This paper explores theory, design and findings of a study about the quality of continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers using an explanatory mixed method design with document analysis, interview data (30 individual and group interviews, representatives from different stakeholder groups as teachers, school leaders, trainers, education authority, ministry, and state-run teacher training college), three general surveys (N=1907; differentiated according to the different stakeholder groups) and evaluation data of 761 CPD courses (all courses which took place in a specific time period).

Findings show firstly differences in the judgement of the quality of single courses right after the course compared to judgement of CPD in general, secondly, what micro as well as macro didactical features (process variables) seem to be strongly associated with the general judgement of the quality (effect variable(s)), thirdly many stakeholders’ dissatisfaction with the organization and governance of CPD (which have a strong impact on didactical features and important aspects of quality and knowledge management in CPD and HRM in general in the school system.

Bennett, N. & Smith, B. (2000) Assessing the impact of professional development in educational leadership and management: the IMPPEL project, Management in Education, 14(2), 25–27. Guskey, T. R. (2002) Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development, Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51. Hallinger, P. & Bridges E.M. (2009). A Problem-based Approach for Management Education: Preparing Managers for Action. Dordrecht : Springer Huber, S. G. (2008). School Development and School Leader Development: New Learning Opportunities for School Leaders and their Schools. In J. Lumby, G. Crow & P. Pashiardis (Eds.). International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of school leaders, 173-175. New York: Routledge. Huber, S.G. (2009). Merkmale guter Fortbildung. In: Huber, S. G. (2009). Steuergruppenhandbuch. Grundlagen für die Arbeit in zentralen Handlungsfeldern des Schulmanagements. Köln: Link-Luchterhand. Huber, S. G. (2010), New Approaches in Preparing School Leaders. ln: Peterson, P., Baker, E., & McGaw, B. (Hrsg.). International Encyclopedia of Education. 4, (S.752-761). Oxford: Elsevier. Kirkpatrick, Donald L. (1994) Evaluating training programs: The four levels, San Francisco 1994 Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. From pedagogy to andragogy. New York: The Adult Education Company. Muijs, D., Day, C., Harris, A. & Lindsay, G. (2004) Evaluating CPD: an overview, In: C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds) International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (Buckingham, Open University Press), 291–310. Lipowsky, F. (2004). Was macht Fortbildungen für Lehrkräfte erfolgreich? Befunde der Forschung und mögliche Konsequenzen für die Praxis. Die deutsche Schule, 96(4), 462-479. Terhart, E. (2004). Struktur und Organisation der Lehrerbildung in Deutschland. In S. Blömeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Handbuch Lehrerbildung (S. 37-59). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.