School board members and state legislators often want evidence of the link between staff development and student learning. But it’s difficult to prove a causal connection between the two when other important variables such as standards, curriculum, and assessment also enter the equation.

Even more problematic, however, is the unpleasant reality that a great deal of staff development activity is ineffective. This may be because the staff development is poorly planned and implemented. It may be insufficiently focused on the knowledge and skills teachers need to teach all students to high levels of learning. Often, the activity is not surrounded by a structure and culture that nurtures the knowledge and skills acquired during the staff development effort.

Previous columns have illustrated the deep changes in which staff development must be embedded if it is to affect reading and math achievement. This column examines science reform which is addressed in two of the National Education Goals and the focus of frequent international comparisons.

To better understand the issues, I talked with Harold Pratt, director of K-12 policy and practice at the National Research Council’s Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. He said creating schools in which all students develop competency in challenging science content requires substantial changes in curriculum, assessment, leadership practices, and the support system that surrounds teachers.

"You must start with high content standards," Pratt said. "Then, you have to go from standards to vision — what will this really look like? This is a vision that an entire staff spends a great deal of time thinking about and developing. It’s about what good learning looks like and, therefore, what good teaching looks like." In addition, he argued that schools must provide a well developed and coherent curriculum plus assessments that are Professional learning at center of science reform aligned with that curriculum.

Pratt also emphasized the importance of a strong support system if that vision is to be realized, a system with professional development at its core. "There has to be professional development for virtually everyone in the district, not just teachers," he said.

Pratt stressed the need for deepening teachers’ content knowledge and instructional skills in science. "Teachers must understand the content of the subject matter and have pedagogical content knowledge — how to translate that content into learning strategies specific to that discipline," he said. "The pedagogy is different for science than it is for math or social studies. Staff development really has to be anchored in classroom practice and be as close to the classroom as we can place it." Physically engaging school board members in "doing science’’ is the key to galvanizing them and deepening their understanding of science reform, Pratt said. Administrators, he said, must develop a general understanding of the requirements for science reform so they can evaluate science instruction.

Principals and district administrators, Pratt emphasized, must also be able to organize community support for a more challenging science curriculum and improved instruction. "Administrators have to manage a community education effort," Pratt said. "They have to help the community understand why we are doing this. The backlash to the innovative curriculum and teaching methods that are part of the reform movement has occurred because we didn’t do our homework with our community up front."

Finally, Pratt said assessment means more than just evaluating student learning. "We must also assess students’ opportunity to learn," he said. "We need to consider the rest of what’s going on in terms of policy, professional development, and the other parts of the support system. Students and teachers may be the last ones we should look at when achievement is below expectation."