For other teachers, however, the picture was quite different. They often received newsletters describing upcoming training opportunities and summarizing new materials available at their regional resource centers. They could select from activities such as multi-session workshops, teacher mentoring opportunities, curriculum development committee work through which they could provide input into state content standards, participatory research activities, and collaborative Internet-based projects.
Teachers hoped they had access to more training outside their programs. They felt especially fanatically the desire to be part of a learning community inside their program: to observe other teachers in action, to have regular staff meetings where they could share ideas with colleagues and, in some cases, to be mentored by a more experienced teacher or supervisor. The main part of programs (71%) has monthly staff meetings but teacher sharing meetings (where teachers meet to talk about teaching rather than administrative issues) were far less common. Many teachers in the sample reported that their programs have such meetings fewer than four times a year, and 10% of teachers reported that they never had such meetings. The only make contact with with colleagues for many teachers consisted of quick conversations in the school parking lot or hallway:
Only a few teachers described themselves as working in collaborative teaching environments. In these sites, program directors were frequently former teachers. Teachers met commonly to reflect, plan, and solve problems. A collaboration ethic encouraged more experienced teachers to support newer colleagues - in one case allowing newer teachers to "eavesdrop" on other classes.
The point to which teachers have formal opportunities to learn about, discuss, and influence aspects of their program varied greatly, but they are clearly interested in program structure and mission: 41% rated it as one of their top three concerns about working in the field. The principal way in which teachers gave input to the program was to take the initiative to meet individually with the program director. From time to time communication was so limited that, in one case, a teacher only learned that her program's funding had run out and that it was her last night of teaching because she happened to run into her director at one of the sites. The classes, not the program, were the teachers' domain. While teachers had to observe some external mandates such as testing requirements, many had relative freedom in deciding how to teach and the materials to use. Still, support from program administration was cited as a top concern by 33% of the teachers in our sample.
In numerous local education agencies, directors themselves were constrained in their ability to implement change. Programmatic transformations were often subject to the approval of the director of continuing education or the superintendent of schools. Program directors demonstrated frustration at the extent to which their ability to adjust the program to the needs of students was limited by school-wide policies, contributing to the feeling of teachers that their voices were not heard.
In contrast were programs where teachers met regularly and were expected to make decisions not just about "housekeeping" issues but about substantive issues such as program design and hiring new staff. 18 teachers were interviewed; the five who worked in such programs were either part of community-based or family literacy programs. As a result, teachers felt the sense of ownership and understanding of the program as a whole:
Adult education teachers, like other professionals, need jobs that offer a livable wage and benefits, as well as sufficient working hours to do their jobs well. This comprises being paid not just an hourly wage for time in the classroom but also for the time required to prepare for classes, follow-up with students, contribute to program improvement, and learn about the job. For most teachers, such jobs were the exception, not the rule.
| 
