 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
In the past few years, the state rapidly expanded professional development programs that were administered by The University of California (UC). Recently, this funding was shifted away from UC and instead given directly to districts, with the stipulation that professional development be tied closely to adopted instructional materials. In 2000–01, the California Professional Development Institutes (CPDIs) emerged as a key professional development strategy and were allotted more than $60 million in state funds. Administered by The University of California’s Office of the President (UCOP), the institutes provided teachers with training in reading, math and English language development. The California Subject Matter Projects (CSMPs) had been in existence for many years and were funded at $35 million in 2000–01. Two years later, in the midst of severe budget shortfalls, the allocation to the CPDIs was cut entirely, and the CSMP budget reduced to $20 million. Concurrently, the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, or AB 466, was established and allocated $63.5 million in the 2002–03 budget (essentially two years of funding since the first-year allocation was not spent). This program reimburses districts for professional development in reading and math that has been purchased from state-approved training providers. It is assumed that some Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program dollars will be spent on training provided by reading and math CPDIs, all of which are approved to provide AB 466 training. (This strategy will not work for the English language development PDIs, however, because they are not approved to provide such training.) Some hope that the original target number of teachers served will still be met through federal money as part of the Reading First program, a component of the No Child Left Behind Act, although the total amount available through that program has declined significantly. Though Reading First money will compensate for some of the cuts to AB 466 and the CPDIs, it is likely that the combined target number of teachers to be served by both of these programs will not be met. Also, because Reading First money is to be spent on efforts to improve reading in the early grades, it will not compensate for cuts to programs in math or other subjects or for cuts to training for teachers in higher grades. Like the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, Reading First subgrants to districts can be used to purchase teacher training only from providers that have been approved by the state. This is a departure from the previous strategy of funding UCOP directly to operate large-scale professional development programs. Apart from the subject matter-specific programs described above, substantial funding is available for professional development that does not have strict guidelines for quality and content at the state level, leaving accountability and decisionmaking in the hands of local administrators. Compared to the very specific Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program, far more state money for professional development is distributed via more flexible programs, such as the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program at $87 million (down from $137 million at the beginning of FY 2001–02) and the Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform program at $230 million. Districts enjoy flexibility with these programs
and can choose to use funds to best suit their local needs, including
teacher professional development. However, the state does not require
detailed reporting of how these funds are spent at the local level,
and in the case of the Instructional Time and Staff Development
Reform program, no evaluation is required by statute. As a result,
there is little information at the state level about the content
or quality of these programs. In addition to these large-scale programs, there are many small state programs with narrow foci such as technology, bilingual education or Advanced Placement that include money for professional development. Many of these programs are not part of a coherent overall state strategy, though districts may use these funds as part of a coherent plan at the local level. Some of these small programs have been cut due to budget shortfalls. More information is available on: |