What impact does Government policy regarding teacher professional development have on teacher learning and, by extension, on the ultimate policy goal of student success, and what role does policy development play? In the late 1990’s, Government policy in the province of Ontario dictated a punitive, teacher-testing regime as the model for teacher professional development. The transformation achieved since early 2003 from this negative agenda to a professional, growth-oriented teacher learning and leadership program in just five short years has astounded many observers. An analysis of how this conversion was achieved by a new approach to policy development is a practical application of the four dimensions of education policy theory: normative, structural, constituentive and technical (Cooper, Fusarelli and Randall, 2004). Fundamental to these changes is a differentiation between good public policy and expedient political posturing. Research in Canada (OTF & WALL, 2007) and in the United States (Darling-Hammond, 1998) has shown that accountability-driven policies that mandate teacher professional development have the effect of increasing teacher workload and decreasing meaningful teacher learning. By contrast, education change policy that is respectful of the professional knowledge of teachers impacts the learning outcomes for both teachers and their students (Fullan, 2007; Levin, Glaze & Fullan, 2008). For teachers, the best professional development is self-directed (OTF 2007). Reaching this goal requires a positive approach to influencing policy makers and political decision makers in collaborative decision-making. An examination by comparison of the two approaches to both teacher professional development and education policy development illuminates how directly government policy towards teachers impacts student success and school improvement. This presentation will use comparative analysis to demonstrate how what appears to be theoretical and esoteric policy development practices can be applied in a practical manner to effect positive change for students , for teachers and for schools. The approach is from the perspective of teachers. Inherent in the new approach are lessons to be shared with other jurisdictions in their own quest to initiate effective teacher professional learning programs within the context of large-scale educational change.

Methodology: By a comparative case study of action and impact during the two time periods, we analyze how the policy development format exerts influence on school change and student success by how it engages teachers in their own professional development. Applying the theoretical matrix of Cooper, Fusarelli and Randall we evaluate the practical impact of the four dimensions of educational policy development. We also used direct survey and focus testing models to evaluate teacher perceptions of professional development and how it impacts their practice. Using focus testing we developed a telephone survey that was executed using a representative random sample of the teaching population in the publicly funded schools of Ontario, Canada.

Conclusions: 1. Successful teacher professional development, that is PD that has a positive impact on students and schools, is dependent on the political culture and education policy development. 2. How governments pursue policy development has a direction impact on student success. 3. Positive partnerships between and among education stakeholders is crucial to a positive school environment and student success.