Program is to enable teachers to have a greater voice in determining and meeting their own needs for inservice training .' and curriculum development in relation to the needs of the students whom they serve. Teacher centers may serve a single school dis•trict, a larger region, or an entire State. The chief feature of the centers is that each is super•vised by a "teacher center policy board," of which the majority of members are elementary or secondary school classroom teachers. The program gives to State departments of educa•tion an important three-part role: screening applications, providing technical assistance, and assuring proper dissemination of the pro•gram's findings and products. Ten percent the funds may be granted to institutions higher education to operate centers; the bal" ance goes to local educational agencies.
The following briefly outline the characteristics of the Teacher Center Program.
1.
It is the first major Federal program that requires that the teachers being served be centrally-involved in planning, developing, <1nd implementing projects.

2.
It will increase the professional resource bilse by increasing the role of the teacher as' innovator, researcher, developer, and trainer.


3.
It is directed primarily at helping teachers with current classroom instructional problems.

4.
It is directed mainly at the inservice edu•


cation of all teachers-regardless of level or . subject.
S. It is directed at all teachers in a project's service area.
6. It is a relatively flexible and open program
approach capable of responding quickly to immediate needs.
7. Teacher cen•ter projects can serve both in•
dividual .I1\'fL'V~ needs and ~Q"W'rsystem needs.
8.
The proj•ects will be as site specific as possible -located as close to the classroom of participants as pos•sible.

9.
Because of re•leased time allow•ances, part of the programming can



occur during the "regular day."
10.
A high percentage of participation will be voluntary.

11.
It can facilitate instructional improve•ment, necessitating the kind of attitudinal! behavioral changes which require long-range , training programs.

12.
It is primarily an inservice education program, but can have significant links to pre•service programs.

13.
It marshalls the best possible re•sources-from a great variety of sources-to help teachers with immediate instructional problems.

14.
Itpromotes an idea that could eventually serve all of the Nation's teachers.

15.
It can accommodate considerable variety in grant size and program models.

16.
It provides a potential delivery system ror-major staff development needs supported by other national and state authorizations; i.e., education for all handicapped children, con•sumers' education, career education, metric education, energy education.

17.
It supports a generic model of inservice education, not just courses or workshops.

18.
It requires collaboration among teachers, teachers' organizations, higher edu•cation, special education, vocational educa•tion, the school board, and the state education agency.

19.
It provides substantial support for state involvement, especially in areas of technical assistance and dissemination.


Joseph Young, who served as Executive Di•rector of the President's Advisory Council on the Education Professions Development, sug•gested that one of the major weaknesses of most new Federal programs was that they rarely articulated the problems that they were being launched to overcome. Many program developers, he added, did not even consider whether they were dealing with any specifiC problems. He went on to recommend that at the beginning of any new legislative thrust, a succinct statement of the problems to be con•fronted should be developed and used as one of the major bases for later estimations of pro•gram successes. As a context for the new Teacher Centers Program, we present a begin•ning list of some of the needs that gave rise to the legislation and to which it may be expected to relate. The list is presented to give added focus to what follows, and hopefully, to moti•vate readers sufficiently to help improve it.
1.
Traditional inservice education programs are generally not directly related to teachers' most urgent needs, as teachers see them.

2.
Inservice education, regardless ofquality, is generally provided in places that are far re•moved from where teachers teach, making it inconvenient and relatively unrelated to what is happening in schools.

3.
Inservice education has generally been provided for teachers by "experts" other than teachers. Consequently, its purposes have generally not facilitated interaction between teachers and encouraged sharing of successful classroom experiences.

4.
Similarly, most school curriculums are designed and developed by experts with little or no classroom experience, yet must be im•plemented by teachers. Some curriculum de•velopers go so far as to attempt to design "teacher-proof" curricula.

5.
The training priorities of Federal pro•grams are often unrelated to needs as teachers perceive them.

6.
Traditional inservice systems are not de•signed to respond systemwide and quickly to urgent local needs. .

7.
With change and the knowledge base in•creasing at aD increasing rate,there is an ur•gent need for all teachers to continually renew their knowledge and skills.

8.
Unemployed teachers need to be re•trained for new and neededroles in education.



9. There is a need to prepare thousands of
educational personnel in special education, counseling, early childhood, energy educa•tion, metric education, career education, etc.
No program, especially one supported with Federal funds, operates in isolation from the rest of the educational world. The trends and forces of the total national scene, and the way in which a particular program relates to them, often have more to do with its relative success and impact than whatever happens within specific projects. This larger context is espe•cially important with teacher centers because of their considerable potential for reforming inservice education-and because of the high interest of all of the major education con•stituencies in its programmatic growth and di•rection. Following is a summary of some of the national conditions and events that may have great relevance for the future of centering•and vice versa.
1.
The decline in school enrollment has re•sulted in wide-spread layoffs and reductions in force in a large number of school systems. Sig•nificant numbers of teachers have been forced to shift positions. In New York City, for exam•ple, nearly 40 percent of the teachers of Eng•lish, mathematics, and science have had to as•sume new and different assignments during the last several years. Considerable training will be needed to help these displaced teachers adjust to their new responsibilities.

2.
With declining student enrollments and provisions in most master contracts for layoffs to be made on a seniority basis, the profes•sional work force will increasingly include more persons (1) with extended experience, (2) at the maximum salary, and (3) with higher levels of college or university preparation than before. Because formal academic preparation tends to be completed within the first six years of employment, this same trend will produce a work force whose most recent higher educa•tion experience will become more distant with each passing year. The percentage of teachers


needing more credits/courses for certification/ promotion/salary increases is sharply decreas•ing. In short, incentives for formal education are declining. In such cases, the only way that teachers can continue professional improve•ment will be through inservice education/ teacher centers.
3.
School needs and priorities are changing more and more rapidly each year. The class•room teacher of 1977, for example, is asked to· be the major implementor of special educa•tion's mainstreaming, citizenship education, consumer education, community education, metric education, multi-cultural education, career education, energy education, etc., etc., etc. The 1960' s provided considerable evidence that no new curriculum can be successfully introduced into the system without (1) accep•tance by teachers and (2) considerable staff de•velopment, developed mainly by the teachers to be involved.

4.
The rapidly rising unemployment ofqual•Hied/certified teachers, estimated to exceed 500,000 in 1977, has important implications for teacher centers-especially in light President Carter's commitment to reduce unemploy•ment. In New York City, for example, in 1975 only 3 percent of the eligible new teachers found jobs; 97 percent may have been added to the unemployment rolls. There are, however, severe shortages of teachers in a number of specialty areas; e.g., special education, coun•seling and guidance, early childhood. The Teacher Center Program could give priority to retraining unemployed teachers in these and other shortage areas. Such a plan would not only reduce unemployment, but take less time, cost less, and develop broader-based specialists than programs that started from scratch with undergraduate students.

5.
With declining student achievement scores over much of the Nation there have been increasing public demands that the schools "return to the basics." School boards and other


community leaders are reordering school priorities. The reversal of these declining scores may require the kind of large-scale in•service retraining program fostered by the NDEA and NSF institute programs developed in response to Sputnik. Teacher centers could provide such programs.
6.
California, New York and several other "leader" states are giving high emphasis to ensuring that all teachers are competent in the teaching of reading. Given the high impor•tance of the subject, it is likely that many other states will follow. Such a trend will require training and retraining for all teachers at all levels. The Right To Read program has done a commendable job (and could be closely coor•dinated with teacher center efforts) but is not generally directed at supporting inservice edu•cation in reading for all of the teachers in a ~ school system. The teacher center is ideally suited to carry out such a program.

7.
There is increasing interest-in response to the rising cost of education and increased demands for educational accountability-in the more effective utilization of research find•ings regarding what works in the classroom. Relatively sophisticated national, state, and local diffusion and dissemination networks are being developed. The Office of Education and the National Institute of Education, and other agencies have growing catalogs of "proven" products and approaches. As with general cur•riculum reform, the effective adoption and use
of any validated educational product will re•quire staff development. Good product deliv•ery systems will fail without adequate training


counterparts.
The Teacher Centers Program has captured the national interest. A great many educators are preparing to help develop and implement centers. Others are considering ways in which existing centers might be changed or produc•tively linked with other teacher centers and resource bases. The high potential of the con•cept is clear. But from the beginning there will be a need to carefully think through what kinds of information will be needed by educational decision makers-in the field and in the government-in order to determine the pro•gram's relative success. Too often methods of "keeping track" of what goes on are intro•duced well after a program is underway•when it is too late, or at least at a time when iUs difficult to build in the kind of data collection and assessment systems that will not only help policy makers but prove indispensable to pro•gram managers.
In his landmark study of American Educa•tion Crisis in the Classroom, Silberman pointed up the fact that even where new educational approaches seemed to be succeeding, it was difficult to pin down why they were successful, because American educators did not usually have enough management information to be articulate about what, was going on in their programs. The Office of Education does not want to place too much emphasis on evalua•tion of the Teacher Centers Program outcomes during the early going-the concept is new and it will take considerable time to work out many of the new processes that will be required in making programs fully operational. However, there is a need to begin to develop reasonable program expectations and then to begin the kind of data collection that will eventually help determine the extent to which those goals are being achieved.
The following list is offered to give center
developers and operators some guidance,
whether or not supported by Federal funds,
regarding the kinds of outcomes they might
want to measure, and to stimulate as much
thoughtful dialogue as possible about this most
important subject.
1.
effectiveness as perceived by teachers

2.
effectiveness as perceived by adm.inis•trators

3.
degree to which teachers' individual


needs are met
4.
degree to which the high priority training needs of school systems are met

5.
relationship of training programs to sub•stance of curriculum in classroom of partici•pants

6.
impact on student achievement

7.
impact on teaching skills




8.
proximity of training programs to schools and communities of participant

9.
proportion of training during "regular" school hours

10.
degree of teacher input into program development and implementation

11.
extent of teacher-developed curricula used in training programs

12.
extent to which programs are more comprehensive and systematic than traditional inservice programs

13.
amount of teacher interaction and shar•ing of classroom successes

14.
increase in utilization of new learning concepts, approaches, and research findings

15.
degree to which teachers are better pre•pared in high priority staff development needs areas; e.g., mainstreaming, basic skills, read•ing, energy education

16.
impact in terms of the above on other forms of inservice education.


This paper has roughly outlined the nature of the New Teacher Centers Program from the view point of the program managers in the Office of Education. It must be emphasized that this analysis and characterization is a ten•tative one which is sure to change, in some cases substantially. As the program evolves, important lessons will be learned, and neces•sary adjustments will be made. The most im•portant input and feedback will be that which comes from the major constituents of the teacher celiter-the teachers and their organi•zations who promoted and helped develop the legislation and who will have much to do with shaping its future.


Teacher Corps I
and I
1eacher Centers:

Forging New .Alliances
By DR. WILLIAM L. SMITH
Dr. William L. Smith, Director of the Teacher Corps, has been a staunch supporter of inservice programs. His focus has always been to provide teachers with skills that enable them to relate curriculum to student and community needs. He has encouraged the coordination of inservice components of federally funded programs so that teacher needs can be better served.


TEACHER CORPS TEACHER CENTERS

I. Purposes of Grants

strengthen opportunities of low-income pupils.
Encourage IHE to broaden and improve both teacher preparation and the
inservice education of school personnel.

Meet professional needs of teachers as determined by policy boards. To provide teachers opportunities to develop curricula, learn new meth•ods and research applications.
II. Terms of Grants

. For 5-year period. First year for planning, subsequent years to be renego•tiated but not competitive. Must include K-12 feeder system. Schools must meet low-income cri•
:prime grantee may be IHE or LEA.
'.:<:lients may be all school personnel; IHE personnel.

For 3-year period. Each year subject to negotiation, but not competitive
after initial grant.
Must serve an area--one or more LEA districts, or entire state.

Grantee will be LEA; 10% of grants may go to IHE.
Clients must be elementary, secondary, vocational and special education
teachers. Policy board may include aides, early childhood teachers.

III. Governance of Project

policy council governs. Includes LEA supt., IHE dean of education, erson of community council. elected community council of at least 7 members advises the policy and must participate in preparing proposal. (A temporary council qualify.) board prepares its own bylaws.
Policy board governs. Membership of board consists of a majority of teachers, numerically representative of elementary, secondary, vo•cational and special.education teachers. Must include representatives of LEA administration and at least one representative of an IHE.
Policy board must be formed prior to proposal and must participate in proposal preparation.
IV. Plan of eration
A. Local Objectives

objectives must define the needs ofpupils which will be the focus of Objectives for meeting needs of pupils served by teachers in the area the training programs. must be defined in terms capable of evaluation. Local objectives must include attention to: "-"o-multi-cultural education Objectives must provide evidence of the potential of the program for ",-learning or behavioral problems of pupils increasing the effectiveness of participating teachers. -'-the variability of individual learning.
B. First-Year Plan

year must be a planning year. Specific objectives must define the
" for the planning period.
;'There must be a projection of activities for later years.
must be a management plan, budget and time line.

Must provide evidence that teacher center will be operational by end of the first year.
Goals and activities must be projected for 3-year period.
.. L

TEACHER CORPS TEACHER CENTERS

C. Staff Development

Staff development must implement the resolution of problems of low•

income pupils.
There must be individualized plans for different teachers, aides or other
educational staff.

The training must be field-based; should increase staff skill in indi•
vidualizing instruction for pupils.
The training programs must represent an improvement by IHE and LEA
in delivering training to staff.

Training is intended to provide teachers with greater effectiveness in'
curriculum development and application of research.
Training is to be individualized.
Teachers may provide training for other teachers.

Policy board is to design and supervise training program.
D. Impact on Institutions

Project is to demonstrate staff development which is responsive to pupil Proposal must show potential of teacher center for impacting the needs. institutions.
Evidence must be persuasive that participating institutions will continue program achievements after funding is terminated.
E. Adequate Reporting

Staff must document, and evaluate the achievements of the project. Successes and failures must be disseminated to other agencies. There must be a planned audience for the dissemination.
The proposal must define a process for reporting activities and outcomes;» Dissemination is part of state responsibility.
F. Role of State Agency

State agency must review and make recommendations concerning the Up to one-seventh of funds for teacher centers may be assigned to SEA
proposals. SEA must review and recommend proposals.
State may be involved in preparation of proposal and in implementation SEA provides technical assistance to project:

and dissemination of project goals and outcomes. SEA responsible for dissemination.
G. Management

There must be a management plan for all major phases of the project•There must be a qualified staff. meeting needs of local pupils, staff development, continuation of project
Facilities must be adequate.
achievements, dissemination to other agencies.
The teacher center must be of sufficient scope for potential impact
institutions.
There must be plans for evaluation and dissemination.

v. Thrust

To change institutions so that staff development is responsive to pupil To encourage teachers to direct their own career development. and teacher needs.
. __ L.:._.:....._._L
1.eacher Centers: ForExploring





WhatSchools

Are Aiming at

and How to Get There
By DR. CHRISTINE SAN JOSE

Outline:
1.
Recognition that many of us hope for no less than reform

2.
Two contexts of teaching, hence of teacher education reform, to be taken into account-schools are organizations, schooling within society

3.
Role of Teacher Centers in above con•texts, promoting both organizational health and links with school community-hence nur•turing the circumstances and the climate necessary for effecting Teacher Education Re•form


1. Recognition of the Enormity of the Challenge
The speaker welcomes the invitation proffered by the title of this session to discuss Teacher Education Reform, since she believes thus strong a word appropriate in describing what many of us are currently hoping for. And once we acknowledge the size of what we're after, we are less likely to neglect consideration of the many complexities that attend any attempt at change in the schools. There are current writ•ers on inservice education and the possible role of teacher centers (noticeable theoreticians rather than those primarily in the field) who apparently assume that' improvement of in•struction in schools is largely a matter of im•provement of the education of teachers which in turn is largely a matter of delivering the appropriate training at the appropriate time and place. The present speaker holds that we have a less than useful view if we fail to take
Dr. Christine San Jose was the director of the West Genesee/Syracuse University Teaching Center in Syracuse, NY, and has been a tireless supporter of the teacher-directed preservice and inservice pro•gram. She has broad experience in planning with teachers and assessing their professiollailleeds. The Teaching Center under her direction sen)ed both elementary and secondary school teachers.
into account the context of teaching and hence of any attempts at reform.
2. The Environment of Teaching: Two Highly Influential Contexts
2.1 Schools as Organizatiol1s --After a brief look at the realities of teaching, noting the powerful influence of the environment in which it takes place, the speaker concludes that it is schools which are in the business of teaching (the teachers as vital elements within them), and that we must examine the schools and school districts for those characteristics which are likely to help or hinder reform.
Aided by studies of organization behavior, we recognize that an organization's ability to achieve its goals, to adapt, to "reform", is inti•mately linked to what has been called its or•ganization effectiveness, or organizational health. Matthew Miles has specified ten com•ponents of organizational health, as given be•low. The speaker suggests that when we weigh the possible forces for and against reform in general in the schools, these components offer useful indices; and further suggests that we use these, or similar, indices to weigh the forces for and against reform within our own particular schools or districts, i. e. the strengths that we can build on and the weaknesses and dangers that we must recognize and address. The ten components will therefore be gone through twice: the first time through we shall very briefly relate each one to what we know of schools in general; and the second time through, listeners who have embarked on, or are about to embark on, "reform" in their own schools or districts or combinations of these, are invited to give a few moments of thought to how their own organizations stack up in these
ten areas. Here, then, are Miles' components or or•ganizational health:
1.
Goal focus

2.
Communication adequacy


3.
Optimal power equalization

4.
Resources utilization

5.
Cohesiveness

6.
V10rale

7.
Innovativeness

8.
Autonomy

9.
Adaptation

10.
Proble:n-Solving adequacy



(relation of these to the school context will clarift/ what is 'lli!al1 t hlJ these sometimes el1 ig'llatic labels)
The speaker reiterates that it is inviting frus•tration and disillusion to work for refor.n with•out taking these issues into account.
2.2 Schooling within Socieh/-Here we consider the i:11plications for the teacher's task fro,n so•ciety's expectation that education function as an institution for societal ;naintenance. Brieflv (alas) we touch on the crux of the dile:n:na: a charge to develop the potential of a creature so highly individuated as a human being, yet at one and the same time a charge to work for the smooth-running and continuance of society. Further, we note the :11Ultiplication of up•heaval and uncertainty and apparent conflict of aims when so many deep-rooted values of a society are being questioned as they are today.
We therefore recognize that delivering to the teacher, and supporting him or her, with the soundest, most effective pedagogical knowl•edge and strategies is of little use if the resul•tant teachingis inconflict with the expectations of the community.
3. Role of Teacher Centers Reviewing what appear to be the dominant
. characteristics of what we might recognize as existing "Teacher Centers", i.e. reviewing not the various "typologies" that distinguish one fro:n another but struggling to perceive rather the basic concerns and approaches which they have in common, we come up with a cluster
12
~
~ c
w @ M


'8
remarkably consonant with
what
have been distinguished ments crucial to organizational health. A rapid run-through of Miles' list (as above)

makes this abundantly clear.. Further, we note the sensitivity of center after center to their wider communities, frequently·· welcoming and working in their many dif•ferent ways not only with parents but with other community groups also, to some offering: services and to others (business, for example) providing opportunities for them to help their district teachers an<;i children. In short, this speaker sees centers as subsuming, not sub•sumed by, teacher education. The centers that we see going strong, and bidding fair within !. their operation to effect Teacher Education Re•form, are those which recognize the power and complexities of the contexts within which they have their being. Bringing together the many different people in many different roles who are involved in teaching, working with them towards healthy organizational and commu•nity understanding and partnership, they are then able to tackle with some success the more. specific task (among their many others) of en•hancement of actual teaching behavior.
I hope with all.ny head and heart (which frequently find it difficult and probably productive, to separate) that teachers will deed find a new and powerful voice in T Centers; and that with it they willbring about a shining cluster of reform. It is because I care so :nuch that I urge all of those concerned to head on the complexities involved, and to the;n with the wisdom and the courage that for one have never found it so very hard to in our profession. We're going to need them!
The Detroit Center for Professional

Growth and
Development
By THERESA LORIO

WHAT WE ARE
The Center for Professional Growth and De•velopment, operating since 1976, is the first state-supported professional development center in \1ichigan. Its establishment repre•sented a "break-through"-a major commit•ment by the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board ofEduca•tion, and the State Legislature to support the plan of key educational leaders in the Detroit community for pioneering new directions for the inservice education of school personnel.
The Detroit Center for Professional Growth and Development represents the Detroit plan for a model inservice project. It is based on the assumption that the behavior ofeducation per•sonnel is a :najor influenceable variable which affects the learning process.
The Detroit Center has a nu.nber of unique features which have attracted over6,OOO volun•tary participants since \1arch, 1976. Among these key features are:
1.
Flexibility: The ability to respond to a wide variety ofrequests with appropriate train•ing models and consultants whether from a "high-need" school or a school where students may be performing well in reading and compu•tational skills

2.
Direct involvement of participants in identifying their inservice needs and designing the training activities, which leads to personal commitments for effective change.


The Detroit Center has two outreach com•ponents and a support system for the delivery of services:
Theresa Lorio, Assistant Director of the Detroit Center for Professional Growth and Development has represented the AFT at state and national con•ferences. She has. teaching experience in urban schools as teacher, master teacher, and educational consultant and inservice specialist. Her urban expe•rience provides. her with insight into the preservice and inservice needs of teachers.
Field COllsllltant Serl.'ices is the principal out•reach coniponent through which service is available to all segments of the educational community-region, school, city-wide, or in•
dividual staff me:11ber. Regardless of the chil-__
dren they serve-low achievers, high achiev•ers, handicapped, gifted-staffs may request and receive training and support. After a need. has been specified by an assessment process, FieLi Services provide consultants and re•sources to enable the requesting staff to engage in productive inservice experiences. When a need is pervasive, training is :11ade available on
a region or syste.n-wide basis.
Key features of Field Consultant Services are flexibility, accessibility, promptness of re•sponse, and the :najor role of requesters in designing the training experience. Special Project Schools is the component fro.n which ;nost specific research data are collected to:neasure the impact of staff training on pupil achievement.
Eighty percent of the personnel in Special Project Schools must agree to participate with the Center in a three-year sequential inservice process that is designed to raise pupil achievement in reading and mathematics and to positively influence school climate. The process is linked directly to the needs and ex•pectations of students and educators.

SEQUE:"J'TIAL INSERVICE PROCESS
I-Develop Awareness of Inservice Process
2-Demonstrate Commitment to Inservice

Process
3-Identify Expectations of Students and

Staff
4-Assess and Prioritize

5-Plan Inservice Activities based on High Priority \reeds, Achievement Plans, etc.
6-Identify Resources to be committed to in•

service activities
7-Implement and Evaluate Inservice Ac•

tivities
8-\1onitor student achievement and school climate.
-A Detroit Center Inservice Specialist is as•signed to work with the staff on a systematic basis
-Support services are available from all components of The Detroit Center
-Staff of The Detroit Center assist in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the inservice process
-The Detroit Center, with the cooperation of other agencies when appropriate, provides consultants for the inservice process
-An Inservice Leadership Team composed of school staff and the Inservice Specialist coordinates and monitors the training process.
Support System: VIathematics and Reading Re•source Centers are two curriculum centers that support Field Consultant Services and the Special Project Schools. Support is in the form of equipment, modules, and materials for teaching/learning reading and mathematics, and curriculum inservice consultants who are specialists in their field.
As support to Field Consultant Services, the Re•source Centers:
-Respond to requests of Field Consultant Services for providing inservice activities in reading and in mathematics education
-Conduct needs assessment surveys to de•termine school, region, or city-wide needs re•lated to the teaching of reading and of mathematics
-Sponsor workshop series, conferences, exhibits, and seminars related to "high•needs."
As support to the Special Project Schools, the Resource Centers: -<;ooperate with members of the schools'
Inservice Leadership Teams in planning the three-year training -Help staff identify inservice needs related to reading and mathematics
-Resp':'111d to requests of Special Project Schools for inservice activities in reading and mathematics.
WHAT HAVE WE DONE As a center that relies exclusively on voluntary staff participation and has no funds to pay stipends, the Detroit center has from October, 1976 through August, 1977:
•
Sponsored 393 inservice series

•
With 1,153 separate sessions

•
Representing a cumulative attendance of 21,711

•
Lasting a total of 57,439.5 hours

•
Developed follow-up procedures, to facili•tate in-the-classroom use of Center-learned skills

•
Initiated a replicable process/model for in-depth local school staff development

•
Piloted pre and posttesting ofparticipants, to ascertain the effectiveness of Center inser•vice activities in imparting new information

•
Investigated ways to measure the impact of staff inservice on pupil performance

•
Developed a variety of training modules

•
Implemented linkages with the Detroit Public Schools for cooperative planning, shar•ing of staff expertise, and funding support for selected projects of the Professional Develop•ment Office, Title One, ESAA, and Chapter 3 programs

•
Served as the catalyst for establishing inter-institutionally-sponsored credit courses that involved 8 participating schools or colleges of education in southeastern Michigan, as a spinoff of Center inservice activities.


WHAT IMPACT WE HAVE HAD
• Detroit staffs, in large numbers and de•spite system-wide mandatory inservice pro•
grams, voluntarily seek Center training
•
Requests for services from The Field
sultant Services Component and the Rea
Resource Center EXCEED the Center's
sonnel and fiscal resources. We have had to
"NO", to a number of requests


•
Special Project Schools' staffs are
ted to the three-year development process
raising pupil achievement



• Pretest and posttest data indicated
Center inservice leads to increased s . knowledge
•
Center-Produced documents are
sought


•
Center staff members are in demand
ally, state-wide, and nationally as
and resource consultants for organizations
school systems concerned with launching
improving their staff development efforts.



WHAT'S AHEAD
•
Initiating the state plan for Career LUULcl•tion inservice staff training of Detroit nOTe...."c. nel

•
Beginning a three-year, longitudinal
sessment of staff training impact on pupil
formance


•
Engaging in follow-up activities
selected classroom teachers


•
Continuing the development of
staff training modules


•
Refining the model for Special
Schools


•
Expanding the number of Special
Schools


•
Perfecting the Center response cap a
to local school inservice needs


•
Strengthening and expanding linkages with Detroit Public Schools, schools of educa•tion, Wayne County Intermediate School trict, Wayne State University Teacher Project, and other agencies, to maximize Detroit Center impact on educators and students.




)
c::::u


L...... c.

For Additional Copies, Write to:
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO 11 Dupont Circle, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036
Ask for Item No. 437 Single copy free

Hide Document