School-based professional development is one of those things that a lot of teachers dread. If they don’t dread it, they often don’t see a ton of value in it.
The truth is, I can’t blame them. At the school level, PD is often unorganized and poorly planned. As someone who frequently volunteers to be part of the PD committee, I often engage in the uphill battle of helping PD be meaningful. This requires me to convince colleagues that PD is worth their time and shouldn’t be experienced as a chore. This is true for both teachers attending the PD and the administrators who support it.
Part of the reason why it sucks, I think, is because the goals of high-quality professional development run counter to how we’re expected to teach.
As a public school teacher whose course is served with a standardized curriculum ending in a state exam, I’m constantly asking my students for deliverables. Each day, I need to squeeze artifacts out of them that demonstrate learning. I must conduct non-stop monitoring of their understanding. I need to have checklists and direct evidence. Always evidence. In the age of big data, my administrators expect me to manifest proof of student understanding every 10 minutes (let alone every class period). Otherwise, what I do is pointless.
Many teachers approach PD this way, too. Because we are expected to ask students to continuously manufacture a representation of their learning, we inherently think PD should work the same way. If PD is going to be worthwhile, there needs to be immediate tangible benefits. On top of that, takeaways must be able to be used in our classroom tomorrow, of course. If teachers don’t leave a PD with some immediate change they can implement with students, the experience is usually considered a failure. Just like how student learning is assessed, immediacy drives how we rate the quality of PD.
Recently at my school, the PD committee (which I’m on) debated how to design a series of four, 40-minute sessions on curriculum mapping. The staff was broken up into three interdisciplinary groups. Two of the groups offered the PD as “work time” for teachers to develop their curriculum maps. This meant that teachers would work mainly in isolation on their maps at each session, with facilitators checking in periodically to support their progress. The goal was a completed map (or at least a more complete one). It was tangible and direct.
The third group took a different route. Instead of individual work time, the group structured each session as a conversation. At each session, 1-2 teachers presented a unit they wanted to improve. Using a loose protocol, the other members of the group asked questions and offered warm and cool feedback. The last word was saved for the presenter to reflect on what they heard. Other than the discussion and active engagement, there was no concrete goal.
These are two very different ways of approaching PD. One aims to elicit something concrete from participants, while the other hopes to promote critical conversations about our practice. One aligns with the evidence-based teaching that feels natural to us because of how we’re forced to teach. The other aligns with meaningful professional learning and trust.
Before the PD, most teachers requested the “work time” model. Afterward, however, the conversation model yielded the strongest reviews from teachers. They enjoyed being heard. They liked being able to learn from one another in an authentic context. Although there was no “work time,” they appreciated the back-and-forth of ideas. Ultimately, because of the feedback we received, the committee used the conversation model to design our next series of PD sessions.
I understand the importance of having concrete benefits of a PD. We all want to improve right now. At the same time, it is important to remember that professional learning, like any form of learning, is complex. Progress isn’t always on-the-spot and visible in the moment. As takers and designers of PD, we should put a pause on some of the habits we’ve inherited from the classroom.
Immediate takeaways have their place. But they are overrated. A productive conversation is enough.
bp
lazy 0ch0 