The evidence of the influence of the NSES on state and local professional development policies is thin. Much of the evidence that does exist comes from evaluations of the various Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) that were funded in the 1990s by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Corcoran, Shields, and Zucker (1998) conducted a cross-SSI analysis of the impact of the SSIs on various aspects of professional development. Using longitudinal case studies of 12 of the SSIs, site visits to the other SSIs, internal SSI documentation and evaluation reports, and monitoring reports from an external monitor, they compiled several findings relevant to policy. One strategy they reported that SSIs conducted was to change their state’s professional development system by “revising state policies for new teachers and recertification and building state delivery systems to provide professional development” (p. vi). They found that in almost all cases the SSIs’ professional development structures were set up outside of the states’ existing professional development infrastructures and consequently had less influence on the infrastructures that provided most of the learning opportunities for teachers. They concluded that the SSIs did not have the leverage or resources to have a widespread influence on the professional development system and, consequently, the system is still in need of restructuring, which reduces the ability to have broad influence.

In a summary of the findings from across the SSIs, Blank (2000) reiterated the findings of Corcoran, Shields, and Zucker. Blank found that few states had directly linked the NSES for student learning in any subject to state policies regarding recertification, state and local funding for continuing education, or professional development of teachers.

There were, however, some exceptions. Goertz and Carver (1998) described the Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative’s (MSSI) strategy of working with policy makers to incorporate the principles of high-quality professional development into state policy. They pointed out that the MSSI focused less on providing direct service to teachers than on communicating a standards-aligned paradigm of professional development to those who provided it and supplying professional development to the main providers in the state. They also described how the co-directors of the MSSI’s professional development component played a leadership role in the development of the state’s new professional development standards.

Only two papers directly focused on the crucial state policy of teacher licensing. One by Andersen (2000) is a description of Indiana’s certification program, which was in the process of changing from a system based upon completed coursework to one in which teachers would have to provide evidence of competence based on standards developed by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). INTASC’s standards, the author explains, are based upon the standards of professional organizations, including the NSES. Both Indiana’s system and the INTASC standards appear to be promising reforms, although it appears premature to see evidence of their influence.

The Education Trust (1999) presented the results of a national panel’s review of the content of teacher licensing exams in English, mathematics, and science in contrast to the expectations of state and national standards. They argue that if licensing exams are consistent with standards, they should test teacher preparation to teach the standards. The study focused on the two major examinations used in most states, the Praxis series by the Educational Testing Service and state-specific exams designed by National Evaluation Systems. The results of the review were not encouraging. The majority of the tests, the authors reported, were multiple-choice assessments dominated by high school-level material. In a few cases there were essay examinations that required candidates to demonstrate their depth of knowledge. But the essays were used by far fewer states than the lower-level, multiple-choice tests. Further, the reviewers found, knowledge for teaching was a gaping hole in the licensing exams. Despite the fact that the tests were mostly low level, the data on passing rates are fairly low, with between 10 and 40 percent of takers failing the tests. The authors conclude their paper by arguing that the licensing exams are not intended to set high expectations, but rather to establish a floor. The reason for this is due to the potential for litigation.

Spillane (2000) offers a thoughtful view of district policy makers’ perspectives on teacher professional learning opportunities. Using interviews with district administrators, he developed a theoretical framework of three distinct approaches about learning to situate the beliefs of district policy makers. The behaviorist perspective, held by the overwhelming majority (85 percent) of the district leaders, maintained the traditional perspective that knowledge was transmitted by teachers and received, not interpreted, by students. The situated per-