SUMMARY STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SEE TECHNICAL Guidance on how to structure school- and GUIDANCE NOTE cluster-based training within an in-service COACH TOOLS teacher professional development program AND RESOURCES Coach is the World Bank’s program focused on accelerating student learning by improving in-service teacher professional development around the world. INTRODUCTION Overview Utility To outline best practices to structure and • To identify, prepare, appraise, and implement support school- and cluster-based continuous (additional financing/restructuring), specifically professional development. in the design of an effective school- or cluster- based teacher professional development (TPD) intervention. • To support project design, component descriptions, technical analysis, and Project Appraisal Document (PAD) descriptions. COACH 1 SCOPE INCLUDES DOES NOT INCLUDE The decision points relevant to design and How to improve the quality of support that support school- and cluster-based pedagogical leaders provide to teachers or continuous professional development (PD). how to structure ongoing support within an in-service TPD system. Offers guidance on best practices based on research and implementation experience. Focuses on the operational considerations related to how to group clusters, how to select facilitators, and how to support facilitators. For guidance on how to improve the quality of the support that For guidance on how to structure ongoing support, see pedagogical leaders give to teachers, see the Foundational the Structuring Effective 1-1 Support Guidance Teaching Skills Guide which is part of the suite of Coach Tools and Note which is part of the suite of Coach Tools and Resources. Resources. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2 WHAT IS A SCHOOL- OR CLUSTER-BASED APPROACH TO PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT? School- and cluster-based approaches to professional development (PD) are in-service continuous PD programs. The programs can be characterized by the following: Groups of teachers from one Teachers from a cluster of A combination of the two school working together to several schools working improve their practice together at one school (Leu 2004; Mphalele 2012) Common participants include teachers, pedagogical leaders, and principals. This PD tends to be highly participatory and offers teachers an opportunity to learn within settings similar to their own school or classroom environments. Most frequently, it is carried out and facilitated by teachers themselves, or by an externally appointed facilitator. These actors are supported by materials that have been developed more centrally for example, at the national or subnational level), which provide guidance for the sessions. COACH 3 Cluster-Based PD Communities of Practice (CoP) Scope Commonly is organized at the macro level Commonly operate at the micro level (school (cluster level), that is, includes 5 to 7 schools. level), (Ralaingita 2021). CoP can be seen as extending cluster-based CPD to school-level meetings. Facilitator Appointed coach/master trainer leads the Appointed CoP leader: School-head/appointed professional development session. Facilitator expert teacher leads the session. Usually, the could be from a different school. appointed expert teacher is from the same school. Content Tightly predetermined content. Purpose is Loosely determined content. Purpose is to to strengthen teachers’ pedagogical address all kinds of issues faced by teachers knowledge. The focus is less on individual including pedagogical constraints and teacher issues (although they can be classroom-related and/or school management. addressed). Nature More formal. More informal. Frequency Predetermined frequency: Weekly, Can be arranged anytime based on biweekly, monthly, bimonthly. teachers’ availability and needs. Members Teachers in the cluster are from different Teachers from the same school or cluster. CoP also schools. can be formed by teachers from different schools. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4 WHAT DISTINGUISHES SCHOOL- OR CLUSTER-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FROM OTHER FORMS OF CPD? Cascade training can reach many teachers in a short time and at lower cost. However, research and implementation experience has exposed critical weaknesses of this approach. School-and cluster-based approaches to professional development offer effective, participatory, and responsive alternatives to other models such as the traditional cascade model. (McNeil 2004) Traditional cascade … are heavily predicated on the assumption that, at the end of the training, the participants will be able to train others on what models… they learned in a high-quality, high-fidelity way. This assumption rarely correct (Dichaba and Mokhele 2012; Hayes 2000). … concentrate expertise at the top, often resulting in centralized, large-scale trainings that provide teachers with abstract information rather than concrete strategies. (Hardman and others 2011; Orr and others 2013; Villegas-Reimers and Reimers 1996). …can present severe logistical challenges related to convening large groups of teachers at central, regional, or subregional levels. COACH 5 WHEN MIGHT SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED APPROACHES TO PD BE MOST APPROPRIATE? School- and cluster-based approaches to teacher professional development can be most appropriate and provide a significant advantage in contexts in which: Logistical issues School- and cluster-based professional development (PD) solves the logistical make large-scale challenges posed by cascade training approaches. The former can reduce cascade trainings necessary transportation costs and provide an interim alternative to getting a more difficult. coach into every classroom. Reforms or changes School- and cluster-based approaches are effective for the practical exchange of to education policy information and practices on new educational reforms. Some countries have or curricula are used school- and cluster-based trainings to transmit new information on common. competency- based instruction or curriculum changes (Johnson 2019). Getting a coach into School- and cluster-based professional development can serve as an interim every classroom to investment that lends itself to continuous, collaborative, practical, focused, and observe a teacher is tailored professional development (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017; Kraft and Blazer not yet possible. 2017). STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 6 Cascade trainings are not inherently ineffective in all Implementation contexts. This model’s characteristic deficiencies are the note: concentration of expertise at the topmost levels combined with School- and cluster- a heavily transmissive mode of training at all levels (Hayes 2000). based approaches can parallel, and • Positive instances of cascade training can be found that remedy deficiencies, often by borrowing complement, the characteristics from school- and cluster-based more conventional training. Examples are decentralizing responsibilities cascade models. and providing opportunities for teachers who teach similar subjects/grades to reflect on the relevance of training to their local contexts (see Pakistan or Kenya). • School- and cluster-based approaches are versatile— even modular. These approaches can be employed to complement other forms of teacher professional development models. COACH 7 WHAT ARE THE KEY DECISION POINTS TO STRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT? Decisions on how to structure and support school- and cluster-based continuous professional development (CPD) typically involve five key points. This Guide elaborates the key principles of each of these decision points: HOW TO HOW TO HOW OFTEN WHO HOW TO DECIDE GROUP? TO MEET? FACILITATES? SUPPORT? CONTENT? STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8 HOW TO FOCUS ON IDENTIFYING THE BEST GROUP? WAY TO GROUP TEACHERS. Geographic Clusters Groupings within the School or Cluster Geographic location should be the first determinant Level in forming clusters (Leu 2004; Mendelsohn and Ward 2001; Within geographic clusters, teachers typically form Mphahlele 2012). groups by grade level or subject area. • Each cluster generally consists of 3 to 7 • Typically, grade-level groupings are suitable among schools— including 1 school in each group that elementary school teachers (Gallimore and others 2009). serves as the “cluster center.” • At the secondary level, school- and cluster-based • The cluster center sometimes operates as an efforts are most successful when teachers are “exemplar” school. For example, the center may organized in subject-area teams (for example, seventh be a school equipped for inclusive classroom grade mathematics or eighth grade biology). When practices with good leadership, management, and/or such teams are not possible, grouping secondary teaching practices (Mendelsohn and Ward 2001). school teachers by subject with a sub-grouping across grade levels is common (for example, math teachers, grades 6 to 8). Implementation Tip: In the absence of exemplar schools, consider directing resources to create an exemplar school. First, it can function as a cluster center. Second, increased investments can support pedagogical leadership and administrative tasks that will benefit others in the cluster. COACH 9 HOW OFTEN FOCUS ON THE IDEAL contd. on TO MEET? FREQUENCY OF MEETING. next slide Teacher professional development efforts yield best results when they are continuous and engage teachers in 30 to 100 hours of learning over 6 to 12 months (Yoon and others 2007). Interactions among teachers can occur through a combination of school- and cluster-based meetings: • School-level meetings organized weekly or bi-weekly allow teachers to purposefully reflect on their classroom practices and allow the follow-up to happen soon after, usually within the next session. • Cluster-level meetings organized monthly (and/or held at least three times per term) allow sufficient time for planning, strategizing, and evaluating different aspects of teaching at the cluster level (Jacobs 2015). Implementation Tip: Ensure that time to attend school- and cluster-based trainings is formally included in teachers’ schedules. To ensure that all teachers have access to the training, as much as possible, school-based trainings should occur within school hours, such as during mutual planning periods (Villegas-Reimers and Reimers 1996; Hennessy, Haßler, and Hofmann 2015). Implementation experiences have shown that efforts to include school principals and leaders in school- and cluster- based trainings can increase the likelihood of teachers getting dedicated time in their schedules to participate in professional development activities. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 10 (contd.) HOW OFTEN INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR RURAL SCHOOLS, SINGLE CLASSROOM OR TO MEET? SINGLE SUBJECT-/GRADE-TEACHER SCHOOLS, AND SCHOOLS IN FCV AREAS. • The flexible format of school- and cluster-based professional development can be ideal for use in schools in rural areas, schools that have single grade-level or subject-area teachers, and schools operating in FCVcontexts that use double-shifting. • For rural areas or regions in which schools have single-grade or subject-level teachers, policymakers should consider providing opportunities for teachers to receive highly focused school- and cluster- based facilitation and directed resources at a reduced frequency. In Yemen, in schools that used double-shifting, teachers In Lesotho, District resource teachers (DRTs) were attended trainings at the cluster school either before or established specifically to reach teachers in isolated after their morning or afternoon shifts. This arrangement mountainous areas of the country. DRTs visited schools was preferred by school directors and teachers as an 4 times per year for 2 to 3 days. DRTs helped teachers alternative to taking teachers out of the classroom for through individual consultations, group workshops multiple full-day sessions. The school- and cluster- for clusters, demonstration lessons, and support with based model also provided a more viable alternative for difficulties. female teachers, who, in the past, had been deterred from attending multi-day trainings far away. COACH 11 WHO IDENTIFY THE IDEAL PROFILE OF AN INDIVIDUAL FACILITATES? WHO LEADS/FACILITATES THE SET GROUPINGS. Depending on the scale of the professional development program, individuals/groups with multiple and diverse profiles should be appointed to support the school- and cluster-based professional development model. • At the cluster level, a cluster facilitator should be appointed. Facilitators at the cluster level can be a head teacher, a supervisor of the school (typically the cluster center), or an exemplary teacher. Facilitators who are education practitioners, as opposed to researchers or government officials, are more effective (Popova, Evans, and Arancibia 2016). • Individual school-based sessions also will require a facilitator. At the school level, these facilitators can range from peer teachers to school principals. Ideally, they will have received specific training to facilitatepeer trainings at the school level, although that training is not necessary. The role of structured guidance for facilitators—especially facilitators who are untrained—is paramount (question 4 discusses this structured guidance in more detail) (Gallimore and others 2009). Implementation Tip: Every individual assigned to one of the roles laid out above should have that role form part of their official roster of duties and should receive designated time within their schedules to carry out their responsibilities. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 12 HOW TO FOCUS ON DEVELOPING QUALITY TRAINING AND SUPPORT? SUPPORT FOR FACILITATORS IN THEIR ROLES. Key principles apply regarding how to effectively train and support facilitators (at cluster and school levels) in their roles Training support: Ideally, facilitators (at both cluster and school levels) receive dedicated training on the content of the sessions that they are meant to facilitate and on facilitation strategies. Supporting materials: Facilitators should be provided with structured materials to enable high-quality, self- paced school-level meetings (O’Sullivan 2002). • When providing training opportunities to school-level peer facilitators is not possible, to ensure the effectiveness of school-level meetings, structured and self-paced support materials are essential. • Resources can include an overview of topics to be covered in school-based meetings, a structured facilitators Guide for each session, and material on how to troubleshoot common teacher concerns. • Structured and/or scripted resources may be appropriate in some, but not all, contexts dependent on setting, familiarity with training approaches, and the extent to which local capacity is in place to support individual teacher development. Implementation Tip 1: To increase buy-in and improve school- Implementation Tip 2: In some cases, school- and cluster- based supports to teachers, ensure the participation of based TPD was implemented as part of an externally funded school leaders (including head teachers, administrators, project. In these cases, dedicated sustainability efforts and supervisors) (AusAid 2006). should be made to ensure that trainers, facilitators, and coordinators have the capacity to support continuous TPD efforts after the program funding ends (Winrock International 2016). COACH 13 HOW TO DEVELOP EFFECTIVE CONTENT FOR TEACHERS DECIDE CONTENT? IN SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED TRAINING. When deciding content, it is important to find the right balance between anchoring training in an overarching framework and addressing the needs of teachers at the local level. • In some settings, cluster- or school-based approaches are relatively new; or training all school-level facilitators on content and facilitation strategies is not possible. In these settings, the government or central educational agency first should perform a thorough and participatory needs assessment of teachers. Next, the central or state level should set clear and specific guidelines for training content. • Training needs to be tightly aligned to the needs of the teachers. The coordinating body should create a mechanism to diagnose existing skills and behaviors—at the level of either the individual teacher or among teachers throughout the system. The resulting diagnosis can provide valuable information on which types of content can be most effective for which teachers. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 14 For Further Consideration School- and cluster-based teacher professional development offers many benefits. Nevertheless, three points should be kept in mind when designing such professional development programs. 1. Incorporating reflective 2. School- 3. Evidence on how to best approaches to teaching based teacher design, deliver, and sustain can be challenging. professional develop such professional development ment alone can programs is limited. be self limiting. The shift toward reflective teaching When conducted in isolation, school Most of the evidence from this Guide sometimes makes assumptions about the professional development is prone to draws on implementation experience, teacher’s possession of appropriate tools “…becoming introspective and documented from eitherin-person for reflection. However, evidence has replicating weaknesses that already interviews or various project documents. indicated that if reflection sessions are exist in the school as an organization School- and cluster-based scaffolded correctly, “…reflective skills can (OECD 1998). professional development holds great be developed amongst unqualified Following a mixed approach of both promise as an approach for teachers, who have never been exposed on- and off-site activities and self- continuous professional development. to using reflection as a means of development (at school level) with Future research should consider developing their teaching skills” (see external assistance (through cluster- school- and cluster-based PD as an Namibia). level engagement) is more effective emergent and pertinent theme for While reflection or practice can bean and is a common feature of high- focused empirical examination. appropriate tool, it needs to be structured performing education systems and guided in culturally appropriate ways. globally. COACH 15 Additional Reading This summary is based on the accompanying Structuring and Supporting School- and Cluster- Based Continuous Professional Development: A Technical Guidance Note. The guidance note adds details to these highlights and features the programs included in this analysis that have shown promising effects on changing teaching practices and student learning outcomes. Citation: Ding, Elaine. 2021. "Structuring and Supporting School- and Cluster-Based Continuous Professional Development: Technical Guidance Summary." Coach Series, World Bank, Washington, DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 IGO.. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 16 REFERENCES Abeberese, Ama Baafra, Todd J. Kumler, and Leigh L. Linden. 2014. “Improving Reading Skills by Encouraging Children to Read in School: A Randomized Evaluation of the Sa Aklat Sisikat Reading Program in the Philippines.” Journal of Human Resources 49 (3): 611–33. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2014.0020. Allen, Dwight W. 1967. “Microteaching.” Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED019224. Allen, Joseph P., Christopher A. Hafen, Anne C. Gregory, Amori Y. Mikami, and Robert Pianta. 2015. “Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement: Replication and Extension of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary Intervention.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 8 (4): (October 2): 475–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1017680. AUSAid (Australian Agency for International Development). 2006. “Papua New Guinea Curriculum Reform Implementation Project Impact Study 6.” Final Report. Faculty of Education, Deakin University, Australia and National Research Institute, Papua New Guinea. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2007-04/apo-nid4626.pdf. Bando, Rosangela, and Xia Li. 2014. “The Effect of In-Service Teacher Training on Student Learning of English as a Second Language.” IADB Working Paper Series, IDB-WP-529. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington,DC. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/The-Effect-of-In-Service-Teacher-Training- on-Student-Learning- of-English-as-a-Second-Language.pdf. Beuermann, Diether W., Emma Naslund-Hadley, Inder J. Ruprah, and Jennelle Thompson. 2013. “The Pedagogy of Science and Environment: Experimental Evidence from Peru.” Journal of Development Studies 49 (5) (May): 719–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2012.754432. Boyle, Bill, Iasonas Lamprianou, and Trudy Boyle. “A Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change: What Makes Professional Development Effective? Report of the Second Year of the Study.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 16 (1) (May): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500114819. Buczynski, Sandy, and C. Bobbi Hansen. 2010. “Impact of PD on Teacher Practice: Uncovering Connections.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (3) (April): 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.006. COACH 17 Campbell, Patricia F., and Nathaniel N. Malkus. 2011. “The Impact of Elementary Mathematics Coaches on Student Achievement.” Elementary School Journal 111 (3) (March): 430–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/657654. Carpenter, Thomas P., Elizabeth Fennema, Penelope L. Peterson, Chi-Pang Chiang, and Megan Loef. 1989. “Using Knowledge of Children’s Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study.” AmericanEducational Research Journal 26 (4) (January): 499–531. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026004499. Cilliers, Jacobus, Brahm Fleisch, Cas Prinsloo, and Stephen Taylor. 2019. “How to Improve Teaching Practice? An Experimental Comparison of Centralized Training and in-Classroom Coaching.” Journal of Human Resources 55 (3) (February 7). https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.3.0618-9538R1. Clausen, Kurt W., Anna-Marie Aquino, and Ron Wideman. 2009. “Bridging the Real and Ideal: A Comparison between Learning Community Characteristics and a School-Based Case Study.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (3) (April): 444–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.010. Cohen, David K., and Heather C. Hill. 2001. Learning Policy: When State Education Reform Works. New Haven: Yale University Press. Creative Associates International. 2015. “Teacher Motivation and Change in Yemen: Innovations in Teacher PD fromthe Yemen Early Grade Reading Approach.” March. Washington, DC. https://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/05/YEGRA_Yemen.pdf. Crockett, Michele D. 2002. “Inquiry as PD: Creating Dilemmas through Teachers’ Work.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (5): 609–24 (July). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00019-7. Darling-Hammond, Linda, Maria. E. Hyler, and Madelyn Gardner. 2017. “Effective Teacher Professional Development.” Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf. Desimone, Laura. M. 2009. “Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ PD: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures.” Educational Researcher 38 (3): 181¬–99 (April). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140. Dichaba, Mpho M., and Matseliso L. Mokhele. 2012. “Does the Cascade Model Work for Teacher Training? Analysis of Teachers’ Experiences.” International Journal of Educational Sciences 4 (3) (December): 249–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2012.11890049. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18 Doppelt, Yaron, Christian D. Schunn, Eli M. Silk, Matthew M. Mehalik, Birdy Reynolds, and Erin Ward. 2009. “Evaluating the Impact of a Facilitated Learning Community Approach to PD on Teacher Practice and Student Achievement.” Research in Science and Technological Education 27 (3) (November): 339–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903166026. Fernández, Clea, Joanna Cannon, and Sonal Choksi. 2003. “A US-Japan Lesson Study Collaboration Reveals Critical Lenses for Examining Practice.” Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2): 171–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742- 051X(02)00102-6. Gallagher, H. Alix, Katrina Woodworth, and Nicole Arshan. 2016. “Impact Evaluation of the National Writing Project’s College- Ready Writing Project in High Poverty Rural Districts.” Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Evanston, IL. ERIC no. ED567632. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567632. Gallimore, Ronald, Bradley Ermeling, William Saunders, and Claude Goldenberg. 2009. “Moving the Learning of Teaching Closer to Practice: Teacher Education Implications of School Based Inquiry Teams.” The ElementarySchool Journal 109 (5) (May): 537–53. https://doi.org/10.1086/597001. Garet, Michael S., Andrew C Porter, Laura Desimone, Beatrice F Birman, and Kwang Suk Yoon. 2001. “What Makes PD Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 38 (4) (January): 915– 45. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915. Gilpin, Arlene. 1997.“Cascade Training: Sustainability or Dilution.” In Learning to Train: Perspectives on the Development of Language Teacher Trainers, edited by Ian McGrath, 185–195. Prentice Hall Europe. Hardman, Frank, Jim Ackers, Niki Abrishamian, and Margo O’Sullivan. 2011. “Developing a Systemic Approach to Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Emerging Lessons from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.” Compare: AJournal of Comparative and International Education 41 (5) (September): 669–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2011.581014. Hayes, David. 2000. “Cascade Training and Teachers’ PD.” ELT Journal 54 (2) (April 1): 135–45. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.135. Hennessy, Sara, Bjoern Haßler, and Riikka Hofmann. 2015. “Challenges and Opportunities for Teacher PD in InteractiveUse of Technology in African Schools.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 24 (5) (October 20): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1092466. Herriot, Andrew, Michael Crossley, Magdalena Juma, Judith Waudo, Miriam Mwirotsi, and Alexander Kamau. 2002. “The Development and Operation of Headteacher Support Groups in Kenya: A Mechanism to Create Pockets of Excellence, Improve the Provision of Quality Education and Target Positive Changes in the Community.” International Journal of Educational Development 22 (5) (September): 509–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(00)00040-7. COACH 19 Jacobs, Sunday. 2015. “Effects of ‘Cluster School Based’ Teacher PD Model on the Performances of Primary School Social Studies Teachers and Their Pupils in Plateau State, Nigeria.” International Journal of Education and Research 3 (5) (May). https://www.ijern.com/journal/2015/May-2015/34.pdf. Johnson, Carla C., and Jamison D. Fargo. 2010. “Urban School Reform Enabled by Transformative PD: Impact on Teacher Change and Student Learning of Science.” Urban Education 45 (1) (January): 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085909352073. Johnson, Susan Moore. 2019. Where Teachers Thrive: Organizing Schools for Success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Kraft, Matthew A., and David Blazar. 2017. “Individualized Coaching to Improve Teacher Practice across Grades and Subjects: New Experimental Evidence.” Educational Policy 31 (7) (November): 1033–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816631099. Kraft, Matthew A., David Blazar, and Dylan Hogan. 2018. “The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 88 (4) (August): 547– 88. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268. Lara-Alecio, Rafael, Fuhui Tong, Beverly J. Irby, Cindy Guerrero, Maggie Huerta, and Yinan Fan. 2012. “The Effect of an Instructional Intervention on Middle School English Learners’ Science and English Reading Achievement.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (8) (October): 987–1011. Lee, Jackie F.K. 2008. “A Hong Kong Case of Lesson Study: Benefits and Concerns.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (5) (July): 1115–24.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.007. Lemov, Doug, Erica Woolway, and Katie Yezzi. 2018. Practice Perfect: 42 Rules for Getting Better at Getting Better. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/ Practice+Perfect%3A+42+Rules+for+Getting+Better+at+Getting+Better-p- 9781118216583. Leu, Elizabeth. 2004. “The Patterns and Purposes of School-Based and Cluster Teacher PD Programs.” Working Paper1 under EQUIP1’s Study of School-Based Teacher Inservice Programs and Clustering of Schools. USAID (United States Agency of International Develoment), Washington, DC. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadd973.pdf. Lewis, Catherine. 2016. “How Does Lesson Study Improve Mathematics Instruction?” ZDM 48 (4) (July 1): 571–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0792-x. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 20 Louis, Karen Seashore, Helen M. Marks, and Sharon Kruse. 1996. “Teachers’ Professional Community in Restructuring Schools.” American Educational Research Journal 33 (4) (January): 757–98. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033004757. McGill-Franzen, Anne, Richard L. Allington, Linda Yokoi, and Gregory Brooks. 1999. “Putting Books in the Classroom Seems Necessary but Not Sufficient.” The Journal of Educational Research 93 (2): 67–74. McNeil, James. 2004. “School- and Cluster-Based Teacher Professional Development: Bringing Teacher Learning to the Schools.” Working Paper 1 under EQUIP1’s Study of School-Based Teacher Inservice Programs and Clustering of Schools. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.9818&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Mendelsohn, John, and Viv Ward. 2001. “A Review of Clusters of Schools in Namibia.” Report for the Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and Culture. Windhoek Namibia. https:// www.raison.com.na/sites/default/files/A%20review%20of%20school%20clusters%20in%20Namibia.pdf. Mphahlele, Lydia K. 2012. “School Cluster System: A Qualitative Study on Innovative Networks for Teacher Development.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47: 340–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.660. Mulkeen, Aidan. 2009. “Teachers in Anglophone Africa: Issues in Teacher Supply, Training and Management. Based on Case Studies in Eritrea, Gambia, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia and Zanzibar.” World Bank, Africa Region, Human Development, Washington, DC. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1998. “Staying Ahead: In-Service Training and Teacher PD.” OECD, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264163041-en. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. “Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy.” OECD, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en. O’Sullivan, Margo C. 2002. “Action Research and the Transfer of Reflective Approaches to In-Service Education andTraining (INSET) for Unqualified and Underqualified Primary Teachers in Namibia.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (5) (July): 523–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00014-8. Orr, David, Jo Westbrook, John Pryor, Naureen Durrani, Judy Sebba, and Christine Adu-Yeboah. 2013. “What Are the Impacts and Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies to Improve Performance of Untrained and Under-TrainedTeachers in the Classroom in Developing Countries? Systematic Review.” EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. https://www.globalreadingnetwork.net/sites/default/files/media/file/Undertrained_teachers_2013_Orr.pdf. COACH 21 Penuel, William R., Barry J. Fishman, Ryoko Yamaguchi, and Lawrence P. Gallagher. 2007. “What Makes PD Effective? Strategies That Foster Curriculum Implementation.” American Educational Research Journal 44 (4) (December): 921–58. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221. Piper, Benjamin, and Medina Korda. 2011. “EGRA Plus: Liberia. Program Evaluation Report.” RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED516080. Popova, Anna, David K. Evans, and Violeta Arancibia. 2016. “Training Teachers on the Job: What Works and How to Measure It.” World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7834. Powell, Douglas R., Karen E. Diamond, Margaret R. Burchinal, and Matthew J. Koehler. 2010. “Effects of an Early Literacy PD Intervention on Head Start Teachers and Children.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (2) (May): 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017763. Puchner, Laurel D., and Ann R. Taylor. 2006. “Lesson Study, Collaboration and Teacher Efficacy: Stories from Two School- Based Math Lesson Study Groups.” Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies 22 (7) (October): 922–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.011. Ralaingita, Wendi. 2021. “Teacher PD: Ongoing Teacher Support.” “Structured Pedagogy: A How-to Guide. Guide 6.” RTI, Research Triangle Park, NC. https://articulateusercontent.com/rise/courses/k7dLuD_MAVKCfofLTr1myltFVUl- 9zGm/FSWV7qorPCGkMXaQ-6.%2520Teacher%2520Professional%2520Development-%2520Ongoing%2520 Teacher%2520Support.pdf. Rizvi, Meher, and Philip Nagy. 2016. “The Effects of Cluster-Based Mentoring Programme on Classroom Teaching Practices: Lessons from Pakistan.” Research Papers in Education 31 (2) (March 14): 159–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2015.1029962. Rueda, Robert, and Lilia D. Monzó. 2002. “Apprenticeship for Teaching: PD Issues Surrounding the Collaborative Relationship between Teachers and Paraeducators.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (5): 503–21. Saxe, Geoffrey B., Maryl Gearhart, and Na’ilah Suad Nasir. 2001. “Enhancing Students’ Understanding of Mathematics: A Study of Three Contrasting Approaches to Professional Support.” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 4 (1) (January 1): 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009935100676. Schweisfurth, Michele. 2013. Learner-Centred Education in International Perspective: Whose Pedagogy for Whose Development? Oxford: Routledge. STRUCTURING AND SUPPORTING SCHOOL- AND CLUSTER-BASED CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22 Spratt, Jennifer, Simon King, and Jennae Bulat. 2013. “Evaluation of Mali’s mother-tongue early grade “Read Learn Lead” program: Endline Report.” The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Menlo Park, CA. https://www.rti.org/publication/evaluation-malis-mother-tongue-early-grade-read-learn-lead-program-0. Trotter, Yvonne D. 2006. “Adult Learning Theories: Impacting PD Programs.” Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 72 (2): 8. Villegas-Reimers, Eleonora. 2003. “Teacher PD: An International Review of the Literature. Quality Education for All.”International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Culture Organization), Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000133010_eng. Villegas-Reimers, Eleonora, and Fernando Reimers. 1996. “Where Are 60 Million Teachers? The Missing Voice in Educational Reforms around the World.” Prospects 26 (3) (September): 469–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195052. Wei, Ruth Chung, Linda Darling-Hammond, Aletha Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos. 2009. “Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad.” National Staff Development Council, Dallas, TX. Weiss, Iris, and Joan Pasley. 2006. “Scaling up Instructional Improvement through Teacher Professional Development: Insights from the Local Systemic Change Initiative.” Consortium for Policy Research in Education. March. https://doi.org/10.12698/cpre.2006.rb44. Winrock International. 2016. “Lessons Learned in Addressing Access to Education in South Sudan through Community Engagement, School Governance, Conflict Sensitivity, and Teacher Development.” Winrock International, Little Rock, AK. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MM2H.pdf. Yoon, Kwang Suk, Teresa Duncan, Silvia Wen-Yu Lee, Beth Scarloss, and Kathy L. Shapley. 2007. “Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher PD Affects Student Achievement.” Issues and Answers, REL 33. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033_sum.pdf. COACH 23 Contact us at coach@worldbank.org and visit us at www.worldbank.org/coach