Core Requirements,Structured Flexibility,and Local Judgment: Balancing Adherence and Adaptation in the Design and Implementation of District-Wide Professional Development
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2025
Core Requirements,Structured Flexibility,and Local Judgment: Balancing Adherence and Adaptation in the Design and Implementation of District-Wide Professional Development
Professional development (PD) for teachers is a ubiquitous feature of the American educational landscape. Yet we know little about how districts navigate the variation in teacher learning needs when designing and implementing district-wide PD programs. In this paper, we describe how the District of Columbia Public Schools implemented an ambitious PD program called LEAP (LEarning together to Advance our Practice). Aligned with best practices, LEAP consisted of weekly group learning in content-specific teams, followed by individualized coaching support, all guided by a district-provided professional learning curriculum. We capitalize on both quantitative and qualitative data to understand how the program was implemented and how the district’s implementation efforts shaped what happened on the ground. Finally, we highlight implications for other districts interested in implementing complex PD.
AchinsteinB.OgawaR. (2006). (In) fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.
2.
AllenJ. P.PiantaR.GregoryA.MikamiA. Y.LunJ. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333(6045), 1034–1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207998
3.
AndersonE.YoungM. D. (2018). If they knew then what we know now, why haven’t things changed? An examination of district effectiveness research. Frontiers in Education, 3, Article 87.
4.
BeanR. M.DraperJ. A.HallV.VandermolenJ.ZigmondN. (2010). Coaches and coaching in Reading First schools: A reality check. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 87–114.
5.
BlazarD.KraftM. (2015). Exploring mechanisms of effective teacher coaching: A tale of two cohorts from a Randomized Experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 542–566. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715579487
6.
BlazarD.SchuelerB. (2022). Why do school districts matter? An interdisciplinary framework and empirical review (EdWorkingPaper: 22-581). https://doi.org/10.26300/58m4-fs65
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
CannataM.RubinM.NealM. (2021). From fidelity to integrity: Navigating flexibility in scaling up a statewide initiative. American Journal of Education, 127(2), 233–263.
12.
ClarkeJ.DedeC. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the River City curriculum. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18, 353–365.
13.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
14.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
15.
CogginsC. T.StoddardP.CutlerE. (2003, April). Improving instructional capacity through school-based reform coaches [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, United States. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED478744.pdf
16.
CoggshallJ. G.RasmussenC.ColtonA.MiltonJ.JacquesC. (2012). Generating teaching effectiveness: The role of job-embedded professional learning in teacher evaluation. Research & policy brief. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532776
17.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
18.
DeBargerA. H.PenuelW. R.MoorthyS.BeauvineauY.KennedyC. A.BoscardinC. K. (2017). Investigating purposeful science curriculum adaptation as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education, 101(1), 66–98.
19.
DeeT. S.JamesJ.WyckoffJ. (2021). Is effective teacher evaluation sustainable? Evidence from District of Columbia Public Schools. Education Finance and Policy, 16(2), 313–346.
20.
DeeT. S.WyckoffJ. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267–297.
21.
DeLeonP.DeLeonL. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 467–492.
22.
DesimoneL. M.GaretM. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263.
23.
DesimoneL. M.PakK. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.
24.
DeussenT.CoskieT.RobinsonL.AutioE. (2007). Coach can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
25.
DurlakJ. A.DuPreE. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350.
26.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature
27.
FlodenR. E.PorterA. C.AlfordL. E.FreemanD. J.IrwinS.SchmidtW. H.SchwilleJ. R. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(2), 96–124.
28.
FordT. G.LavigneA. L.FiegenerA. M.SiS. (2020). Understanding district support for leader development and success in the accountability era: A review of the literature using social-cognitive theories of motivation. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 264–307.
29.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(3), 126–137.
30.
FullanM. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin Press.
31.
GallucciC.Van LareM. D.YoonI. H.BoatrightB. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963.
32.
GamsonD. A.HodgeE. M. (2016). Education research and the shifting landscape of the American school district, 1816 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 216–249. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16670323
33.
GarcíaE.WeissE. (2019). The role of early career supports, continuous professional development, and learning communities in the teacher shortage (The Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market No. 5). Economic Policy Institute.
34.
GaretM. S.WayneA. J.StancavageF.TaylorJ.EatonM.WaltersK.SongM.BrownS.HurlburtS.ZhuP.SepanikS.DoolittleF.WarnerE. (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation (NCEE 2011-4024). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
35.
GerstenR.DiminoJ.JayanthiM.KimJ. S.SantoroL. E. (2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 694–739.
36.
GibbonsL. K.CobbP. (2016). Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. The Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–260.
37.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp 163–194). Sage.
38.
GulamhusseinA. (2013). Teaching the teachers: Effective professional development in an era of high stakes accountability. Center for Public Education, 1, 1–47.
39.
HillH. C.EricksonA. (2019). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. Educational Researcher, 48(9), 590–598.
40.
HonigM. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 627–664.
41.
HonigM. I.CoplandM. A.RaineyL.LortonJ. A.NewtonM. (2010). School district central office transformation for teaching and learning improvement [A report to the Wallace Foundation]. The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
42.
HornI. S.LittleJ. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.
43.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
44.
JacobA.McGovernK. (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. The New Teacher Project.
45.
JacobR.HillH.CoreyD. (2017). The impact of a professional development program on teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching, instruction, and student achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(2), 379–407.
46.
JohnsonS. M. (2020). Where teachers thrive: Organizing schools for success. Harvard Education Press.
47.
KazemiE.FrankeM. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMTE.0000033084.26326.19
KennedyM. (2016b). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 6–17.
50.
KimJ. S.HemphillL.TroyerM.ThomsonJ. M.JonesS. M.LaRussoM. D.DonovanS. (2017). Engaging struggling adolescent readers to improve reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3), 357–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.171
51.
KnightJ.van NieuwerburghC. (2012). Instructional coaching: A focus on practice. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2012.707668
52.
KooyM. (2006). The telling stories of novice teachers: Constructing teacher knowledge in book clubs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(6), 661–674.
53.
KraftM. A.BlazarD.HoganD. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
54.
LeithwoodK.SunJ.McCulloughC. (2019). How school districts influence student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 519–539.
LewisC.PerryR.MurataA. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.
57.
LowenhauptR.McKinneyS.ReevesT. (2014). Coaching in context: The role of relationships in the work of three literacy coaches. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.847475
58.
LynchK.HillH. C.GonzalezK. E.PollardC. (2019). Strengthening the research base that informs stem instructional improvement efforts: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 260–293.
59.
MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS.StrunkK. O.LincoveJ. A.HuguetA. (2017). Evaluating teachers in the Big Easy: How organizational context shapes policy responses in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 539–570. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717698221
60.
MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.MartorellF. (2012). Reading coach quality: Findings from Florida middle schools. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 1–26.
61.
MarshJ. A.WohlstetterP. (2013). Recent trends in intergovernmental relations: The resurgence of local actors in education policy. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 276–283.
McMasterK. L.JungP.-G.BrandesD.PintoV.FuchsD.KearnsD.LemonsC.SáenzL.YenL. (2014). Customizing a research-based reading practice. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1301
65.
MilesK. H.OddenA.FermanichM.ArchibaldS. (2004). Inside the black box of school district spending on professional development: Lessons from five urban districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1–26.
66.
MilesM.HubermanM.SaldañaJ. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
OpferV. D.PedderD. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.
69.
PetrieK.McGeeC. (2012). Teacher professional development: Who is the learner?Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 59–72.
70.
PeurachD. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and success for all. Oxford University Press.
71.
PiantaR. C.HamreB. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374
72.
ReiserB. J.SpillaneJ. P.SteinmullerF.SorsaD.CarneyK.KyzaE. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula. In FishmanB.O’Connor-DivelbissS. (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 342–349). Lawrence Erlbaum.
73.
RiceD. (2013). Street-level bureaucrats and the welfare state: Toward a micro-institutionalist theory of policy implementation. Administration & Society, 45(9), 1038–1062.
74.
RonfeldtM.FarmerS. O.McQueenK.GrissomJ. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562
75.
RorrerA. K.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357.
RussellJ. L.CorrentiR.SteinM. K.BillV.HannanM.SchwartzN.BookerL. N.PrattN. R.MatthisC. (2020). Learning from adaptation to support instructional improvement at scale: Understanding coach adaptation in the TN Mathematics Coaching Project. American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 148–187.
78.
SaldañaJ. (2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In LeavyP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 581–605). Oxford University Press.
79.
SantagataR.KerstingN.GivvinK. B.StiglerJ. W. (2010). Problem implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students’ mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(1), 1–24.
80.
SchneiderB.McDonaldS. K. (2007a). Scale-up in education: Volume 1: Ideas in principle. Rowman & Littlefield.
81.
SchneiderB.McDonaldS. K. (2007b). Scale-up in education: Volume 2: Issues in practice. Rowman & Littlefield.
82.
ShaughnessyM.BoerstT. A.FarmerS. O. (2019). Complementary assessments of prospective teachers’ skill with eliciting student thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(6), 607–638.
83.
SimsS.Fletcher-WoodH. (2021). Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: A critical review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(1), 47–63.
84.
SiskinL. S. (2016). Mutual adaptation in action. Teachers College Record, 118(13), 1–18.
85.
SpillaneJ. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–189.
86.
SpillaneJ. P.ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.
87.
StollL.BolamR.McMahonA.WallaceM.ThomasS. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
88.
SupovitzJ. A. (2008). Instructional influence in American high schools. In ManginM. M.StoelingaS. R. (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 114–162). Teachers College Press.
89.
ThompsonM.WiliamD. (2008). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms. In WylieE. C. (Ed.), Tight but loose: Scaling up teacher professional development in diverse contexts (pp. 1–44). Educational Testing Service.
90.
TochT. (2018). A policymaker’s playbook: Transforming public schools in the nation’s capital. FutureEd.
91.
TogneriW.AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. A project of the Learning First Alliance [and] a leadership brief. Learning First Alliance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475875.pdf
92.
VescioV.RossD.AdamsA. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
93.
WeiR. C.Darling-HammondL.AdamsonF. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. National Staff Development Council.
94.
WoulfinS. L. (2018). Mediating instructional reform: An examination of the relationship between district policy and instructional coaching. AERA Open, 4(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418792278
95.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeW.-Y.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement: Issues & answers (Regional Educational Laboratory No. 033). U.S. Department of Education.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
