Shares of teachers reporting that the following professional development activities were 'very useful,' in all schools and in low- and high-poverty schools
| All | Low-poverty | High-poverty | Gap (high- minus low-poverty) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus of professional development: | ||||
| Reading instruction | 26.8% | 26.0% | 28.4% | 2.5 ppt. |
| Content of the subject(s) they teach | 26.8% | 27.3% | 26.9% | -0.4 ppt. |
| Use of computers for instruction | 25.5% | 24.8% | 26.8% | 2.0 ppt. |
| How to teach students with disabilities | 22.5% | 19.7% | 24.1% | 4.4 ppt. |
| Student discipline and management in the classroom | 19.7% | 20.2% | 19.8% | -0.4 ppt. |
| How to teach English language learners (ELLs) | 19.5% | 19.1% | 20.9% | 1.8 ppt. |
Notes: Data are for teachers in public noncharter schools. The table shows shares of teachers who answered “very useful” on the survey instrument versus “useful,” “somewhat useful,” or “not useful” when asked, for specific professional development activities, “Overall, how useful were these activities to you?”
Source: 2011–2012 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) microdata from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)